STEAMBOAT SPRINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA CONFERENCE ROOM 113/114, CENTENNIAL HALL, TH STREET THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2017 *5:00PM

Transcription

1 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AGENDA CONFERENCE ROOM 113/114, CENTENNIAL HALL, TH STREET THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2017 *5:00PM *NOTE* Special Early Start 4:15pm: Pizza Served. 4:30PM: Legal Ethics and Open Meeting Presentation Dan Foote Public Hearings: AGENDA ITEM #1 Project: VAR-17-05, Crawford Addition, B1, Resub, Lots 6-8 Applicant: Chuck and Lynn Abbott Project Location: 714 Grand Street Type of Application: Variance General Description: Variance to construct a carport in front yard and side yard setback. Project Planner: Bob Keenan, AICP, CFM, Senior Planner, bkeenan@steamboatsprings.net AGENDA ITEM #2 Project: VAR-17-03, Village Green Highlands Add to SS, Tract 3 Applicant: Thomas Wood c/o Moon Hill Design/Matt Wagner Project Location: 1235 Buckskin Drive Type of Application: Variance General Description: A request for a principal structure to be 3 from the property line and for a retaining wall to be greater than 4 in height in the front setback. Project Planner: Toby Stauffer, AICP, Senior Planner, tstauffer@steamboatsprings.net AGENDA ITEM #3 Approval of Minutes: Minutes from the September 21, 2017 Board of Adjustment Public Hearing will be reviewed for approval. Adjournment: The above applications are available for review and inspection during regular business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO. Three or more City Council members may attend this event and may discuss public business, to include information of public policy. For more information please contact Julie Franklin, City Clerk

2 AGENA ITEM#1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM #1 VAR Project Name: Crawford Add to Steamboat Springs, Blk 1, Lots 6-8; VAR Prepared By: Through: Bob Keenan, Senior Planner (Ext 260) Tyler Gibbs, AIA Director (Ext. 244) Date: October 11, 2017 Board of Adjustment (BOA): Zoning: October 19, 2017 Residential Old Town (RO) 714 Grand Street Project Location Applicant: Request: Chuck and Lynn Abbott A variance request to build a carport into the side and rear setback. Section Staff Report - Table of Contents Pg I. Background 1-3 II. Project Description 1-3 III. Overview of Dimensional Standards 1-3 IV. Project Analysis 1-4 V. Staff Findings & Conditions 1-6 VI. Attachments 1-6

3 VAR BOA Hearing:10/19/ Grand Street Project Planner Bob Keenan COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (CDC) STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY CDC - SECTION (D): A VARIANCE MAY BE APPROVED IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: Subsection Consistent Notes Yes No NA 1) Legal use 2) Equal enjoyment 3) Hardship 4) Hardship not self-imposed 5) Injury to adjoining property mitigated 6) Minimum relief 7) Increase in nonconformity 8) Special circumstances 9) Consistent with CDC, policies and plans 10) Previous variance Staff Finding: Staff finds the application consistent with the Criteria for Approval.. (Detailed policy analysis is located in Section VII; Staff Findings and Conditions are in Section VIII) AERIAL PHOTO Planning and Community Development Staff Report 010/19/17 Page 1-2

4 VAR BOA Hearing:10/19/ Grand Street Project Planner Bob Keenan I. BACKGROUND The subject lot at 714 Grand Street is zoned RO and currently contains a single-family residence and an accessory single-car garage. The single-family home was constructed The existing garage received a variance in 1990 to encroach the side setback. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a 12 x 18 x 9 metal carport structure in the driveway in front of the existing garage. The applicant is proposing to encroach 4.27 into the 5 rear setback, adjacent to a 10 wide unused alley, and into the 20 front setback along North Grand Street. III. OVERVIEW OF DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS RO ZONE DISTRICT The following list was compiled by the project planner to provide an overview of key standards applicable to the project. Items in bold do not comply with applicable standards; refer to Project Analysis section for additional information. Interested parties are encouraged to review the Community Development Code (CDC) or contact the project planner for a comprehensive list of all applicable standards. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS CDC Section Standard CDC Proposed Variance Setbacks: 12,000 sq. ft. 16,988.4 sq. ft. (existing) n/a Accessory Front Setback (North Grand Street) Front Setback (Park 20 >20 n/a Avenue) Rear Setback (alley) IV. PROJECT ANALYSIS Side Setback (east) 5 >5 n/a Overall Height 24 9 n/a Average Plate 18 7 n/a Height Lot Coverage 35%.14 n/a Floor Area Ratio (all structures) 45%.18 n/a A) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL (CDC regulations verbatim) CDC - Section (d): Criteria for review and approval. Variances may be approved when it is determined from evidence at the public hearing that the variance is consistent with Planning and Community Development Staff Report 010/19/17 Page 1-3

5 VAR BOA Hearing:10/19/ Grand Street Project Planner Bob Keenan the purposes of this section and that all of the following criteria or alternative criteria in subsection (e) or alternative criteria for floodplain development permit variances in section or alternative criteria for sign variances in article IX have been met: (1) Legal use. The property and the use of such property for which the variance is requested is in full compliance with all requirements of the zone district in which the property is located, or there is a legal nonconforming structure or lot, or there is a conforming structure housing a legal nonconforming use. No variance may be granted which would permit or expand any unlawful use of property. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The subject property contains a legal non-conforming structure housing the single-family use that encroaches the front setback. The garage is legal conforming as it has previously received a variance. There are no nonconforming uses on this property. (2) Equal enjoyment. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which the subject property is located. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The proposed setback variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not shared by other properties of a similar nature. The same opportunities for setback variances are available to those that have similar circumstances. However, each property is unique and variances are reviewed on a case by case basis. (3) Hardship. The special circumstances of the subject property make the strict enforcement of the provisions of this CDC an unnecessary hardship to the property owner. Staff Analysis: Consistent. Staff finds that there are special site characteristics of the property that make strict enforcement of the building setback provision an unnecessary hardship on the owner. The house was placed towards the center of the lot in 1926 which doesn t provide enough room to locate a two car garage without encroaching the front and rear setbacks. Snow sheds north from the roof of the existing home onto the area between the home and the garage. This is the reason for the garage being situated where it is on the lot and the reason the carport is not proposed between the house and the garage. (4) Hardship not self-imposed. The special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the applicant. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The applicant did not build the home in 1926, and, therefore, the special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant. The applicant s family purchased the property in (5) Injury to adjoining property mitigated. The variance will not permanently injure or adversely impact legal conforming uses of adjacent property; or the applicant has accurately assessed the impacts of the proposed variance and has agreed to mitigate those impacts. In making this determination the board shall begin with the assumption that variations from development standards create impacts on adjacent properties, and shall place the burden of proof on the applicant to show: a. Impacts to adjacent properties are presumed. Planning and Community Development Staff Report 010/19/17 Page 1-4

6 VAR BOA Hearing:10/19/ Grand Street Project Planner Bob Keenan b. That there are no impacts, or that the impacts have been adequately mitigated. Unsupported opinions of impacts from surrounding property owners shall not be conclusive evidence of impacts. Staff Analysis: Consistent. Staff finds that there should be no adverse impacts to adjacent properties with the placement of this structure into the rear and front setback, as proposed. The property is separated by an unused public 10 alley right-of-way. The proposal shall meet all other standards as set forth in CDC. (6) Minimum relief. The requested variance is the least modification possible of the provision of the CDC that will afford relief to the applicant. Staff Analysis: Consistent. Staff finds that the proposed modification is the least modification possible that will afford relief to the applicant. As noted above, the carport cannot be located any closer to the single-family home and away from the rear setback due to the snow shedding from the single-family roof. Furthermore, engineering standards for driveways would discourage or prohibit an additional driveway to serve the carport on the south side of the residence. (7) Increase in nonconformity. When considering the amount of variance requested, an existing nonconformity will be considered part of the overall variance request. For example, an existing nonconforming structure encroaches five (5) feet into the setback, and the applicant would like to encroach an additional five (5) feet. The variance request is for a ten (10) feet encroachment into the required setback. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The project does not increase existing non-conformities. (8) Special circumstances. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Staff Analysis: Consistent. Please see the analysis under subsection 3, hardship, above. (9) Consistent with CDC, policies and plans. The variance is compatible with the purposes and intent of this CDC and purpose of the CDC and adopted land use policies or plans, as applicable. In granting any variance, appropriate conditions and safeguards may be prescribed to ensure that the purpose and intent of this title will not be violated. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The proposed setback variance is consistent with the CDC policies and plans to allow an applicant relief to requirements where it is clearly demonstrated that the applicant meets the requirements for said variance. Staff has included conditions of approval to ensure compliance. (10) Previous variance. Every piece of property is unique, so evidence that a variance was previously granted under similar circumstances shall not be considered binding grounds for granting a variance. Staff Analysis: This section of the CDC is not so much a criteria for approval as a directive regarding how information on other variances should be considered. Planning and Community Development Staff Report 010/19/17 Page 1-5

