The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-06-07Prepared: May 24, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, June 7, 2016 9:00 a.m. — Town Hall Board Room 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated May 3, 2016 3. LOT 4A, 2nd AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 4 & 5, SPANIER SUBDIVISION, 1774 Spur 66; The Landing at Estes Park Variance Requests Owner: Jennifer & Jerome Johnston Applicant: Jennifer & Jerome Johnston Request: Variance from EVDC Sections 7.5.F.2.b(3) and 7.5.G.2.b(1) to allow reduction in the landscape buffer abutting Highway 66 and the landscape buffer for parking lots to be 12.5 feet in lieu of the 25-foot requirement in both sections. Staff: Audem Gonzales 4. LOT 1A, LARIMER TERMINALS SUBDIVISION, 444 ELM ROAD, Polar Gas Variance Request Owner: 12576 Holdings, LLC Applicant: Nathan Reed Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5 which requires 15-foot setbacks in the I-1—Industrial zone district. Request to allow existing office building to remain almost entirely in the front setback. Staff: Audem Gonzales 5. REPORTS a. Update on hiring process for Director and Planner b. Other 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. id IC II II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 3, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Absent: Chair Don Darling, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, and John Lynch Chair Darling, Members Newsom, Smith, and Moreau Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Interim Community Development Director Karen Cumbo, Recording Secretary Thompson Member Lynch Attending: Also Attending: Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were five 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 April 5, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Member Moreau recused himself from the review of the Townsend Residence Variance item. 3. LOT 47, LITTLE VALLEY 2N0 FILING; 1545 Hummingbird Drive; Townsend Residence Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated this item was continued from the April 5, 2016 meeting in order for the applicant to provide additional information regarding the variance request. The applicant desired a front yard setback of 22 feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE—Rural Estate zone district. The subject property is a legal nonconforming lot at approximately 2.13 acres in a zone district where 2.5 acres is the minimum lot size. A portion of the lot is very steep and unbuildable. The applicant desires to construct a proposed detached garage. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 May 3, 2016 Planner Gonzales stated per the Board's request, the applicant has provided elevations and a detailed drawing for the proposed garage. Planner Gonzales stated the required legal and neighbor notices were distributed prior to the first hearing on this item in April, and the application was routed to all affected agencies. Two written public comments in opposition to the variance were received in the Community Development Department. Staff Findings (see the full version in the April Board of Adjustment minutes) 1. Special circumstances exist... Staff found the lot size does not meet the 2.5 acre minimum requirement, where 50-foot setbacks apply. The subdivision was platted in 1968, prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Because of such steep slopes, platting subdivisions and lots today would require much larger lots to account for the slope. There are steep slopes on the subject property, reducing the buildable area. 2. In determining "practical difficulty"... a. Whether there can be any beneficial use...without the variance Staff found 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. b. Whether the variance is substantial Staff found the variance is substantial. The proposed garage would be almost entirely within the 50-foot setback. Local covenants require a 75-foot setback. The applicant was granted approval from the Little Valley HOA (December, 2015) to place the garage at this location. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered... Staff found the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. Staff conducted several site visits and found several buildings in the neighborhood built within 75 feet of the front property lines, with some even closer. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services... Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the requirement; Staff found the applicant purchased the property in 2014, after the EVDC was adopted. Zone district setbacks were in effect at the time of purchase. 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 May 3, 2016 Staff found a code compliant detached garage could be built on the site at a different location; however, the steep slopes make other location options impractical. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found the proposed location of the garage has little effect on the neighbors and the variance would be a practical decision in the placement of the proposed garage. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will... Staff found a setback and height certificate would be required during the building permit process; therefore, no condition of approval would be required for the variance approval. Planner Gonzales stated staff was recommending approval of the variance request. Staff and Member Discussion Planner Gonzales stated the home was built as a nonconforming structure. Staff was unable to locate any previous variance requests, and was unable to determine what the HOA controlled setbacks were at the time the house was built. Comments from the Board included, but were not limited to: the proposed location is the most practical for this project; during the April meeting, the applicant stated the position of the proposed garage was being shifted to allow for steps to the house; the Board requested clarification on some of the specifics of the application due to the shifting of the proposed location, unknown height, and neighbor opposition; the Board appreciates the additional information answering the questions that arose during last month's meeting; the applicant did a good job of providing the requested information; there are many lots in Little Valley that are extremely impractical when it comes to adding any improvements. Public comment The property owner and builder, Don Townsend and Mike Aldrich, respectively, were in attendance but had no comment. Member Discussion Member Darling was supportive of setback and height certificates as part of the building permit process. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the variance request with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 May 3, 2016 Member Smith thanked the applicant for clarifying the application. Member Moreau returned to the dais for the next agenda item. 4. PORTION OF MYERS ADDITION, 800 MacGregor Avenue, Black Canyon Inn Variance Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Jim Sloan, has requested a variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E.1.b, which requires parking lots to be set back at least 50-feet horizontally from river corridors. The request is to accommodate the installation of an "overflow" parking lot within the 50-soot stream corridor setback. In 2009, the Black Canyon Inn Development Han was approved for a mix of multi- family, duplex, single-family and accommodation units. The lower portion of the property is built with a mix of residential, accommodations, a restaurant, employee housing units, swimming pool, outdoor pavilion, and an office. In March, 2016 the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) recommended approval of an amendment to the applicant's 2009 Development Plan (2009-03B) to convert a portion of the property to a townhome subdivision (decreasing 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 was the decision-making body on the amended development plan, and it was approved with conditions. The Town Board was the decision- making body for a minor subdivision and preliminary townhome subdivision plat, which was approved on April 26, 2016. The minor subdivision consisted of separating one parcel into separate parcels for the townhomes and condominiums. The townhome subdivision will accommodate the proposed 17 units. Planner McCool reviewed the variance review criteria, as follows: Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist. Staff found the property is heavily wooded with a steep slope and rock outcroppings that present design challenges. The applicant searched out other portions of the site for the overflow parking area and determined there would be a substantial amount of grading and tree removal at any other location. This project in its entirety advances several adopted Community-Wide goals and policies related to land use, community design, scenic and environmental quality and economics, and recommended in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2. In determining practical difficulty: a. Beneficial use of the property without the variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 May 3, 2016 Staff found no other portion of the site is available to accommodate the employee overflow parking lot without significant grading and tree removal. b. Whether the variance is substantial. 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 a compacted base course rather than asphalt in order to minimize potential flood debris during a future flood event. It will also minimize potential surface runoff and sediment transfer into the stream. Given the sporadic use and the type of parking surface, staff found the variance not substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered.... Due to the seasonal and sporadic use of this overflow parking lot, staff found adjoining properties would not be negatively affected by this development. Creation of this parking lot may reduce the incidence of event- relating parking occurring on neighboring properties. The setback from the road, surrounding topography, and vegetation in the area will minimize the view of the parking area from neighboring property and from MacGregor Avenue. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services... Staff found the requested variance would not adversely affect public service delivery. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the setback requirement... Staff found the previously approved and permitted uses in the area, such as the Black Canyon Inn and the Twin Owls Steakhouse, are permitted within the Accommodations zone district. These uses have generated occasional overflow parking needs above and beyond what can be accommodated given the constraints of the site's topography. 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 found the applicant's proposal cannot be accommodated through any other method except a variance. The proposed solution has the least impact to the site. 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. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 May 3, 2016 Staff found the request for the variance is aue to tne existing approved use of the subject property and the unique topographical challenges created by the rock outcropppings and cliffs on the property. The circumstances are unique to the applicant's proposal, and are not of so general a nature to make it reasonable for the regulation to be changed. 4. No Variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision.... Staff found the variance request 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 found the applicant has demonstrated 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... Staff found the variance requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted in the Accommodations zone district. 7. In granting such variance, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. 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. Staff and Member Discussion Planner McCool stated the parking lot will be constructed out of road base. A grading permit will be required. It should be noted there are no retaining walls planned for this parking area. Member Newsom stated this is the most practical location for the site, and providing employee parking would be beneficial. In the event of a flood, water will be allowed to spread out and slow down here, which will be a benefit for those downstream. Public Comment Jes Reetz/applicant representative stated the proposal is strictly for seasonal overflow parking, and will not be used year-round. The material being used will not create dust. No negative neighbor issues are foreseen. There will be minimal site disturbance at this location. Asphalt is not being used to minimize the amount of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 May 3, 2016 runoff. The proposed base will also reduce the amount of urban heat being released into the atmosphere. Member Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the variance request with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. REPORTS A. Interim Director Cumbo reported the process tor hiring a new Community Development Director continues. Of the two applicants interviewed, one was offered the position but declined the offer. The job posting has been activated again and closes May 9, 2016. The job posting for the vacant Planner position, closed May 2, 2016. Nationwide, there are a lot of Planner positions available, so competition is tight. B. Interim Director Cumbo reported the 2015 International Buildings Codes and Local Amendments were adopted by the Town Board on April 12, 2016, to become effective June 1, 2016. New fee schedules for building permits and development review will also become effective June 1, 2016. Will Birchfield and County CBO Fried held a meeting to review the new codes last week, with more than 50 people attending. C. On Monday, May 9, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. there will be a public meeting to introduce the Army Corps of Engineers Silver Jackets Team, who will be in Estes Park all next week gathering information to conduct a floodproofing study of the downtown area. This study is free to the town, and should provide valuable information regarding how business owners can further protect their buildings from future flood damage through floodproofing techniques. The information to be provided will be recommendations to property owners, and nothing will be required by the property owners. D. Member Newsom reported that most of the variance applications the Board gets are for setbacks and height. The BOA is not the building department, and to request plans is not in the purview of the board. It is his opinion the only important factor is the setback requested, and we may have lost sight of that at last month's meeting, in requesting all the additional information. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:36 a.m. Don Darling, Chair RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment B May 3, 2016 Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 1774 Highway 66 — Landscape Buffer 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 fp ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: June 7, 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 7.5.F.2.b(3) Landscape Buffering and Screening and 7.5.G.2.b(1) Parking Lot Landscaping. The Variance would allow a 12.5-foot wide street and parking lot landscape buffer in lieu of the 25-foot wide required buffer. The purpose of the Variance is to allow for re-development on an existing developed site. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 1774 Highway 66, within the unincorporated Estes Valley. VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Jennifer Johnston STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow for a 12.5-foot street landscape and parking lot buffer in lieu of the required 25-foot buffer. The A-Accommodations zone district requires a 25-foot landscape buffer along all Arterial Streets. HWY 66 at this location is considered an Arterial Street due to the ROW width being at least 60-feet. The proposed parking lot requires a 25-foot landscape buffer along HWY 66 as well. The applicant has proposed a 12.5- foot buffer along the entire length of the property abutting the street. The site has gone through the Development Plan review phase to re-develop the site into a Resort Lodge/Cabin use. This involves remodeling the existing cabins and lodge building as well as constructing two new cabins and a private recreational hall. The Development Plan was approved on March 29, 2016. The landscape buffer width requests 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. Figure 1: Existing "buffer" and gravel parking area REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 14 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 comments as of June 2, 2016. Any written comments received after this date will be posted to the "Current Applications" webpage under public comment. 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 was originally developed in the 1970's with three cabins along the river. The topography of the site allowed for development along the river as well as on the upper portion of the site. A lodge style building currently exists close to the HWY. The property has been used with this configuration for the last 40 years. The current gravel parking area on the site parallels HWY 66 and includes approximately 20-feet of buffer area between the parking area and street right-of-way. With the Amended Plat and Development Plan application, an additional 10-feet of ROW was required to be dedicated, reducing the existing buffer area. The parking area is proposed to be formalized with asphalt, curb and gutter. Code requirements for this type of development at this location call for a 25-foot landscape buffer along HWY 66. Providing a 25-foot street landscape and parking lot buffer would require the parking area to be reduced by 12.5 feet, which would eliminate the drive aisle and make the existing and proposed parking inaccessible. Staff feels strongly that the site had many constraints pre-development plan and has addressed many through the review process. The Variance request would relieve practical and topographic difficulties associated with re-developing an existing site. 1774 HWY 66 — landscape buffer variance Page 2 of 4 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 configuration of the site may continue to be used. Any substantial re- development of the site will require a Development Plan which would require the landscape buffers. The existing buffer is not Code compliant in regards to width or landscape units. Right now the strip of land is merely grass and dirt. The proposed landscape buffer shall consist of a mix of trees, shrubs, and boulders. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The Variance request is for a 50% reduction from Code requirements from 25-feet to 12.5- feet. The parking area location is below the view plain of HWY 66. The proposed landscaping will also help to shield and buffer parking from the road. The existing grass area in the additional 10-feet of ROW will not be altered. 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 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). Staff believes the re-development proposal would enhance the neighborhood. The current parking area will not be drastically altered in regards to size or location. It will be asphalted and include curb and gutter. Additional parking area is proposed on the western portion of the site that would include the same 12.5 landscape buffer width. This additional parking area consists of 5 parking spaces required for the west cabin. The west cabin is currently under construction. This cabin alone did not require a Development Plan, just a building permit. The entire re-development proposal triggered the Development Plan. 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. All public service locations were approved with the development plan. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant stated they were under the assumption that HWY 66 was a Minor Collector Street based off the Larimer County classification. Through the Amended Plat process, additional ROW was required to be dedicated. Per Code, any street with a 60-foot ROW or greater is designated as an Arterial Street. With this higher intensity designation, landscaping standards increase from a 15-foot buffer to 25-foot. 1774 HWY 66 — landscape buffer variance Page 3 of 4 f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Because this is a re-development project, the constraints of the site are numerous. Meeting landscaping Code standards would require the existing parking area to be moved to the lower portion of the site. This would conflict with FIRE access requirements and river setback requirements. Formalizing the existing parking area is the most practical solution for this property. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The Variance request is a result of additional ROW dedication through the Amended Plat and Development Plan process. A Variance would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the site to re-develop as proposed. 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: All proposed landscaping shall be irrigated per the approved Development Plan. The applicant shall also provide as-builts for the parking area and sidewalks which shall ensure compliance with the approved plans. Staff does not believe additional conditions shall be placed on this request. 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. Site plan 1774 HWY 66 — landscape buffer variance Page 4 of 4 Project: The Landing at Estes Park Owner: Landing LLC, Jay and Jen Johnston Address: 1774 Highway 66, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Subject: Variance Request for Landscape Buffer Abutting Arterial Street, Driveway in Parking lot, and Landscape Buffer Makeup Reference: Estes Valley Development Code, 7.5.F.2.b(3) and 7.5.G.2.b(1) This variance request is for a reduction in the landscape buffer of 12.5 feet for the portion of the property abutting the arterial street of the Highway 66 Spur. The land is zoned A — Accommodations under the current Estes Valley Development Code. The landscaped buffer minimum is 25' for a property abutting an arterial street and we request that we be authorized a 50% reduction, or a 12.5' landscaped buffer. The request is a result of the existing infrastructure constructed in the 1970's, the topographical constraints of the property given its proximity to the river, and an existing sewer easement identified through the site development process and addressed herein. Requested variance: Section 7.5, F.2.b(3) and 7.5.G.2.b(1) — Landscaping and Buffers, Arterial Street Buffer Width -Required: 25' from the property line -Requesting: 12.5' from the property line The property is known as Lots 4A & 5A of the Spanier Subdivision to be amended into one lot as part of the site development plan. The property is in the development review process to have 3 additional structures added, upgrade from well to city water, upgrade the property to proper electricity capacity, and improve road infrastructure/layout. It was approved at the Staff Planning level at the end of March with a few conditions. The condition is that the project needs to obtain a variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for the landscape buffer abutting the arterial street of the Highway 66 Spur, The following represents the Standards for Review in the Estes Valley Development Code for a variance request: 1. Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist This property has been worked and reworked to get through the development review process over the last eight months and many changes have been made to the project to meet requests by the reviewing agencies. The property has numerous constraints that have constricted development of the site to a very narrow portion of the 1.71 acres. Topography: The 1.71 acres is located along a bend on the Big Thompson River. The previous owners constructed three riverside cabins in the 1970's but development can no longer take place within 30 feet of the river. From the river the property slopes uphill approximately 20' to a shelf before rising another 20' to the grade of the highway 66 spur. The "shelf' area of the property is approximately 30' wide and is the only area that can be used for development. Existing Easements: The property has an easement with the Upper Thompson Sanitation District of 15'for sewage lines. This easement bisects the property parallel to the river which creates a minimum 45' development standoff from the river's edge (30' river setback + 15' sewer easement). Existing Structures: The existing structures on the property were constructed in the 1970's and have existed in an "as is" state for the last 40 years. As such the main house was built close to the highway 66 spur (30') with the vehicle entrance to the property immediately to its front leaving very little space for an adequate parking area. Through the process of working with the town planners, and the development classification of the highway 66 spur, 10 feet was added to the Right of Way (ROW). This addition to the. ROW greatly limited the ability to meet the 25' landscape buffer requirement while maintaining a usable driving entrance and parking lot for guests visiting the property as well as the ability for emergency vehicles to access the property in case of a fire. To counter the impact of both the landscape buffer and parking lot safety the owners at great expense worked with the Fire Marshall to develop and expand the parking lot to create a new drive that meets the grade required by the Town Firetrucks to more easily access the lower portion of the property while protecting all existing and future infrastructure from fire. The drive and parking lot expansion improved the ability to screen the parking lot with a suitable landscape buffer through the elevation change from the highway while also providing enough parking spaces for guests. However, it greatly impeded on the area previously referred to as the "shelf' limiting the feasibility of building further structures and making the financial viability of the development of the site impossible. 2. "Practical Difficulty" a. Whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance? The property is zoned A-Accommodations and is classified as a High-Intensity Resort/Lodge. It has the potential for 7 additional structures. We are requesting to only add 3 structures and to maximize parking in order to adhere to existing code, the Fire Marshall's requests, public safety within the parking lot, and to maximize as much open green space throughout the property. b. Whether the variance is substantial? We do not believe the variance is substantial. The purpose of landscape buffers is to shield unsightly aspects of development such as parking lots from the view plain of visitors utilizing the road and enjoying our beautiful mountain setting. The topography of the land sloping down and away from the highway 66 spur, and the parking/road improvements already paid for by the owners to further reduce grade, places the parking lot below the view plain of passersby and will be further obscured by the 12.5' landscape buffer that will be utilized if granted the variance. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or neighbors would suffer a substantial detriment as a result ofthe variance? There would not be a substantial altering or a major impact on the surrounding properties, and existing gravel driveway would actually be moved further from highway 66. The surrounding properties are zoned A- Accommodations. They are built to a much higher density as they were developed well before current code and are subject to the similar topographic constraints of the slope from the highway down to the river. d. Whether the variance would affect the delivery of public services? This variance request makes access to the property safer and easier. The landscape buffer variance allows the parking lot to be safely navigated while improving the sight lines for oncoming traffic at the entrance. There are no apparent conflicts with public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge (.?/' the requirement? The applicant was unaware of the development classification requirement of the Estes Valley for setbacks from the highway 66 spur. The 66 spur is classified by Larimer County as a minor collector based on traffic volume which should not have increased the Right of Way setback. The Estes Valley considers it an arterial for development purposes to allow for the existence of trail easements and future sidewalks. Now understanding the intent of the Estes Valley Development Code this is the best solution to meet all of the needs requested. .1 Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some other method? The applicant can mitigate the predicament by reducing the size of the parking lot but it would not allow for future structures to be added given the aforementioned topographical and easement constraints. Other parking scenarios were discussed at length throughout the process but none could satisfy the proper amount of parking spaces for guests and the Fire Marshall's request to easily access all structures in the case of an emergency. Additionally, no other parking arrangements could meet the requirements given the inability to develop the property within the river setback and existing sewer easement. This solution is the best for all parties involved. 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. The special circumstances in this case are the review process that led to this solution. After several iterations, this became the best solution for all parties involved. 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 will not increase the density beyond the allowable density. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. This is the minimal request. 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 will not occur with this request. 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. •••-• ESTES VALLEY \W ,.•‘ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION ,trf COT4P)V " Submittal Date:Li 111. II Record Owner(s): .,.) 0 rAns.-k-4, Ir-vbYV +1.-e_ Lq-3r(4.- Street Address of Lot: i -1 -1 4 0 a,' Li L. to Ecko ? AAA_ c7 'Rog I Legal Description: Lot: 4 Pt Block: Tract: Subdivision: Z7 ihit."__ _,,t,,.., 1211,,LE-1=-4 4-55rlia.&zaic c..,vit ti ite--- ,1 . Parcel ID # : . c.34 1 -, 0 -1111-' Lot Size OS(icz Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use A 2vr-N-s— Zoning Existing Water Service r Town Pe. Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service r`, Town r- Well Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD Existing Gas Service I- Other Site AU:0Sb (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes f. UTSD Septic IJTSD r Septic r None Variance Desired (Devekipment Code Section #):_ " • "" g 11.1/4A-` I'r ,ri fir,' • 1-1 , .1' 11 Name of Printery Contact Person , - L.; • Complete Mailing Address 1 - L. E.- :?c• S1 -4- Prima Contact Person is ..r.'="zOwner r Applicant r Consuitant/En!ineer Application tee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) Is< I copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of ? = 20')" 4z 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") y-..Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format &nailed to planning©estes.org he 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. own o esFroirr—re. trAroM egoavenuenti. Estes Pork, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone; (9701 577-3721 iiir% Fox (970) 586-0249 4. www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment cut( it Revised 2013.08.27 rT Record Owner(s) Mailing Address A C„,4 icA r?a S t Phone D , Cell Phone Fax Email if, e. t t2-0 , c -<1.,.•- Applicant • .1 r• Lin 531-...--• Mailing Address S7 5 i ? rrm•::.‘ di..-cre;_o_. • 6S-Irto Phone —7( ,,(c, Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer 114-4-••• kicaks.4 Y3, •••• • ••,. Mailing Address &SAT-4 t, 51 Phone Cell Phone Fax Email 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:I/www.estes.o4ComDeviSchedules&Fees/PlanninoApplicationFeeSchedule_pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 KT Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: k 4.-1:4,""ttr" Date Date i I iiprk APPLICANT CERTIFICATION 10. 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. le 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). le 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: http:llwww.estes.ora/CornDev/DevCode Ile I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt rat the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete unoor the applicable requirements of the LOX. IP. I undeistand 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. Pe I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. le 1-he Community Development Department will notify the applicant In writing of the dale on which the application is determined to be complete. Ile 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. ► 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. t+ 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. te 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 3.6.0) Names: Signatures; Record Owner Applicant Revised 2013.08.27 KT General Development Standards § 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers 5. Irrigation. All newly installed landscapes shall include a properly functioning automated sprinkler system with individual drip lines for nonturf areas. Other forms of irrigation may be approved on a case-by-case basis by Staff. A functional irrigation system is required for final approval of installed landscaping and release of associated collateral or assurances. (Ord. 8-05 #1) E. Landscaping Requirements For Multi-family and Nonresidential Uses. 1. All multi-family and nonresidential land uses, except in the CD Zoning District, shall install at least one (1) tree and three (3) shrubs for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area covered by impervious surfaces, excluding parking lots, but including drives, sidewalks and other hard surfaces. (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2. Planting beds may contain a combination of living plant materials and mulch. Living materials shall comprise no less than fifty percent (50%) of the required planting beds, 3. Plant materials shall be located to enhance views from public streets and sidewalks. F. Buffering and Screening. 1. Purpose. Buffering is intended to help mitigate the physical, visual and environmental impacts created by development on adjacent properties. Buffering and screening creates a visual buffer between incompatible or differing land uses. 2. Applicability. Buffering is required in the following circumstances: a. District Boundaries. (1) A landscaped buffer shall be planted on the boundary between the zoning districts set forth below, unless the abutting property is determined by Staff to be unbuildable or visually separated by topographic features. District buffers shall not be required for areas where street frontage buffer requirements are met. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (2) The buffer shall be planted within twenty (20) feet of the district boundary. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (3) A minimum buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11) shrubs per one hundred (100) linear feet of district boundary shall be installed between the following zoning districts: (Ord. 8-05 #1) (a) An industrial district and any other zoning district; (b) A commercial or accommodations district and any residential district; (c) A multi-family residential district and any other residential district; or (d) A commercial district and any accommodations district. b. Street Frontage Buffers. (1) Purpose: Landscaping in areas located adjacent to streets is intended to create tree-lined streets, provide shade, improve air quality and enhance property values through improved views for the traveling public. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Supp. 6 7-21 General Development Standards § Le:q1dsPcping and buffet., (2) Exemption: The following shall be oxen pt from these street frontage buffer requirements: (a) Single-family developments and slIbclivisions, except in the RM Zoning District. (b) All cloveloprnent in tho CD toning District. (c) Development in the CH and I-1 Zoning astricts shall be exempt from the nonarterial buffer requirennents only. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Property :Abutting Arterial Streets. RI development on property abutting an cArEerial street shall provide a landscaped buffer with a minimum width at twenty-five (25) feet along the entire arterial street frontage. See _Figure 7-8. (4) Property Abutting Nfonarterial Streets. All development on property abutting a nonarterial street shall provioc a landscaped buffer with a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet along the entire street frontage. See Figure 7-8. (Ord. 8.05 #1) Planting Requirements (See Figure 7-8). (a) Arterial Street Frontage: --"Nmcsalockuoult42, (3) (5) (6) (1) One (1) tree shall be planted for each twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage and one (1) shrub for each ten (10) lineal feet of street frontage, positioned to adequately buffer developed frontage as viewed from adjacent street or right-of-way as determined by the Decision-Making Body. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (ii) Side Lot Line Planting Area: Side lot line planting is required for premises abutting an arterial street, but not in the CD or CH Zoning Districts. Required sideline planting shall be provided within five (5) feet of the side lot line between the front lot line and the building line. (b) Nonarterial Street Frontage: One (1) tree shall be planted for each forty (40) lineal feet of street frontage and one (1) shrub for each fifteen (15) lineal feet of street frontage, positioned to adequately buffer developed frontage as viewed from adjacent street or right-of-way as determined by the Decision-Making Body. (Ord. 8-05 #1) No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area. Within the street frontage buffer, there shall be no development, parking or drives, except for access to the portion of the site not in the buffer, which is approximately perpendicular to the right-of-way, underground utility installation, pedestrian and bicycle paths, allowable signs and necessary lighting. c. Service Areas. All multi-family and nonresidential service areas, such as dumpsters, other trash receptacles and ground-mounted mechanical equipment, shall be screened from public view on three (3) sides by a solid wall or fence at least six (6) feet in height and on the fourth side by a solid gate at least five (5) feet high. The screening structure and gate shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) on the site. Supp. 6 7-22 General Development Standards § 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers d. Loading Areas. All commercial and industrial loading areas and docks shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way and residential zone districts. e. Berms. Berms may be utilized as part of street frontage landscaping, but shall vary in height over the length of the berm. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Figure 7-13_ 3. Responsibility for Buffering. Buffering shall be the responsibility of new development. Existing land uses may be required to provide buffering if the use is changed, expanded, enlarged or in any other way increases the impacts on adjacent properties or rights-of-way over what is present at the time this regulation is adopted. It shall be the responsibility of the expanded or changed land use to evidence what the uses and impacts were at the time of adoption of this regulation. Supp. 6 7-23 (same zone district) B - • C A= District Buffer Street Buffer C= Parking lot screening (different zone district) A fr B (Street ) General Vevetoptount Standards § 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers 4. Method of Calculation. Graphic 7.1 shall serve as a guide for measuring distances for calculation of buffer requirements. Graphic 7.1 (Ord. 8-05 ##1) G. Parking Lot Landscaping. 