The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutZBAP 2005-04-26TOWN OF FRASE "Icebox of the Nation" �. Q P.O. Box 1201 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 P: (970) 726-5491 F: (970) 726-5518 fraser @ town.fraser.co. us Town of Fraser Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Agenda Town Hall, 153 Fraser Ave Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:00 p.m. Roll Call Approval of Minutes from the March 22, 2005 meeting Public Hearing and Action Item Height Variance Request from 35' to 43, Applicant - SRO Adjournment PUBLIC TUE SDAY, APRIL (0 (0 ' Fred Simmons has requested a public hearing in order for the Board of Adjustment to consider granting a height variance for a proposed two-story multi -tenant retail/office building on Lot 3 Safeway Marketplace. Fred Simmons has presented a narrative which details the variance request. Fred Simmons has submitted a development permit, in accordance with the business zone regulations, to the Town for this proposed development. The Planning Commission approved the development permit with approximately ten conditions. One of the conditions of approval is that the height variance be approved by the Board of Adjustment. To reiterate, the Zoning Ordinance provides the following criteria for consideration of variances: 1. That the situation is reasonably necessary for the welfare or convenience of the public. 2. The variance can not authorize a variance from the permitted uses within a zoning district. 3. That an unnecessary hardship to the owner would otherwise occur. 4. That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not created by the owner, or were in existence prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. That the variance would not injure the value, use of, or prevent proper access of lighted air to adjacent properties. 6. That the variance would not be out of harmony with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The Town Board did review this variance request on April 20th, 2005 per our regulations. The Board made a motion to recommend approval of this height variance. Please be advised that in the recent past the Pinnacle Lodge received a height variance from the Board of Adjustment. The maximum height of that building is 42'. On the proposed building, it is mainly architectural features that exceed the 35' building height. Staff is recommending approval of this height variance. Please call me with comments and/or questions. FRASER ZONING F ADJUSTMENT MINUTES ATE® Wednesday, March 22, 2005 LAC a Town Hall Board Room PRESENT Board: Chairperson Debbie Knutson and Members: Karen Frye, Jim Holahan, Doug Laraby and Steve Sumrall Staff: Town Planner Catherine Trotter, Town Manager Jeff Durbin, and Town Clerk Molly McCandless Others: Dean Cinocco and Parnell Quinn Chair Knutson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Holahan moved, and Mr. Laraby seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the July 13 and July 27, 2005 meetings. Motion carried: 5-0 Public Hearing and Action Itent Whispering Pines I TownhOmes - Ermine Lane, Ptarm — Variance from setback requirements i9l Mr. Sumrall moved, and Mr. Holahan, seconded the motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion carried: 5-0. Planner Trotter stated that the Notice of Hearing was published, adjacent property owners had been notified by the Applicant, and the Fraser Board of Trustees had submitted an opinion (approval) on this matter, as required. Applicant Dean Cinocco presented his request. The ZBA reviewed the matter at length; there was no public comment. Mr. Sumrall moved, and Ms. Frye seconded the motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried: 5-0 Mr. Laraby moved, and Mr. Holahan seconded the motion that the application meets the majority of the criteria for consideration of variance, and to approve a variance of 9/ 10 of a foot in the front and 1 and Y2 feet on the right side, with the following condition: the utility easement in front is to be clarified with the utility companies and officially minimized or removed. Motion carried: 5-0 Chair Knutson asked for items not on the agenda. There were none. Mr. Sumrall moved, and Mr. Laraby seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion carried: 5-0, at 7:52 p.m. Molly Mc Bless, Town Clerk WYATT & ASSOCIATES, PC. ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS March 31, 2005 Town of Fraser Planning Department 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 8o442 Attn: Ms. Catherine Trotter RE. LOT 3, SAFEWAY MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER VARIANCE REQUEST FOR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Dear Catherine, As you know Wyatt & Associates is assisting SRO Properties with a Development Permit application for a proposed two story multi -use building (retail / office) located on Lot 3 of the existing Safeway Shopping Center. As we have progressed through the Development Permit approval process we have attended several working sessions with the Town Staff as well as a Design Charette on January 12th in which many members of the local development community were invited to attend. At the charette, the developer presented proposed elevations that were generally liked by the attendees. Minor modifications to the elevations have been made to adapt the building to the specific site location as well as utilize materials that fit within the community. Based on the market demand for a building of this type and in this prime location coupled with the desired architectural features