Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-10-02RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Aiso Attending: Absent: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Chair Newsom; Members Levine, Lynch, and Sager; Alternate Member Grant Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Recording Secretary Roederer Member Dill Chair Newsom caiied the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. He welcomed Planner Chilcott back from maternity leave and congratulated her on the birth of baby Kathryn. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the September 11, 2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2025 MORAINE AVENUE, Applicants: Steve Eck & Steve Wiiiiams — Request for variance from Estes Vaiiey Deveiopment Code Section 7.5.F.2.b(6) to allow portions of a driveway to be placed within the required arterial-street landscape buffer at a distance of 11.5 feet from the property line in iieu of the required 25-foot buffer Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow portions of an access drive to be located within the required 25-foot arterial setback/landscape buffer zone. The property is zoned A-Accommodations and is currently undeveloped. The applicant contemplates future development of nine units on the site, which would require a development plan. However, this variance hearing in no way constitutes review of a development proposal, nor would approval of the variance imply approval of any future development plan. The applicant’s intent to preserve significant trees if the property is developed as contemplated, including a 24-inch-diameter ponderosa, pushes portions of the access drive into the setback. Planning staff suggests that the required setback should be further reduced to allow the interior driveway to be twelve feet wide rather than ten feet wide and recommends approval of the requested variance with the requirement that district-buffer landscaping standards apply. This would provide approximately twice the amount of landscaping as that required to meet arterial-street landscaping standards and would require installation of evergreens rather than deciduous trees. Staff recommends this district-buffer landscaping be planted along approximately two-thirds of the highway frontage. Correspondence opposing this variance request was received from neighboring property owners Dave Ranglos of Glacier Lodge, 2166 Highway 66, and Cheryl Wagner, 1986 Dallman Drive, #5. A letter was also received from applicant Steve Eck. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 2, 2007 Public Comment: Zach HansonA/an Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicants. Board members did not have any questions for Mr. Hanson. Dave Ranglos/2166 Highway 66 stated he is the owner of two adjacent parcels located across the river from the applicant’s property. He reviewed the information provided in his letter opposing the variance request. He stated the applicant could build fewer or smaller units to comply with required setbacks. He expressed concern about driveway-spacing requirements and the effect the applicant’s proposed access may have on an existing easement across the subject property that provides access to his property. His concerns also included a possible retaining wall and fill that may be placed on the site with future development, impacts on the direction of the river flow, previous evidence of river water flowing through the middle of the lot during peak runoff periods, substantial and detrimental changes to the character of the neighborhood, disruption of the tranquility of the river corridor, possible detrimental effect on his rental business, and lack of appropriate transition between the valley and the national park as required by the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Newsom stated the Board is only reviewing a request to decrease the required setback from the road for a future driveway. Planner Shirk stated a letter received from Traci Downs of Larimer County Engineering indicates the county has no concerns with this variance request. The applicant’s submitted plans show the ingress/egress point to be approximately 300 feet from Mr. Ranglos’ easement, which is greater than the 250-foot separation required. If a development plan for nine units is submitted in the future, it will be reviewed at the staff level; eleven or more units must be proposed in order for a development plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Steve Eck/applicant stated the placement of the driveway access was designed to accommodate Mr. Ranglos’ easement and is 340 feet away. River water will not be diverted onto Mr. Ranglos’ property. He is proposing nine residences; Mr. Ranglos’ property includes 36 rental units. Cheryl Wagner/1986 Dallman Drive expressed dismay that neighbors have so little say in development proposals. She urged the Board to consider the impacts of the future residences and retaining wall to the environment and area wildlife. She expressed concern about density and increases in traffic and noise. Chair Newsom pointed out that the subject property is zoned for this type of development; if the applicant’s proposal meets zoning guidelines it can not be disapproved. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds property located at 2025 Moraine Avenue, to allow portions of a driveway to be placed within the required arterial landscape buffer at a distance of 10 feet from the property line in lieu of the required 25-foot buffer, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. District-buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial-street standards. LOT 2, GOOD SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION, 2000 PTARMIGAN TRAIL, Applicant: Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E to allow a steeple structure and cross to extend 12 feet above the maximum slope-adjusted height limit of 32 feet, 9 inches Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request by the Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church for a twelve-foot variance to the maximum slope-adjusted height limit of 32.75 feet in order to construct and install a 45.25-foot steeple and aluminum cross. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 1.9.E establishes the maximum height limit but excepts residential chimneys and telecommunications facilities, with some limitations. In considering whether special circumstances exist, the Board should consider that a steeple is typically an integral part of a church. There is no practical difficulty with this site; a structure could be built to comply with the height limit. Building plans submitted with a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 2, 2007 Special Review for this property, which was approved in 2002, showed a church building and cross structure that complied with the height limit; the plans have since been redesigned. The Board must consider the protections offered by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Planning staff suggests that if the impact of the steeple structure and cross would be similar to that of a chimney or telecommunications facility, the Board should consider the variance request. A letter of objection was received from the North End Property Owners’ Association stating approval of the variance will have significant impact on the neighborhood even if the cross is not lit and is not shiny. In response to questions from Board members Levine, Grant, and Sager, Planner Chilcott stated the building meets the height limit; only the steeple structure and cross will exceed the height limit. The applicant’s architect has indicated the cross will not be lit. The property was not posted with a variance notice as required; the applicant is responsible for posting this notice. Public Comment: Steve Lane/Basis Architecture was present to represent the applicant. He stated he is aware of the requirement to post a variance notice and apologized for the failure to post the notice. He prepared a photo survey for today’s meeting and presented it to the Board. The applicant wanted a more traditional church architecture, including a steeple, than that shown with the Special Review in 2002. The proposed steeple structure is five feet tall and will match the architecture and roof coloring (a natural brown) of the church building. Although the cross will be constructed of aluminum, it can be anodized or powder-coated so as to provide a matt finish. The color has not yet been selected but will be a natural color, such as bronze, that fits the color scheme of the building. There will not be electric power in the steeple structure and the cross will not be lit. The contours of surrounding lands and the structures already in place on neighboring properties, including the Good Samaritan development and condominiums in the area, will largely block views of the cross from the north and the west. The impact of the requested variance will be similar to that of a chimney or communications tower that exceeds the height limit. Director Joseph thanked Mr. Lane for complying with staff’s request to provide a photo simulation, noting it is not a requirement for submittal of a variance application. Following Mr. Lane’s photo presentation. Planner Chilcott recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the recommended conditions of approval found in the staff report and the additional requirements that the cross not be lit and have a non-reflective, matt finish. Further discussion was held and is summarized as follows. The building is situated below grade; that portion of the buiiding beiow the original grade does not count toward the height iimit. Although the cross could be located on the portico, the congregation voted to locate the cross as proposed. Lighting for the parking lot should be downward directed. The building foundation has been poured; Planner Chilcott will verify that the required height certificate has been provided. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to approve the variance request for Lot 2, Good Samaritan Subdivision, to allow a steeple structure and cross to extend 12 feet above the maximum slope-adjusted height limit of 32 feet, 9 inches, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Compliance with the submitted application. A registered land sun/eyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shail verify compliance with the variance and provide a height certificate. The cross and steeple shall not be lit. The cross and steeple shall be constructed of a non-reflective, matt material. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2007 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m. lewsoW, ohai' Juli^Rbederer, R^ording ^ecretary