7 VAR BOA Hearing:10/19/ Grand Street Project Planner Bob Keenan V. STAFF FINDING & CONDITIONS Staff finds this variance request is consistent with the City of Steamboat Springs Community Development Code Section with the following conditions of approval: 1. Snow shed from the carport shall not encroach adjacent properties. 2. The approval of the setback variance only applies to the proposed metal carport and is not valid for any other structure. VI. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Plan Set Attachment 2 Applicant Narrative Planning and Community Development Staff Report 010/19/17 Page 1-6

8 Attachment 1

9

10

11

12 Attachment 2

13

14

15

16 AGENDA ITEM #2 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY Project Name: Prepared By: Through: DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEM #2: VAR Village Green Highlands Addition to SS, Tract 3, 1235 Buckskin Drive, VAR Toby Stauffer, AICP, City Planner (Ext. 280) Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Director of Planning & Community Development (Ext. 244) Date: October 11, 2017 Board of Adjustment (BOA): October 19, 2017 Zoning: Residential Estate 2 (RE-2) Project Location Applicant: Request: Thomas Wood 1235 Buckskin Drive A request to allow the proposed house to be 3 from the property line instead of the required 25 for a front setback in the RE-2 zone district. I. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (CDC) STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY Section Staff Report - Table of Contents I. CDC Staff Analysis Summary 2-2 II. Background 2-3 III. Reasoning & Project Description 2-3 IV. Overview of Applicable Development Standards 2-3 V. Project Analysis 2-3 VI. Staff Findings & Conditions 2-6 VII. Attachments 2-6 Pg CDC - SECTION (D): A VARIANCE MAY BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF A REQUEST MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: Subsection Consistent Notes Yes No NA 1) Legal use 2) Equal enjoyment

17 Village Green Highlands Addition to SS, Tract 3, 1235 Buckskin Drive, VAR BOA Hearing: 10/19/17 Project Planner: Toby Stauffer 3) Hardship 4) Hardship not self-imposed 5) Injury to adjoining property mitigated 6) Minimum relief 7) Increase in nonconformity 8) Special circumstances 9) Consistent with CDC, policies and plans 10) Previous variance Staff Finding: Staff finds this variance request to allow the proposed house to be 3 from the property line instead of 25 as required by the zone district, consistent with the required findings per Section of the City of Steamboat Springs Community Development Code and recommends approval subject to conditions as listed in Section VI.. (Detailed policy analysis is located in Section V; Staff Findings are in Section VI) Buckskin Drive II. BACKGROUND The subject property is a vacant lot in the Village Green Highlands Subdivision, 0.35 Acres or about 14,500 SF, and is zoned RE-2. The surrounding properties are developed with singlefamily residential uses on lots of similar size and topography. Other variances have been granted for properties in the neighborhood. III. REASONING AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The request is for a new single family structure to be built 3 from the property line. The proposed house will be about 24 from the edge of the asphalt of Buckskin Drive. The Planning and Community Development Staff Report Page 2-2

18 Village Green Highlands Addition to SS, Tract 3, 1235 Buckskin Drive, VAR BOA Hearing: 10/19/17 Project Planner: Toby Stauffer driveway for the house requires retaining walls to be placed in the front setback and in the ROW and for Buckskin Drive. IV. OVERVIEW OF APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The following list was compiled by the project planner to provide an overview of applicable standards. Items in bold do not comply with requirements; refer to the Project Analysis section for additional information. Interested parties are encouraged to review the Community Development Code (CDC) or contact the project planner for a complete list of all standards. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS CDC Section Standard Code Requirements Proposed Variance Setbacks: Principal Structure Front Setback 25 feet 3 feet 22 feet Side Setback 15 feet 15 feet None Rear Setback 15 feet >15 feet None SPECIAL SETBACK STANDARDS CDC Section Fence and wall setback. No fence or wall shall exceed four (4) feet in height when located within the required front yard setback 4 walls, max None V. PROJECT ANALYSIS CDC - Section (d) Criteria for review and approval. Variances may be approved when it is determined from evidence at the public hearing that the variance is consistent with the purposes of this section and that all of the following criteria or alternative criteria in subsection (e) or alternative criteria for floodplain development permit variances in section or alternative criteria for sign variances in article IX have been met: (1) Legal use. The property and the use of such property for which the variance is requested is in full compliance with all requirements of the zone district in which the property is located, or there is a legal nonconforming structure or lot, or there is a conforming structure housing a legal nonconforming use. No variance may be granted which would permit or expand any unlawful use of property. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The property and use are compliant with the CDC. The existing nearby uses are single family residential and the proposed use is single family residential which is a use by right in the RE-2 zone district consistent with others in the area. (2) Equal enjoyment. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which the subject property is located. Planning and Community Development Staff Report Page 2-3

