Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2012-07-03 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 3, 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 Chris Christian Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Smith, Lynch, Moreau, Alternate Member Christian Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member McCreery Chair Lynch called 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 were two people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the May 1, 2012 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 2121 EAGLE CLIFF ROAD Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Thomas Caldwell, requests a variance to EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”, to allow a side-yard setback of 8-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required in the E-1– Estate zone district. The purpose of the variance request is to allow removal, replacement, and expansion of an existing deck. Planner Shirk stated the property meets the minimum lot size for the zone district, but a hardship was created by the existing dwelling that was built prior to the setbacks being adopted. This request was submitted to all applicable agencies and adjacent property owners. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. The property owners at 2117 Eagle Cliff Road provided a letter of support. Larimer County Building Department noted there were two outstanding building permits, and “the owner must obtain final inspection approval for the wood stove expired permit.” The applicant was made aware of this requirement. Planner Shirk stated the requested variance would not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. The variance request represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. If approved, failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one year of shall automatically render the decision of the Board of Adjustment null and void. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, conditional to compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. In this case, staff does not require a setback certificate due to the location of the proposed deck. Staff and Member Discussion Member Moreau asked for and received clarification of the expired building permits. Public Comment Mr. Caldwell was in attendance for questions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 3, 2012 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/ Moreau) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. PORTION OF NORTH ½ OF SECTION 29-5-72, 1770 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this was a variance request by Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC, aka Estes Park Resort (formerly the Lakeshore Lodge). The property owner requests to removal and replacement of an existing off-premise sign, locate a new sign in an access easement, and exceed the maximum size limit in regards to the Larimer County Land Use Code. Planner Shirk explained that while the Estes Park Resort property is inside the town limits, the proposed sign location is outside the town limits but within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) area. He stated the existing sign has been altered without a sign permit or approval from the Board of Adjustment, and is currently in violation of the most recent variance in 2003 and the Larimer County Sign Code. Planner Shirk stated the resort was built prior to the adoption of the EVDC and was annexed into the Town in 2001. The original sign was designed to keep in character and scale of the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District’s (EVRPD) marina sign, and one condition of approval was the sign could not exceed the allowable size limit set by the Larimer County Sign Code. Planner Shirk stated the previous variance approval stated because the sign is on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and managed by the EVRPD, the sign must look similar to the Estes Park Marina sign. The new owner of the resort desires to change the design scheme, and the new director of the EVRPD does not object to this change. Planner Shirk explained the resort has one owner, the proposed sign location is owned by the federal government, and the land under the proposed sign is managed by the EVRPD. When the current property owner purchased the property, the previous variances did not transfer with the property. In short, this was a difficult application to process. The applicant desires to change the design in order to distinguish it from the marina to increase visibility to the entrance of the resort. The proposed sign would have a stone base, aligning with the design of the canopy at the resort. There would be minimal lighting changes, and the proposed sign would be nearer to the pedestrian walkway than the existing sign. It has been determined that the proposed sign would not be in the site- visibility triangle. The resort does not have direct frontage to the highway, so a hardship exists. Planner Shirk stated the Larimer County Sign Code prohibits signs from being located within access easements. However, this is the only location the BLM would allow the sign. Staff found the relocation outside of the easement would have no discernible impact. Staff supported the idea of an off-premise identification sign designed to help customers know where to turn, but did not support the idea of an off-premise sign designed to advertise the site or attract undue attention. Staff is recommending approval of the sign, with conditions. Staff recommended placing the off-premise sign as close to the resort property as possible. Staff also recommended against approving the proposed sign size of 53 square feet, instead keeping it to 33 square feet, the maximum size allowed by the Larimer County sign code. Member Newsom asked for clarification on how the size is measured. Planner Shirk stated Larimer County building staff calculated the upper oval-shape size at 38 square feet and the lower rectangular shape at 15 square feet. When two signs are on one base, they are calculated as one sign. Planner Shirk stated the Board would be voting on whether or not to allow an off-premise sign, and whether or not to allow a variance to the maximum size of the proposed sign. Planner Shirk pointed out several areas of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan that the Board should consider when reviewing this request. He did not normally include this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 July 3, 2012 information with variance requests, but due to the proposed sign being off-premise and located at the entrance to the Estes Valley via Highway 34, felt it was important for the Board to be aware of the guidelines. Briefly, the Comprehensive Plan addresses monument signs, the scenic character and visual quality of open space, protection of Lake Estes as an entry to the town, improvements to the overall image and character of developed areas within the Estes Valley, and ensurance that new development minimizes visual and environmental impacts. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Public Engineer Kevin Ash recommended installing a pedestrian crossing sign at the exit of the resort to alert drivers of the pedestrian trail running parallel to the highway. Larimer County staff stated sign and building permits would be required if the variance was approved. Staff and Member Discussion Discussion followed among staff and Board members. General topics included 1) methods used to determine sign size, 2) visibility of sign when entering Estes Valley from Highway 34, and 3) the need to support local business efforts to succeed. Public Comment Rodney Eaton/sign company representative stated this application process began approximately 18 months ago. Because the resort is set back off the road, he stated the property owners must rely on this sign for clear identification of the resort location. The Waterfront Grille sign indicates the Estes Park Resort is a place to stay and a place to eat. Both signs would be internally illuminated, using dark sky initiative regulations. Only the white lettering will be lit, not the entire sign. Concerning the variance for the increased size of the proposed sign, Mr. Eaton stated the actual resort building would not have any signage that would otherwise be permitted by the Town sign code. He thought the lack of signage on the building would justify the request to increase the proposed off-premise sign size. He stated the proposed sign would be placed approximately one sign length back from the existing sign. If the desired size of 53 square feet was not approved by the Board, he stated the sign could be adjusted accordingly. There was discussion among staff and the Board as to whether or not the Waterfront Grille sign was considered an advertising or identification sign, the importance of the pedestrian crossing sign, and how the motion should be presented. Conditions 1. Compliance with approved site and sign plans, except for revisions required below. 2. Sign shall not exceed 33 square feet in size. 3. A Model Uniform Traffic Code Devices ‘pedestrian crossing’ sign shall be installed at the applicant’s expense prior to issuance of a sign permit. 4. A surveyor shall provide a surveyors certificate to document location of sign. 5. Landscaping as shown on plan, or alternative approved by staff, shall be installed immediately upon completion of the sign, and shall be maintained in accordance with Section 7.5.J Maintenance Requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the variance request to allow the off-premise sign with the findings and conditions as presented by staff, removing condition #2, which would then allow the proposed sign size to remain at the desired 53 square feet, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. REPORTS Director Chilcott reported staff has been working on gathering property owner information in the Woodland Heights fire area. Planner Shirk has been working with the Town and County GIS departments to identify and determine the number of structures burned. Director Chilcott stated if burned structures are located within the setbacks of properties, property owners are allowed to rebuild in the same footprint without obtaining a variance, if they pull a building permit and begin construction within one year of the burn date and complete construction within three years. Director Chilcott reported staff is researching what levels of changes might come through this board as property owners begin to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 July 3, 2012 rebuild. Additionally, the EVDC does not allow recreational vehicles to be used as temporary housing. Staff is researching the feasibility of placing a temporary moratorium on this regulation for those directly affected by the fire. Any moratorium would contain limitations on who could live there and for what time period. Director Chilcott reported the decision on the future of the burned trees that remained standing in the fire area will be left to the property owners. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary