Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2006-06-06RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 6, 2006, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Cliff Dill; Members Chuck Levine, John Lynch, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Chair Dill, Members Levine, Lynch, and Newsom Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Member Sager Chair Dill called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the May 2, 2006 meeting. There being no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. LOT 1. CRAGS ADDITION. 300 Riverside Drive. AoDiicant: Kathv Kadiecek for Crags Lodge — Variance request from Estes Valiev Deveiopment Code Section 8.1 .A to allow an off-premise sign Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to allow an off- premise sign to be located at the corner of Riverside Drive and Audubon Street. The applicant wishes to replace a sign that has been in place for several years but blew down over the winter. In researching the history of the sign, planning staff found a 1989 county citation for violation of the Larimer County Building Code, which prohibited off- premise signs. The applicant has stated that the sign was installed at the request of the police department after the police had trouble locating the lodge because although it is addressed 300 Riverside Drive, access to the lodge is actually off Audubon Street. The property was originally accessed from Riverside Drive. When the Crags Subdivision was platted in 1993, the access from Riverside Drive was removed and Audubon Street became the access road, but the address of the lodge was never changed. This has created special circumstances associated with the lot. The Chief of Police, Lowell Richardson, has indicated his support of the variance request. Planner Shirk noted that the historic use of the lodge can continue without approval of the variance. He stated the essential character of the neighborhood would not change because the sign has been in place at that location for many years. He also noted that the applicant’s predicament could be mitigated by changing the address. Richard Smith, President of the Crags Property Owners’ Association, indicated in a discussion with Planner Shirk that the owners’ association supports the variance request. The association would also like to see a second sign—the directional sign at the intersection of Audubon Drive and the driveway to the lodge—made larger, thus reducing the amount of traffic that misses the turn to the lodge and must turn around in private driveways in the neighborhood. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Public Works RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 June 6, 2006 Department and Estes Park Police Department. Written comments were also received from neighboring property owner John Gilfillan, who expressed opposition to the variance. Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Public Comment: Kathy Kadlecek of Crags Lodge stated that changing the address of the lodge would not be easy or practical because several hundred time-share unit owners hold deeds of trust, making a change of address very difficult to implement. Member Newsom stated his support of the variance request, noting the sign will provide for identification of and direction to the lodge. He also stated that enlarging the directional sign on Audubon Street would be advantageous for the homeowners who live farther up Audubon. Member Levine also stated his support of the request. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Crags Addition, to allow an off-premise sign to be located at the corner of Riverside Drive and Audubon Street, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimousiy with one absent. ?.°ShaHl obtain sign permits. This includes compliance with all other applicable standards of the sign code. ou- i ^ ^ or onnRShall comply with memo from Public Works to Dave Shirk da ed May 26, . Sign content shall be limited to “300 Riverside”, “Crag s Lodge , The View Restaurant” (or “Golden Eagle Resort”), and a directional arrow. Size shall not exceed existing sign size. onnR if Shall obtain approval from Public Works Director no later than October 31-20°6. If Sen approval has not been obtained from the Public Works Director by October 31,2006, the sign shall be removed immediately. 2. 3. 4. 5. Meant: James &3 I OT 24. THE RESERVE 2nd FILING. 14Q1 Deer Path Court eal of staff’s determination that theSusan Kutrubes — Administrative a ace constitutes creation of annrnnosed rpnovAtion of SXlStlPM „ .40riwfilling unit, as defined in Estes Valley Development Code Chapter13 Planner Chilcott stated the applicant Jim Kut™b“' applicant’s lot does not meet this r®cl"®l^re^,30jJ aU0^ SHSiSkt:eofhei= applicant’s submitted plans show all these features. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 June 6, 2006 when staff reviews building permits they must focus on the design, not on the proposed use, in order to administer the Code. She noted that Town Attorney White submitted a letter which states his support of staff’s interpretation of the Code. She also noted that if the Board of Adjustment finds that staff’s interpretation of an accessory dwelling unit was incorrect, the Board must explain how to correctly Interpret the definition and the Board’s interpretation will be used for all future review of accessory dwelling units. Member Levine requested the definition of a kitchenette. Planner Chilcott stated that a full kitchen is not required when considering whether an ADU is proposed. The applicant’s submitted plans include a full-sized refrigerator, sink, kitchen cabinets, and dishwasher, which meets the definition of a kitchenette. Director Joseph stated that the functional definition of a kitchenette is an area that provides for food preparation on a daily basis. The combination of facilities proposed by Mr. Kutrubes meets that definition. He further stated that the question was not whether the Code is too strict or not strict enough; the decision before the Board is whether staff has correctly interpreted the Code as it is written. James Deer Path Court, stated the definition of accessory dwelling unit does n<^ include any specifics on design or intent and noted his intent is to convert a large RV space to allow for family gatherings. An accessory use is defined as _'ncidental and qiibordinate to the primary use. He noted that The Reserve board reviewed his oroDOsal as well as the EVDC definitions, and is in agreement with him. Although Town Key WhireeltSed that his property is less than the ^ apppsqorv dwellinq unit and the proposed area for remodel exceeds 800 square teei, Mr SbeTSed that is no? the point. He argued the Code was written for " re“n for his project because of the private covenants that are in place. lot-size requirement has come up. She .. • k She noted that the RV bay is microwaves should not count. Discussion followed among Board members and .^rr^aToi l"‘KeS,SlmSs[reegu^^^^^^^^^^^ a —e and ba,broom facilities. Dennis Dakan, lifelong Estes Park resident stated that Ws rece^^^^^^ residence at 255 Cherokee Court mcludes a *tteS Pcr4“rstatadetrtaL^ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 June 6, 2006 Mr. Kutrubes restated that his is not trying to change the Code ianguage for this ruiing; he is requesting an administrataive exception. He noted that the kitchenette in his guest quarters is integral to his home; it does not meet the accessory unit definition of “incidental and subordinate.” When questioned by Planner Chilcott whether he was still appealing staff’s decision regarding the definition of an accessory dwelling unit, he stated he is because the proposed use is not an accessory use. Member Newsom noted that an accessory dwelling unit is a complete living area aside from the main living area. He stated that it is clear that the proposed remodel includes everything that would be found in a dwelling unit and that staff made the correct determination. Member Levine concurred and stated that the definition of accessory dwelling unit should be further defined. He urged Community Development staff to address this issue with the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Estes Park Town Board, and Board of County Commissioners. Director Joseph stated that the Board must determine whether the planning staff is correctly interpreting Code as written, not whether Code is right or wrong. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to uphold planning staffs decision that an accessory dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Vaiiey Deveiopment Code, was proposed with buiiding permit appiication #8053, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business. Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 8:57 a.m. ulie Fioederer, Recording/Secretary