Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2012-08-07 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 7, 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, McCreery, Newsom, and Moreau Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None 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 July 3, 2012 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 552 W. ELKHORN AVENUE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Picnic in the Park, LLC (Rick and Angie Wing) requests a variance from the 30-foot river setback to allow an egress landing/stair and walk-in cooler; a variance from the 25-foot arterial setback to allow a trash enclosure; and a variance to allow the trash enclosure in the front yard instead of the rear as required by the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The property is zoned CO–Commercial Outlying. The purpose of the request is to facilitate a change of use to the building. The building department has worked with the applicant to comply with the building codes and various approvals for a commercial restaurant. Planner Shirk stated the proposed use is a take-out restaurant. The concept is to make available meals for take-out, including but not limited to sandwiches, rotisserie chicken, and wood-fired pizza. The interior of the structure would also undergo changes to facilitate the restaurant use. Planner Shirk stated this was an allowed use in the CO zone district, and the conversion was not significant enough to warrant a development plan. Planner Shirk reviewed the special circumstances, stating the lot is a legal conforming lot, although extremely small. He stated the lot size of 0.03 acres was significantly undersized for this zone district, with the minimum lot size being 0.91 acres (40,000 sq ft). Planner Shirk stated it was staff’s opinion that the lot size was a significant hardship. The triangular shape of the lot squeezes the building area into the middle of the lot, making it a very difficult lot to work with, and rendering the existing structure completely within the required setbacks. These factors are compounded by the arterial street setback and river setback. The proposed egress landing and stairs are required by the building code, and would be located above an existing paved area, for which a variance was granted several years ago. The proposed trash enclosure would replace an existing trash structure, which is currently located in the front yard but not fully enclosed. The new enclosure would be animal resistant, fully enclosed, include landscaping, and be located out of the river setback. The proposed walk-in cooler would be a new addition, and would be located within the required 30-foot river setback. Staff recommended the cooler be painted to match the color of the existing building. Regarding impact on the neighborhood, Planner Shirk reported there were three concerned neighbors that contacted staff. All live directly south of the proposed location. The neighbors wanted to ensure the applicant was meeting all the code requirements. Staff routed the application to all affected agencies, and no significant concerns were RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 August 7, 2012 expressed. In this case, the Health Department was not notified. However, they were involved in the building permit process. It was staff’s opinion the request to locate the walk-in cooler in the river setback or to locate the trash enclosure in the front yard setback would not have any effect on noise or air quality, and would not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Planner Shirk reviewed the findings of the request, as listed in the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the variance requests with the conditions listed below. Staff and Member Discussion There was brief discussion about the noise level of walk-in coolers. Public Comment Rick and Angie Wing/applicants, explained that the dumpster was an issue from the beginning. Due to the current location, the public tends to use it as their personal dumpster. The desire was to remove the dumpster from public view to avoid this use, and to protect it from animals. The improvements to the egress landing and stairs would make this exit available to the public. They stated the walk-in cooler was a health department request. It will sit on a concrete pad and have a maximum noise level of 77 decibels. In comparison, the adjacent river had a noise level higher than 77 decibels. Randy Williams/attorney representing the property owner stated the owner was in agreement with the variance requests and fully supported the staff recommendations. Mr. Williams stated the primary concerns from those objecting to the requests are use issues, which are allowed for this zone district. Verd Bailey/adjacent property owner objected to the variance requests, stating the main concern was the potential noise from the walk-in cooler, and he had concerns about parking on the lot. He was opposed to the type of business proposed for this building. If approved, he would appreciate having the walk-in cooler enclosed, and the west side of the building revegetated. Mr. Bailey referred to a court decision concerning self-imposed hardships, and suggested this be a consideration the Board should consider. Steve Lane/architect stated all the mechanical equipment for the cooler would be outside, and the compressor for the cooler would be on the cooler roof. There was a brief discussion between Mr. Lane and the Board concerning the required grease trap, where the sewer main was located, and if there was a stormwater drain. Public comment closed. Conditions 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 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. Walk-in cooler shall be painted to match the color of the building. 4. Trash enclosure shall be fully enclosed with locking doors, and shall be painted to match the existing building. 5. The trash enclosure shall be screened with landscaping. At a minimum, two shrubs shall be planted on the north side of the trash enclosure and one coniferous* tree on the east side. The landscaping plan shall be subject to review and approval of staff, and shall comply with the landscaping requirements delineated in Section 7.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code.  The staff report indicated a deciduous tree, and the change was mentioned during Planner Shirk’s report to the Board. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 August 7, 2012 It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported on a variance approved approximately one year ago at 2855 Eagle Cliff Drive. The applicant wanted to build closer to the road due to the steepness of the lot. The site plan with the variance request included a retaining wall. After construction began, it was determine the bedrock was stable enough to not require the retaining wall; however, the Wind Cliff Homeowner’s Association was opposed to the disallowance of the retaining wall. It was decided at staff level to not require the retaining wall. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m. ___________________________________ John Lynch, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary