TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, November 13, :00 AM following the Planning Commission A G E N D A

Transcription

1 I. Meeting Call to Order TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, November 13, :00 AM following the Planning Commission A G E N D A II. Roll Call of BOA Members III. Approval of Minutes from July 10, 2018 and August 14, 2018 IV. Conflicts of Interest V. NEW BUSINESS: A. 122 Sign Variance Request Winter Park Resort

2 I. Meeting Call to Order at 8:00am TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, July 10, :00 AM Minutes II. III. IV. Roll Call indicated present: Brad Holzwarth, Dave Barker, Mike Davlin, Doug Robbins, and Roger Kish. George Stevens and Jonathan Larson as alternates. No minutes available for approval. Conflicts of Interest none heard V. NEW BUSINESS: A. Height Variance 122 & 134 Fir Drive Planner Owen presented the staff report. The applicants for this case are Michael and Kristina Ziehler. Description of Variance Request: All 42 overall height requirements are in compliance with the Town Code. We are requesting a 35 mid-roof height variance at the northeast (downhill left) corners of the units. Mid-roof heights vary from 36 91/4 to /16 from existing grade. Owner s Reasons Why the Variance Should Be Granted: The finished grades will not exceed the 35 mid-roof height requirement. Due to the steep existing grades and relatively high sewer elevations (hardships) we are unable to satisfy the 35 mid-roof height requirements at the northeast corners. Most of the mid-roof height requirements are well under the town code limits. All of the overall building heights are in conformance with the Town code limits. Due to existing sewer elevations, lowering the buildings are not a good option. Due to the foundation needing to be about 12 above street grading, lowering the buildings could create drainage issues. By stepping the buildings downhill per Town code would actually allow the front portion of the units to be taller. Elevations shown on sheet A5 (from existing grade) are as follows: Front: Mid- Roof: /16 to 29-93/8 (All in conformance) Overall: /16 to /16 (All in conformance) Back: Mid- Roof: /16 to /16 (Uphill in conformance, downhill not) Overall: 34-47/16 to /4 (All in conformance) Applicable Town Code: Section Building Heights: It is the responsibility of the property owner to design a structure that will fit the natural or existing contours of a site. No excessive fill or excavation will be permitted to create an exaggerated building site to enhance view corridors, etc. When calculating building height in residential zone districts

3 applicants must adhere to the following principals: A building with a pitched or hipped roof shall not exceed thirty five feet (35') when measured to the midpoint of the pitched or hipped roof. The highest point of a pitched or hipped roof shall not exceed forty two feet (42'). (See figure 1 of this section.) (Ord. 423, Series of 2009) On sloped building sites, structures should step up the hillside. The overall height of a terraced or stepped structure shall not exceed fifty five feet (55') measured from the elevation of the lowest point of an exposed foundation at finished grade or preconstruction elevation whichever is greater to the highest point of a roof elevation. (See figure 2 of this section.) (Ord. 423, Series of 2009) Criteria to Grant Variance (Town Code 7-8): 7-8-1B: No variance shall be granted unless the board of adjustment finds, based on evidence, that: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return in use or service if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the municipality. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality C: For the purpose of implementing the above rules, the Board shall also, in making its determination whether there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, take into consideration the extent to which the following facts favorable to the applicant have been established by the evidence: 1. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. 2. The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification. 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to make more money out of the property. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 5. The granting of the variation would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 6. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Public Notification: This variance request has had proper public notification pursuant to Section of the Town Code. A Public Notice was published in the Sky-Hi Daily News on June 21, 2018 providing notification of the meeting and requesting comments. Mailings were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property and the property posted June 11, No comments were received prior to the Staff Report being posted.

4 One was received on Sunday July 8, 2018 from Nancy Olson who also lives on Fir Drive. This comment is against the development arguing that this is not just one home it is four large units, the project can be re-designed easily to fit within the code requirements, and that it is an over 10% increase. This was printed and presented as a table setting for the board. Staff Comments: The applicant is requesting a variance from the Town Code on Building Height which requires buildings not to exceed both the overall height maximum of forty two feet (42 ), and the midpoint height maximum of thirty five feet (35 ). The two structures proposed on these two lots currently both exceed the midpoint height maximum of thirty five feet (35') which is measured from preconstruction elevation to the midpoint of the pitched roof. The applicant was not aware of the requirement to meet both the overall height and the midpoint heights when designing the buildings. If the applicant were willing to re-design the structures, there is a stipulation in the code that allows for more height (up to 55 overall) to encourage builders on sloped areas to step or terrace their structures up the hillside in order to help preserve the slope itself and create structures that fit the natural or existing contours of a site without excessive fill or excavation. Otherwise, these buildings would need a height variance in order to proceed as currently designed since they do not meet the midpoint height requirement. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not provide a recommendation for variance requests. The Board of Adjustment must prove that a hardship is applicable and must establish findings of fact as related to the particular difficulties of the site. The hardship must be determined using one of the following criteria: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return in use or service if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the municipality. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Applicants and property owners Mike and Christine Ziehler were present and gave a presentation of the request. The applicant stated that their lots had unusual topographical conditions, doesn t change the feel of the neighborhood and that the hardship is not from money making. Applicant showed on the site plan that the overall height is within the 42 requirement overall, and for most of the building is within the 35 requirement. From street the height will be perceived as only 2 story. So does not look over bearing, not as much of an impact as existing townhomes that are already built in subdivision, trees in rear will help buffer the building plus additional trees that will be added. No public comment Discussion was held by the board Board member Davlin and Board member Roger moved to approve the variance request.

5 The variance is approved for the following reasons: The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Motion Carried: 5-0 B. Planning Commission / Board of Adjustment Training by Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C There are two more trainings coming up including: o DOLA on July 18 o Training session with Town Council on August 21

6 TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, August 14, :00 AM Following the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes I. Meeting called to order at 10:10 am. II. III. IV. Roll Call indicated present: Brad Holzwarth, Dave Barker, Mike Davlin, Doug Robbins, and Roger Kish. No minutes available for approval. Conflicts of Interest - none heard. V. NEW BUSINESS: A. Height Variance Hideaway Station Planner Owen Presented the Staff Report. The applicant is requesting to ignore the low point historic grade elevation of and base the 55 height limitation from the lowest design grade of 8725 as seen in the attached renderings for Building E of Hideaway Station. Owner s Reasons Why the Variance Should Be Granted: This request for variance is based on an existing grade condition, which the development team believes is a unique condition that adversely affects the height restriction of the building, overall. The historical grade has a low point of (8720.0) along the North side, which is 12-0 lower than the designed FFE of the main floor in Bldg E ( ) The next lowest point in the historical grading around the building footprint is only 7.5 below the main level FFE. The new design s finished grade elevations are lowest at (8725.0,) and the overall building height from the lowest point (garage slab) to the top of the highest parapet wall is Therefore, our request is to ignore the low point historic grade elevation of (8720.0,) and base the 55 height limitation from the lowest design grade of Please note in the attached elevations that the highest point of the building is the tall parapet at an elevation of This elevation is actually 8 above the proposed 55 height limitation; however, we are already planning to eliminate this 8 overage by lowering the parapet height or picking up the parking garage slab elevation. Applicable Town Code: 7-5B-4 The maximum height for all buildings and structures permitted in the D-C district shall be fifty five feet (55') as defined in chapter 2 of this title. (Ord. 324, Series of 2002) Criteria to Grant Variance (Town Code 7-8): 7-8-1A: Whereby reason of unusual narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the enactment hereof, or by reason of unusual topographic conditions or other extraordinary and unusual practical difficulties to, or unusual and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property, to authorize, upon an appeal relating to such property, a variance from such strict an application so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship; provided, such relief may be granted

7 without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zoning plan as embodied in this title and the master plan B: No variance shall be granted unless the board of adjustment finds, based on evidence, that: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return in use or service if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the municipality. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality C: For the purpose of implementing the above rules, the Board shall also, in making its determination whether there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, take into consideration the extent to which the following facts favorable to the applicant have been established by the evidence: 1. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. 2. The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification. 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to make more money out of the property. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 5. The granting of the variation would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 6. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Public Notification: This variance request has had proper public notification pursuant to Section of the Town Code. A Public Notice was published in the Sky-Hi Daily News on July 26, 2018 providing notification of the meeting and requesting comments. Mailings were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property, and the property was posted July 20, Two public comments were received prior to the packet being sent out and are attached. The other comments were printed and presented as table settings. Staff Comments: The applicant is requesting a variance from the Town Code on Building Height which requires buildings not to exceed fifty five feet (55 ). The structure proposed on the site (Building E) as currently designed exceeds this height maximum. According to the applicant, recessing the parking further to achieve the height requirement would not be feasible due to Baker Drive and the water table. Possible solutions to the height issue could be to design the building to avoid or integrate the grade change, or to lower the height of the building to fit Town Code.

8 However, in order to proceed with building E as it is currently designed, these buildings would need a height variance since they do not meet the height requirements of the Town Code. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not provide a recommendation for variance requests. The Board of Adjustment must prove that a hardship is applicable and must establish findings of fact as related to the particular difficulties of the site. The hardship must be determined using one of the following criteria: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return in use or service if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the municipality. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Peter Van Dusen, Architect and Project Manager for Winter Park Development made a presentation of the variance request including several elevation exhibits. The Public Hearing was opened to the Public for comment: The following language represents the topics each member of the public provided to the Board. Robert Mercer, on the Hi Country Haus Recreation Board- Concern about heights impacting enjoyment of mountain views now and into the future. Rick Sutton, representing the board of Hi Country House Recreation Board Owners at Hi County Haus are concerned about the views and shade from this building. John and Katie Parkinson, owners of the adjacent property Concerned about height being higher than original plans they were originally presented, accuracy of water table calculations, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and structures, impacts of light trespass, audible noise from the ventilation system, and water quality impacts. Randy Wright, Owner in Hi Country Haus Concerned about the precedent being set, the shade impacts, and the impact on mountain views. Mike Hower, Owner of two units at Hi Country Haus Concerned about precedent being set, the impact on the feel of the community, view of the sky, and the mountain views. John Grieve, Owner in Hi Country Haus Concerned that the Town code is not being followed, does not see any adequate hardship, concerned that the design for Building E is deliberately ignoring Town Codes and could be designed to fit within those codes. The public hearing was closed and turned over to the Board of Adjustment for review and comment. Discussion was held by the Board Commissioner Davlin discussed the impact of the artificial hole on the property due to the existing man-made detention pond. Commissioner Kish clarified that the decision of the board was to approve or disapprove based on the criteria presented. The board has no ability to work outside of the bounds of the Town Code. Discussed that the height is completely within the bounds of the Town Code except for the existence of the man-made detention pond or the underground parking structure which the Town has tried to encourage.

9 Board member Davlin moved and Board member Kish seconded approval of the height variance. The variance is approved for the following reason: The request met variance criteria number two the plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances which includes the man-made detention pond on the property, and criteria number three the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, upon a previously adopted motion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.

10 TO FROM THRU DATE RE Board of Adjustment Mara Owen, Planner James Shockey, Community Development Director November 13, 2018 Sign Code Variance Request Applicant: Tyler Lundsgaard, on behalf of the Winter Park Village Company Master Association (WPVCMA). Description of Variance Request: WPVCMA is requesting variance to allow for face lighting of a new sign at the renovated plaza at Winter Park Resort. Owner s Reasons Why the Variance Should Be Granted: Please see attached letter. Applicable Town Code: 6-2-5:D: Lighting Regulations 1. Shielded Lighting: Light bulbs or lighting tubes used for illuminating a sign shall not be visible from the vehicular travel lanes of adjacent public right of way. The use of adequate shielding, designed so that light from sign illuminating devices does not shine directly into the eyes of passing motorists without first being reflected off the sign or its background, is required whenever sign lighting is used. This type of lighting is permitted in all zoning districts. 2. Subdued Lighting: The intensity of sign lighting shall not exceed that necessary to illuminate and make legible a sign from the adjacent travelway or closest municipal street; and the illumination of a sign shall not be noticeably brighter than other lighting in the vicinity. 3. Direction Of Lighting: All lighting fixtures shall be placed above the sign and shall shine downward. Illumination of signs shall not be directed toward adjacent properties. Criteria to Grant Variance (Town Code 6-2-9): 6-2-9: VARIANCES: A. Intent Of Variance Provision: Variance from the terms of this chapter shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this chapter deprives such property privileges

11 enjoyed by other property in the vicinity, and under identical zoning classification and other restrictions. B. Authority Of Board Of Adjustment: The board of adjustment shall have the authority to grant variances from the strict application of the rules, regulations, and provisions of this chapter as follows: 1. Jurisdiction: Before the board of adjustment shall have jurisdiction to grant a variance, the applicant must show that due to the peculiar shape, size, location or topography of the property, there are unusual conditions involved which would make the literal enforcement of the regulations of this chapter result in the practical difficulties which are unnecessary for the purpose of this chapter and which would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district classification and under the same sign ordinance restriction. 2. Limitations: Any variances which if granted, shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the provisions herein, and with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district and under the same ordinance restrictions in which the subject property is located. 3. Minimum Adjustment: In granting the variance under the provisions of this section, the amount of adjustment granted shall be the minimum necessary to equalize the property rights. Conditions and safeguards shall be prescribed in this chapter therewith as are necessary to protect the purpose and intent of this chapter, the master plan of the town, and the general welfare of the community. 4. Public Welfare: The granting of any variance shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the vicinity. The board of adjustment shall ensure that the granting of a variance will be compatible with the purpose and intent of this chapter, and the master plan of the town, and will not be injurious to the public health, safety and general welfare. (Ord. 440, Series of 2010) Staff Comments: Due to the nature of the new sign being constructed with individual metal fins, staff agrees that top mounted solely downward lighting as specified within the code is not possible in this case. If top mounted downward lighting were attached on each individual metal fin, the total light output would likely be higher than a single light directed solely onto the sign without causing glare. The applicant is aware of the dark sky impacts of true up-lighting, and will not be aiming the lighting upwards, but instead at an angle towards the sign face. Allowing this angled directional lighting will shed no light on adjacent properties and the light will be directed at a non-reflective surface. Staff suggests that during the review for Public Welfare (Section 6-2-9:B-4) the Board of Adjustment specifically consider the Dark Sky section of the Master Plan which could include discussing elements such as color and type of light, steady vs flashing, and directionality. In many Dark Sky ordinances for other communities, externally illuminated signs are allowed if the light is directed solely onto the sign with a shielded light source, and illuminated at a non-reflective surface with a steady stationary light. Other ordinances include time limitations, where the sign is required to automatically shut off at close of business. These ordinances do not prohibit upward tilted lighting that does not spill into the night sky.

12 Staff Recommendation: Staff does not provide a recommendation for variance requests. The Board of Adjustment must determine if the applicant meets the following requirements to obtain a variance from Town Standards: 1. Jurisdiction: Before the board of adjustment shall have jurisdiction to grant a variance, the applicant must show that due to the peculiar shape, size, location or topography of the property, there are unusual conditions involved which would make the literal enforcement of the regulations of this chapter result in the practical difficulties which are unnecessary for the purpose of this chapter and which would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district classification and under the same sign ordinance restriction. 2. Limitations: Any variances which if granted, shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the provisions herein, and with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district and under the same ordinance restrictions in which the subject property is located. 3. Minimum Adjustment: In granting the variance under the provisions of this section, the amount of adjustment granted shall be the minimum necessary to equalize the property rights. Conditions and safeguards shall be prescribed in this chapter therewith as are necessary to protect the purpose and intent of this chapter, the master plan of the town, and the general welfare of the community. 4. Public Welfare: The granting of any variance shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the vicinity. The board of adjustment shall ensure that the granting of a variance will be compatible with the purpose and intent of this chapter, and the master plan of the town, and will not be injurious to the public health, safety and general welfare. (Ord. 440, Series of 2010)

13 October 30, 2018 Town of Winter Park Planning Commission 50 Vasquez Road PO Box 3327 Winter Park, CO RE: WPVCMA Plaza Sign Lighting Dear Mr. Shockey: The Winter Park Village Company Master Association (WPVCMA) requests the time of the Planning Commission on November 13 to review a variance request for sign lighting for the iconic sign at the newly renovated Winter Park Plaza. It is our understanding that per Title 6, Chapter 2 of the Winter Park, CO Town Code all sign lighting must be downward in direction. Given the nature of the new sign at the Plaza, we request variance to allow for face lighting of the signage. The directional lighting will shed no light on to adjacent properties and will be directed at a non-reflective surface. We feel that this sign lighting variance will provide great value to the newly renovated Plaza at Winter Park Resort and look forward to reviewing with the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Tyler Lundsgaard Project Manager, NV5 Winter Park Plaza Sign Lighting

14

15

16

17 ! " #12 $%6 ' ()*+ (,-./ 0-., ( ':;<((=>'?@3 675A 6 BCDC*'E,)FG-FG +CH/IJ K4*/ 0,-./J L )HM4I.)5D/ 5*-G,.F/IINIK//H BCF.*CD 0-., CK.-CF)D :2 :/+C./ C* (-'2-345 L I+)*.K,CF/ (-H/ =O>P 5/)+ K)./*F Q-/'E)I. )D4+-F4+,C4I-FGJ./+K/*/H GD)II D/FIJ L )HM4I.)5D/ 5)I/ =>>'OR> STB S-/0 +C*/ H/.)-DI U89 7 V A5 XY 45A57 XY =O> H/G*// W> ().I 1FE)FH/IE/F. Z[\ ]-G.)-D ^^+T _/I <D)E` =a b6 e gy XY U76 (/).,/*K*CCc 1]Wd fd>>> 3C4*I R> 9hQI ;D)II TD4+-F4+

18 ! "#$%&'$ () *"+%&,+$ (-. / ! J014 L L MN :5; )<496; )3< )13; =5<5 )1 )B; -)); =CD )<4179,$ F93-7G5; -1H I73,$$%#+$ K0),$ F93 O'7*,+##6<. /7P LNQ,1,+#R *$S':. /7P T 404Q SOU *##6<. G OVOU *,O6<. G #VOU *V6< Z<95 [9 \] D5753 [765 B9 -I"=W9FF,$"XY )<496 -I"=W9)F,$"XY )<496 -I"=W9)F,$"XYC )<496 -I"=W9)F,$"XY= )<496 -I"=W9FF,$"XYC )<496 -I"=W9FF,$"XY= )< ` T07! 4 ^19H -I"=W9 D5753 _35 X991