19 Village Green Highlands Addition to SS, Tract 3, 1235 Buckskin Drive, VAR BOA Hearing: 10/19/17 Project Planner: Toby Stauffer Staff Analysis: Consistent. There are other properties in the area with similar uses, structures, and topography and other properties have received variances for similar circumstances. However, this lot is more constrained based on the location of a 20 utility easement which limits the location for a structure on the property. (3) Hardship. The special circumstances of the subject property make the strict enforcement of the provisions of this CDC an unnecessary hardship to the property owner. Staff Analysis: Consistent. Staff finds that the special circumstances on this property are the steep topography and location of an existing 20 utility easement. The special circumstances make application of the front setback requirement difficult. (4) Hardship not self-imposed. The special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the applicant. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The special circumstances are not the result of the applicant as the lot was platted with the topography and the easement was in place and prior to the applicants ownership. (5) Injury to adjoining property mitigated. The variance will not permanently injure or adversely impact legal conforming uses of adjacent property; or the applicant has accurately assessed the impacts of the proposed variance and has agreed to mitigate those impacts. In making this determination the board shall begin with the assumption that variations from development standards create impacts on adjacent properties, and shall place the burden of proof on the applicant to show: a. Impacts to adjacent properties are presumed. b. That there are no impacts, or that the impacts have been adequately mitigated. Unsupported opinions of impacts from surrounding property owners shall not be conclusive evidence of impacts. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The variance will not injure or impact legal conforming uses. A potential impact from this request is the visual impact of a large wall to allow driveway access to the property. The proposal mitigates that impact by proposing a series of smaller walls that will support the driveway, allow access, and meet requirements for walls in the front setback. The proposed variance is also mitigated by the distance between the proposed structure and the road surface. The road is approximately 24 from the property line and about 27 from the structure, a distance which is similar to the required setback for the district and surrounding properties. (6) Minimum relief. The requested variance is the least modification possible of the provision of the CDC that will afford relief to the applicant. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The request would provide this property with the benefits enjoyed by other similar properties, a single-family house and garage. The garage is a standard size for two cars and the garage and house are able to meet side and rear setback requirements. Planning and Community Development Staff Report Page 2-4

20 Village Green Highlands Addition to SS, Tract 3, 1235 Buckskin Drive, VAR BOA Hearing: 10/19/17 Project Planner: Toby Stauffer (7) Increase in nonconformity. When considering the amount of variance requested, an existing nonconformity will be considered part of the overall variance request. For example, an existing nonconforming structure encroaches five (5) feet into the setback, and the applicant would like to encroach an additional five (5) feet. The variance request is for a ten (10) feet encroachment into the required setback. Staff Analysis: Not applicable. There are no existing structures or nonconformities on the property. (8) Special circumstances. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Staff Analysis: Consistent. As mentioned above in subsections two and three of this section, Equal Enjoyment and Hardship, there are special circumstances on this property including the topography and easement location, and the character of adjacent properties with garages that make this variance supportable. Based on the circumstances as listed, the request would provide this property with rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and the zoning district. (9) Consistent with CDC, policies and plans. The variance is consistent with the purposes and intent of this CDC and purpose of the CDC and adopted land use policies or plans, as applicable. In granting any variance, appropriate conditions and safeguards may be prescribed to ensure that the purpose and intent of this title will not be violated. Staff Analysis: Consistent. The CDC and Area Community Plan have various goals and regulations that this project is consistent with. The development would be consistent with neighborhood character and it will allow for infill by better utilizing an existing property with services within the city limits. To confirm consistency with the CDC, this request was provided to Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members and surrounding property owners. Comments from TAC members indicate no opposition to the project. A revocable license is required for the development and walls that will occur in the ROW. The revocable license process and decision are separate and distinct from the variance process and decision. Both are necessary and the project cannot proceed without approval of both applications. (10) Previous variance. Every piece of property is unique, so evidence that a variance was previously granted under similar circumstances shall not be considered binding grounds for granting a variance. Staff Analysis: Consistent. A variance has been granted for the property previously but the concept covered by that variance was not realized. The current proposal is different from the previous one and has been evaluated on its own merits, previous variances have not been considered with this application. Similarly, this variance does not grant the ability for future variances to be approved, specifically in regard to access, parking, private improvements in Planning and Community Development Staff Report Page 2-5