adorning the elevations the building exceeds the allowable building height for the B — Business District. This letter is serving as the written narrative for a Variance Application to the maximum building height of 35 feet as listed under section 13-3-8, under section 8, item 4 HEIGHT. Per section 13-10-4, Item 2 — Variances: "The Board of Zoning Adjustment shall have the power to grant variances from the provisions of this Ordinance; but only after consideration of the following provisions:" (a) "That satisfactoryproofhas been presented to the Board showing that the present or proposed situation of requested building, structure, or use is reasonably necessaryfor the convenience or welfare ofthe public" RESPONSE: The requested maximum height of this building is 43'-8", or 8'-8" above the listed maximum height for the B Zone District. This increased height is "reasonably necessary" to satisfy the desired look of the building while meeting the developers desires for available leaseable space within the building. It was clearly expressed at the Design Charette and in meetings with the Town Staff that a duplication of the Safeway building design was not a desired look for the buildings adjacent to the pond (Lots 3 & 4). Therefore, by incorporating peaked 1865 so. pearl st„ denver, colorado 80210 (303) 698-1717 fax (303) 778-6004 roof elements as opposed to a flat roof, the maximum building height has been exceeded. (b) "That the variance which is requested would not authorize any use other than uses enumerated as a use byright of the district. " RESPONSE: The proposed variance request deals with the proposed maximum building height only. The proposed building use falls clearly within the allowed uses for the B — District. The developers are not requesting any use other than what is currently allowed. (c) "That an unnecessaryhardship to the owner would be shown to occurif the provisions of the Ordinance were hterally followed" RESPONSE: The effort to achieve the same desired look that was expressed at the Design Charette would be extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve on a two story building while maintaining a 35 foot maximum building height. The hardship would occur not only with the extra -ordinary construction techniques but also with the potential loss of lease -able area for the building that would be substituted for architectural feature elements on the exterior of the building. These elements are allowed to be incorporated into standard design and construction techniques with the increased height of the structure (as porposed). (d) "That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship either were not created by the owner, or were inexistence at the time ofthe passage of this Ordinance, and cannot be reasonably corrected. " RESPONSE: The hardship as described in (c) above was a product of many conversations between the developer, the design team, the Town of Fraser Staff and the development community input (Design Charette) to achieve a design that everyone will be satisfied with for many years to come. The hardship is certainly not a decision solely of the ownership group itself. (e) "That the variance would not injure the value, use of, orprevent the proper access orlighted air to the adjacent properties " RESPONSE: I believe that the build -out of this parcel has been eagerly anticipated since the completion of the Safeway building several years ago. This lot is a commercial property and its construction would increase the overall value and usability of the Safeway center. The proposed building height, albeit taller than the allowed height, does not conflict with or is not out -of -scale with the adjacent Safeway building whose maximum height is approximately 34 feet. Additionally, the proposed building elevations only exceed the maximum building height in a couple featured areas. The majority of the roofline for the building is at or below the allowed height. (1) "That the variance would not be out ofharmony with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. " RESPONSE: This intent of this Ordinance is to provide the outline for an organized community. From establishing zoning boundaries to providing an enforceable process for development this Ordinance has set a standard that all proposed developments must adhere to, including a process for variance requests. This request, as stated before, is a direct result of continued and successful working session meetings between the Town of Fraser Staff, the developer, the design team and the local development community. The request is a consequence of a higher level of architecture that can only be achieved through the variance request process. The intent of the Ordinance is to provide a community with visually interesting buildings that blend with the local community. This is the exact theme that has been incorporated into the design for the proposed building on Lot 3. For reference a building elevation has been provided that has been modified from the proposed design to meet the 35 foot building height limit. As you can see the ornamentation and feature elements have been compromised to such an extent that their appearance is no longer that of what was intended. The flatter roof slopes on the peaks no longer give the building a mountain location look. Please review this request thoroughly and completely and feel free to contact myself with any questions or comments you may have. Regards, Jeff Anderson Wyatt & Associates, P.C. O v cn D 3 O (D O lD n r N W V O r X w M a 0 D Ln c a o. F w N O O r r N D 3 0 m CD 0 0 w C O O