Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-12-04RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 4, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Chair Newsom; Members Dill and Lynch Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Sign Code Officer McEndaffer, Recording Secretary Roederer Members Levine and Sager, Planner Shirk Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the November 6, 2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. b. Metes and Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue, Yakutat Land Corporation/Applicant — Request for continuance to January 8, 2008 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Dill) to approve the applicant’s request for continuance to the January 8, 2008 meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. LOT 1, VENNER SUBDIVISION, 559 Landers Street, Owner: Richard & Shirley Perkins, Applicant: Paul Brown — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1 .A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.100(c) to allow placement of a 13.33-square-foot identification sign at a height of 14.17 feet in lieu of the maximum allowed 2 square feet and maximum height of 6 feet in single-family-residential zoning districts Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance from the Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.100(c), which establishes a maximum sign size of two square feet and a maximum sign height of six feet for signs located in single-family- residential zoning districts within Town limits. If approved, the applicant will install a 20- inch-by-96-inch sign at the entrance to their driveway at 559 Landers Street. At 13.33 square feet, the sign significantly exceeds the maximum size of two square feet. The sign would be hung at a height of 14.17 feet on a recently installed timber frame that is fifteen feet tall. Per the applicant’s statement of intent, special circumstances particular to their property exist. Approval of the variance would soften the impact of the transmission tower on the neighborhood, preserve a sense of rural heritage, and allow placement of a sign that is representative of other ranch gateways found throughout the Estes Valley. Reviewing staff agrees that the applicant’s property, although located within Town limits, has a rural feel. The applicant provided a number of examples of similar signs in the area, although staff believes many of the examples are of signs located outside Town limits, which are subject to a different sign code that allows rural identification signs. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Sign Code Officer Carolyn McEndaffer. No comments were received from 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 4, 2007 neighboring property owners. The Bureau of Reciamation did not comment on the request; however, the proposed sign is located within a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation easement. Future use of the easement may require the property owner to remove the sign and timber frame at the property owner’s expense. Although a sign could be designed to meet the size and height limits, due to the characteristics of the neighborhood, staff is supportive of the variance request. Sign Code Officer McEndaffer stated the timber frame for the sign is not in conflict with the sign code; it is the proposed size and height of the sign that requires approval of a variance. Public Comment: Paul Brown was present to represent the property owners. He stated the sign code allows signs up to two square feet per face, up to a total of four square feet. The proposed sign is single-sided; thus, the applicants are only requesting a variance of 9.33 square feet in the size of the sign. He expressed concern about the lack of a uniform sign code for the Estes Valley and lack of equality for all within the Valley regarding freedom and right of self- expression via signs. He stated the cost of application for a variance is censorious of signage. He requested that the Board direct staff to review the differences between the County and Town sign codes and to adopt an equitable sign code for the Estes Valley. Director Joseph acknowledged the merits of having a uniform sign code; however, placement of a rural identification sign in a densely developed neighborhood with small lots would not be appropriate. It was appropriate for this request to come before the Board of Adjustment. Due to the rural character of the applicant’s neighborhood, it was moved and seconded (Lynch/Dill) to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Venner Subdivision, to ailow placement of a 13.33-square-foot identification sign at a height of 14.17 feet in lieu of the maximum allowed 2 square feet and maximum height of 6 feet in single-family-residential zoning districts, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. 2. Compliance with the submitted application. Compliance with Carolyn McEndaffer’s comments in her memo dated November 21, 2007. The sign height is noted. The sign is located in a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation easement. Use of this easement may require that the property owner remove the sign and timber cross frame from the easement at the property owner’s expense. 4.LOT 5, FOX RIDGE ESTATES, 2140 Ridge Road, Owner/Applicant: Paul L. & Judith K. Tharp — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow construction of an attached garage 33.96 feet from the side-yard property line and 41.76 feet from the front-yard property line, and also to construct a deck 31.21 feet from the front-yard property line, in lieu of the 50-foot front- and side-yard setbacks required in the RE-1 - Rural Estate zoning district Chair Newsom recused himself from participation on this agenda item due to his professional relationship with the applicants. Vice-Chair Lynch acted as Chair for this item. Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a variance request to allow a two- story garage addition to the north side of a residence and a deck to be constructed on the east side of the residence, which is located at 2140 Ridge Road. The property is zoned RE-1 - Rural Estate, which requires 50-foot setbacks from all property lines. The garage would be built 41.76 feet from the front property line and 33.96 feet from the side property line and would include a second-story balcony, which would be 37.76 feet from the front property line. The deck would be located 31.21 feet from the front property line. Planning staff finds there are special circumstances associated with this property, which is an unusual “L” shape. A portion of the existing residence is built within the setbacks. The house was originally built as a corporate business retreat and meeting facility, with a floor RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS \.. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 4, 2007 plan that was not suited to single-family use. The applicant converted the existing garage to kitchen space in the process of remodeling to improve the floor plan. Staff further finds that the variance request is not substantial. An 60-foot right-of-way exists along Ridge Road, which provides approximately an additional fifteen feet between the applicant’s property line and the edge of the road. The adjacent property to the north is undeveloped, so a neighboring house is not impacted by the variance request at this time. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered by approval of the request. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Larimer County Engineering Department and The North End Property Owners’ Association. A letter of support was received from neighboring property owner Thomas Wood, 2115 Ridge Road, via email. A significant redesign would be needed in order for the addition to meet the setback requirements. Planning staff suggests the applicant’s request provides the least deviation from the code requirements when working with the existing floor plan of the residence. Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Public Comment: Paul Tharp/owner noted the RE-1 zoning district and its associated setback requirements are for ten-acre lots. His lot is 2.5 acres. Five residences in his neighborhood are located within the required setbacks. The 50-foot setbacks were imposed with the Valley-wide rezoning in 2000; this subdivision was developed prior to 2000. Per information provided to him by County staff, the required setback was 25 feet from the road right-of-way centerline at the time the subdivision was developed. An existing septic system and well, to the south and behind his residence respectively, limit the area available for an addition. Of the 109,000 square feet comprising his property, 67,000 square feet lies within setbacks; of that, he is requesting the use of less than 150 feet for the proposed addition. Member Dill noted the applicant’s driveway already exists and is paved. The proposed garage addition is in the most sensible location. No neighbors have voiced opposition; he stated his support of the request. It was moved and seconded (Dill/Lynch) to approve the variance request for Lot 5, Fox Ridge Estates, to aliow construction of an attached garage 33.96 feet from the side-yard property line and 41.76 feet from the front-yard property line, and aiso to construct a deck 31.21 feet from the front-yard property line, in lieu of the 50-foot front- and side-yard setbacks required in the RE-1 - Rural Estate zoning district, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. Those voting yes: Diii and Lynch. Those abstaining: Newsom. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. A copy of this certificate shall be provided to the Estes Park Community Development Department. 5. METES & BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2515 TUNNEL ROAD, Owner: YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center, Applicant: BHA Design, Inc. — Request for variance from Estes Vaiiey Development Code Section 1.9.E and Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow three new lodges to exceed the maximum siope-adjusted height limit by the following amounts: Grand Lodge—1.66 feet. West Lodge—3.83 feet, and East Lodge—2.25 feet. Applicant also requests a time extension to allow a construction timeframe of 2.5 years in lieu of the standard one-year limit Director Joseph summarized the staff report. This variance request is part of a planned major redevelopment of the core area of the YMCA of the Rockies campus. The YMCA recently completed a lengthy master planning process. The master plan was reviewed by I lllllllll III-RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 4, 2007 the Estes Valley Planning Commission and approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The three proposed new lodges, as well as a conference center addition to the Ruesch Auditorium (which does not require a height variance), are consistent with the approved master plan. The relationship of the proposed new lodges and conference center addition to the finished floor elevations of existing buildings within the core area constrains the applicant’s ability to meet the slope-adjusted height limit. The YMCA intends to meet ADA guidelines and enhance the accessibility between existing and proposed buildings in the core area; a height variance is necessary to accomplish this goal. Due to the large size of the YMCA property and the location of the proposed buildings in the central area of the property, approval of the requested variance will not affect adjoining property owners. The plan for the core area redevelopment, including the proposed new lodges and conference center addition, will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission (Development Plan 08-02). Staff findings are as follows: 1. Special circumstances exist. 2. The accommodation use could continue without the variance. 3. The applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance, though a building re-design may not be consistent with the architectural goals set forth in the Master Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered. 5. The variance request is not substantial compared to the goal of achieving fully compliant ADA access throughout the new lodges and conference center. 6. The requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 7. The applicant has owned the property since before the adoption of the EVDC. 8. 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. 9. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 10. Approval of this variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 11. Approval of this variance would not allow a use not permitted or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Director Joseph read the six recommended conditions of approval and stated planning staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Public Comment: Mark HoldtA'MCA Vice President for Planning & Development stated the core area redevelopment is the most significant phase of the approved master plan, which consolidates development within the existing core to minimize development near the YMCA’s borders with Rocky Mountain National Park. Given the aging population of its visitors, the YMCA must be more sensitive to ADA accessibility requirements, which is an essential limitation of the proposed site. The location of the proposed buildings shown on the master plan will not work due to site constraints, including slope, the size of the area for development, the desired accessibility outcomes, and the need to maintain the historical character. Roger Sherman/BHA Design stated the proposed buildings will fit in with the style and scale of key existing buildings and are consistent with the intent of the master plan. Existing grades control the height and placement of the buildings; the 10% cross-slope and the YMCA’s desire to provide ADA-compliant access between the buildings creates a challenge. Some older buildings, such as the “pinwheel” staff housing, will be removed from the site prior to construction of the proposed Grand, West, and East lodges, which will share access and parking. The orientation of the three lodges has been changed from that RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 December 4, 2007 shown in the master plan to eliminate the need for major cut and fiil. The applicant has made an effort to meet the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements but could not provide ADA-compliant access and still do so. A component of the applicant’s request is for variance from proposed grades, rather than from existing natural grade as required by the EVDC. He noted that stepped foundations will be used in order to work with the grade of the site; the final heights of the buildings could be different than what is requested today. Director Joseph stated the EVDC regulations are in place to prevent manipulation of the grading on a site such that the intent of the code is controverted. The applicant’s request is for the purpose of making the different elements of the core area fit together, not to manipulate the height of the buildings. Bob Hosan/Neenan Co. stated the YMCA has also worked on a master drainage plan for the YMCA grounds. The proposed grading in the core area will address existing stormwater runoff problems. The proposed roof pitches are 4:12, which are needed for wind and snow loads in this area. After further evaluation of the site, the applicant has revised their variance request as follows (at this time, an updated statement of intent was distributed to the Board members and staff): • Grand Lodge—original request: 1 ft., 8 in.; revised request: 5 ft., 6 in. • West Lodge—original request: 3 ft., lOin.; revised request: 6 ft., 8 in. • East Lodge—original request: 2 ft., 3 in.; revised request: 4 ft., 4 in. The applicant is not sure what the specific heights of the buildings will be once they are constructed; he requested the Board grant some latitude, such as 5%, for the final building heights. Jeff ChamberlainA'MCA Project Manager stated the existing elevation of Ruesch Auditorium determines the floor elevations of the conference center, which in turn affects the height of the three lodge buildings due to ADA accessibility concerns. He also requested latitude for the final building heights. If the variance is approved, the time extension requested will provide adequate time for construction. Mernber Dill stated he is glad to see the applicant will maintain appropriate roof pitches. Chair Newsom commended the YMCA on the redevelopment and noted the importance of keeping elevations on the site as uniform as possible. Member Lynch stated regrading the site is necessary and will not set a precedent. Director Joseph stated that the conditions of approval would need to be modified to accommodate the applicant’s request for latitude in the final building heights. Bryan Michener/3468 Mountainside Drive commended the YMCA for its work on the 20- year master plan and stated his support of the requested height variance. He expressed a desire for consideration of the environmental impacts of development on the YMCA property, particularly where the property abuts Rocky Mountain National Park. Further discussion followed between the Board and planning staff regarding the revised conditions of approval. Director Joseph stated the variance approval should acknowledge the entirety of the applicant’s request, including the request to measure building heights from proposed grades. He requested that planning staff have the discretion to approve up to a 10% change in building heights after reviewing the applicant’s building permit plans. If staff is not comfortable with the proposed plans, the applicant will need to return to the Board of Adjustment with a new application. Mr. Chamberlain indicated the YMCA has a cooperative relationship with staff and will honor what was said at today’s meeting. It was moved and seconded (Dill/Lynch) to approve the variance request for the Metes & Bounds property located at 2515 Tunnel Road, to allow three new lodges to exceed the maximum siope-adjusted height iimit from finished grade by the foliowing amounts: Grand Lodge—5.5 feet, West Lodge—6.66 feet, and East Lodge—4.33 feet; to authorize Planning staff to approve additionai variance to the approved building heights by up to 10 percent; and to approve a time extension to allow a construction timeframe of 2.5 years in lieu of the standard one-year limit; with the findings and conditions recommended by staff as revised below; and the motion passed unanimousiy. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 4, 2007 CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of Development Plan 08-02. Prior to any site work, a surveyor shall set a project benchmark. A surveyor shall set the building corners prior to pouring foundation. Planning staff shall review building permit plans for Grand Lodge, West Lodge, and East Lodge and shall have the authority to approve up to an additional 10% variance from the maximum building heights shown in the revised statement of intent dated December 3, 2007. A sun/eyor shall provide stamped certification that the finished building height complies with the approved building permit plans. This verification shall be presented to the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department. The variance shall be valid for 30 months from approval. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2008 Chair Newsom nominated John Lynch as Chair for 2008, and as the only Town representative present at the meeting, volunteered to be Vice-Chair. He stated today’s action shall be subject to review by the entire Board at the January 8, 2008 meeting. There being no further nominations, the 2008 officers were approved by acclamation: Chair—John Lynch, Vice-Chair—Wayne Newsom. 8. REPORTS Director Joseph reported on a resident’s request to the Planning Commission regarding how meeting minutes are prepared and approved. The resident had requested that draft minutes of meetings be disseminated to the public for the public’s review and comment prior to review of the minutes by the Board or Commission. This is not the standard procedure for any community. The minutes become a matter of public record following their acceptance by the Board. If a member of the public requests a change to the minutes, the Board can review the request at a meeting following adoption of the minutes and decide whether to make the change at that time. The Board members agreed that minutes should not be disseminated until they are approved. Planner Chilcott and Director Joseph addressed Paul Brown’s request for a joint Estes Valley sign code. Staff recognizes some of the issues Mr. Brown brought forward and agrees that it is desirable to have a unified sign code. There is not adequate staff time to thoroughly review both codes and create and propose a unified code. Funding would need to be provided if a consultant was hired for this work. There being no further business. Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 11:01 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Ro^derer, Recording Secretary