Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2015-09-01RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 1, 2015 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Don Darling, Members Wayne Newsom, John Lynch, and Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair Smith, Members Darling, Lynch, Newsom and Moreau Also Attending: Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were two people in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the July 28, 2015 special meeting It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 1, VISITOR CENTER SUBDIVISION LESS PORTION IN TAX DISTRICT 3300, 500 Big Thompson Avenue Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant was the Town of Estes Park, and there were two variance requests regarding the proposed Estes Park Transit Facility and Parking Structure. The proposed four-story structure would be located south and across the river from the existing Estes Park Visitor Center, and would utilize existing access from Highway 36. Planner Kleisler noted that due to an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code approximately 18 months ago, any projects requiring variances are heard by the Board of Adjustment following all other board hearings (Planning Commission, Town Board, and/or County Commission). The Planning Commission approved the Development Plan for this project on August 18, 2015. Planner Kleisler stated the initial submittal included an alteration to the parking stall dimensions. Staff identified the Planning Commission had the authority to approve the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 2 September 1, 2015 modification to those standards, so that variance will not be coming to this board. There are two variances being reviewed today: Section 4.4.D.2.a, which requires the main entrance of all buildings in the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district be oriented to the frontage highway. The intent of that provision is to have all the shops facing the street. In this case, it doesn’t make sense to have the opening to the structure oriented to the highway. Other variance requests are for building height and setback. Planner Kleisler stated the proposed roof of the main stair tower would extend 32 feet above grade, with the light poles extending 47.5 feet above grade once the final level is complete. Regarding the setback variance request, the CD zone district has a minimum and maximum setback to encourage a building wall downtown. In this case, there is no building wall on either side of the property. Planner Kleisler stated the Town has worked with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to satisfy their needs. At this time, the proposed structure complies with the setback standards; however, staff suggests allowing a setback variance in case the BOR requests additional revisions and recommends changing the final location of the structure. Planner Kleisler stated a variance for a proposed parking structure was approved in early 2014. That project would have put the structure on the north side of the river in the Visitor Center parking lot. After further review, it was determined the better site would be on the south side of the river. The intent remains the same. Planner Kleisler stated land ownership and zoning of this project are unique; a portion of the proposed site is owned by the Town of Estes Park, and the other portion is federally- owned land currently being managed by the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District as part of the nine-hole golf course. There are two zone districts involved, CD–Commercial Downtown and CO-Commercial Outlying. Most of the proposed structure is in the CO district. To the northwest of the proposed structure is commercial property, while single- family residential zoning is to the south. Although the residential district is just across the street, there is a significant difference in elevation (homes sit much higher than the proposed project). In the early stages of the review process, it had to be determined whether to review it as being in CD or CO zone district. After much thought and staff discussion, it was decided to review it according to the CD–Commercial Downtown review standards. Planner Kleisler stated the BOR has the final say as to the location and site design, as the majority of the structure will be on federal land. The existing entrance location will remain, as will the existing surface parking spaces. Regarding the height variance, Planner Kleisler stated building height will be just over 26 feet above grade at full build-out. However, approximately 500 square feet of roof over the main stairwell would extend to approximately 32 feet at build-out. Additionally, light poles for the top level are proposed at 47.5 feet above grade. Planner Kleisler explained that, similar to the initial approved variance, lighting would be necessary to address security needs, but measures are being taken to minimize impacts to the neighborhood. Due to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 3 September 1, 2015 the existing topography, much of Phase I (ground level plus one additional level) would be naturally screened from the highway. The Town held public meetings to explain the design of the project, including the height. Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners in at least a 1000-foot radius from the proposed site. No concerns were addressed by affected agencies, and as of August 24, 2015, no public comments were received. Planner Kleisler stated this project will be considered an entryway into downtown, and the applicant has worked to keep the variances minimized. There will be planters along the highway side to provide a positive aesthetical entrance to the downtown area. Because the proposed structure is nestled in between the highway and the river, there is little room to rotate the structure and create an entrance on the front. Because of that, the code standard requiring the entrance on the front did not fit well with this unique project; thus, the reason for the variance request. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found that special circumstances and conditions exist. The purpose of having a maximum setback in the CD district is to ensure a continuous “commercial street wall”. In this particular area, there is no established street wall, as is found in the central downtown area. Furthermore, the site is nestled between the highway and river, limiting site design options. 2. In determining “practical difficulty”: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the existing surface parking lot could remain b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance was not substantial c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff found the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Similar to the original variance request, the applicant proposes to ensure that lighting meets the functional and security needs of the structure, while minimizing impacts to adjacent properties. Unlike the original submittal, the existing grade on this site will naturally screen most of the first two levels from the public street, thus creating much less of a visual impact. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 4 September 1, 2015 Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; The applicant will lease this property from the Federal government. f. Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Given the highway and river location, the proposed structure location is the best fit for the site. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations; Staff found the conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not general or recurrent in nature. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots… Staff found the variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found the variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The applicant has shown good faith by adjusting the size and layout of the structure in part to achieve code compliance. 6. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited… As with the original proposal, a single use is proposed; Park and Ride Facility, which is a Use-by-Right in the CD–Commercial Downtown district. 7. In granting such variance, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, securre substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified; Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends that a registered land surveyor verify building placement and height. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval with one condition, listed below. Staff and Applicant Discussion Greg Muhonen/Public Works Director for the Town of Estes Park stated a service road will be built so the BOR can access the area for maintenance at the flume, and also serve as an access for emergency vehicles. Adjustments will be made to the existing roadway to accommodate the access. He stated the existing parking lot is roughly eight feet lower than the highway. There was lengthy discussion concerning the size of the parking stalls. Comments included but were not limited to: cars coming to Estes Park are not getting any smaller; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 5 September 1, 2015 there are a lot of SUVs and pickups; following the development review at the August Planning Commission meeting, where the Commission discussed allocating certain areas for larger vehicles, the design team met and identified such spaces, taking spaces for electric vehicles down and little and adding it on to other spaces; wall lighting is more intrusive than pole lighting; Walker Parking Consultants hired a lighting consultant, and the current proposal has the least impact of all the options investigated; wall lighting would produce glare if you are looking down from above (Stanley Hotel, residences to the south, etc.); the proposed lighting also enhances the level of security through photo recognition, which would not work if wall lighting was used; lighting will be dimmed if the structure is not being used; Member Moreau lives across the street from the fairgrounds, and was concerned that similar light pollution would exist at the new parking structure; Member Muhonen recognized the issue with light pollution and wasted energy when lights are on unnecessarily, and would hope they could be on a timer. He will discuss the fairgrounds situation with the utilities department. Additional discussion occurred concerning the location of the entrance, and how traffic will be affected during peak periods. Comments included but were not limited to: the Traffic Impact Analysis identified long delays during peak periods; the worst case scenario would be installing a traffic signal; the good news is that vehicle backups will be fully contained on the site; long term, the Town may want to look into some form of intersection control, e.g. a signal or roundabout; the entrance is geographically situated to the other two stoplights in the area so a signal could be placed at the entrance; during peak periods the Town could require a right turn or obtain assistance from the Police Department to direct traffic; if a Do Not Block Intersection sign was installed, it would allow better movement of traffic wanting to turn left out of the structure; a traffic signal could be installed, but only activated during peak periods; no fees are currently proposed, and if fees were charged, a revenue-sharing agreement would have to be in place with the BOR; guests will be encouraged to park in the structure and take the shuttle or walk downtown; one idea is to have free parking at the parking structure and possibly charge guests to park closer to downtown in the smaller lots; no decisions have been made concerning paid parking; encouraged the Town to fill the lower levels first to minimize the need for lighting the upper level; at this time, there is only enough money to build the ground level plus one; the applicant is requesting approval for the entire four-level structure so it doesn’t have to be reviewed again and construction can move forward at a quicker pace; the Town has not been allowed to design the details until all environmental clearances have been granted; signage will be created to direct pedestrians to the underpass under Highway 36; the lighting of the project has not been finalized for how it will be phased; if a particular grant is awarded for the structure, it would pay for the entire project; if the Town is not awarded the grant, lighting would probably be added in phases; the applicant will have a three-year vesting period that goes with the development plan approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment – Special Meeting 6 September 1, 2015 There was brief discussion concerning the vesting rights. Planner Kleisler stated the time period would probably not be an issue because the Estes Valley Development Code was amended to allow variances associated with development plans to have a three-year vesting period. The time period for a variance approval without a development plan is one year. It was determined that project vesting would lapse with the development plan vesting. There was additional discussion regarding lighting and the ability to have the lights dimmed or turned off when not in use, especially during the winter when the parking lot would less utilized. It was noted that these design questions were out of the purview of the Board. Member Moreau reiterated his concern that the lighting would be similar to the fairgrounds, and suggested some condition of approval to address a successful lighting plan. Director Muhonen stated his desire is to close off the top level during snow season to avoid the need for plowing, lighting, etc. He will think about the concept and discuss it with other affected agencies. Conditions of Approval 1. Setback and height certificates shall be required. 2. Project vesting shall lapse with the development plan vesting. 3. Exterior lighting shall be reduced; activated by motion sensor device, turned off, or dimmed from midnight to dawn. Planner Kleisler stated initial setback and height certificates will be required, based on the location and height of the foundation. After a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, a second height certificate will be required to verify the completed height. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/ Lynch) to approve the requested variances as written with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the Board, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. REPORTS Planner Kleisler stated there will be no October meeting. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m. ___________________________________ Pete Smith, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary