Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2013-05-07 Prepared:April29,2013 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:00 a.m. – Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated November 6, 2012 3. COURTYARD SHOPS, METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 165 Virginia Drive Owner: Stephen Carlyle Applicant: Dana Lockwood, Lockwood Architects, Inc. Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 8 feet from the front property line in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district. Request to encroach approximately three (3) feet into the setback to construct a 25 square foot fire riser room addition. Staff Contact:Alison Chilcott 4. LOT 15, LITTLE VALLEY SUBDIVISION, 1634 Black Squirrel Drive Owner: Timber Creek Homecrafters, Inc. Applicant: Greg Westley Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a 50-foot setback from the right-of-way line in the RE-Rural Estate zone district. Request to encroach approximately 30 feet in to the setback to construct a proposed garage. Staff Contact:Dave Shirk 5. REPORTS A. Member Smith’s term expires May 31, 2013. Application closing date is May 6, 2013. 6. ADJOURNMENT A meeting packet is available for review in the Community Development Department and the Estes Valley Library two business days prior to the meeting. TheEstesValleyBoardofAdjustmentreservestherighttoconsiderotherappropriateitemsnotavailableatthetime theagendawasprepared. RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 6, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair John Lynch, Members Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom,Jeff Moreau, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member ChrisChristian Attending:Chair Lynch, Members McCreery, Newsom, and Moreau Also Attending:Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:Member Smith Chair Lynchcalled the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There werethree people in attendance. 1.PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2.CONSENT Approval of minutes of the October 2, 2012meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau)to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimouslywith one absent. 3.LOT 1, DEVILLE SUBDIVISION, 540 S. St. Vrain Avenue ChairLynch recused himself and left the dais.Member Newsom acted as Chair for this portion of the meeting.A quorum was present with three members at the dais. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. y Automotive Stores, Inc. has requested variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimumof 15 feet from the side property line in the COCommercial Outlyingzone district. The request was to allow an 8-foot side setback to construct a proposed retail auto parts business. Planner Shirk explained the EVDC typically requiresthe loading area be separate from the parking area. The applicant proposed to use the east side of the lots/parking area to also serve as a loading zone for the delivery truck. He stated deliveries would be made when the store was closed. Planner Shirk stated the EVDC also requires that the front door of businessesfronting arterial streets be oriented toward that arterialstreet. It was unlikely that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)would grant a front entranceon S. St. Vrain Avenue;therefore, the applicant has proposed makingthe building entrance on the south side of the building, facing Graves Avenue. Planner Shirk stated a development application should be submitted by the applicant within the next couple of months. That application would address parking, landscaping, trash enclosures, stormwater drainage, etc. Planner Shirk stated the variance application was forwarded to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No comments were received from neighbors. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Staff found the following: 1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2.Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3.The variance is not substantial. RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment2 November 6, 2012 4.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 6.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 7.The applicant is notified that a stormwater management plan will be required with development plan approval, and will be subject to review and approval of the Public WorksDepartment. 8.Electric connections will need to meet NEC/NESC clearance requirements or be 9.The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 10.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 11.Failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction oraction with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the requested variance with conditions listed below. Public Comment Mark Wold/Applicantstated staff was very cooperative and helpful in providing information for the setback variance. He stated they are proposing the largest parking areapossible toallow for delivery truck access. Staff and Board Discussion None. Conditions 1.Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment, with modifications as necessary during review process (parking, landscaping, trash enclosure, etc.) 2.Setback Certificate.Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. 3.Trash enclosure shall be relocatedto maintain at least an 8-foot side yard setback, and shall be screened as required by the development code. It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Moreau)to approve the variance request as presented with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimouslywith one absent and one recusal. Chair Lynch returned to the dais. 4.LOT 1, LITTLE PROSPECT ADDITION (Portion of Stanley Park), TBD Rooftop Way Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant has requested variances to Section 4.4, Table 4-5 Maximum Height to allow two new public facilitiesto exceed the maximum allowed height of 30feet. The public facilities are the multi-use stall barns and the multi- purpose event center (MPEC) to be located at Stanley Park Fairgrounds. Planner Shirk reviewed the process required for a project of this magnitude. He stated the Location and Extent/SpecialReview portion of the project was scheduled for the th November 20Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission would be the recommending body for the Town Board, who was scheduled to review the project on November 27, 2012. If there was Town Board opposition to the Planning Commission RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment3 November 6, 2012 recommendation, a majority vote of the entire Town Board would be required to overturn the recommendation. Planner Shirk stated a Master Plan for Stanley Park Fairgrounds was developed six years ago, which reviewed basic orientations of land uses. In 2006, it was anticipated there may be additional development on the property. The Master Plan showed barn structures on the west side, though the design wasslightly different. With the proposed construction of new stall barns, some of the existing stall barns on the east side would be removed. The goal is to eventually replace all of the existing stall barns. Planner Shirk stated the Colorado Department of Transportation was interested in a traffic study due to the anticipated increased use of the fairgrounds. Planner Shirk stated the roof of the proposed stall barns would comply with the 30-foot height limit. Three proposed cupolas on top of the roof would be less than onefoot above the maximum heightlimit. The designer was proposing a clerestory (light well) incorporated into the roof of the MPEC which would be 37 feet 6 inches tall from grade. The primary roof of the MPEC would comply with the 30-foot height limit. Planner Shirk stated, if approved, the variance would be valid for one year. If the building permit was not pulled within one year, the applicant would need to reapply for another variance. The Location and Extent review, if approved, would be good for three years. Member McCreery was concerned that the variance application was submitted prior to the approval by the Town Board.Planner Shirk stated thevariance was the first step in the review process. If approved by the Town Board, the planwould be to have the stallbarns built and open prior to next summer. The MPECwasstill somewhat undefined. He explained the Board had the option to vote only on the stall barns and leave the MPEC until the design is finalized. Member Newsom stated citizens were always sensitive to height variances. Planner Shirk stated the cupolas on the stall barn werestrictly aesthetic, intended to break up the long roof line. In reviewing the application, staff found the following: 1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2.Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3.The variance is not substantial. 4.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 6.The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 8.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonablypracticable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 9.Failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. The Statement of Intent includes a request for a 5-year approval period, though the Board cannot approve such request. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the requested variances, with conditions of approval listed below. Public Comment Elena Scott/applicant presented the plans for the stall barns and MPEC. She stated the project goals are to remove the dated stall barns on the east side (200 stalls) and to eventually have a 500 stall capacity (100 more than existing). She stated it was easy to exceed the 30 foot height on large buildings.The idea for new stall barns hadbeen contemplated for years, and this particular project began in July, 2012. She stated she RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment4 November 6, 2012 met with the Town Board on three separate occasions, and attended a neighborhood meeting on July 23, 2012. Ms. Scott stated that work could begin shortly after approval by the Town Board. Ms. Scott stated multi-use buildings would attract more people year-round, and could accommodate trade shows, conferences,fairs, etc. A high quality building would attract a high echelon of equestrian events. Theproposed stall barns would include public restroomson the west side of the building. The slope of the land is a10-foot dropfrom south to north, and the detention pond would be located on the northwest corner of parcel. To keep the barns as far away from neighbors as possible, the design would include a large landscape buffer and additional parking spaces. She stated the design guidelinesincluded creatingcohesive architecture and improveddesign aesthetics, following the same guidelines as the grandstands. The plan would also include enhanced walkways to access the buildings. The east side of the building would have a porch that could be used by vendors. Ms. Scott stated the stall barns and MPEC would be designed so they could be connected, if desired. Ms. Scott stated the existing grade of the proposed stall barns would make the top of the above grade. The variance request is for 11 inches above finished grade. Ms. Scott stated the MPEC was proposed to be over 35,000 square feet in size. This building would have the capacity to accommodate concerts, tournaments, conferences, etc. The majority of the building would comply with the 30 foot height limit. The clerestory (light well) portion would extend beyond The clerestory would allow natural lighting and ventilation into the building, and contribute to the overall aesthetics. She stated the height variance would be most noticeablefrom the eastside of the building. Member McCreery was curious as to why the new stall barns could not be placed on the east side of the parcel, and Ms. Scott answered the slope of the land was too great to construct a large building. Member McCreery was concerned about the odor in the neighborhood to the west. Ms. Scott stated the new stalls would be enclosed, and waste would be removed frequently to lessen the odor. She noted the site had been a fairground for decades, and the designers were trying to make it appealing to everyone. Member Newsom stated this was a community project, and that the height variance request would make the buildings more attractive,would encourage more use of the land,and would Kay Norton-Haughey/adjacent property owner stated she attended the neighborhood meeting and realized the fairgrounds are an important part of the Estes Park community. She canvassedthe neighborhood and other citizens and heard good support for the stall th barns. Her concern was the odor and 4Street traffic that would come with added events. She stated the additional development would alter the neighborhood, impact the quality of life, and lower property values in that area. She suggested the Board of Adjustment table the issue until the Planning Commission was able to review the development plan application. Member Newsom clarified that the Board of Adjustment was reviewing only the height variance, and encouraged Ms. Norton-Haughey to attend the Planning Commission and Town Board meetings. Staff and Member Discussion Member Newsom stated that if the location of the stall barns changed, it would still probably exceed the 30-foot height limit, and they would still be designed with the cupolas and clerestory. Chair Lynch was supportive of thewest side location. Member McCreery stated he would prefer a very significant barrier between the barns and the neighborhood, such as many trees and shrubs. He expressed concern for the neighbors adjacent to the fairgrounds. Conditions 1.Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment, with modifications as necessary during review process. RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment5 November 6, 2012 2.Setback Certificate.Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Moreau)to approve the variance requests as presented with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimouslywith one absent. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary