Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2006-01-10RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 10, 2006, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Al Sager; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Wayne Newsom; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Chair Sager; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Newsom Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Director Joseph Chair Sager called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and welcomed new Board of Adjustment member, John Lynch. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the December 6, 2005 meeting. Chair Sager noted that the December 6, 2005 variance request for PID 3525121069, 221 East Riverside Drive, Richard & Sandra Slaydon/Applicant, which was continued at the December meeting, has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. A motion was made to accept this change by Member Levine and seconded by Member Newsom. There being no objections, the consent agenda was accepted. 2. HOSPITAL ADDITION. Located in S25, T5N, R73W of the 6th PM. 555 Prospect Avenue. Applicant: Park Hospital District. Estes Park Medical Center — Variance request from Estes Valiev Development Code Section 4.3. Table 4-2. and Section 1.9.D.1 to allow a 2-foot setback for buildings and structures in lieu of the minimum required 15-foot front-yard setback; from Section 7.11.F to allow portions of the parking lot to be built up to the northern and eastern property lines in lieu of the minimum required 15-foot setback; and from Section 1.9.E to allow a maximum buidinq height of 43 feet from finished grade in lieu of the maximum 30-foot height limit in the RM-Multi-Familv Residential zonma district Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this property is zoned RM- Multi-Famiiy Residential and that the surrounding properties are residential. The applicant intends to build an addition onto the hospital and requests variances from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow a two-foot building-and- structure setback rather than the minimum required fifteen-foot front-yard setback, and to allow the parking lot to be built up to the northern and eastern property lines in locations shown on the development plan rather than the required minimum fifteen-foot setback. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the building height to exceed the thirty-foot height limit required by the EVDC. The new main entry to the building will be a maximum of forty-three feet from finished grade, which is proposed to be one foot higher than the current grade elevation of 7,536 feet. A third floor of approximately 9,000 square feet is proposed over much of the addition to house mechanical and electrical equipment and ductwork. This portion of the addition is proposed to be forty feet tall. Because the first and second floors of the addition will match the height of the existing building, there is little room for ductwork between the floors. Staff is supportive of enclosing this equipment. The additional height required to enclose the equipment has been proposed by the building architects based on their experiences with other hospital buildings they’ve designed. The applicant may be able to reduce the proposed height and/or area of this third floor as the building RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 10, 2006 design is finaiized. For the sake of comparison, the taiiest portion of the existing buiiding, the parapet, is 44.5 feet taii. At the direction of planning staff, the appiicant requested a variance to the floor-area ratio. After further review, staff determined that in the RM zoning district, the floor- area ratio applies to muiti-family use only. At the time the agenda was published, the appiicant was aiso requesting a variance from EVDC Section 7.5 to ailow less landscaping than is required; the applicant has since revised the iandscape plan to meet the code requirements and is not requesting the variance. In addition to the variance appiication, the Park Hospital District has submitted a special review application that will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on January 17, 2006 and by the Estes Park Town Board on January 24, 2006. The variance appiication and special review appiication are iocation-and- extent reviews, which means that the Park Hospital District can override a Board of Adjustment or Town Board decision or a specific condition, provided the District foliows the procedures outiined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Park Hospitai District has also requested that the Town enter into a lease agreement to allow the District to use the unoccupied Prospect Avenue right-of-way immediately north of the hospital for parking, access, and landscaping. This will be reviewed by the Pubiic Works Committee on January 12, 2006 and Town Board on January 24, 2006. The most significant features of the expansion and remodei are as foliows: 1. The main building is currently 87,254 square feet in size, and a 49,757- square-foot addition is proposed. This is a 57% increase. 2. The new building and remodeled areas will meet current local, state, and federal requirements, including federai privacy requirements. 3. The Estes Park Medicai Center, which currently has sixteen hospital beds in ten rooms, one operating room, and one procedure room, wiil be expanded to twenty-two beds in twenty-two rooms, two new operating rooms, and one new procedure room. The old procedure room and operating room wili be converted to other uses. 4. The Famiiy Medical Clinic, which was built to house five physicians, but currentiy houses seven, will be expanded to house nine physicians. 5. One main entrance for ail hospital services wiii be provided on the northeast side of the buiiding in approximately the same location as the current entrance to the Famiiy Medicai Clinic. The upper entrance to the Estes Park Medicai Center will remain, but will not be the primary entrance. 6. The iower parking iot wili be remodeied and expanded. Thirty-two parking spaces, including five handicapped-accessibie spaces, will be added, raising the total parking spaces from 182 to 214. No remodel or expansion of the upper parking lot is proposed. 7. The main parking lot entrance will be relocated and a turn lane added. The existing entrance to the iower parking lot will be removed. 8. The right-of-way connection to Stanley Circle Drive wiii remain; however, asphalt will be removed and access will be blocked by a curb. Vehicular emergency use of the right-of-way will remain. 9. Sidewaik wiii be constructed along Fir Avenue. 10. A service area for ioading and trash coiiection wili be provided on the northern side of the buiiding. 11. The detention basin wiii be reshaped and resized. This basin drains a forty- five-acre portion of Prospect Mountain and is one of the largest detention basins in the Town. Planner Chilcott stated there are special circumstances associated with this iot and buiiding that are not common to other areas or buiidings similarly situated, and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 January 10, 2006 practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the Code standards. The requested variances will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purpose of either the specific standards, the Estes Valley Development Code, or the Comprehensive Plan. The Estes Park Medical Center is a unique use in the Estes Valley. The Park Hospital District contracted with a professional to complete a cost- benefit analysis of purchasing an undeveloped parcel of land and building a new hospital versus expansion at the current location. This analysis resulted in the decision to expand at the current location. The lot has physical constraints that limit development possibilities. Although the lot is slightly more than nine acres in size, the developable area is much smaller. Approximately a third of the property is steeply sloped, heavily treed, and not well suited for hospital expansion. The existing building and parking lot location and configuration restrict how and where expansion can occur. Planner Chilcott stated the proposed variances are not substantial given the proposed use of the property and that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. If the variances are not granted, significant redesign of the hospital addition would be required, and the variances offer the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The proposed addition will improve the appearance of the hospital, and the driveway entrance redesign, along with the addition of a turn lane and sidewalk along the eastern property line, will improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. The expansion of the hospital will improve the quality and level of services provided to residents, including residents of adjoining properties. The removal of the Stanley Circle Drive connection will eliminate hospital traffic in this residential neighborhood. Staff has received many complaints over the years about this cut-through traffic. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town Attorney Greg White and from neighboring property owner, Virginia D. Hampton, who emailed planning staff regarding her objection to the granting of any variances. Public Comment: Doug Faus, CEO of Estes Park Medical Center, addressed the Board. He stated he has made every effort to meet with neighbors from the beginning to discuss plans for the hospital addition. He noted the site provides a number of challenges and that, given scope of project, the variance requests are small. He stated the Park Hospital District has made an effort to work with the Town and meet the Development Code guidelines wherever possible to minimize the impact of the addition on the community. Member Levine questioned Kerry Prochaska of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying about the requested two-foot setback for the addition. Mr. Prochaska stated the building design had been done by Prochaska and Associates of Omaha, Nebraska. Chair Sager requested the applicant clarify the statement of intent, noting the phrasing regarding the encroachment of the current hospital building into the setback is unclear. He also asked for assurance from the applicant that efforts to decrease the third-floor building height and area will continue. Mr. Faus stated it is the Park Hospital District’s desire to do so in an effort to minimize costs. At Member Lynch’s request. Chair Sager clarified that he was not asking for a change to the profile of the roof line but for a reduction in the height if it was possible to do so while accommodating the equipment and providing space to work on it. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 10, 2006 It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the three requested variances, with the applicant’s agreement to minimize the height and total square footage of the third-floor portion of the addition, and with the findings and conditions recommended by staff; the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 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 building variance and provide a setback certificate. 3. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the parking-lot setback variance. 4. A certificate stamped and signed by a registered land surveyor verifying that the foundations are set per the elevations shown on the building permit is required to be on the job site for the Building Official at foundation inspection. A benchmark (control point) should be established on the lot for the surveyor to verify existing grade prior to construction. 5. Approval of the lease agreement with the Town for use of the Prospect Avenue right-of-way. 3. REPORTS Planner Chilcott updated the Board on the variance approved on December 6, 2005 for 189 & 191 East Riverside Drive, stating the applicant, Paul Whyard, will construct the first-floor portion of the addition in the near future but will postpone the second- floor portion of the addition. She noted that variance approval must be acted upon within one year of the date of approval and stated that Mr. Whyard may appear before the Board of Adjustment again regarding this addition. Architectural elevations and floor plans for the proposed addition will be available for Board members to review at the February meeting. There being no further business. Chair Sager adjourned the meeting at 8:36 a.m. Al Sager, Chair uulieJRbederer, Recording Secretary