HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-05-03Prepared: April 28, 2016
* Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
9:00 a.m. — Town Hall Board Room
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes dated April 5, 2016
3. LOT 47, LITTLE VALLEY 2ND FILING; 1545 HUMMINGBIRD DRIVE, Continued from
March 1, 2016 meeting
Owner: Donald & Kathy Townsend
Applicant: Donald & Kathy Townsend
Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires 50-foot
setbacks in the RE—Rural Estate zone district. Request to establish a
22-foot setback in lieu of the 50-foot required setback to allow
construction of a proposed detached garage.
Staff: Audem Gonzales
4. PORTION OF MYERS ADDITION, 800 MacGREGOR AVENUE
Owner: Sloan Investments, LLC
Applicant: Sloan Investments, LLC
Request: Variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E.1.b which requires parking lots be
set back at least 50 feet horizontally from the annual high water mark or
stream or river corridors, or from the defined bank of the stream or river.
Request to install an "overflow" parking lot within the 50-foot stream
corridor setback.
Staff: Carrie McCool
5. REPORTS
a. Update on hiring process for Director and Planner
b. 2015 International Building Codes Adopted, effective June 1, 2016
6. 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
Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
April 5, 2016 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Don Darling, Members Pete Smith, Wayne Newsom, John Lynch,
and Jeff Moreau
Attending: Chair Darling, Members Smith, Newsom, Lynch, and Moreau
Also Attending: Planner Carrie McCool, Planner Audem Gonzalez, Interim Community
Development Director Karen Cumbo, Recording Secretarys Thompson
and Webb
Absent: None
Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately 5
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 from the March 16, 2016 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented the motion passed unanimously.
3, LOT 47, LITTLE VALLEY 2nd FILING; 1545 HUMMINGBIRD DRIVE
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance to Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3 Table 4-2 which requires a 50-foot setbacks in
the RE-Rural Estate zone district. The applicants, Don and Kathy Townsend, initially
requested a 33-foot front yard setback. After closer inspection, it was determined the
setback distance was calculated from the middle of Hummingbird Drive instead of the
property line, so the actual request should be for a 20-foot setback. Moving forward,
Planner Gonzales will provide his staff report based on a 20-foot setback request. The
applicant desires to construct a proposed detached garage, approximately 700 square
feet in size.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
April 5, 2016
Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to affected agencies, a legal notice
was published in the local newspaper, and adjacent property owners were notified by
mail. Staff received two written public comments in opposition to the variance request.
The general tone of the comments was the request did not comply with the Little Valley
covenants.
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff findings, as follows:
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
The property is zoned RE-Rural Estate, which has a minimum setback on all sides
of 50-feet. The lot is approximately 2.13 acres in size, which does not meet the 2.5-
acre minimum lot size for the zone district. The subdivision was platted in 1968,
before adoption of the EVDC. The plat was created before steep slope provisions,
therefore lots were not required to be adjusted in size. This reduces the buildable
area for the lot due to the steep slopes present. The applicant is proposing building
the garage between the home and the road, to be able to utilize the existing drive,
which they feel would be the most practical.
2. In determining "practical difficulty":
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The properly currently holds a single-family dwelling, which can continue to be
used. However, steep slopes and the required setbacks hinder additions and
new construction at the site. While there is an area on the site where the
garage could be built without requesting a variance, it is farther down the
mountain and impractical for use by the existing dwelling.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The variance is substantial. The proposed garage would be entirely within the
EVDC 50-foot setback. Local covenants require a 75-foot setback. The Little
Valley HOA granted the applicant approval to place the garage at this location
in December 2015.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
This proposal would not alter the single-family character of the neighborhood,
and adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment. Two neighbors provided
written comment in opposition to this variance, citing the HOA standard of a 75-
foot front setback. Staff conducted several site visits to the neighborhood and
found several buildings built within the 75-foot HOA front setback and within the
50-foot EVDC setback. This request is in line with what has already been built
within the neighborhood.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
April 5, 2016
Staff found the variance requested would have no adverse effect on public
services such as utility lines, drainage or roads.
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
The EVDC was adopted in 2000 and was readily available to the public. The
applicant purchased the property in 2014. RE-Rural Estate zone district setback
requirements and the HOA covenants were in effect at the time.
f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
A detached garage could be built at a different location on the site that complies
with the EVDC 50-foot setback and the 75-foot covenant setback. It would
require professional engineering for the steep slopes and would not be a
practical location in relation to the dwelling.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief:
Staff found building at this location has little effect on the neighbors and aims to
make a practical decision in the placement of the garage.
4. 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.
The applicant provided to staff an email thread from the HOA president that
documents variance approval for the garage. Staff would like to see the actual
letter of approval sent to the applicant. Staff recommends the BOA require the
letter within one month of this variance approval.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance with no conditions
of approval.
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated that it is not the purview of the staff or Board to ensure
neighborhood covenants are enforced. However, staff feels that if they are aware of a
covenant, decisions are made to be in line with that.
Planner Gonzales stated that the house was built in 1974 before the EVDC was adopted.
There were covenants at the time when the house was being built.
Member Newsom stated this request is similar to other requests in the Estes Valley with
steep terrain, particularly the Windcliffe subdivision. There are lots in the Estes Valley that
would be considered unbuildable if the code was followed without exceptions.
Planner Gonzales stated the EVDC says a driveway cannot exceed a 12% grade. For this
property, if the garage were to be placed in a different location, it would require a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
4
April 5, 2016
meandering driveway that would take up half the lot to reach a location further from the
dwelling.
Public Comment
Kathy Townsend/applicant stated an alternate location for the proposed garage was
determined to be unfeasible due to the grade and added expense. She stated she and
her husband purchased the home a year ago, and have since made improvements to
bring the home up to the high standards of the neighborhood. The proposed garage
would be built to the same higher standard as the improved home. Because a portion of
the home was built lower than grade, the proposed garage will sit higher than the main
floor of the home when built at grade. Ms. Townsend stated the plans were recently
changed, with the garage being turned to allow more room for stairs going down to the
house from the garage. She stated additional room was needed in order to meet the
requirements for stair geometry. Chair Darling stated that it is difficult to approve an
application if the plans are going to change.
Staff and Member Discussion
Planner Gonzales stated that the board is approving or denying the setback variance, not
where the building is to be located within that setback. Chair Darling stated he was
concerned about problems down the road in regards to lack of information regarding
building placement within the setback. As a contractor, he has had to produce plans with
the lot surveyed to show the exact setbacks and where the proposed changes would be in
regards to those setbacks. Member Moreau stated he would like to see the architectural
drawings for the proposed structure. The goal is to protect the applicant and the
neighbors. Member Lynch stated he was concerned about the two letters in opposition
and that by granting a blanket acceptance it leaves it open to rebuttal. Planner Gonzales
showed an image of the concept of what the exterior of the proposed garage would look
like.
Ms. Townsend stated she would be willing to stay with the original proposed location if it
would mean the variance would be approved.
Interim Director Cumbo stated that the applicant is in a difficult position as her builder will
want to design to what has been approved. The Board may request additional information
to make an informed decision. However, she reminded the Board that this is a setback
variance request, not a building permit approval.
There was a discussion among the Board about the determining factors for a variance
request. Member Newsom wondered whether or not the additional information requested
(i.e. architectural drawings and elevations) was relevant to the variance request. Member
Lynch stated there are other homes in the area that are close to the road. He agreed that
they are generally given floor elevations and other dimensions to help see the scope of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5
April 5, 2016
the project. He felt the Board would be leaving themselves open to rebuttal since the
plans have changed, especially since there have been objections to the project. Chair
Darling stated the Board should be provided with enough information to make an informed
decision. The Board of Adjustment works to grant relief so a project can be successful.
Usually, the project is fully designed prior to coming to the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Townsend stated she was relying on her builder to provide guidance regarding the
variance, and did not realize additional information was needed.
Member Moreau stated the additional information he would want to see on the plans
would include the precise location, floor elevation of the garage compared to the existing
dwelling, and the highest point of the garage roof. Member Smith stated e would add the
correct setback distances to the list. Chair Darling recommended continuing the item to
the next regularly scheduled meeting, which would be May 3, 2016.
The applicant agreed to continue the application to the next meeting.
Public comment closed.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to continue the variance request at 1545
Hummingbird Drive to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 3, 2016, and
the motion passed 4-1 with Member Newsom voting against the motion.
4. 1st RESUBDIVISION, BUENO VISTA TERRACE; PORTION OF TOWN-OWNED
MORAINE/WEIST PARKING LOT, NO OFFICIAL ADDRESS
Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance to allow a 30-ft
microcell antenna tower to be located in a "no parking" section of the Moraine/Weist
Parking Lot for Verizon Wireless. The standard in the EVDC to be varied is Section 5.1.
(T)(2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Standards to allow for building the microcell
on a site that is not one of the accepted areas (school, hospital, police station, public
utility substation or high-tension power line easement).
Planner McCool orientated the Board to the site and where the proposed tower would be
within the existing lot. The parking lot is highly used. The "no parking" area is steep with a
unique configuration. The applicant would like to paint the tower dark green that is in line
with the equipment in the area. There would be an equipment enclosure constructed of
cinder block to match the nearby trash enclosure. An existing wooden utility/light pole sits
within five feet of the proposed site.
Planner McCool stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent
property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
April 5, 2016
Staff Findings
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist:
This is a unique situation, with steep slopes, limited space for utility stations within
our community, etc. The proposed site is in close proximity to downtown, is in a
public parking lot, and is a fair distance from residential uses. This makes it a more
appropriate location for such a use than other sites in town. The installation of the
tower will benefit not only residents, but guests and emergency personnel. Staff
finds it is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals.
2. In determining "practical difficulty":
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The proposed tower would be located on an unused portion of the parking lot
that is not delineated for parking. It is marked with the words "No Parking" since
its unusual configuration cannot accommodate parking spaces. No other use is
proposed for the site and its unusual configuration limits proposed uses for the
site.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The public parking lot shares the public/quasi-public use of sites where
installations of such towers are allowed. Staff finds this variance request is not
substantial.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance:
The site is buffered by Town-owned land. It is in the downtown area with
significant distance from residential areas to the west. The materials proposed
are compatible with materials already in use at the site. It is consistent with
existing types of uses in the immediate area.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer;
As an unmanned facility there is no need for water and sewer. There is no
impact to delivery of public services. The applicant will build their tower and
enclosure on the existing asphalt so there is no change in grading or drainage.
The proposed tower will improve cellular service for Verizon customers. The
project was routed to all of the Town agencies. The only comment was from
Public Works, who was concerned about the impact to vehicle sight distances,
vehicle turning radius and overall traffic circulation in the parking lot if the
structure was built. The applicant provided revised plans March 28th, and
provided more information to Public Works. They are still concerned about
longer vehicles and tight situations. Staff recommends adding a condition of
approval that the applicant work with the Public Works Department to address
their concerns in regards to traffic circulation.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
7
April 5, 2016
e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
The Town owns the property and the applicant will lease the land. Therefore,
this review criterion is not applicable to this variance request.
f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance;
There are limited sites in town for the applicant to build a facility as proposed.
The applicant worked for several years to find a location that would work. This
variance is the only method to move forward.
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 finds the applicant's request for a variance is due to a one-time need for a
tower that can provide coverage in the downtown area. It is unlikely another
situation would arise requiring a similar variance in downtown, due to the unique
characteristics of cellular network signal dispersion. Staff finds that this situation is
unique.
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...
The variance request will not result in a reduction in the size of lots contained in an
existing or proposed subdivision.
5. Is the variance the least deviation that will afford the applicant relief?
The applicant has demonstrated that all other locations were not available and,
therefore, this is the least deviation necessary to afford relief.
6. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a
use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited...
The variance requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted
in the Commercial Downtown zone district. One corner of the leased area and
enclosure will be located within the Residential zone district, where this use is not
expressly prohibited.
7. In granting such a variance, the Board of Adjustment may require such conditions
as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the
standard so varied or modified;
Staff has included two possible conditions of approval for the Board's consideration
relating to the site circulation requirements received from Public Works and access
and utility easement dedication. The applicant would dedicate and record all utility
and access easements prior to building permit submittal. This would ensure the
easements are accurate and remain in place.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8
April 5, 2016
Planner McCool stated that the board has four options for this variance. They could
approve with no conditions, approve with conditions, deny the variance or continue the
hearing.
Staff and Member Discussion
Member Moreau inquired about any intention to extend or alter other utilities to this area.
Planner McCool stated staff received no comments from the various utilities concerning
such an intent.
Public Comment
Barbara Grant, Kevin BrownNerizon/applicants stated Verizon currently has two facilities
in our area, one on Prospect Mountain and one northeast of Estes Park. The tower has to
be 30 feet tall to provide the best coverage without requiring a height variance. The desire
is to cover the downtown area in order to get the maximum coverage on the west end of
downtown. To accommodate concerns about the turning radius requested from Public
Works, they shaved 3 feet off the lease area and expanded the vehicle driving lanes to
approximately 22.5 feet. Public Works may want a little more room, and the applicant is
happy to provide that, stating it needs to be a safe and viable parking lot first and
foremost. Bollards will be installed to protect the structure. The Town and Verizon
Wireless will enter into a 15-year lease agreement, and all easements will be recorded as
part of the lease. If a new lease is not negotiated at the end of the 15-year period, the
applicant has a certain time limit to remove their equipment.
