HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-12-06Prepared: October 25, 2016
* Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
9:00 a.m. — Town Hall Board Room
1. OPEN MEETING & INTRODUCE MEMBERS
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated November 1, 2016
4. LOT 1A, BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS; 915 MORAINE AVENUE; SUNDECK
RESTAURANT LOT
Owner: Flatirons Hospitality, LLC c/o Sean Keating
Applicant: Flatirons Hospitality, LLC do Sean Keating
Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-5, which requires a minimum
lot size of 40,000 square feet for all lots in the CO-Commercial Outlying
that front an arterial. Request to allow a lot ize of 14,591 square feet to
bring this lot and the adjacent lot more into compliance with the existing
built environment.
Staff: Audem Gonzales
5. LOT 1, LAKE ESTES ADDITION; 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE; ESTES PARK
RESORT
Owner: Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC do Patrick Sullivan
Applicant: Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC do Patrick Sullivan
Request: Variance from EVDC 7.6.E.2.b, which requires all buildings, accessory
structures, and parking lots to be set back at least 50 feet from the
delineated edge of a wetland. Request to alow a 25-foot wetland setback
for construction of a proposed townhome development consisting of 21
2-unit buildings, for a total of 42 units.
Staff: Audem Gonzales
6. REPORTS
A. Estes Park Board of Appeals meeting on building codes as they relate to vacation
rentals; November 3, 2016, 4 to 6 p.m., Town Hall Board Room
B. Joint Meeting — Town Board and County Commission; December 15, 2016, 6 p.m.
to discuss vacation rentals.
C. Other
7. ADJOURNMENT
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
November 1, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair John Lunch, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith,
Jeff Moreau, Rex Poggenpohl
Attending: Members Lynch, Smith, Moreau, and Poggenpohl
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem
Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member Newsom
Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were three people in
attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes dated October 4, 2016.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the minutes as presented
and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent.
3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL; 3542 ASPEN VALLEY ROAD; YOUNG RESIDENCE
VARIANCE
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance from Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires 50-foot setbacks
on all sides in the RE-1—Rural Estate zone district. The request is to allow a 21.8 foot front
setback for construction of a proposed attached garage. The existing dwelling was built in
the 1980s, is located near the south central part of the lot, and encroaches a small
amount into the setback. At the time it was built, it was in compliance with the zone district
standards.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No significant
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
November 1, 2016
agency comments were received. One comment was received from an adjacent property
owner, who had no opposition to the proposed variance.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found the lot size of 2.7 acres is substantially undersized for the 10-
acre minimum lot size for the RE-1 zone district. The reason for the
proposed garage location is to avoid steep grades to the east and west.
Because the existing home entrance faces west, the applicant states having
the garage on the west side would affect the main entrance and not be
practical. Staff found the proposed location was feasible and practical, as
was the area directly east of the home. Staff determined the slope was not
excessive enough to deter development.
2. In determining "practical difficulty":
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found the existing home and garage could be used without adding an
addition to the building. While it may not be practical to expand towards the
west, the east side of the home offers a practical location which may require a
variance but to a much lesser degree than the proposed location.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the variance request is not substantial in regards to the physical
location of the addition. The deviation from Code standards would be 43%
deviation, which would be substantial.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
Staff found the single-family character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment.
Staff found all adjacent properties have homes and small structures built
outside the specific zone district setbacks. The subject property is the only one
with an existing building located within the setback.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public
services such as water and sewer
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff found the applicant purchased the property in the 1980s when it was zone
E-Estate. The RE-1 zone district setback requirements were not in effect until
2000.
f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
3
November 1, 2016
A Variance is the only method available to mitigate this predicament. Staff feels
an alternative location may be achieved, whether that be with an attached
addition or detached structure.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting
the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations.
Staff found conditions of this application are general in nature. While the slope to
the west drops off significantly, there is an area to the east that could be
developed.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the
number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable
zone district regulations.
No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance
request.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff found the new addition aims to make a practical decision in the
placement of the building, but staff feels there are additional locations that
could potentially require less of a variance or no variance at all. This
variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief
for the proposal, but other options seem to exist.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this
Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff is not recommending approval; therefore, no conditions are recommended at
this time.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended disapproval. There is a deck on the east
side that may need to be altered, and exploring another location would take more thought
and design work, but an alternate location on the east side may or may not require a
variance. Staff determined there are other locations on the site are buildable.
Staff recommended denial, so no conditions would apply.
Staff and Member Discussion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
4
November 1, 2016
Comments included but were not limited to: the setbacks were 30 feet when the home
was built; the nearest neighbor is 600 feet away; disagreement with staff that the east
side was buildable; there is room on the west side; the existing garage could be expanded
to accommodate the concerns of the owner without having to do such a large addition;
concern that the addition may contain an area for accommodations; a detached garage
could be built on the level area in front of the house; the proposed encroachment would
be approximately nine feet into the setback if the previous 30-foot setback was still in
effect.
Public Comment
Steve Lane/applicant representative stated the roof of the proposed garage may slightly
impede on the second-floor windows. Attic space is planned for above the proposed
garage. For the size of the vehicles the property owner wants to store in the garage, and
being able to provide adequate access, the proposed location was the most practical. He
stated there is no visual impact to any adjacent property owners. The current property
owner tried to buy additional property to square off the lot, but they were unable to close
the deal. The existing garage will be incorporated into the new garage, and no additional
water service is planned.
Peggy Young/applicant stated the water storage tank is on east side, making construction
in that area not feasible.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Member Discussion
None
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request, adding
a requirement for a registered land surveyor to submit a setback certificate prior to
pouring the foundation and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent.
4. LOT 10, MOUNT VIEW PARK, AND THE EAST PORTIONS OF METES & BOUNDS
PARCELS 2, 3, & 4, IMMEDIATELY WST OF LOT 10, MOUNT VIEW PARK: 819 BIG
HORN DRIVE; HARMONY FOUNDATION VARIANCE
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance to EVDC
Section 4.3, table 4-2 to allow two newly-created lots to be 0.74 acres and 0.51 acres in
size, in lieu of the one-acre minimum lot size required in the E-1—Estate zone district. The
variance is the first part of a larger package that includes a Resubdivision and Annexation
into town limits. Planner Gonzales stated a portion of the subject area is in town limits,
and a portion is outside the town limits. The property was illegally subdivided many years
ago, and current owner wants to get the plat record cleaned up. The existing dwelling was
built over the illegal lots, and it also straddles the Town/County border. The
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
5
November 1, 2016
Resubdivision application proposes creating four legal lots from the illegal lots; however,
the new configuration would make proposed Lots 3 and 4 undersized for the E-1 zone
district. The existing illegal lots are across jurisdictional boundaries, and the proposed
new lots would clear up this issue. The proposed Lot 1 would change from an unbuildable
lot to a buildable one, which could create some new development.
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No significant
agency comments were received. No neighbor comments were received.
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
Staff found there are currently six illegally subdivided parcels, and one
existing building straddles two parcels and also the Town/County
jurisdictional boundary. A proposed Resubdivision will create four legally
non-conforming lots, two of which will be undersized for the zone district,
which is the reason for the variance request. Staff found the current zone
district is not aligned with the size of the lots in this area, which poses some
difficulty with developing the sites.
2. In determining "practical difficulty":
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff found there are cross jurisdictional boundaries in this area. Because the
existing Harmony Foundation building is located within two jurisdictions, making
repairs and maintenance extremely difficult. A non-conforming building may not
expand or be altered in a way that extends the non-conformity. Staff found it
impractical to continue in this situation.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff found the variance request is substantial, with proposed Lot 4
representing a 16% variance and proposed Lot 5 a 42% variance. The end
result of the two applications remedies several problems that the Board of
Adjustment should weigh into their decision: (1) illegal subdivisions are being
remedied by resubdividing and platting area; and (2) cross jurisdictional
problems are being fixed with the Resubdivision and one lot is increasing in
size and moving towards conformance with the one-acre minimum lot size.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
Staff found the single-family character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered. Granting the variance allows a complicated land use issue
to be resolved.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
November 1, 2016
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public
services such as water and sewer.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff found the applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of lot size
and setbacks. This situation is very uncommon in the Estes Valley.
f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
A Variance is the only method available to accomplish the proposed lot
arrangement. An alternative to remedy the multiple lot lines that cross the
Harmony Foundation building would be to grant several easements across the
parcels. However, if that method was chosen, the illegal non-conforming
parcels would remain as such.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting
the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make
reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions
or situations.
Staff found conditions of this application are very unique and are not common in
the Estes Valley. Rarely are there situations in which three parcel lines cross over
one building and two jurisdictions.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or
proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the
number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable
zone district regulations.
Staff found there are currently five legally non-conforming parcels subject to the
Resubdivision plat. The end result will be four legal lots. The Variance and
Resubdivision applications are decreasing the number of total lots.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff found the variance will represent the least deviation from the Code.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this
Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its
independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff is not recommending any conditions at this time.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7
November 1, 2016
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated following review of the Resubdivision's preliminary plat, there
are other structures that cross property lines. Easements will be required for these
structures to remain.
Member Poggenpohl stated there was a stairway that seemed to be located across two
property lines, one of which was a parcel not subject to the Resubdivision. He suggested
adding a condition of approval requesting removal of that staircase, as it appeared to be
non-essential. Director Hunt stated rather than make the removal of the staircase a
condition of the variance approval, it would be more appropriate for staff to pass the
suggestion on to any future boards hearing applications related to this property. For the
record, Member Poggenpohl found those issues and requested resolution during future
hearings regarding this property.
Public Comment
Joe Coop/applicant representative stated this has been a very difficult project. The
property was donated to the Harmony Foundation from the Kingstone Foundation, and
the issues were known at the time of purchase. The access and utility easement will
continue through the property, as it serves the property to the north.
It was moved and second (Poggenpohl/Moreau) to approve the variance request with
the findings and conditions as presented by staff and the motion passed 4-0 with
one absent.
5. REPORTS
Director Hunt reported training for Board of Adjustment members will be provided after the
first of the year. Member Poggenpohl stated he realized staff currently has a heavy
workload, and he was in favor of delaying the training opportunities.
There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
John Lynch, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
915 Moraine Ave. — Lot Size Variance
Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division
Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org IP
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE & LOCATION: December 6, 2016, 9:00AM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170
MacGregor Avenue
APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) Section 4.3.C.4 Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential
Zoning Districts. The variance would allow a newly created lot to be 14,591 SF in size in
lieu of the 40,000 SF required minimum lot size in the CO (Commercial Outlying) zone
district.
The purpose of the variance is to amend the plat to remove an internal lot line from passing
directly through a built structure.
Staff recommends approval.
LOCATION: 915 Moraine Ave., within the Town of Estes Park
VICINITY MAP: See attachment
APPLICANT/OWNER: Flatirons Hospitality, LLC / same as applicant
STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow a newly created lot to
be 14,591 SF in size in lieu of the 40,000 SF required minimum lot size in the CO (Commercial
Outlying) zone district. Currently, the lot is approximately 22,639 SF in size which is legally non-
conforming for this zone district. CO lots that front Arterial streets are required to be a minimum
of 40,000 SF in size. The subject lot is developed with the Sundeck Restaurant and half of a
building belonging to the Alpine Trail Ridge Inn.
This Variance application is one of three applications running concurrently for this area. An
Amended Plat application and Re-zoning application have also been submitted. The Amended
Plat aims at cleaning up the area by re-platting the existing six non-conforming lots into two legal
lots. The existing lots cross through multiple buildings which creates difficulty when re-developing
property. The boundary adjustment for the subject lot also entails a re-zone. The Alpine Trail
Ridge building would be split zoned A and CO. The re-zone will appropriately zone the entire west
lot to A-Accommodations if approved.
Of the two resulting lots, the eastern lot (subject lot) will decrease in size from approximately
22,639 SF to 14,591 SF. The property boundaries will no longer cross through the Alpine Ridge
Inn building. The proposed decrease below the minimum SF requirement has prompted the need
for a Variance.
REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all
applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application.
REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to surrounding property owners. A legal notice
was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department "Current
Applications" webpage. The site has been posted with a "variance pending" sign.
Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and
comment. No major comments or concerns were received.
Public Comments. Staff has received no written public comment in regards to this application.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions,
narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or
buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this
Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or
impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The property is zoned CO
(Commercial Outlying) which
requires a minimum lot size
of 40,000 SF because it is
fronting an Arterial street
(Moraine Ave). Currently,
there are six legally non-
conforming lots in the area.
See Figure 1. The Amended
Plat application proposes to
adjust boundary lines with an
end result being two legal Figure I: Six separate lots cross over e.vsting buildings. SteNect propcol
located at eastern end of area.
lots. See Preliminary Plat
map. The existing boundary
lines cross through multiple buildings and create challenges with building setbacks and
permitting. The goal for this area is to clean up the lot lines.
A Variance is needed to reduce the minimum lot size requirement from 40,000 SF to the
proposed 14,591 SF. A Variance is the only mechanism to achieve this.
Reducing a lot size has its downfalls such as limiting future development and potential
setback issues, but it also has its benefits, especially for a situation like this. Having
property lines cross through a building is very challenging when trying to re-develop a site.
Building setbacks are measured from every platted lot line. Any addition to a building
would require a Variance to the setback.
915 Moraine Ave. — Lot Size Variance Page 2 of 5
Staff finds that the unusual triangular shape of the lot and unique situation of property lines
crossing through a building pose a tremendous hindrance to re-development. Staff fully
supports cleaning up the land-use dysfunctionality in this area and recommends approval
of the requested Variance.
2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff Finding:
The property can remain with its current configuration of lots. This would mean that any
future building permit for any building with a property line running through it would need to
seek a Variance to setback requirements. Also, lots could not be individually sold off to a
separate owner if a building straddles two separate lots. The Amended Plat aims at
cleaning up this entire area by creating two legal lots with no property lines crossing
through a building.
It is not practical in any way to continue with this situation. The Amended Plat is the best
course of action to remedy the problems. The end result will be one undersized lot, but
this lot will have the ability to re-develop and be under a separate owner.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding:
Staff does not find this request to be substantial considering the situation. The goal is to
bring the area closer to conformance.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or
whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the
variance;
Staff Finding:
The property is already built out. Reducing the lot size has zero impact on the
neighborhood.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water
and sewer.
Staff Finding:
Approval would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. The
Amended Plat process will require easements for mains and service lines crossing
property boundaries.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
Staff Finding:
It is unclear whether the applicant purchased the property knowing that it was six separate
lots, each with setback and lot size requirements. It is unlikely any owner would have
known that reducing a lot size would require a Variance.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
915 Moraine Ave. — Lot Size Variance Page 3 of 5
Staff Finding:
Adjusting the property boundary to remove the internal lot line from the building requires
a Variance. That is the only option in order to create a separate lot for the Sundeck
Restaurant. The entire area could be contained within one lot but that would mean that
the restaurant and motel uses could not be separately owned.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable
the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions of situations.
Staff Finding:
It is common to find non-conforming lots in the Estes Valley but it is uncommon to find
property boundaries crossing through a building, especially with two different zone
districts.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed
subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise
permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations.
Staff Finding:
The project area is going from six lots to two. The entire project is aiming at reducing non-
conformities and to clean up the area.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
Staff Finding:
This variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the
proposal but other options do exist. They involve creating one single lot for the entire area.
This would require a re-zoning and would rationalize the two businesses in one ownership.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use
expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district
containing the property for which the variance is sought.
Staff Finding:
The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent
judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified.
Staff Finding:
Staff is not recommending any conditions at this time. Any easements, access
agreements, etc. will be addressed through the Amended Plat and Re-zoning process.
915 Moraine Ave. — Lot Size Variance Page 4 of 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested lot size variance
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
I move to APPROVE the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law,
with findings recommended by staff.
I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Application
4. Preliminary Amended Plat
5. Final Amended Plat
915 Moraine Ave. — Lot Size Variance Page 5 of 5
Hen
a
fte 4IF 1*
aP ti
Vicinity Map
Project Name: Printed: 12/1/2016
Created By: Audem Gonzales A
Project Description:
0 80 160
Feet
4
[P
Town of Estes Park
immunity Development
Vicinity Map
915 Moraine Ave. Variance
Sundeck Restaurant
Variance * 100 SF minimum lot size
Flatirons Hospitality, LLC Petitioner(s): ESTES PARK
COLORADO
1 in = 167 ft
FOUND
ALUMIN
FOUND f4 REBAN
$12-43 38 31.06
(512'42'00"E 31_6(1
SCALE:
I
00100E10
VIAL
KING
OFFLITIE
FoINT NoluNTs
PRELIMINARY AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 - 4 , 11 AND 12
BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS
LOCATED IN THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION
35, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,
ESTES PARK, COLORADO
1, BEARINGS SHOWN OM THIS PLAT ARE RELICT& TO, AND BASED ON, THE ASSUMPTION TROT THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTNNEST
11. OF SECTION 35, TOWNSP1P 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST Of THE 6TH P.M. GEARS SEI9..34'001. SAID LINE IS MONUMENTED AS
SHOWN HEREON.
2. OWNERSHIP RESEARCH FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS PERFORMED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN ESCROW A TITLE CO, INC
NO INTERNAL EASEMENT RESEARCH WAS PERFORMED NOR IS SHOWN HEREON.
3. THE PARKING LOTS SHOWN ROE MOSTLY PAVED ASPHALT, THERE ARE ALSO SOME PANNING AiTE45 IN GRAVELED AREAS. THESE
HAVE BEEN SHOWN GRAPINCALLy ON THIS PLAT. BUT THEY ARE APPROXIMATE IN MATURE, AS THE STRIPING IS PAINTED ON GRAIL
MID NOT UNIFORM.
4. POR51100 IS SHARED AND WILL REMAIN SO *TN THIS PLAT PER SHARED PARR.NG AGREEMENT AT REC. NO LE.E.
5- NO EXISTING BURIED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON TWS PLAT_
5 11.1ILDINGS ANT ImPROvFmENTs SHOWN WEST OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE M1EFECT PROPERTY WERE LOCATED DOSING A
PREVIOUS VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURYETING, INC. SURVEY (PROJECT #2006-06-13).
7. NOT ALL INTERNAL LANDSCAPING IS SHOWN HEREON.
5. NOTICE, ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE MIS LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY
WITHIN TWEE YEARS AFTER YOU HEST DISCOVER SUCH DETECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DETECT IN IRIS
SURVEY GE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN TEARS FROM THE CERIIIHEATION SHOWN HEREON.
BRASS CAP SET IN CONCRETE,
RIS #6499; NORTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 35
NORTH 1/4 CORNER
OF SECTION 35.
FOUND 2 1/2-
U.S.OL0. BRASS
CAP ON A 2" PIPE,
STAMPED 1925
NIGH DRIVE
0 30 60 BC
SCALE: . 301
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
LOT 1. 2. 3. 4. it AND 12. BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS. A SUDemSioN LOCATED A SUREN14510N LOCATED IN THE
N fl OF THE MY /4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHiP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 0TH P.M.. COUNT, OF
LARIMER. STATE OF COLORADO
LLUAL DESCRIPTION [PER TITLE COMMITMENT RM3S77-161
BASIS OF BEAR0405
(58003400-E 2664_68')
569'34'00"E 2681.72'
'&B24.S 0
E it
MM
/
(PAVED) 60' RIGHT-OF-WA )
(I 1 7.34')
FENCE CORNER 1(105.21')
2.2' °FEVRE AA 24.6' 11'3' 131.6!
iA
17 1 41,2
178' vat 9o. "6
Sr, STA
0 FOUNDATION)
WALL IS
III L1NC CORNER
6. o_6. OFFLINE
7 -- FOUND
‘7170
10'. I PLS ND( 260'74 5E143t ICE 424.ALL . L.
ALPINE TRAIL RIDGE IN F
827 MORAINE AVE PARKING (S83"2,3'£)
nrm W/ i• PLASTI
P1,5 NO. 26024
COMBINED ARZAI or Mien. Mien. 01.:(11.0
it 4. Li.
tll4LE4
03.114 SF OR
36-6'
11.6 OFFLIN
t--
R‘,41.1 IS 110.0 OFFLINE
To 8 DINT 0
A 94 Am 226.28
OF FENiE
o
iS OF
lA
14.593 S.F.
.,..:.•Ki-0.11:12 -A-CR
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
POST
31.71113Ectr RESTAURANT
015 MORAINE AVE
• SINGI L 110110
• 05or 10 r
i1
HISTORIC LINES ES
PEN• ED BY 11.1.
IS PLAT) so,'
\ BEAVER FONT 0EI5015
AMENDED LOTS StIO
0,NCEPT NEST PO' 7 EA 5
211NED, ACOOMMODA CAM IA)
REBAR
W/ I T PLASTIC CAP
PLS NO. 26974
O
DECKING. RETAINING WALL
IS Ell' OFFLINE
‘..\\ G11-4, P‘.1
)3 5
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC METER
CAS METER
WATER METER
WATER VALVE
FIRE HYDRANT
SANITARY SUER MANHOLE
SEWER CLEANCTIN
HANDICAP PARKING SPACE
DRAWN DO:
LAJ Al,P TITLE COMMITMENT REVIEW NOTES:
ROOKY MOUNTAIN ESCROW II TITLE. ING:S. FILE N05. 17M3827-15. ISSUED JUNE 17, 2016 WAS USED FOR
OWNERSMP AND EASEMENT RESENACH. THE FOLLOWING ABBREVIATED LANE SURVEY RELATED EXCEPTIONS FROM
SCHEDULE 0-SECTION II (WITS A RESPONSE IN ITALICS) ARE NOTED BELOW
1. RIGHTS OR CLAMS OF PARSES IN POSSESSION NOT 55016.1 IN TOE PUBUG RECORDS.
2 EASEMENTS OR CLAIMS OF EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN IN ME PUBLIC RECORDS
3. DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN 0EILIN0W1 LINES, 514DR7ADE IN AREA. ENCROACHMENTS, AND ANY FACTS WHICH
A CORRECT SURVEY AND INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES WOOLS DISCLOSE AND WHICH ARE NOT SHOWS DV THE
PUMA RECORDS
15. DEFECTS. UENS. ENCUMBRANCES. ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MATTERS, IF ANY, CREATED, FIRST APPEARING IN
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR ATTACHING SUBSEOUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF BUT PROM TO THE DATE
THE PROPOSED INSURED ACODIRES VALUE OF RECORD THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON
COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT,
7 AU. NOTES, EASEMENTS AND RECITALS AS 015010500 ON THE HEAVER POINT HEIGHTS SLFEIDONSION RECORDED
AT RECEPTION MG 602499 MAX ARE NO NOTES RECARDINC EASEMENTS RECITALS OR RESTRICTIONS
ON 17110 PEAT
8. ALL NOTES EASEMENTS AND RECITALS AS OISCLOSEO OR THE BEAVER PONT HEIGHTS ADDITION RECORDED Al
RECEPTION NO. 20060056E41. THERE ARE NO NOTES REGARDING EASEMENTS RECITALS OR
RESTRICTIONS ON THIS PLAT.
B. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AN0 OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED UNDER 140 FINDINGS AND RULING
OF THE REFEREE AND DECREE OF THE WATER COURT RECORDED JANUARY 26. 1907 AT 57004 426_THIS
DOCUMENT oUTIJNES THE DECISION OP THE WATER COURT AS TO THE USE OF THE WELL (WHICH
WAS NOT POUND OR LOCATED POR THIS SURVEY EFFORT)
CHECKED
LAS
50'
10/20/10
SHEET
1
Mt&
FLATIRONS HOSPITALITY, LEG
PO. BOX 2959
CITES PARK, CO 00517
PREPARED HY.
VAN HORN ENG/SEEMS
A SURVEYING INC.
1040 FISH CREEN RD.
ESTES PARK. CO 005 7
(970) 556-9358 PROD. NO
1
2010-63-20
LEGEND
4- NJ04.107 MONUMENTATION
O FOUND MONLIMENTAITON (AS
DESCRIBED)
▪ SET fa ROWE WITH 1' DIAMETER
PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "VAN NORM
PLS 125974'
00.00 MEASURES OR CALCULATED
DIMENSIONS
(00.00) PLATTED DIMENSIONS (OR
CALCULATED FROM THE PLAT)
POWER POLE
LANDSCAPING LAMP POST
SUBJECT PROPERTY UNE
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY UNE
FORMER LOT LINE
(REMOVED BY THIS PLAT)
PROPOSED SEWER EASEMENT
BUILDING SETBACK
FENCE
TIMBER RUNNING WALL
TIMBER RUNNING ROLL
5 00 OF` P Fa
11O 510 N
s E 4."
-I029 FOUND #4 REBAR 01/
ALUMINUM CAP 103135
PPRTIFICATION OF OWNERSIIIP_A DEDICATIVI-
sHow ALL KR IT THFEL 1506ENIs THAT IRE usomsoNEL. Soma THE 001859) OF LOT I. 3.
3, 4, II MD IT. BEAVER POINT REMUS. A SADNISION LOCATES, A SUSOWSION LOCATED IN
THE & OF THE Nw OF COLORADO. SS ICAANSHAI 5 AORTA, 73 WEST OE THE GOA PM.,
COLIN, OF 51.1E OF COLORADO. TOGETHER KITH 114KO
RAFME
RDMIALEA993 DIERECH. COUNT;
OE tARNAER, STATE OF COLORADO. CONTAWNG 9 NIB ACRES MORE OR LESS; PAVE NY THESE
PRESENTS CAUSER DIE SAME TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBOMDED INTO LOTS ID BE 050515 AS
THE AMENDED PLAT OF Ems 1-K. 11 12 BFAvER RIM NOGHTs. mac co HERESY CoNvEr
TO AND FOR DIRK USE THE STREETS ISARE LAD OAR OAR DESIGNATED CO IRIS PLAT. AND
DO ALSO DEDICATE EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALUTON AND AmoTENANCE Cr unLrTLES AND FOR
oRmHALE PACAuTES AS ARE LAKE OUT .RAG DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT, FATNESS CUP HMOS AND
SEALS THIS OAT OF 2016 BY
STATE OF CCAORA001
/SS
Color Of L,AMAXIO
THE FOREGOING DEINGATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEHORE ME PSIS GAG OF
WITHESS NT NAHD AND OFFICIAL SAL
Ms CONASSION EXPIRES
NOTARY NOM
SANER
77
„';491';)
4' (5613.20.)
MEER 001 1
BEATER POINT BLIGHTS
Enna F. LAWN ACM! zoom Kamm. oerrLymorr6
HOFRR'IS'
p9:
N83'3126 79.35 .4 NEW LOT UNE
585%3" '26"E 345.73•
(345.64')
326.28
LOT IA
4;A 14,591 S.F.
,±0.102 ACRES
ssirmWoW FITE
51.34'
S83.31.26"E 874.49'
7445
FOUND 14 REBAR 14/ ij
ILLEGIBLE PLASTIC CAP
SUNDECK RESTAURANT
815 MORAINE AVE.
•I.
rr
Pr
FOUND #4 REBAR
NV 1" PLASTIC CAP
PIS NO. 2697
•
36 `.4
.51152' At 998:
631
./
°*\
S.S/5a4
V
qE-tA
044- P.'
NA114'021E 9.06'
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
1. owNERSHO RESEARCH FOR THS IMPROVEMENT SuRvey FEAT WAS PEAR/RAMO EN ROCHy MOUNTAIN
ESCROW N TRIO CO. WC. HO INTERNAL EASEMENT RESEARCH WAS PERFORMED NOR IS SHOWN
HEREON.
PAPAsNG 5 5FoRTE AND SILL lifimui 50 INCH THIS RAT PER SNARED PARK194. AGREEMENT AT
REC. NO KAM.
3 WERE ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU AXE COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASES UPON ARV
01 INNS SAWN. ANN THREE ISMS KEMP vat Eu/sT NSGENER subs DEFECT IN AO
EVENT MAY M. ACTION BASED UPON ANY CEFECT IN THIS SUSIE( BE COMMENCED MORE olm Tv+
MARS FROM THE CERTIFICATION SRAM HEREON.
NEARING STATEMENT
REARINGS SHOWN ON INKS PLAT ME RENAME TO, MO ELMED 091, THE ASSLAAPTON
THAT THE Norm, LAC OF THE HORT/WEST A OF SECTION 35. TOWNSIFP 5 NORTH.
PANGS 73 WEST OF TIE 910 PM. BENS sarsvarc SAD LNE IS mONUMENTED AS
SHOWN HEREON
yESTED RIGHTS
APPROmm OF 109 i15,41 CREATES A VESTED PROPERTY MCAT PoRSDANt TO AROCLE BA
OF 11112 24, C.R.S. AS MENDED.
TORN ENGINEER'S CERTIEIC,ATE-
APPROWD Sr 105 TOWN EFICARER OF ESTES PARR COLORADO 146 DAT Of
2010
TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES-
APPROASO ANO ACCEPTED IT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEE'S OF THE IDA OF ESTES PAWN
COLORADO BY A AMOUR. ADOPTED 044 THIS -DAY OF 2019.
TOWN CLERK MAYOR
SfIRVATOR'S CERTIFICATE-
I, LoNmr A. 011605 N. A DIM REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS I-4, II AND IS BEAVER PONT
HEASHIS MIRY AND CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THE RESULTS or 4 SPRACH MADE BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION.
LONNIE A. SHELDON
COLORADO PE, & P.L.S. 129974
g
h)
CI
CrA
r/3
4 0 a Fry
a.
7 rr .
4
z
DRAWN UT.
L.A4/ ALP
CHECKED 8141 LAS
Sral
1
OATS
10 2B 16
SHEET
PEAPARNO BY-
/AN HORN ENGINEERING
PE SURVEYING INC.
1043 FISH GREEN RD.
ESTES PARS, CO 805;7
(970) 586 -9388
1
2010-03-20
FOUND #4 REBAR
IA/ 1" PLASTIC CAP
PIS NO. 26974
0/7.341
NEMO IM 17
BEAVER POINT FRIGHTS
LOT 2A
71,561 S.F
±1.643 ACRES
HISTORIC LOT LINES
(REMOVED BY THIS PLAT)
(111.751
ALPINE TRAIL RIDGE INN
927 MORAINE AVE.
COMBINED AREAS 016 FORAM LOTS E
S. K. II. OP Is-11.4.14 se cm
11.45* ACRES
ROME ACCOMMODATIONS (A)
HISTORIC LOT LINES
(REMOVED BY
THIS PLAT)
OF 40
ON
FORMER LOT
DEAVER POINT HEIGHTS
FRONTS
BEEVES PODS
HE/GHTS
SCALE: 4 30'
a 3G f0 90
2" BRASS CAP SET IN CONCRETE.
RES #6499; NORTHWEST CORNER
SECTION 35
AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 - 4 , 11 AND 12 BEAVER
POINT HEIGHTS
LOCATED IN THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION
35, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,
ESTES PARK, COLORADO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PER TITLE COMMITMENT RM3577-16),-
LOT 1, 2. 3. 4. 11 AND /2. BEAVER PONT FRIGHTS. A SUBOINSIDN LOCATED A SUEDES-SION LOCATED 14 THE
N IS OF THE NW A OF SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 NEST OF THE 6TH P.N, COUNTY OF
LADNER. STATE OF COLORADO
BASIS OF BEARINGS
.(5139'34%)0"9 2684.88')
589'34'00"E 2681.72'
II
rs• tY,;4;g9it
FOUND #4 REBAR
60.71.
60.65'
HIGH DRAT
(PAVED)
(60' RIGHT-OF-WAY)
COUNTY ROAD NO
60' RIGHT-0F—WAY
5a3.55.24
FND
317.56. 1
9U
P
#4
C
R
C
E
,
B
e
AR
,,,,
61
8
;;
FOUND 1 1/2"
BRASS CAP (s83' 20'2
STAMPED NPS
LEGEND
ALIOIJOT MONUMENTATION
O FOUND IACNUHENTATION
SAS DESCRIBED)
• SET 14 REEDS 01TH 1" DIAMETER
PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "0991 HORN
FRS 92E974'
00.00 KASS-RED OR CALCULATED
DIMENSIONS
(00.090) PLATTED DIMENSIONS (OR
CALCULATED FROM THE RAT)
NORTH 1/4 CORNER
OF SECTION 35,
FOUND 2 1/2"
U.S G L O. BRASS
CAP 041 A r PIPE,
STAMPED 1925
512'43'38"E 31.06'
S12'42'00"E 31.801
17,131
BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS
A.V4111A1) FMB 5-10
EXCEPT WENT INY LOIN 7 A LI
ZONED ALCOMARIDATIONS (A)
If
LONMENLI2111
BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS
(10E1.6E1
yi
FOUND #4 REBAR 44/
1" PLASTIC CAP 9485
FOUND #4 REPLAN
14/ 1" PLASTIC CAP
i
PLS NO. 26974
OWN E119
FLATIRONS HOSPITALITY, US
P.O. 801( 2959
ESTES PARK. CO 60617
.„.
FOUND 14 WAR
54/ PLASTIC CAP
9485
FORMER LOT 4
BEAVER POINT *EIGHTS
5.2
05. -,,.{‘GVON.
g
60'
RIGHT—OF—WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•' 1
to.
LAND SURVEYS
SUBDIVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
IMPROVEMENT PLATS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SANITARY ENGINEERING
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING
VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
44 4-Atil-.
'
;117
Ale /,11 1',
116 4 '
STATEMENT OF INTENT
LOT SIZE VARIANCE FOR THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 11 & 12
BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS
October 26, 2016
Currently, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, & 12 of Beaver Point Heights, located at 915 & 927 Moraine
Avenue, are owned by Flatirons Hospitality LLC. The Sundeck Restaurant is on Lot I and it is
zoned Commercial (CO). The Alpine Trail Ridge Inn is on Lots 2, 3, 4, 11, & 12, which is zoned
Accommodations (A) and one of the buildings overlaps the current common lot line of Lot I & 2
by 70.6'.
As part of another submittal/process, an amended plat is being proposed such that Lots 2, 3.4, II
& 12 are combined into one lot, abandoning the interior lot lines, and adjusting the eastern
boundary line to encompass the entirety of the Alpine Trail Ridge Inn. This amended plat along
with the rezoning that is also being proposed with that same submittal/process will act as a tool to
"clean up" the lots of the existing Beaver Point Heights Subdivision and move them toward
conformance. The end result will yield the Alpine Trail Ridge Inn accommodations building no
longer encroaching onto a lot that is zoned for commercial use.
This proposed lot, is being reduced from the size of the current Lot 1. Because this lot has
frontage along an arterial, it is typically required to have a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft.
Therefore, a variance for the minimum lot size is being requested with this application for the
proposed Lot IA, which will be utilized by the Sundeck Restaurant. This will be a variance from
Chapter 4. Section 4.3.C.4 — Table 4-5, which is regarding minimum commercial lot size.
It is not anticipated that this lot size variance will negatively impact either the Alpine Trail Ridge
Inn or the Sundeck Restaurant, nor any neighboring properties in any way.
The standard criteria for review are listed and addressed (in italics) below:
I. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g.. exceptional topographic conditions,
narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other
1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park. CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhc@airbits.com
areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with this Code's standards. provided that the requested variance will not
have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific
standards. this Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
The existing and proposed geometry of the lot coufigurations provide a unique
challenge for lot size. The existing Lot I & proposed Lot IA is bounded on the north by
a 60' right-of-way for High Drive and by a 60' right-of-way for Moraine Avenue (Hwy
36). This results in the existing Lot I being a triangular shape. In conjunction with
these limiting features, and the location of the existing eastern building for the Alpine
Trail Ride Inn. the size of the proposed Lot lA is quite limited.
2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The use of the property can continue as it has, only if all of the subject property is
owned by the Sallie person(sVentity. If a buyer wished to purchase the existing Lot 1
or the current Lots 2. 3, 4, I1 & 12 separate from the other, then there would be
issues of ownership and encroachment regarding the eastern Alpine Trail Ridge Inn
building encroaching onto the current Lot 1 and the sewer line(s) that run from the
Alpine Trail Ridge Inn to a manhole on the current Lot I.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The proposed variance is not considered substantial. considering the site
constraints.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered
or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the
variance:
The essential character of the neighborhood is not expected to be altered in any way
by this variance.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer;
It is not anticipated that this variance would adversely affect the delivery of any
public services. An easement is being dedicated for an existing sewer line for the
Alpine Trail Ridge Inn across the proposed Lot 1A.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
and
It is not believed that the owner of the subject properties purchased these lots with
the knowledge of the need for a variance.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Jr is not expected that the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through sonic
method other than a variance.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable
the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations.
It is understood that this is an extenuating circumstance based on the unique site constraints
mentioned in #1.
1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhe@airbits.com
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed
subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise
permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations.
This variance will not result in an increase in the number of lots; it will yield an overall
decrease in the overall number of lots within the subdivision.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
Tins variance is understood to be the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted. or a
use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district
containing the property for which the variance is sought.
This valiance is not allowing a use that is not permitted: it is reducing the lot size of the
existing Lot 1, but the intended use remains the same for the proposed Lot IA.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will. in its
independent judgment. secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or
modified.
It is anticipated that the BOA will find reason to grant this variance.
1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, C() 80517 . 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhe@airbils.com
IVU Submittal Date:
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
'
OCT • 2016
r Septic
r Septic
fsk, 1)/rk4 C0 Q 05-17
ER Consultant/Engineer
Gen 24-al
Record Owner(s): P/4 $/i 4 / Serre c ep4;
Street Address of Lot: 4/5" .-C1..4*. Ai Pi' 14- ve
Legal Description: Lot=1;37itft&EZ —Reek: La{ 1 14 Tract:
Subdivision: 8 eevcr I) ;.j 4 ilc c31,
Parcel ID # : 3 5 3 5 — 0 6 - cot 4- 3
f-,11.f.. I oforniohn,1
Lot Size 0. Ia c r Zoning
Existing Land Use .44:r7riFicairJ165/02 <"..t7 -I Of err -/
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service M' Town r Well r Other (Specify)
Proposed Water Service r,"Town r. Well r Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD EY< UTSD
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD P" UTSD
Existing Gas Service t Xcel r Other r None
Site Access (if not on public street) ite
Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes No
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): , 2 . C — ralit 5 /., 5 ;4.e
v,&,51 ttiV S, ,t-. 1ti,591 ,s
aos -La- -Pa( [ANN 42i-C I LAI!
PHM,Of lid(Ifir;.111._111
Name of Primary Contact Person
LoJenvt Johnson
Complete Mailing Address
Prima Contact Person is
X Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
rg Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) J rap"
x<- 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') " er,..f:
;Z. 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11' X 17") 5 c.,e;f5
Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org
The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5 (attached).
The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review
(see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded.
Town of Bias Pork ."P,O, cox 12004T 170 MacGregor Avenue .‘ t sees Park, CO 80517
Community Development Deportment Phone: 19701 577-3721 Fax: (9701 588-0249 www.esles.org/CornmunityDeveloprnen1
Revised 2013.08 27 KI
oit3 Fr-5 11 Ceeci.
r Owner r Applicant
Contact Informalion
Record Owner(s)
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
Applicant
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
F/44 jraii 111011);`1 a (;iy LLC Sean
po l ox q
(no 7zs- '6g(2
(303) 66-q- Veo
/t//fr
S Gan . ea +roil rail e
So-,e Ae‘ao-oe-
;14 Yt , cam
Consultant/Engineer L Q5a v.. J.l n
Mailing Address 10.13 r,.sk 6-ee Ir izi
Phone (970) 5E6 - 1 Kg'
Cell Phone (q2 3) 86'3 —
Fax /1//,4
es acsfk, c9 fe2.9/?
Email id) Pn vitfliR. a ;6% I :1 S.
APPLICATION FEES
For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both Inside and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at:
htto://www.estes.orq/Comnev/Schedules8Fees/PlanninciAoolicationFeeSchedule.pdf
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Rev sec 2013.08 27 KI
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
that the information end exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
ling the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the
subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley
1 Code (EVDC).
e that I have obtained or have excess to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
o consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
alley Development Code is available online at:
e Cf mDeviDev
le I hereby ce
and that in
ie In submitti
application
Developme
le I acknowlei
opportunity
The Estes
h ://www
that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee
does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the
• I understa
by the T
EVDC.
C> I understan
Incomplete,
e. I understan
I> The Comm
determined
that this variance request may be delayed In processing by a month or more if the information provided is
inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
nity Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
o be complete.
fission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
access to my property during the review of this application.
le that I have received the Estee Valley i3oard of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
st the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result In my application or the approval of my application
II and veld. I understand that full fees wilt be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
that I am required to obtain a 'Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and
must be posted on my property where it Is clearly visible from the road. I understand that Ihe corners of
and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be
ho staking completed no later than ten (1D) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
re I grant pe
Identificatio
> I acknowtad
failure to mi
becoming n
null and vet
I understan
that this sig
my PrOP
posted and
hearing.
t› I understan
permit an d
receiving
Valley Devi
i that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building
commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of
pproval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.' (Estes
lopment Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record
App
Signatures:
Record
AP
vener PLEASE PRINT F fG f
icant PLE4sE PRINT- f( .J.Zarya
nor Date
icant Dale?7-7‘.litlee
Reeled 29130827 KT
g
yt
Minimum Land 1
Area per
Accommodation
or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
Minimum Lot Size [7]
Minimum Building!
Structure Setbacks [4] [8]
Bldg
Height
(ft.) [9]
30
Max.
FAR
N/A
Area
(sq ft)
40,000 [2]
__,
15,000 [2]
Width
(ft.)
Max.
Front
(ft.)
Side
(ft.)
15 [6]
Rear
(ft)
10 [6]
10
Accommodation
Unit =1,800 [1];
Residential Units:
SF = 9,000;
2-Family = 6,750;
ME = 5,400
100 [3]
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets =
15
10,890 50 (3]
Arterial
= 25 (5];
All other
streets =-
15
15 30
30
.20
2.0
.25
Accommodation
Units Only =
1.800;
SF & 2-Family
(stand-alone) =
9,000;
Dwelling Units
(1st Floor) 1 unit
per 2,250 square
feet of gross
land area
Dwelling Units
(2nd Floor) No
minimum gross
land area per unit
(Ord. 15-03 #3)
Accommo-
dation uses
= 20,000
All other
uses = n/a
SF &
2-Family
( stand-
alone) = 25;
MF (stand-
alone) =
100;mum
All other
uses = n/a
Mini-
mum .' 8
Maxi-
=
16
If lot
abuts a
residential
property =
10;
All other
cases = 0
All other
If lot
abuts a
residential
property =
10;
cases = 0
Lots fronting
arterials =
40,000 [2];
Outdoor
Commercial
Recreation/
Entertain-
ment =
40,000[2]
All other lots
= 15,000 [2]
Fronting
arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets
=15
15 [6] 15 [6] 30
---.",
nia
Zonin
Distri
A
A-1
CD
CO
Max.
Lot I
Cover-
age
(%)
50
n/a
65
30
¨ (41(00 D1,5./UCI-S
4.1 Nontestdenfral 74-ming Disfocrs
Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Supp. 5 4-21
ZOIlliTp Districts
Zoning
District
0
CH
Minimum Land
Area per
Accommo-
dation or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
Residential Units
(2nd Floor)
1 unit 2,250 sq.
ft. GFA of
principal use,
nia
1-1 n/a
Minimum
Area
(sq ft)
15,000
(2]
Lot Size [7]
Width
(ff.)
Fronting
Arterials '-
200;
All other
lots = 50
Front
(ft.)
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets
= 15
Building/Structure
Setbacks
Minimum
[4]
Side I
(ft.)
15 [6]
0 [6]
4.4
181
Rear
(ft.)
15 [6]
Nowes-icienfial
Max.
Building
Height
(ft.) [9]
30
30
Max.
FAR
.25
Zoning Diskids
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
50
6,000 [2] 50 15 0 [6] .50 80
15,000
[2]
Fronting
Arterials --
200;
All other
lots = 50
Arterial
25 [5];
All other
streets
= 15
10 [6] 10(6) 30 .30 80
(Ord. 2-02 #6; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 15-03 #3)
NOTES TO TABLE 4-5:
For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that have full kitchen facilities, the minimum land area requirement
per guest unit shall be 5,400 square feet. See also §5.1.P below.
If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum tot area shall he 2 acres. See also the regulations set
forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities,"
For lots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shall be 200 feet.
See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord 11.02
§1)
All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set
forth in §7.5 of this Code.
Setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary.
See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes.
(Ord. 2-02 #6)
All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The
setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or
recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable
minimum building/structure setback. This setback is applicable only in the "A-1" district, (Ord. 11-02 §1)
[01
See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3)
5. Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel.
a. Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted. One (1) or more principal uses
shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that in the A zoning
district, only one (1) principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or
development parcel.
b. Permitted Mix of Uses. Where more than one (1) principal use is permitted per lot
or development parcel, mixed-use development is encouraged, subject to the
following standards:
(1) More than one (1) principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by
right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or
established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure,
provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code
and all other applicable ordinances are met.
Supp. 4-22
MoraineAve_BeaverPointHeigt.. .1c1Plat&Rezone&Variance_2016.xls
Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip
Colorado Cottages, LLC PO Box 1176 Pine Bluffs WY 82082
RMNP 1000 Hwy 36 Estes Park CO 80517
Glenn & Roberta Richards 37146 Dickerson Ct Severance CO 80550
Matthew Osentowski 257 Moraine Ave Estes Park CO 80517
Flat Top Pizza Inc 911 Moraine Ave Estes Park CO 80517
Flatirons Hospitality LLC PO Box 2959 Estes Park CO 80517
Matthew Gish 11520 N 60th St Omaha NE 68152
Xanterra Parks & Resorts Inc 6312 5 Fiddlers Green Cir #600N Greenwood Village CO 80111
Timothy & Joy Cox 32623 Meadow Mountain Ln Evergreen CO 80439
Park Entrance Pipeline & Water Co Unknown Address
Page 1
1700 Big Thompson Ave. — Wetland Setback Variance
Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division
Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE & LOCATION: December 6, 2016, 9:00AM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170
MacGregor Avenue
APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) Section 7.6.E.2.b Wetland Setbacks. The variance would allow a 25-foot setback
in lieu of the 50-foot required wetland setback.
The purpose of the variance is to accommodate several proposed cabins on the property,
some within the designated wetland area 50-foot setback.
Staff recommends approval.
LOCATION: 1700 Big Thompson Ave., within the Town of Estes Park
VICINITY MAP: See attachment
APPLICANT/OWNER: Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC / same as applicant
STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow for a 25-foot setback in
lieu of the required 50-foot wetland setback. Code requires that all buildings, accessory structures
and parking lots be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated
edge of a wetland.
The subject property is approximately 9.1 acres in size and is zoned A-Accommodations.
Currently, it consists of two separate lots with the wetland areas being located on the western lot.
The project proposal calls for creating 42 residential/accommodations units within 21 townhome
structures. 6 of the 21 structures are proposed within the 50-foot wetland setback; however, no
structure is proposed closer than a minimum distance of 25-feet from the delineated edge of the
wetland.
This request for a 50% setback reduction is outside of the staff level minor modification allowance,
therefore, a variance is required.
REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all
applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application.
Figure I : Map showing two delineated wetlands on
southern portion of property
REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 8 surrounding property owners. A legal notice
was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department "Current
Applications" webpage. The site has been posted with a "variance pending" sign.
Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and
comment. The following comment is included in the variance packet.
1. TOEP Environmental Planner, Tina Kurtz, memo dated November 21, 2016 (attached)
Public Comments. Staff has received one written public comment in regards to this application.
The comment is from an adjacent property owner who is in opposition to this variance request.
The comment stated that the application should be denied to protect against encroachments and
human damage in regards to wildlife, the neighborhood and the community. The public comment
is attached to the variance packet.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g.,
exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness,
shallowness or the shape of the property) that are
not common to other areas or buildings similarly
situated and practical difficulty may result from
strict compliance with this Code's standards,
provided that the requested variance will not have
the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and
purposes of either the specific standards, this Code
or the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The property is zoned A-Accommodations and
is approximately 9.1 acres in size. It is currently
undeveloped. The project proposal calls for
developing twenty one 2 unit townhomes, 42
units total. The site plan proposes an open site
concept with few roads, attractive landscape
buffers and walking paths.
In April of 2016, Tiglas Ecological Services
performed a wetland delineation study and
delineated two non-jurisdictional wetland areas
on the southern portion of the property. See figure 1. The information provided to staff
showed the wetlands occurring on a shelf and are found to be non-jurisdictional wetland
areas. The applicants' letter, p.2, provides a succinct explanation of the term "non-
jurisdictional". Although self-sustaining healthy communities, they are not found on the
TOEP wetland map, National Wetland Inventory Map, or the United States Geological
Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle map.
The EVDC Code defines wetlands very broadly as an area inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The subject
1700 Big Thompson — Wetland Variance Page 2 of 5
property contains this type of saturated soil and vegetation, therefore the delineation study
designated a portion of the property as wetlands. The 50-foot setback applied to the
wetlands consists of a very large "undevelopable" area on the property and makes
development difficult.
Staff believes the proposed location for the townhome units within the 50-foot setback is
a practical location. 25-feet of setback area shall remain with the wetlands remaining
intact. The applicant has proposed to designate the wetland area as "open space" during
the development process. Staff is recommending that this be placed as a condition of
approval for the variance.
2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff Finding:
The property can still be developed without having to develop in the 50-foot setback. To
achieve the number of units proposed, a greater density would have to be built. This would
involve clustering development and potentially building upwards. The intent of the project
is to create a low profile, low density development that fits in with the neighboring
properties and retains viewsheds and balanced open-space elements on the property.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding:
The variance is not substantial in regards to the physical location of the townhomes.
However, it is substantial numerically at a 50% request. The wetlands have been
documented at this location over the last ten years. There was a previous wetland
delineation performed on this property. They continue to be non-jurisdictional and are only
designated as wetlands per EVDC standards. Staff does not believe encroaching into the
setback by 50% is a substantial request. The wetlands themselves are not affected by the
proposed development.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or
whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the
variance;
Staff Finding:
The neighborhood consists of accommodations (motel and hotel) to the north and east
and single-family residential to the west. Allowing numerous units on the property could
affect the neighborhood to the west as the density will increase on the subject property.
With the variance, the project could be built as a low profile, low density open space
community. If the variance is denied, the project would need to achieve higher densities
and be built at a tighter and potentially taller scale. The second concept could result in a
more negative impact development to the western neighborhood.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water
and sewer.
Staff Finding:
Approval would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer.
1700 Big Thompson — Wetland Variance Page 3 of 5
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
Staff Finding:
The applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the 50-foot setback. This
property has undergone several iterations of potential development with options being
expansions of the hotel, separate hotel buildings, higher density development, etc. The
current iteration of a low density low profile development requires the need for a variance.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
Staff Finding:
A variance appears to be the only method to achieve the desired outcome. Staff is
exploring the idea of amending the EVDC wetland setback requirements to be more
aligned with federal regulations and reasonable development expectations in our valley.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable
the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions of situations.
Staff Finding:
It is not uncommon to find saturated soils in the Estes Valley, but it is uncommon to find
such large wetland areas that are non-jurisdictional. Staff does not believe this situation is
general or common in the valley.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed
subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise
permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations.
Staff Finding:
No reduction in lot size is proposed by this variance request.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
Staff Finding:
This variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the
proposal but other options do exist. They involve moving the proposed building locations,
building less dense of a development, stacking units on multiple levels, etc.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use
expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district
containing the property for which the variance is sought.
Staff Finding:
The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use.
1700 Big Thompson — Wetland Variance Page 4 of 5
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent
judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified.
Staff Finding:
Staff is recommending that a condition be placed on any future Development Plan or
Subdivision for this property utilizing this setback Variance to protect the wetlands and 25-
foot setback by designating them as "private open space" or "no disturbance area"
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested setback
variance
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
I move to APPROVE the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law,
with findings and conditions recommended by staff.
1. Delineated wetlands and 25-foot setback areas shall be designated as a protected no-
build area on future Development Plan or Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat.
I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Application
4. Site plan
5. Wetland Delineation Study and Site Photos can be found at
www.estes.orq/currentapplications
6. Wildlife Conservation Plan can be found at www.estes.orq/currentaoplications
7. Reviewing agency comments
8. Public comments
1700 Big Thompson — Wetland Variance Page 5 of 5
A
EP
ESTES PA
COLORAL
Town of Estes Park
Community Development
Vicinity Map
911
rr
4* F"
rte- )
,
.1111V
111,
LJ
-4,xprel
,
*L. 1,244.
Vicinity Map
-41
r" I
"Or
6
'14141.fr-14:-
Project Name: 1700 Big Thompson Ave.
Estes Park Resort Variance 1 in =. 167 ft Printed: 11/30/2016
Created By: Audem Gonzales
Project Description: Variance to 50-foot wetland setback 11•1111=1
0 80 160
. • -
Petitionerfs):, Rocky Mc Hotel Properties I, LLC Feet Parcels-Larimer
A
[P COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Audem Gonzales, Planner II
From: Tina Kurtz, CFM Environmental Planner/Planner III/Floodplain Administrator
Date: November 21, 2016
RE: 1700 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park Resort Wetland Setback Variance
Purpose:
The applicant (Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC) is seeking a variance from the fifty foot wetland
setback, pursuant to §7.6(E) of the Estes Valley Development Code, for a proposed
residential/accommodations development.
Background:
A wetland delineation was conducted on the property to be developed, which identified two wetland
communities located in the southern portion of the property, in close proximity to one another. (See
"Wetland Delineation at a Proposed Development Site at the Lake Estes Lodge in Estes Park, Colorado"
by Darcy A. Tiglas, April 2016.) A portion of the proposed development is located near the two wetland
communities.
Present Situation:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the fifty foot wetland setback in order to locate buildings
approximately twenty-five feet or more from the delineated edge of the wetlands. Based on
information from the applicant and a site visit, adhering to a minimum of a twenty-five foot setback
from the delineated edges of the two wetland communities will place all of the nearest points of the
structures on the upland area to the north or other surrounding areas not connected to the two wetland
communities.
In addition, the variance application states that "The shelf that the wetlands occur upon will be
protected and designated as an outlot for its preservation and protection. No impacts to the wetlands
will occur under the proposed project." It is recommended that this stipulation be made a variance
condition.
Recommendation:
Support for a staff recommendation to the Board to approve the variance application with condition.
1
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
ESTES K
_,ig Thompson Ave Variance - Estes Park Resort
2 messages
Mike Mangelsen <suemikemangelsen@yahoo.com> Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:55 PM
Reply-To: Mike Mangelsen <suemikemangelsen@yahoo.com >
To: "kthompson@estes.org" <kthompson@estes.org>
Dear Board of Adjustment,
We're Mike Mangelsen and my wife Susan O'Connor we reside at 517 Grand Estates Drive immediately west of the
subject property. As the governing body and the decision makers responsible for the future of Estes Park we ask that
you be reasonable and responsible and deny the request for lesser setbacks from the wetlands and please go the extra
mile in protecting this area from encroachment and damage from humans.
In the interest of wildlife, the neighborhood, the community.
Sincerely,
Michael R Mangelsen and Susan K 0' Connor
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:20 AM
To: Mike Mangelsen <suemikemangelsen@yahoo.com>
Mike and Susan -
Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Board of
Adjustment. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
1
Li
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
tL n ~a J%i
ARCAETECTURE BY! SI a Revisions: DATE. 11-2I-16
JOB It: 16-51
RESORT
CABINS
CONCEFTUAL
SITE PLAN
SI-IFFY I of 1
PATNMAY(5,1
POTENTIAL GARAGE
LOCATION
EXISTING RESIDENCE
EXISTING RESIDENCE
iiIhk'-'17
' re(
;let/ /,: I
/ ,Mi!
Ale• , /'
•';/. . 4 ;. ‘iiiirr, ,
• ,V- 1'0...113 .
' A. tiAft,
eg.
4111 , erA :MO Mt V. dertay;,' ...NA' 741.11110 110; I .A. '1 WVittkI `TWA. ...1,,,ie
Kli 7 e il itai /Al.
tiAi
/.- va,,icamingasseentworseitemotemtro
ii:f AM* 11:4P- 70 i 1 *. limp ....,- /,
r
...40,, , , - er ,p-- err
1 di it
,. h
i/
//,-/
ki.10// Jr
- — 7 ---
-..if..- / . ,___ .1_, •- _
POTENTIAL GARAGE / /
I''? ---
......" / ''', INETLAND
\
\ \
LOCATION /
./..
/ .,..... ___ _.... _ .
. ,
....- --- ,___ __ ..,-.. •-• — A
T.:A'''
/ / ..-- '".- PATHINAY(5)
LOT 40A Or TUE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 40 AND TUE EAST NO FEET OF LOT II, GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION ZONED E-I ESTATE
LOT NB, GRAND ESTATES
81.3BDIVISION ZONED E-I ESTATE
LOT SN, G ESTATES
SUBDANSi ZONED E-I ESTATE
I OLYMPUS
C.OT: PLAT Of LOT 1450 POTENTIAL GARA&E
LOCATION
NATI-MATTE)
LOT 54, 2Ad AMENDED LPT 7, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 CANAIT
PORTION LAND? 3‘‘I GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION
.
"D':16.-
coNoommuris.
OP LOT 31 GRAND EST
LOT SIA, .2ndi ArPENDPIrV..AS OP LOT 3 OANAIT '1 t I SIASDN43.013 AND A 114
ilfre7
A ',IP' tigtekl xsr rfiv
.r 7, /
/0.1 /
z
SUBDIVISION
ZONED A Poe -
.;:tfte
, A , .;;(7
7"4:-
' r
ZONED A-
ACCOMODAT IONS
SPENBVISION
- ____
TL•
-71/1 :•
11116.7;tim4334
fitht;W'S'Ae '
A
011.1t1it,:".
311.
/ 4 11.4
.110
71"
j
qr.
4P• •Irit
kre Itieht //
4111.1"--
'77 ,11.3Are 114131,,K. . •-
11141WT6
ce. •
-i1.‘1 111647'8P
;,)/e, 43,'' •
/r4C/I 'Or
1=.104p
Vrit100.1.-
rtir 14.
..-, _,-
_ ez ers 400
- 7.... --- "- -,
-- ------ __-
S 441F
— , ,...., .7- --....-- .„ , --- .„.„-- ___:, › - -
APPROX. LAKEENORE
BUFFER PLANTINGS FOR A0071014A1-
PRIVACY AND SCREENING FROM STREET
RESTROOM
,
BUILDING --
,- ---
.._-x --f-/ ,
-'N' - 'NN' - '/,' ' ' , / 1 / /- -
/
/- //1 4: E t
''' '''L'\,-
/ /,
;. --CC---r-r:Ir-r-r / - /
., ,I)N'" ' /
/IPOT6HIA/ SNACK /
'''.....- .--.''' N /
N' /
/,
it * '1) / /
f 'i BAR LOCATION / / // /
/ /
A ,
i , , , , , \ ,, , / „, v FE.A.Kisi,..N.,
, ,
..., /// ,, ,,,,,,
'(//4/ / / ,x.f_.
/ :-..,,,---,-----3) , <e' '
z __________,,,_ - -
,- r------ /.
ttik.,41.4 ..,... •,., ,-,-5__ ,
,,,, ,..________, _____ /„: 4, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
,
IP4i ' r1 / 1'; '
\ 1 E-- T --- - +:;:41 UNINCORPORATED LAR1MER
• POIO 1;
/ 1' ---- COUNTY
.....
.'— 44* ***4144 /c,
.... _ - 4 t „ , ,,,,,
Y\", 1 \ i, t---
(i, -- 11', '' it
A
,-- ,---
. ... ii
.. ....... ,o
\\,,
----- ..,,,,
.---. fritf.44 v;,, , , , „
,...., LAKE ESTES MARINA ..."-- \-,11 ¨ \ 'N, 1 1-r"."" 1
---. T' '''' 1140/ ) \ \ '‘,.._ L----,--U7-e 1
IS . •., \ 1 1 1
UNINCORPCRATED LARIPIE5 e< \ \ 'ENI5TP10-1-----
DEPARTMEN7/ OF INTERIOR - \ \ 1 ,-----', 1 --- .4
\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ 1
COUNTT ® \ \ r -1-0DGE
X \
\ ‘., \ \ X A- -j \ 1‘ \\
\
\ \ \
X \ \\:\
VIEVIEMEPS erT171.
LAKE ESTES
BIKE __PATAL_
-TREP1T
PAVILION /
,.
s
EXISITING RESORT RETAIN EXISTING
PROPERTY TREES t SHRUBS
,„ „'
//
,7
I:I .•,`' '-'.
EX NE,
PARKING /tIA$ I
''''•se .,..,„. ..-1
N4, it / ''" ,', I
S•'..'I ':'N // /)
,•-....1) N-r '
'''PAIRSCTING /'•''', ,i'' ' •
,_.,--A --‘, //,, ,,, ,,/
, Rd//
/
.A,.....„.. TO
/ / / I REPLACE EXISTING PARKAS ,
PLAN DETAILS
• PROPOSED CABINS
• TOANHOME FOOTPRINT
• PAVILION FOOTPRINT
• ON-51TE PARKING SPACES
• GARAGE SPACES
I ENTRY MARKER
I POETS t TRUSS
I. •
POTENTIAL GARAGE
LOCATION
RE
04
1271 5F
2A45 SF
ER
24 TOTAL
DEPARTMENT of
UNINCORPORATED COENITY
A10'
CORNERSTONE
ll
Ecav,,,
OCT 2 6 2016
Town of Estes Park
Community Development
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Co. 80517
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/
RE: Estes Park Resort
Wetland Setback Variance Request
Mr. Hunt,
Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES), on behalf of the owners Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties
I, LLC, is submitting a variance request to the wetland setback for 1700 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park,
Colorado.
Legal Description
Lot 1 Lake Estes Addition
Variance Request
Estes Valley Development Code 7.6.E.2.b
"All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan
view) from the delineated edge of a wetland, See Figure 7-10 above. Development on lots that were
approved for single-family residential use prior to the adoption of this Code shall be exempt,"
The applicant is requesting the setback be reduced to 25-feet from the delineated wetlands.
Project Description
In 2011 Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC purchased the Lake Shore Lodge and the adjacent lot. The
previous ownership was not able to make the hotel financially feasible because they had overbuilt the banquet,
wedding and restaurant facilities in comparison to the guestrooms provided. The banquet and wedding
facilities accommodate 200+ people but the hotel only has 54 guestrooms. Upon purchasing the hotel and
land, our intent was to develop an 80-90 room hotel to alleviate the large shortage of guestrooms and stabilize
the investment. We soon had developed concept plan for The Ledges Hotel (see attached).
Once our concept had been developed, we began talking to our surrounding residential neighbors, businesses,
and to the city planning department. It became abundantly clear that our surrounding neighbors were
concerned about the impact our hotel project would have. While the planning department and others at the city
were supportive of our concept, they encouraged us to work with the neighbors to alleviate as many of their
concerns as possible. We furthered our discussions with the neighboring properties and the city and it was the
overwhelming opinion that a high quality low density housing development would have the least amount of
impact on the land, wildlife and existing properties, and would also provide housing which the Town of Estes
desperately needs and would also raise property values for the neighboring residential development.
We began exploring this concept to see if we could build a low density development with single family homes
and townhomes that could not only provide housing to residents but also address The Estes Park Resorts'
issue of a guestroom shortage. We found other new developments in Estes Park that have had success in
October 26, 2016
Estes Park Resort. Wetland Setback Variance Request
Page 2 of 3
October 26, 2016
doing this. In those new developments, we found that 30%-50% of the housing was purchased with the intent
of it being the owners sole residents, and the remaining homes were purchased and used as vacation rentals.
Using this information, we developed a low density concept of 21, 2 unit townhomes, 42 units total. Each unit
will be 1250 - 1650 sq. ft. with 2/3 bedrooms and 2 baths, laundry washer and dryer, fireplace, luxury interior
finishes, exterior decks with Jacuzzi and barbecue area. Each unit will have attractive log exteriors with stone
accents. The site plan will be an open site with very few roads, attractive landscape buffers to surrounding
neighbors, and walking paths. We anticipate that at least 21 of these units will be used for vacation rentals
which we would manage. This would add 42-55 additional rooms for the resort to rent out to alleviate the
hotels lack of guestrooms, and provide approximately 21 homes to full time residence. In order to achieve this,
the site requires a variance on the setback of the non-jurisdictional wetlands. We have done a wetlands study,
wildlife study, and worked with the Environmental Planner for the Town of Estes Park, and all have determined,
the variance request we are seeking will have no negative impact on the wetlands or wildlife. If we are unable
to get the variance, we will not be able to develop 12 units, which would make the low density housing concept
unfeasible.
Variance Description Details
The project for the Estes Resort Property will entail the request to the Town of Estes Park for a variance to the
existing code that requires a 50-foot setback from all wetlands. We are requesting a variance of a setback of
25-feet from the edge of the mapped wetlands to accommodate proposed cabins. The cabins will be in
upland, not within the wetland, but will occur within the variance. The shelf that the wetlands occur upon will
be protected and designated as an outlot for its preservation and protection. No impacts to the wetlands will
occur under the proposed project.
The Town of Estes Park staff has indicated that they are likely to amend the existing wetland code for a new
wetland code and it would mirror the existing Federal definition of a jurisdictional wetland. At present, under
the 2012 Army Corps of Engineers wetland regulations, a wetland that does not have a nexus to an interstate
or intrastate surface water source is considered isolated and not jurisdictional. The two palustrine wetlands
identified within the Estes Resort project area are isolated and would not be jurisdictional under the current
Clean Water Act regulations. These small wetlands are not found on the Town of Estes Park's wetland map,
National Wetland Inventory Map, or the United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle map. Each of
these maps has been updated in the last 20 years and, I personally know from a wetland delineation I
conducted ten years ago, the wetlands were present. Since they have always been very small and isolated,
they were likely never picked up by aerial photography and were not ground-truthed.
Practical Difficulty
When determining "practical difficulty" the following factors are considered:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Response: Yes the property could still be used for proposed developments. But the nature of
the development would need to be shifted to a higher density development which would have a
greater impact on neighboring properties.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Response: Considering the wetlands are non-jurisdictional per Federal standards. If the EVDC
where amended, as planned by Community Development, EVDC 7.6.E.2.b would not apply to
the property.
Estes Park Resort, Wei land Sethack Variance Request
Page 3 of 3
October 26, 2016
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether
adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance:
Response: The variance is being requested to provide space for a lower density, open
development. If the variance is not granted, the approach to the development would need to
shift to a higher density plan which could potentially have a greater impact on neighboring
properties.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and
sewer;
Response: No utility mains or easements are in the area of the proposed variance request. No
impacts to public services.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and
Response: The property was purchased with the knowledge of the 50-foot wetland setback.
The plan has evolved over time beginning with higher density developments and possible hotel
expansions. The applicant wishes to explore a lower density development but would require the
need for the requested variance.
Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
Response: Town of Estes Park Community Development Staff has indicated they wish to
amend the EVDC to correlate with Federal Standards. If the amendment had been enacted
upon, there would be no need for the requested variance as the wetlands are considered non-
jurisdictional.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
/ •
Jes Reetz
Planner
IIV
OCT 2 6 2016 ',17 i tj
SOMMU N1TYDEVELOPMENT
Lot Size 91 acres Zoning A-Accommodation
Existing Land Use Accommodations
Proposed Land Use Residential/Accommodations
Existing Water Service IX Town I - Well
Proposed Water Service IX Town I Well
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service I - EPSD IX
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service I EPSD V
Existing Gas Service 0( Xcet 1 Other
I_.
Site Access (if not on public street) Utilize Lake Estes Marina access to Lake Shore Lodge
Are there wetlands on the site?
IX Yes
I No
I Other (Specify)
r Other (Specify)
UTSD
UTSD
I— Septic
I Septic
None
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
Submittal Date. 10126/16
Record Owner(s): Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC
Street Address of Lot: ('700 8,4j Ihe Flip f'70)1 jve1 63.-tr) A) G 805-1 7
Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: Tract:
Subdivision: Lot 1, Lake Estes Second Milian & Lot 1 Lake Estes Addition
Parcel ID # 25292-06-001 & 25292-13-001
Site Information
Variance
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): 7.6.E.2.b
Request to place improvements within 25 feet of delineated non-jurisdictional wetlands
Primary Contact Information
Name of Primary Contact Person Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. - Jes Reetz
Complete Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave. - Suite 200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Prima Contact Person is I— Owner I Applicant DC Consultant/Engineer
Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
IT, Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC)
IV 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') —
I,' 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
r7 Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emaited to planning@esles org
" The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vtl.5 (attached).
The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review
(see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded.
Town 01 t dies Volk c PD. (lox 12004. 120 MocGrogcr Avenue c Estes Pork. CO 80S12
Commumty Developrnenl Deportmert Mane: [9201, 577.3721 Fox [970) 5860249 +.f. www.esles.ofg/ComrnIrrovDeveopnleni
Rev.sed 2013.08.27 KT
:CciriPZOnforniation.
Record Ovvner(s) Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC
Mailing Address 7502 Pinnacle Peak Rd, Unit B118, Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Phone
Cell Phone 720.532.3164
Fax
Email
Applicant Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC
Mailing Address 7502 Pinnacle Peak Rd, Unit B118, Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Phone
Cell Phone 720.532.3164
Fax
Email
Consultant/Engineer Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. - Jes Reetz
Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Avenue - Suite 200
Phone 970.586.2458
Cell Phone
Fax
Email ireetz@ces-cco.com
APPLICATION FEES
For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at:
hti p://www.estes.orci/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PianninqApplicationFeeSchedule.odi
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Rcviseci 201308 27 K1
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
o. i hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that In filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
6- In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the
application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
• I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at:
hltp://www.estes org!ComDeviDevCode
I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee
by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the
EVDC.
► 1 understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
6- I understand that a resubmival fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
b The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
identification access to my property during the review of this application.
to. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
understand that l am required to obtain a "Variance Notice sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road I understand that the corners of
my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
tb. I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building
permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of
receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes
Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: 4 714 4 ell 1.1,7 11, df /g -1Citc
Applicant PLEASE PRINT: AV f rt 44 ts'
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
Date 2 / t
Date
Revised 201308.2/ K1
General Development Standards § 7 6 Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection
b. Parking Lot Setbacks. Except in the CD zoning district, parking lots shall be set
back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark
of stream or river corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of
the stream or river. In the CD district, parking lots shall be set back at least twelve
(12) feet from the delineated edge of the river or stream corridor.
2. Wetlands.
a. To the maximum extent feasible, wetlands shall not be included as part of a platted
development lot.
b. All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty
(50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of a wetland. See
Figure 7-10 above. Development on lots that were approved for single-family
residential use prior to the adoption of this Code shall be exempt. (Ord. 2-02 #5;
Ord 18-02 #1)
3. Private Open Areas and Landscaping Credit. All stream corridor and wetland setback
areas shall be credited toward any relevant private open areas requirements or
landscaping and buffer requirements.
F. Development Standards.
1. Prohibited Activities. No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove,
fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stream or
river corridors, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas, except as may be
expressly allowed in this Section or Code.
2. Utilities. Utilities may be allowed in a buffer/setback area only if the Decision-Making
Body determines that there is no practical alternative. Any disturbance of the buffer
area shall be reclaimed by regrading and revegetation. Provisions for reclamation of
the disturbed area shall be included in any development or improvements agreement
for the project, with adequate collateral to guarantee that the reclamation will be
completed. Utility corridors in buffer/setback areas shall be located at the outside edge
of the area and access roads for maintenance of utilities shall be located outside the
buffer/setback area. Access for maintenance of utilities in buffer/setback areas should
be at specific points rather than parallel to the utility corridor.
3. Recreation, Education or Scientific Activities. Structures and improvements for
recreational, educational or scientific activities such as trails, fishing access and wildlife
management and viewing may be permitted in a buffer/setback area provided that a
management plan that establishes long-term protection of the buffer/setback area is
submitted and approved.
G. Preservation of Vegetation. All existing vegetation within the stream/river corridor or
wetland buffer/setback area shall be preserved, and where necessary to provide adequate
screening or to repair damaged riparian areas, supplemented with additional native planting
and landscaping.
H. Wetland Mitigation Requirements.
1. Restoration shall be required according to an approved wetland mitigation plan when a
wetland or its buffer is altered in violation of raw or without specific permission or
approval by the Decision-Making Body.
Supp 4 7-30
EstesParkRes raince.xls
Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip
PT Properties LLC 1692 Big Thompson Ave Estes Park CO 80517
Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties LLC 7502 Pinnacle Peak Rd #B118 Scottsdale AZ 85255
Murphys Resort at Estes Park LLC 10047 Allison Ct Broomfield CO 80021
Capital Commercial Properties LLC 1692 Big Thompson Ave #100 Estes Park CO 80517
Michael Mangelsen & Susan O'Connor 517 Grand Estates Dr Estes Park CO 80517
David & Anna Trabold 513 Grand Estates Dr Estes Park CO 80517
Duane & Jariyap Lankford 511 Grand Estates Dr Estes Park CO 80517
James & Eunice Docter 515 Grand Estates Dr Estes Park CO 80517
USA -Dept of the Interior PO Box 1366 Ft. Collins CO 80522
Page 1