21 Village Green Highlands Addition to SS, Tract 3, 1235 Buckskin Drive, VAR BOA Hearing: 10/19/17 Project Planner: Toby Stauffer VI. the ROW, structure height, or height of walls in the front setback. Future development will need to comply with all CDC regulations. STAFF FINDING & CONDITIONS Staff finds this variance request to allow the proposed house to be 3 from the property line instead of 25 as required by the zone district, consistent with the required findings per Section of the City of Steamboat Springs Community Development Code and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Prior to building permit application submit drainage letter meeting city engineering standards for stormwater management and mitigation of increase in stormwater runoff. 2. Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall submit structural design of boulder walls shown to be constructed on fill which are on or adjacent to the Right of Way. The design shall include design of guards for pedestrians and vehicles. The walls will require engineering inspection during construction by a geotechnical engineer. 3. A revocable license is required for the boulder retaining walls located within the Right of Way. 4. Parking in front of the garage on Right of Way is prohibited. 5. Driveway width and grades are required to meet city engineering standards. VII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Applicant Narratives Attachment 2 Site Plans Planning and Community Development Staff Report Page 2-6

22 Attachment 1 Moon Hill Design, Inc. June 28, Ninth Street, Second Floor P.O. Box Steamboat Springs, CO Tyler Gibbs, Planning Director City of Steamboat Springs Department of Planning Services th St. Steamboat Springs, CO RE: Front Setback Variance Request and Application Curry Residence Thomas Wood (Land Owner/Applicant) 1235 Buckskin Drive-Lot 3, Village Green Highlands Steamboat Springs, CO Dear Board Of Adjustment Members: This subject site, was previously approved for a Front Setback Variance (see attached ) in 2007 for a single family residence as it was seen as beneficial to the site and project, as well as the surrounding properties. This approved project was not constructed for various reasons, and the owner/applicant held the property from that time for later development. This owner/applicant now has a new construction project opportunity, as a single family residence. This letter, along with the associated documents attached to this Front Setback Variance submittal, were prepared in order for the property owner/applicant to gain approval of this setback variance request. The criteria associated with this request, along with the support documentation is intended to illustrate the challenges particular to this site, as well as the benefits and development relief that will be realized with this setback variance. Site/project development and variance request criteria is defined as follows below: Legal Use: Lot 3, Village Green Highlands, is a legal lot, in a legal subdivision within the city of Steamboat Springs, zoned RE-2. The applicant is proposing a Single Family Residence, conforming with the RE-2 zoning criteria. Balanced Opportunity: The granting of this variance will not provide any special privileges to the applicant. Lot 3 is an excessively steep site, requiring this proposed structure to be moved up hill, and closer to the front property line in order to allow proper access. This setback variance request will create a site that is reasonable to build upon. There are existing non-conforming to CDC design criteria retaining walls associated with the adjacent property/homes that the applicant would prefer to avoid. Hardship: Lot 3, Village Green Highlands is an excessively steep site, as shown in the attached site/grading survey and building/site cross sections. This lot also has a minimal amount of road frontage (side to side) which creates very limited areas to construct adequate retaining for the driveway and building access. To comply with CDC design criteria for this zone district, would force an excessively steep and negatively sloped driveway. The proposed preliminary design provided by Moon Hill Design, Inc., illustrates that with this setback relief, the structure can be positioned with a tremendous amount of fill and retaining structures avoided. Moving this structure down hill /-, will force excessive structural retaining walls and fill. Constructing these structural retaining walls and associated fill per CDC design standards would be prohibitive. Phone Fax

23 Hardship Not Self-Imposed: The Spyglass Development Corporation platted and legally subdivided Lot 3 in 1970 as a buildable parcel in the town of Steamboat Springs. The applicant believes the existing topography of this lot results a need for this variance to create a viable building lot. Mitigation of Injury to Adjoining Properties: The applicant believes the visual impacts avoided without creating massive retaining structures will be substantial, softening the views of this proposed structure from street level. Automobile back-out onto Buckskin Drive will also provide a much safer traffic pattern, than home owners attempting to back out of a garage, on an uphill driveway. Minimum Relief: The applicant has previously worked closely with City Public Works and Planning Department Associates assuring that this variance request is the least amount of CDC modification possible to create a neighborhood compatible project. The applicant has previously constructed a home on the west adjoining lot, providing him with first hand knowledge and perspective on what minimum reliefs would be most beneficial to the project and neighborhood. In addition, other residences in this subdivision have been granted variances of greater CDC modifications than what the applicant is requesting. No Increase in Non-Conformity: With this variance request, the applicant will not be expanding the scope of any other non-conforming criteria. Special Circumstances: The steep topography and narrow road frontage on Buckskin Drive is particular to this property. Granting this variance request will provide the applicant/owner the use rights and privileges permitted to the other properties in this subdivision. Consistency with the Community Development Plan: The applicant believes the granting of this variance request is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Community Development Plan, and will allow the applicant to utilize his property per the CDC plans and policies, and is his intent. Previous Variances Granted: The applicant is wholly aware, that the granting of variances previously by his surrounding property owners, is not an assurance of approval of this variance request. However, the granting of these previous variances, does indicate a need for hardship relief, due to the steepness of the lots in this subdivision. Summary: Applicant Thomas Wood is seeking this front setback variance to Lot 3, Village Green Subdivision Highlands in order to construct this new home for his clients. The applicant has built, and lived previously in this subject neighborhood. Thomas has owned and operated Thomas Wood Handcrafted Log Homes, Inc. for more than 20 years, as a reputable general contracting firm. All surveying, design and engineering has been provided by established local design professionals and stays in close working contact with City Public Works and Planning Associates. Thomas has explored with these design professionals all other options for accessing this site relative to the steep existing topography conditions and narrow road frontage. He has discussed with his neighboring property owners their experience with these site conditions, and what led them to seek similar variances. The applicant feels that through all of this extensive and varied experience working with these specific site conditions, as well as observations of the construction of other houses in this neighborhood, warrants approval of this setback variance request and compliance with the intent zoning criteria of the CDC. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Please contact me with any questions/concerns regarding this matter; Sincerely; Matthew J. Wagar, Principal Owner Moon Hill Design, Inc.

24 Attachment 2

25

26

27

28

29

30 Board of Adjustment Minutes September 21, 2017 FINAL MINUTES STEAMBOAT SPRINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Meeting MINUTES September 21, 2017 The special meeting of the Steamboat Springs Board of Adjustment was called to order at approximately 5:22 p.m. on Thursday, September 21, 2017, in the Crawford Room, Centennial Hall, th Street, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Board of Adjustment members in attendance were: Jim Moylan, Tom Effinger Jr. and Theo Dexter. Absent: Rhode, Arnold, Levine Staff members present were Code Enforcement Officer Barb Wheeler and Planning Director Tyler Gibbs. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. #1: VAR-17-06, Sign Code Variance, 2220 Curve Plaza Board Member Ryan Spaustat recused himself from this item. STAFF PRESENTATION Barb Wheeler: This variance action came around due to a code enforcement action regarding a sign that McPherson has put up on the Mountain Valley Bank property at 2220 Curve Court. I asked them to remove their windbreak which had the signage on it; they did. They asked if there was a variance process they could go through, and I said yes there is. So that brings us here tonight. Mountain Valley Bank is building a new building on the corner of Highway 40 and Curve Plaza at 2220 Curve Court directly north of their current location. McPherson Contractors is the general contractor for this project; they re also the applicant for this variance. This would be a temporary situation, at a highly visible construction site, during construction of the new bank. The wind screen would be removed at the earliest possible opportunity, no more than two years. Planning Staff does not support this variance application and feels that the allowed three construction signs per the Sign Code would be sufficient for this site. It would be a variance against Section (2), which requires construction signs need to be permitted; the maximum signage allowed is 30 square feet per sign. They re allowed to have one on each frontage, so they could have one on Curve Plaza, Shield Drive and Highway 40. Construction signs are good for up to two years; the first one is six months 1

31 Board of Adjustment Minutes September 21, 2017 FINAL MINUTES and they can be renewed for up to three times after that. They re not allowed after the site has been approved; they need to be taken down at that time. They re asking for additional square footage exceeding what would typically be allowed for a construction sign on that site. Wheeler confirmed that the windscreen would not be on the Curve Court side. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Scott Parks, McPherson Construction: We ve got this win screen/construction screen, and I m lobbying that it s really not a sign as much as it is a buffer between the construction site and traffic and just helps give a professional site; clean it up; dust mitigation. That said, I did visit all of my neighbors in Curve Plaza: Ace, hair salon, Laundromat, autism storefront, flooring shop, and the bank, which also got billing on this screen. I ve got letters from them here saying they liked it better with the screen up and felt like it was doing no harm but there was a benefit. I view it as not a marketing tool and therefore not really a sign. There are no phone numbers, addresses or anything of that nature. Our construction site is going to be a two-story building that has a parapet for a flat roof. It s going to have a solar array, so there s a reasonable parapet height to hide that as well. There will be scaffolding and plastic to combat winter conditions and stuff like that. The screening will just help all that from being quite as visible to the public. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS Moylan reminded the applicant that since there were only three board members in attendance, all three would need to vote in favor of the application for it to be approved. The applicant elected to proceed. Effinger confirmed that they would also have an advertising sign. Parks said that if he had to choose one or the other, he would take down the advertising sign because the site is going to benefit from the construction screen. Dexter and Effinger liked the idea of screening. Dexter: In my mind this is advertising even if it isn t direct marketing. You see many people that have names on their trucks but no phone number. Just because it s not direct marketing with contact, in my mind it is a sign because it does portray two particular logos. Being that they are logos associated with the property, I think they do qualify as a sign because they do advertise to businesses doing business right there at the time. If you were to turn the signs inside out, they would still be completely good for screening, but they wouldn t be in violation of the sign code. Would that be something that you would consider? 2

32 Board of Adjustment Minutes September 21, 2017 FINAL MINUTES Parks said it would be something he would do if it would get him a yay vote. Parks: Would we be able to go back to our one 30 square foot marketing sign if we flipped the wind screen? Dexter: You wouldn t have signs if people couldn t read them. Parks: I think if McPherson goes down this road where we re building in a visible area where there s a need for a fence I think the site warrants a fence, and the screen is a logical addition to the fencing. But when we did the Reserves project, it was enough removed from the street that we didn t put up a screen or a fence. In the future, I think the lesson has been learned from my perspective as the representative for McPherson in the Steamboat marketplace is that we come to you guys and we get to this meeting on the front side. What is allowable? What can we do? Is there a screen past plain green? Effinger worried that an inside-out sign might attract more attention from drivers. Moylan asked staff if they would support reversing the screen. Tyler Gibbs: The issue isn t the screen. I think it provides a valuable benefit to the site management, as you ve said. The objection is that we believe this is a sign, and we re just responding to this the way we have many other construction sites that the 30-foot sign is what s allowed. Many other projects have complied with that, and this needs to comply as well. I think it s an interesting idea to flip it; I imagine you ll probably see some sense that there s something on the other side. I think in the effort to maintain the value of the screen itself of controlling dust and trash and visibility and so forth, that may be a good compromise in this case just to flip it. Dexter suggested keeping the screen as is but using a spray paint designed to bond to plastic to paint over the logos. Effinger suggested doing the Highway 40 and Shield Drive sides reversed and doing the parking lot side regular. Gibbs: It s all the same issue, though. Effinger: The variance we re granting would be much less. Gibbs: But they still are going to put up the 30-foot signs one on each frontage. Moylan reminded that the Board s job is not to negotiate a compromise. Effinger and Dexter said they could not support the variance request the way it is. Parks asked if he would be able to meet with Planning if the variance request was denied; Gibbs said yes. 3

33 Board of Adjustment Minutes September 21, 2017 FINAL MINUTES Gibbs suggested the screen be reversed with the three allowed 30-square foot signs on the outside. Parks requested that the variance request be tabled while an acceptable solution is negotiated. BOARD MEMBER DELIBERATION/MOTION Board Member Effinger moved to table Var Board Member Dexter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes: April 20, 2017 Board Member Effinger moved to approve the April 20, 2017 meeting minutes with Moylan s comments; Board Member Dexter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Board Member Effinger moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 5:51 p.m. Board Member Dexter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 4