Ginger Harris/property owner of nearest residential lot stated she was concerned about
the circumference of the tower. It was noted by the applicant that it will be four feet in
diameter and approximately five feet taller than the top of the existing utility pole. It will be
very similar to the temporary tower behind the Century Link building except painted green.
The lease space (enclosure) will be five feet from the current utility pole, while the
proposed tower would be a little farther to the north. Ms. Harris was concerned about the
tower location being moved to a different specific location within the proposed area, in
order to satisfy the Public Works Department. Planner McCool stated it is possible the
Public Works Department could require some adjustment of the location.
Interim Director Cumbo stated what has been presented is the site plan that works from
an engineering standpoint, and encompasses other agency's concerns. There may be an
adjustment of 1 to 2 feet for the traffic lanes but the location will remain the same.
The applicant, Ms. Grant, stated the tower will be owned by Verizon Wireless, and will
improve reception for Verizon customers. However, 9-1-1 calls may also be directed
through this tower. There is room on the tower for other venders to lease space for their
equipment. There will be no other utilities involved. Power will be pulled from the nearby
utility pole. There is the possibility to add future technology (dark fiber, centralized
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
9
April 5, 2016
equipment) at this location, but that is several years away. The tower will be connected to
fiber optics like other cell towers.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Member Discussion
None
Conditions of Approval
1. Compliance with the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department memo dated
March 25, 2016
2. Dedicate all proposed access and utility easements as depicted on the topographic
survey (Sheet LS1) and Site Plan document (Sheet Z1) of the development review
plan set prior to building permit submittal
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the requested variance
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the Board, and the
motion passed unanimously.
5. REPORTS
a. Interim Director Comb reported Planner Phil Kleisler resigned, effective March
31, 2016 to accept a position with the City of Loveland. Community
Development will post his position next week. In the meantime, Planner McCool
and her staff from McCool Development Solutions are helping with the work
load
b. Interim Director Comb reported on the 2015 International Building Code
adoption process. CBO Birchfield presented the significant changes and local
amendments to the Town Board on March 22nd. There was overall support for
the codes. The Town Board request language be clarified in regards to
sprinkling buildings. The revisions will be made and brought back to the Town
Board next week for adoption. The effective date will be June 1, 2016.
c. Interim Director Comb reported on the vacation home rental code amendment
process. County Commissioners and Board of Trustees approved two different
motions at their joint meeting last week. Under a shared development code, this
is not the ideal resolution. Another joint meeting will be scheduled to try to work
out their differences. The key issue is whether or not to place a cap on the
number of vacation home rentals in the Estes Valley. Staff will be providing
additional information to the Boards prior to the next joint meeting. In regards to
HOAs seeking to control vacation home rentals in their neighborhoods, which
regulation is more strict is the one that applies. Removing vacation home
rentals in the A and A-1 Accommodation zone districts from the cap would allow
the cap to just address vacation home rentals located in residential zone
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10
April 5, 2016
districts, which is the main concern. There is a use-by-right for vacation home
rentals in residential zone districts, but we could also have a use-by-right with
regulations.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
Don Darling, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
1545 Hummingbird Dr. - 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: May 3, 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 22-foot front setback in lieu of the 50-foot
required in the RE Rural Estate zone district.
The purpose of the variance is to allow for a detached garage to be built on the property in the
current front setback area.
Staff recommends approval.
LOCATION: 1545 Hummingbird Drive, within the unincorporated Estes Valley.
VICINITY MAP: See attachment
APPLICANT/OWNER: Don Townsend
STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item has been continued from the April 5' Board of Adjustment
meeting. The Board determined there was not sufficient information to make a decision. The
applicant has resubmitted updated plans showing elevations of the building as well as surveyed
dimensions on the site plan for the new setback.
This is a request to grant a variance to allow for a 22-foot front yard setback in lieu of the required
50-foot setback. The RE zone district standards require a 50-foot front yard setback. The applicant
is proposing to build a 704 sq. ft. detached garage entirely within the front setback. The proposed
new front setback cannot be approved at a staff level, therefore a variance has been requested.
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 18 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 comments or concerns were received.
Public Comments. Staff has received two written public comments in opposition of this variance
request. Both letters are included as attachments to the 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 RE Rural Estate, which has a minimum setback on all sides of 50-
feet. The lot is approximately 2.13 acres in size, which does not meet the 2.5 acre
minimum lot size for the zone district. 50-foot setbacks are intended for much larger lots.
The subdivision was platted in 1968, before adoption of the EVDC. Because of such steep
slopes, platting subdivisions and lots today would require much larger lots to account for
the slope. This plat was created before steep slope provisions, therefore lots were not
required to be adjusted in size.
Although this situation occurs in other subdivisions, staff believes it is still unique to the
larger Estes Valley Development Code boundary area. The slopes on this site range from
20-40%. The buildable area outside of the 50-foot setbacks has an average of 35% grade.
The home is located within the required setbacks near the road. The applicant is proposing
to build the garage between the home and road, which would utilize the existing concreate
drive.
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 existing single-family use can continue but any addition to the home or additional
building on the site will be determined by the setbacks. These building additions may occur
on the site without a variance but the practical location for them may be hindered by the
physical attributes of the land and setback requirements. The applicant has provided as
part of the application a site plan that depicts the buildable area outside of the setbacks.
Although the area is quite large, the garage would need to be further down the
mountainside which is not a logical or practical location in relation to the home.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding:
The variance is substantial. The proposed garage would almost be entirely within the 50-
foot setback. Local covenants require a 75-foot setback. The applicant was granted
approval from the Little Valley HOA board to place the garage at this location. The HOA
meeting was held in December of 2015.
1545 Hummingbird Dr. — Setback variance Page 2 of 4
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 single-family character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and
the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to view corridors,
drainage, migration corridors, etc). Two neighbors have provided written comment on this
variance and are both in opposition of this request. Staff has conducted several site visits
to this neighborhood and has found that several buildings are built within 75-feet of front
property lines and some are built within 50-feet of front property lines. Whether or not this
is due to the steepness of slope is unknown.
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 utility lines, drainage, or
roads.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
Staff Finding:
The EVDC was adopted in the year 2000 and was readily available to the public. The
applicant purchased the property in 2014. RE zone district setback requirements and the
HOA covenants were in effect at the time.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
Staff Finding:
A detached garage could be built on the site at a different location that complies with the
EVDC 50-foot setback and 75-foot covenant setback. This would involve professional
engineering for steep slopes. Although it is not practical to locate the garage so far from
the existing home, it could be accomplished.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
Staff Finding:
Building at this location has little effect on the neighbors and aims to make a practical
decision in the placement of the garage.
4. 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:
During the building permit process, a setback certification is required to verify the building
placement reflects the proposed location in this variance application.
1545 Hummingbird Dr. — Setback variance Page 3 of 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance
CONDTIONAL TO:
No recommended conditions
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions 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. HOA email
5. Written comments
6. Site plan and elevations
1545 Hummingbird Dr. — Setback variance Page 4 of 4
Don Townsend
1545 Hummingbird Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
)ECFA--(--------------,n - --------------:____J,_,L_,/ 1
•'' - 7 20-16
,comflitu
L ORIENT
March 31, 2016
A Community Dedicated to the Vision of Ima and Jim Matthies
Dear Don,
I am writing to confirm that during its meeting in December 2015, the Board of Directors of the Little
Valley Owners' Association approved your request for a setback variance for construction of a garage
on your property at 1545 Hummingbird Drive.
Best regards,
Doyle Baker
President
Little Valley Owners' Association
Little Valley Owners' Association • 5000 Little Valley Road ® Estes Park, CO 80517
1
REBAR WITH
LASTTC CAP
STAMPED 6499 ACCESS TO
AND FROM
SITE
50' RIGHT
F WAY
PER PLAT
JOT 35
LOT 36
14 REBAR WITH
PLASTIC
STAMPED 9465 LOT 37
10' WIDE LmLny AND
EMERGENCY ACCESS
EASEMENT (SEE NOTE 7) JOT 98
LOT 48
50' BUILDING
SETBACKS
120 1
ns
PROPOSED 1
--- ---
WDECK/
ALKWAY
BASE OF BENT .--
j4 RERAN -.---4,, 8
50' BUILDING
SETBACKS
LOWER STORAGE
AREA
SEPTIC VAULT
PUMP CONNECTION
EXISTING STONE WALKWAY
TO BE REMOVED
AND INSTALL STAIRS PER
ARCHITECT DESIGN
°NORM LID
SITE CONTROL
ELEVATION 8505.00'
(PAL SET FLUSH)
(SEE NOTE 4)
REBAR WITH
PLASTIC
STAMPED 9485
414 REBAR WITH
PLASTIC
STAMPED 26974
g
SITE PLAN
LOT 47, OF THE LITTLE VALLEY SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH,
RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P,M., LARIMER COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO
z 0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(FROM LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR'S RECORDS)
LOT. 47 LITTLE VALLEY 2ND
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
I. THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS A BOUNDARY SURVEY NOR A LAND SURVEY PLAT.
2. AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY THE HOUSE SITS ON CONCRETE PADS WITH PIERS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SITE PLAN IS TO SHOW THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE
STRUCTURES SC THAT A CONTRACTOR CAN PROPOSE TO ENCLOSE THE UNDERSIDE OF THE HOUSE WITH A FOUNDATION TO PREVENT FURTHER EROSION.
3. THE PLAT OF LITTLE VALLEY SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING AND THE LARIMER COUNTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION WERE THE ONLY SOURCES USED FOR BOUNDARY AND
EASEMENT RESEARCH FOR LOT 10 DMSION 7 OF HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS.
4. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE AT 1 FOOT INTERVALS AND ARE BASED ON AN ON-SITE CONTROL POINT (NAL SET FLUSH WITH THE GROUND) WHICH HAS AN
ELEVATION OF 9505.00 FEET AS SHOWN ON THIS SITE PLAN, APPROXIMATE ON-SITE ELEVATION FROM ON DOODLE EARTH. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON. ON THIS SITE
PLAN, ARE RELATIVE TO THIS BENCHMARK. DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING BENCHMARK. CALL VAN HORN ENGINEERING, AT (97D) 566-93812, TO HAVE THE BENCHMARK/SITE
CONTROL RELOCATED, 48-HRS IN ADVANCE.
5. BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE LINE BETWEEN, THE EASTERLY, PROPERTY CORNERS ASSUMED TO BEAR N04•09'E, BEING MDNUMENTED ON THE NORTH ANC SOUTH END
BY A #4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP STAMPED 9485
6. THIS LOT IS ZONED RE (RURAL ESTATE). THE PRESCRIBED BUILDING SETBACKS FOR THIS ZONING ARE 50' ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINE
7, A 10' WIDE UTILITY ACCESS EASEMENT RUNS ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES (ACCORCING TO OTHER SURVEY'S AND ILC'S THAT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED BY THIS OFFICE
(BY COVENANT),
8 FINISHED GRADES ARE TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE AND PROPOSED GARAGE.
9. THE DRIVEWAY IS TO BE RE-GRADED TO LESS THAN 125 TO IMPROVE UPON THE CURRENT 22% GRADE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE DRIVEWAY. THE NEW GRADES ARE
TO BE STAKED TO ENSURE PROPER FINISHED GRADING.
10. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTIUTIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN THEM IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
11. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN ALL EXISTING PROPERTY CORNERS.
12. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE LOCATED AS PART OF THIS SITE PLAN.
13. THE POSTED ADDRESS FOR THIS PROPERTY IS, 1545 HUMMINGBIRD DR, ESTES PARK. COLORADO 80517.
1 .
LEGEND
Ma<
-..... ....... ELEVATOR -.... J._
I D' WIDE UTILITY AND ® WELL
-.....
-.6, 3499.5' 1 "-- -... EMERGENCY ACCESS
-, e' 0-.. LOWER SbRAGE,.... EASEMENT (SEE NOTE-7-0Nu OVERHEAD UTILITY UNE -....."-.....,........ PROPOSED , AREA I
-.......,.9../ DECK/ ' I ExisTING SPRUCE
WALKWAY ----.. /-- N.-8485_1r
t.....- 1 -, - 4.-4. , i ..... 1 0 FOUND kONUMENTATION
50' BUILDING \.,„„ . 39' 5 c VAULT
.44.74t.4„ ....-"!.., ...... PUMP CONNECTION 00.00 MEASURED DIMENSIONS
SETBACKS '6'0 -- 7 ".... -
10' WIDE UTILITY AND 0 ---6`i-A A4i€rclib- I ROOF ROSE (ochoo) PLATTED DIMENSIONS
EMERGENCY ACCESS 44640Q% I
EIEVATIoN\ -
EASIRMEAW4SEE NOTE 7) PROPOSED
k 4
Pl i..
01114. ..r,.
° 0,-
C12,„"ST/ND
44rt1
4.64.
• --""
espo_
ACCESS J AND
SITE
REBAR WITH
PLASTIC CAP
STAMPED 9485
SCALE: 1" = 20'
f TO
10'
SEPTIC VAULT
a" 6185.. I BUILDING_ 0 UTLEY POLE
SETBACKS
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
(5'sOs
50' RIGHT
OE WAY
PER PLAT
DUSTING STONE
WALKWAY
TO BE REMOVED
MD INSTALL STAIRS PER
ARCHITECT DESIGN
495,_
LOT 46
O
01110 9Y:
010080 NV: LAS
VARIES
07/21/9016
SHEET
1
SCALE
GATE:
CUB
LOT 47 FIRE RING I 1 A SITE CONTROL POINT (NHL)
OF
REBAR WITH
0 20 40 60 IPI.ASTIC CAP
STAMPED 26974
PROJ. NO. 2015-D8-13
1
aT 4,1.46 z k b 6 z ni r C0UserAlvlark0Docurnen6),DramagsWaVd'S Drawings'kAldrich_Townsend Garage\ Townsend.Garage.dwg. 4/27/2016 3:40:01 PM, Adobe PDF
. . r. . . .-,.. ,-....
51
.. =
. .:,.
ki
--'1 II
II
II
II 1
II iII
ir-
ii • II
II
III
,g, „
„
i th
„ I,1 II.:.
, NiII ,
II 2
II
II
II
H
H
EILOCKOUT FcR IS . O.H.COOK
:4, III "
I I
I101 I I IFY-4'
.,
..Ic----y-Z"
I I
I
I I
I I
In
S
—1
ORAINN 2/Z•Pli
Townsend Residence
REVISIONS Mw ni
444.14
NxSne
1545 Hummingbird Dr. ARCHITECTS 4/21/14
0 Estes Park, Colorado P.C.
2026 Blue Mesa Court 80536 (970) 667-3939
6/ LOVELAND, CO FAX (970) 667-3940
4- tl
57
DRAWN Nem 1/11/16 .
le REVISIONS 4/1141.
-1 Townsend Residence 4,25,16
4,r7/1•
1545 Hummingbird Dr.
0 Estes Park, Colorado
Eft .1%%.1[A
.
-NT
ARCHITECTS
P.C.
2028 Blue Mesa Court 80538 (970) 687-3939
LOVELAND, CO
FAX (970) 667-3940
C,11.5051Mark1Ottruments \ Drawing 0,0aeld's Dove nog/ethic h_Townsend Geoge1Townseed.Garage.dteg. 4/27/7016 3:4047 PM. Adobe PDF 22 ,0' 11,15V2' 2040 404Q II'-0" 22'-0" LJ 4.-01/4" 15 RI51191/5 • 1.58' 7-5ve r..0.5%y wAOS" 4 10,0
z
'(;,7 A )). Z m 1
77
37
in 2 at
z
Va4V1i.'
4/25/1‘
441/4
REVISIONS
DRAWN 1
Townsend Residence
1545 Hummingbird Dr.
Estes Park, Colorado
ARCHITECTS
P.C.
2026 BIue Mesa Court 00538 (970) 667-3939
LOVELAND. CO FAX: (970) 667-3940
C.1Users),Mark1Documents DrowiFI4David's Drawings),Aidtichl_Townsend GarageNTownsend-Sarage.dorg. 4/27/2016 3:41:07 PM, Adobe PDF
13,10'
Fn A
Black Canyon Inn Overflow Employee Parking,
Variance Request
Parking Lot Stream Corridor Setback Requirement
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: May 3, 2016
REQUESTS: Variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 7.6.E.1.b
which requires parking lots to be set back at least 50-feet horizontally from river corridors to
accommodate the installation of an "overflow" parking lot within the 50-foot stream corridor
setback.
LOCATION: 800 MacGregor Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Sloan Investments, LLC
CONSULTANT/ENGINEER:
Primary Contact: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying
STAFF CONTACT: Carrie McCool, Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:
The Black Canyon Inn Development Plan was approved in 2009 for a mix of multi-family, duplex
and single family accommodation units. The lower portion of this project has been built and is
currently in operation and includes a mix of accommodation units, a restaurant, employee units,
pool, an outdoor pavilion, and an office. On March 15, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning
Commission (EVPC) approved an amendment to the 2009 Development Plan to convert the
upper portion of the site to a townhome subdivision and decrease the density from 19 to 17
units as well as to construct an overflow employee lot on the lower portion of the site. The
EVPC is the Decision-Making Body for the Development Plan. At the same public hearing, the
EVPC recommended approval (with conditions) of a Minor Subdivision Plat to separate the
upper four (4) acres of vacant land from the developed condominium area and a Preliminary
Townhomes Subdivision Plat to accommodate seventeen (17) townhome units with associated
parking and entry walk-ways. The Town Board of Trustees is the Decision—Making Body for the
Minor Subdivision and Preliminary Townhomes Subdivision Plat
The Town Board of Trustees unanimously approved the Minor Subdivision and Preliminary
Townhomes Subdivision Plat at the April 26, 2016 public hearing with conditions as
recommended by Town Staff.
The applicant is requesting a variance as a part of this project scope to provide additional
parking for employee overflow parking as existing uses have generated that need. Due to the
unique topography of the site, the only remaining location on site that could accommodate
overflow parking is the lower portion of the site within a river setback.
SITE DATA TABLE:
The project site is accessed directly from MacGregor Avenue, approximately 2,000 feet north of
the Wonderview Avenue intersection. The site borders similar accommodation uses along the
south (Overlook Condominiums), and single and multi-family uses to the east. The property is
zoned Accommodations (A).
Parcel Number: 35233-15-056 Lot Area: 4 acres
Existing Land Use:
Residential; and
High Intensity Accommodations:
Resort/Lodge Cabins
Proposed Land Uses:
Same existing uses; 16 overflow parking
spaces for use as needed during events at
Black Canyon Inn
Services:
Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District
Lot Coverage:
Maximum Allowed: 50% Proposed: 34%
Hazards/Physical Features Mapped in the project vicinity?
Wildfire Hazard No
Geologic Hazard No
Wetlands No
Streams/Rivers Yes
Ridgeline Protection No
Wildlife Habitat Yes — Report on file
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.
Please refer to the "Statement of Intent" document received on February 3, 2016 for the
Applicant's comments regarding the review standards.
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 existing slope and natural features (e.g., rock outcroppings) present
challenges when designing the site layout. Similar to the original development plan, the
applicant made efforts to avoid trees and rock outcroppings to the most extent feasible. Due
to the topography, the site requires numerous retaining walls. All other parts of the site
would have required substantial grading and tree removal to provide overflow employee
parking. As such, Staff finds that the subject lot has exceptional topographic conditions that
would require a variance. Further, the project in its entirety, advances several adopted
31 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 3, 2016 Page 2 of 5
Black Canyon Inn Variance Request
Community-Wide goals and policies related to land use, community design, scenic and
environmental quality and economics.
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: No other portion of site is available to accommodate the employee
overflow parking lot. Existing approved uses on this site are generating this occasional
parking need and will reduce the instances of guests and employees parking in
unapproved locations that may negatively impact emergency access. The location of
the parking lot is at the base of a large rock cliff and there is no space to setback this
parking lot further from the Black Canyon Creek. Other locations would require setback
variances and potentially affect neighborhood character and negatively impact the
environment through the need for grading, removal of trees and rock outcroppings.
b. Whether the variance is substantial.
Staff Finding: The variance request includes a parking lot that will only be utilized
during the summer season as needed for accommodating employees working events
such as weddings. The proposed parking surface would be constructed of compacted
base course rather than asphalt to minimize flood debris during a potential flood event.
This will minimize potential surface runoff and minimize sediment transfer into the
stream. The distance of the parking area to the bank of Black Canyon Creek at its
closest point would be approximately 20 feet at the entry to the parking area on the north
side of the site. Given the sporadic use and the type of parking surface, the variance
requested is not 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 Finding: Due to the seasonal and sporadic use of this overflow parking lot,
adjoining properties will not be negatively affected by this development. Creation of this
parking lot may reduce the incidence of event-related parking occurring on neighboring
properties. Setback from the road, surrounding topography, and vegetation in the area
will minimize view of the parking area from neighboring properties and from MacGregor
Avenue. Overflow employee parking uses are typical within the Accommodations zoning
district. This action will support resort use, tourism, and accommodations uses
encouraged by the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan by addressing occasional parking
generated by these economic activities on this site.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The requested variances would not adversely affect public service
delivery.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement.
Staff Finding: The uses previously approved and permitted in the area by the Town
such as the Black Canyon Inn and the Twin Owls Steakhouse, are permitted uses within
the Accommodations zoning district. These uses have generated occasional overflow
parking needs above and beyond what can be accommodated given the constraints of
1181 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 3, 2016 Page 3 of 5
jr Black Canyon Inn Variance Request
the site's topography. At an average of 120 vehicle trips per day to the Black Canyon
Inn and surrounding uses, the applicant is attempting to accommodate a parking need
that was not foreseen by Town staff nor the property owner.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than
a variance.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the applicant's proposal cannot be accommodated
through any other method except a variance. The applicant is proposing the solution with
the least impact to the site and with minimal permanent impact to the site by use of less
permanent parking surfaces to reduce debris during a flood event. No other locations
are available to meet this use without substantial site disturbance and removal of
vegetation to meet the Code requirement.
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 Finding: Staff finds that the applicant's request for a variance is due to the existing
approved use of the subject property and the unique topographical challenges created by
the rock outcroppings and cliffs on the property. As such, Staff finds that the circumstances
are unique to the applicant's proposal, and are not of so general or recurrent of a nature as
to make it reasonable for the regulation to be changed to accommodate similar
circumstances.
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 variance requests will not result in a reduction in the size of lots
contained in an existing or proposed subdivision.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
Staff Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed parking area cannot be
located elsewhere without extensive site disturbance nor further from the stream due to the
location at the bottom of a large rock formation. The variance request represents the least
deviation from the river setback 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.
Staff Finding: The variances requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly
permitted in the Accommodations zone district.
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.
W
I Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 3, 2016 Page 4 of 5
I Black Canyon Inn Variance Request
Staff Finding: Staff does not have any recommended conditions of approval for the Board's
consideration; however, the Board is welcome to provide conditions of approval to address
any concerns that arise during the public hearing.
REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: This variance request was routed to reviewing agency
staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment concurrently with the
Amended Development Plan, Minor Subdivision and Preliminary Townhomes Subdivision Plat
applications.
The public hearing for the variance request was publicly noticed in accordance with the
applicable public notification requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. One formal
written comment has been submitted to the Community Development Department in regards to
the application package, with particular focus on the Amended Development Plan, Minor
Subdivision and Preliminary Townhome Plat applications. Any written comments will continue
to be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications.
STAFF FINDINGS:
Staff finds that the application for the proposed variance request would comply with the
applicable review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 "Standards for Review" of the Estes Valley
Development Code and advance goals, policies, and objectives adopted in the Estes Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
POTENTIAL MOTIONS:
Below are the Board of Adjustment options related to the variance request:
1. I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend
APPROVAL of the variance request application with no conditions.
2. I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend
APPROVAL of the variance request application with conditions as determined by the
Board of Adjustments.
3. I find that the application does not substantially meet the criteria above, and move to
recommend DENIAL of the variance request application.
4. I find that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application
per the criteria above and recommend CONTINUING THE HEARING to provide
adequate time to review additional materials.
ENCLOSURES:
1. Statement of Intent and Application
2. Development Review Plan (Grading Plan dated January 2016)
aI Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 3, 2016
Black Canyon Inn Variance Request
Page 5 of 5
1.1i Lt. i..,• •
!)-'
446> (11
1
11
,
CORNERSTONE
February 3, 2016
Mrs. Alison Chilcott
Community Development Director
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Co. 80517
RE: Black Canyon Inn Townhomes Board of Adjustment — Statement of Intent
Dear Mrs. Chilcott:
Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) on behalf of Mr. Jim Sloan, are pleased to submit plans and
correspondence for an over-flow parking lot to be located at the Black Canyon Inn Condominiums. Due to the
proximity to Black Canyon Creek, the request is to go before the Board of Adjustment.
EVDC 7.6.E.1.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.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant wishes to install an "Over-flow" parking lot within the 50-foot stream corridor setback. The over-
flow parking will be used primarily during the summer season and weddings. Due to the layout of existing
structures and natural features, the proposed location would provide the maximum amount of parking with the
least amount of site disturbance. The parking, due to its low-intensity usage, is proposed to be constructed of
compacted base course in lieu of an asphalt surface. Base course would induce minimal run-off from a storm
event and provide filtration for the storm run-off, furthermore, base course would provide the least amount of
flood debris that could cause blockage to the existing drainage during a flood event. Concrete wheel stops will
be installed to assist in delineating parking spaces. The applicant is proposing sixteen (16) parking stalls in this
location.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jes Reetz
Planner
Record Owner(s): Sloan Investments, LLC
Street Address of Lot: 800 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517
Legal Description: Lot:
Subdivision: Portion of Myers Addition
Parcel ID #: 35244-55-001
Block:
Tract:
Lot Size 14.408 Zoning A-Accomodations
Existing Land Use Condominiums, owner occupied and rentals
Proposed Land Use Condominiums & Townhomes, owner occupied and rentals
Existing Water Service IX Town 1- Well r- Other (Specify)
Proposed Water Service Town Well (- Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service X EPSD UTSD r Septic
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD T Septic
Existing Gas Service IX Xcel r Other f- None
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site?
Variance
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): EVDC 7.6.E - Wetland Stream Cooridoor Buffer/Setback
Applicant wishes to install an over-flow parking area constructed of compacted base course
Primary Contact Information
Name of Primary Contact Person Jes Reetz
Complete Mailing Address
Primary Contact Person is r. Owner r. Applicant M Consultant/Engineer
fl Yes IX No
1692 Big Thompson Ave, Suite 200, Estes Park, CO 80517
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
k.9
Submittal Date: 02/03/2016
'1!N Day fL
0,0ff ,
General Information
Site Information
Attachments
rx Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
fX Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC)
r 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') **
I- 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
a 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.VII.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 Estes Pork -6 P.O. Box 1200 -6 170 MacGregor Avenue -6 Estes Pork. CO 80517
Community Development Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 -6 Fax: (970) 586-0249 -6 vvww_estes.org/CommunityDevelopment
Contact Information
Record Owner(s)
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
Sloan Investments, LLC
800 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 586-8113
(970) 402-1049
jesloan@gmail.com
Applicant Sloan Investments, LLC
Mailing Address 800 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone (970) 586-8113
Cell Phone (970) 402-1049
Fax
Email jesloan@gmailcom
Consultant/Engineer Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc - Jes Reetz
Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave., Suite 200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone (970) 586-2458
Cell Phone
Fax
Email jreetz@ces-ccc.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:
http://www.estes.org/ComOev/Schedules&FeesiPlanninoADolicationFeeSchedule.odf
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
•
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
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.
2 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).
z 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:
htto://www.estes.org/ComDev/DevCode
2, 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.
2 I 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.
2 I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
2 The Community DevelopmentDepartment 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.
z 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.
2 I understand that I 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.
2 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:
-..4.041\1 /A) VisM7 M aNiTS i LC_
Applicant PLEASE PRINT:
SL-0 44
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
Date 02 • 3
Date
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 law or without specific permission or
approval by the Decision-Making Body.
Supp. 4 7-30
BlackCanyonInnAmencl , 'ariance-300feet.xls
Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip
OVERLOOK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC 10200 E GIRARD AVE UNIT C-255 DENVER CO 80231
MCKENNA JOLENE B/JAMES R 1104 NORTHRIDGE DR ERIE CO 80516
GOLLIHER KENNETH W/EILER-GOLLIHER ELLEN 11700 MONTGOMERY CIR LONGMONT CO 80504
ZIMMERMAN LORI A & KOLISKI CYNTHIA 11721 N IVY ST THORNTON CO 80233
CAMP WILLIAM A & MILES DAVID D 11724 SPANISH LAKE DR TAMPA FL 33635
OLEARY SUSAN M LIVING TRUST 11728 W 200 5 WESTVILLE IN 46391
WYATT BILLY B 1218 GROVEWOOD CT FORT COLLINS CO 80525
BRODERSEN COREY B/JOELLE R 12450 N COUNTY LINE RD BERTHOUD CO 80513
LIGHTBODY JAMES R & DAVIS KAREN LYNNE 1260 CAMINO RAMON SAN JOSE CA 95125
ROOPE ROBERT A & ZALMAN DEBORAH.] 1267 S INDEPENDENCE ST LAKEWOOD CO 80232
CAMPBELL ALAN B/COLLEEN E 12740 JASMINE ST C THORNTON CO 80602
BUCHANAN BARRY A/CATHERINE C 1329 CHICOTA DR PLANO TX 75023
POLLOCK DEBRA JEAN & ANDERSEN MAUREEN K 1401 FRANKLIN ST STE 1 DENVER CO 80218
LAFOLLETTE STEPHANIE SMEDLEY 160 EVERGREEN LN ESTES PARK CO 80517
MUELLER JOANN K 1623 37TH AVE PL GREELEY CO 80634
DIGNAN JERRY STEVEN & DEBRA LYNN 17588 E DICKINSON PL AURORA CO 80013
JARBOE MEGAN L 1816 KENWOOD AVE CHARLOTTE NC 28205
PTACEK LOUISE A 1919 N SUMMIT AVE MILWAUKEE WI 53202
MARTIN CECILIA A & PACKARD MARY HELEN 1977 17TH AVE GREELEY CO 80631
FERDON STEVEN ERIC/MARY KATHRYN 2068 PINEWOOD DR COLUMBUS IN 47203
TAIJI INTERNATIONAL INC 2300 W SAHARA AVE STE 800 LAS VEGAS NV 89102
ANSON RUSSELL/SANDRA K 2569 53RD AVE GREELEY CO 80634
KHAN ANSAR U 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST 2735 N CLARKSON ST FREMONT NE 68025
JWC STANLEY HOLDING LLC 333 WONDERVIEW AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517
EDMUNDSON HAROLD P & RENATE 340 HOMESTEADER LN ESTES PARK CO 80517
LLOYD CHARLOTTE TRUSTEE 341 HOMESTEADER LN ESTES PARK CO 80517
MINNICK JOHN GATES/DAISY D 3500 CARMEN DR APT A104 LINCOLN NE 68516
MARGHEIM DAVID W/JEAN T 351 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517
CLAASSEN DANIEL R/ANNA R 370 HOMESTEADER LN ESTES PARK CO 80517
MARTIN GERALD L/DENISE A 3702 PLATTE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80526
RMING SHERYL K LIVING TRUST 375 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517
RAGLAND JON SHANE 3801 FRIO WAY FRISCO TX 75034
MARGHEIM DAVID W/JEAN T 400 PROSPECTOR LN ESTES PARK CO 80517
SMITH GAD/JEAN COATES 411 W 46TH TER APT 501 KANSAS CITY MO 64112
FEDER SEYMOUR 4350 NW 30TH ST APT 334 COCONUT CREEK FL 33066
NAVRATIL RONALD M/CONNIE M 4736 HAPPY HOLLOW LN LINCOLN NE 68516
SUTTON LIVING TRUST 5 HERON DR TOPSHAM ME 04086
PAINE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 5300 CAVVY RD LINCOLN NE 68516
BURROUGHS CONDO LLC 548 RANDALL RD HOT SPRINGS AR 71913
EVANS FAMILY TRUST/THE 5669 E IDA CIR GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO 80111
MORGAN BETTY) 5830 CHARLOTTE PKWY COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80923
MCCONNELL TARA A 5832 BOSTON AVE DES MOINES IA 50322
HENKELMAN KAREN & KREUGER LEWIS/VERA 6242 YALE DR HIGHLANDS RANCH CO 80130
'age 1
BlackCanyonInnAmended DPVariance-300feet.xls Page 2
DAVIS CHARLES E/SANDRA K 6513 FOSSIL CREST DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525
COLLERAN KAREN A TRUSTEE 6801 5 27TH ST LINCOLN NE 68512
BLOOM LACKLAND H JR/JANICE S 6817 VINERIDGE DR DALLAS TX 75248
CURFMAN BENJAMIN T 7300 FM 332 BRENHAM TX 77833
MURROW SHIRLEY 7373 W GRANT RANCH BLVD UNIT 2223 LITTLETON CO 80123
ROTH ROBERT L AMELIA M 790 BROWN ST FLORISSANT MO 63031
SLOAN INVESTMENTS LLC 800 MACGREGOR AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517
WHIDDEN PATRICK B/CYNTHIA A BILEK FRANK J JR/HUFFMAN PAMELA K 810 MACGREGOR AVE UNIT C ESTES PARK CO 80517
WADHAMS CHRIS M/JUDY L 815 N 95TH ST LINCOLN NE 68505
SMITH ELLEN S TRUSTEE 824 PARK AVE FAYETTEVILLE AR 72701
FRAWLEY- FRAWLEY PROPERTIES LLC 861 BIG HORN DR ESTES PARK CO 80517
PETTITT DENNIS M/PEGGY L 874 NEON FOREST CIR LONGMONT CO 80504
HOLT ROGER P/JOAN K/MARMADUKE B 88 NOTCH HILL RD APT 148 NORTH BRANFORD CT 06471
WOESSNER RICHARD D/KELLYJ 9 KENDALL CT BEDFORD MA 01739
RICE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 9444 SW 56TH ST DENTON NE 68339
WHITESIDE BETTY JUNE & OPAL PO BOX 152 ESTES PARK CO 80517
PARISH CHURCH OF SAINT BARTHOLOMEW THE APO PO BOX 1559 ESTES PARK CO 80517
MARKS JOHN & KATHLEEN PO BOX 2866 ESTES PARK CO 80517
F .1N IRREVOCABLE TRUST - DEBORAH GIBSON PO BOX 31778 INDEPENDENCE OH 44131
WEDAN PATRICIA ANN PO BOX 3743 ESTES PARK CO 80517
MACGREGOR MURIEL L TRUST PO BOX 4675 ESTES PARK CO 80517
I
:et
)6_
4'
\ 7 -4:
\\,
‘‘ N
,,-- ,
/ 6 \._,--C
\ ,ISLANDli
\ /, .."
,..,... ,
--,..---.
% A
N
WATER C
EON)
WOC-6 = 2
PROPOSED MJ1CO
STOP SIGN AND
STREET SONS TO BE
PINSTALLED PER TOED
M
STANDARDS
/
PROPOSED
DrIrCTABLE
WARniNC
/
/
PROPOSED
CONCRETE
SIGEEVVALK
ENIFtANCL
TO BE ABANDONED
AND RELOCATED. AREA
TO ar REVEGrATED
xiSbNC. C011114-1 -0
BC ExTENCEO -0
ALLOW SIDEWALK
CR055rJE
ExISIING air CU
,
1
I
CORD raqr[
ivdEEL4Topsi
MR.)/ /
PROPOSED ALL-WEATHER SURFACE
PARKING AREA
PARKING WILL BE USED FOR
OVER-FLOW DURING SUMMER MONTHS
AND WEDDINGS. AREA IS PROPOSED
TO BE COMPACTED BASE-COURSE OR
APPROVED ALTERNATNE IN LIEU OF
ASPHALT PARKING
/ / /' /;/
;
/ / / / / / .//
/
/ / Ill /
/ / / / /
*EILANDS CONTAINED
WITHIN 10O-YEAR
TIOODPIAN
ExISTIN- 4 -
/
/ / /
/ I /
/
/ /
ociL 7"/ sptsr,ox
/ / /
// °
CLs
1642 ERG 76104.448244ARE.
SUITE 240
ES TES 12.4416. CO 4051?
: 42201 544-2458
F. I 9,01 06209
ORNERSTONE
LEGEND:
NOTES:
0.2440 MI AM AMOK, MY -Maiir—
MA. NY —AA-- Dan .144 SAID
CROWD VI 44: SC. AS SWAT
DAIAI
41/S17,244.1
66V15:04: ef414,76432 0666.047%' OP. cfnatabirs
SUBJECT PROPERTY I INE
- — — - 'OWNHOME PROPERTY LINE
ADJACENT
EA
PROPERTY LNE
EXISTING
— — — BUI _uNc.• SETBACK
7630 INDEX CONTOLR ELEVAI ION
TF I TF INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR
ROCK OUTCROPPING
- • — • — - - - L MITS D STaRBANCE
5 EXISTING SEWER LINE
E
EXISTING WATER LEE
TELEPHONE
E — EXISTING E_ECTRIC LINE
EXISTING E-EC TRIO LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT
PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE
PROPOSED 8" SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED WATER LINE
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE
PROPOSED ELECTRIC LINE
EXISTING ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
EXISTING CABLE PEDESTAL
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING SEWER OLEANOUT
EXISTING :IRE WDRANT
20 0 20 40 60
SCALE 1" = 20'
me, THE LODGES
AT BLACK CANYON INN
TOWNHOMES
'SHEET mit
GRADING PLAN
IG NO
021.021 4 7 c.E.=, SLOAN INVESTMENT ,LLC.
JIM SLOAN , MANAGER
COPYRIGHT • ALL RAGHTSRESERvED
2014 CORNERSTONE ENCINCERWG S SURRE474G.
t) Zoning of the project location is A -Accornodations.
2) Contractors must call Utilities Notification Center of
Colorado prior to excavating (1-800-922-7987).
3) The pudding neigh! will Es Within the limits set forth in Me
revised height measurement provision of the COX_ No
Height Vonance is foresee, at M.'s time.
4) Contours are .2" interval.
SS
5 frr.
SinOrP
WS 0.7Sin
P Dec
Cg.)
EXISTING BOLLARE TYRE LIGHT NG
EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED F RE HYDRANT
EXISTING TREE (TOP.)
511 SOT