1. Purpose. Parking lot landscaping is intended to improve the views from adjacent properties and public use areas, alter the microclimate of parking areas by providing shade and reducing reflected heat, and break up large areas of impermeable surface, allowing areas for water infiltration. 2. Perimeter Landscaping. a. Apolicabilitv. All parking lots containing six (6) or more spaces shall provide perimeter landscaping pursuant to the General Requirements below, except where abutting property is determined by Staff to be unbuildable or visually separated by topographic features. Parking lots in the I-1 and CH Zoning Districts shall be exempt. See Figure 7-9. (Ord. 8-05 #1) General Requirements (See Figure 7-9). (1) All parking areas shall be separated from property lines at the street by a planting area at least twenty-five (25) feet wide on arterial streets and by a planting area at least fifteen (15) feet wide on other street property lines. (2) All parking areas shall be separated from side and rear property lines by a planting area at least eight (8) feet wide. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Supp. 6 7-24 (1) SHAM FOR EVERY 10l IN EAR FEET REAR PROPERTY LINE Ev ilkl ae OR ENTREE FOR EVERY 20 LINEAR FEET 0) KR EVERY S 6 LI HRUB NEAR FEET SIDEWALK AS REQUIRED . N.m.1.•••••• 15' MINIMUM TO PROPERTY LINE ISLAND PAWPAW - 100 SQ. FT WITH IMAM el) TRE 9.PURS E AND (2) PA74114 163V IA O 2 (1) SHADE OR EMGREEN TREE FOR EVERY 30 LINEAR FEET • ARTERIAL STREET 254 MINIMUM TO PROPERTY LINE t,SG MAIM LOT LAWISCAPING General Development Standards § 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers (3) Islands shall be arranged to maximize shading of parking spaces. (4) Plantings shall be arranged so as not to interfere with driver vision, vehicle circulation or pedestrian circulation. (5) To the maximum extent feasible, landscape islands shall be incorporated in the stormwater management plan and located to break up large areas of impermeable surface, allowing areas for water infiltration. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Figure 7-9 H. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls are permitted as elements of a landscape plan and, in some locations, may be used to conceal storage or other unsightly or conflicting land uses. All fences or walls shall meet the following requirements: 1. Materials. a. Fences or walls shall be constructed of wood, stone, brick, decorative concrete block, wrought iron (or products created to resemble these materials), a combination of any of these materials or other materials, as approved by the Decision-Making Body. (Ord_ 8-05 #1) Supp. 6 7-26 II I n _• — DECK ABOVE Cl+ 'I I Tr T1 17 FUT— I _ 1,0 ...-•raiiricp, 01 Ri..:LE AND (WU IC HI cl $...:111iCm AL/411•, )..E.14 CORM:1i CF 534 EgAtih CAP VA PE..7 L 5 6499 . I • - • 71 ' EmC'.0 CIE THAT y - BP_KR.`7± 4,1 i'W CROW CAC1.0 D , LQC.A. t M _ sf • - • • ci• alb S.SL. H1G,IWAY O-W BRASS CA° STATION 21-160 ACCESS •••••••-••••• r : 116'5,5'4 •sr . „ . - ' ' • - • . . .0 - „ ',',C.IL'IR;iE INFaitkialri): .....1•11 r.i".0 1110i ;76:561 - - RA:iii.ti 4 53*',o' • • • - iS.39'. RTS4 . .1..C7 . : i.E .X1sT s : Thr sis:.7 1 : 1 4 0 1, ..., ... : s.iv .. 4 . • •tkr0. # S•47•4•371/..- - . - • • . : g . . . 'i5-.S1' ' • 1 .. . v • LAND S U) IN G PLA THE LANDING AT ESTES PARK ANI) 2\ ) AMEN'.)EI) PLAT OF LOTS /1 SPANIEN ACCOR'‘ING TC THE -11-1,T AT RECEDTICJ•J \O. 85064793', COUNTY LAR MER, STATE CF COLORADO. LOTS /IA 7='-ECO:;,T)Er) DECEM-ER 1q — • • • • —.11 a — GHWAy 12.= 0,1%- . _BRASS CAP STATON 6/4-67.B SQ -- • i• •• : • - • •• • • ••:• :•••••"-•,- •• : •••,•••-• •'•-• • - • ' • " • • • • . "•' • • • • • --••• - • . • •• • • • • • "' • • • • • •_cr.* 44.1.1 I. -• .. • ••,.,t • . - ' v • 1 . 0.-44 • - ••= 1;i ‘d- ."•-•. • -• • • 'µ-0-103 as • TA_Ottr, • . . H10-1W ik;" RL-0-14+ .61416S • 'CAP- STATION. 65 7.8 - • FOUtiD. #51 4RE.-1A1?....)--Le4 v (.M CAP) ••• • • ' • .7 c ,,..‘1,1.A .-- AI '!Fi 1•4°1‘,7- ...., 1, ....4 . •'-- --f.'i) - is. - , "ICAY: ttyt . -f ,ts\- -ssy-rri....) 0 , ..eoomepecio k, .- ••• (DEDICATED TO RIMEN ) - - _•.--.,--:-If•`.- •-••-- COUNTY W714. 1 ..m.k.r_ . • ',pe. .••• •••••• • : : • : • . . - -• • •-•• • • - • , .-... • "t 1.0 f.' ---.4.- ":-..- -- -- = - 1 . _ • ...,:-.--•,- -.; ... • • •••••-•-- - • . =• • t ••• • '• ,:cs-,-:.--:••4-1'-:=7*•••07'"-. • • ' - • • • • - •-• • • • • • • s'•• • • s : • f•••' 10..( f -• % • • - V. - _ . • • r • • :. 1 '4 • •z.. • - _ • •-• • • • • k , • • I - :.- • . •• • • • • • . • : : ••" • • FUTIAL 2-STORY RECR ) EATION HAI L W/4 WELLING UNITS BELOW (36' LigN •FE=±749.1,15° LOWFk.fFE=t--foerfp' 7 ..7 1 " 1111 - TR-DPOSED -- LINE 1 11 " 1CUTILI EASEMENT (PRCPOS 1YFICAL) 17) z co r .A; r4 sag z ______..... -..,..-...;:-.--,::::-.-_, k4, .•. • - •-•••• • — -S1110*,_ CFAiTER Wei„ •••: - L.FrE,„76,.,1‘4 5 4: • U Pfx 766E s• • .••t• 011 rri Shed Edve• (O.4' Ea* Or line) 1 Neitplyza Is Wooden eds (.Eovespiolgri h(:Ie) 6 •`'-‘4it 66 (-25.avc•ii • Tit9 04/3 LoTE8.w • f e NN',AL CS 33 1 -n? Rf1.14.7‘ .71x.,0114rs 1 PAR [ • 4 : la . 5 • • . •.•.• E R „- - • Em6$r:E-D.. • • i•-• g .v -gg • Existirig "t774" Three 1 Story Rcdt le Rome' main Lodg OFFICE AND 3 UNT3 WIM FFE-7003.5' FFE- I 7665.r1 CZL S4 LO" E EXI 5ERVIC AND RE ITO NEwil TRANSFORM I•-•,* (TYPICIL) fp 444 Elm Road — Building 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: June 7, 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 4.4 Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts. The Variance would allow a 0.92-foot front setback in lieu of the 15-foot required front setback in the II (Restricted Industrial) zone district. The purpose of the Variance is to allow an existing building to continue to be located within the setback. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 444 Elm Road, within the unincorporated Estes Valley. VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: 12576 Holdings, LLC (Polar Gas) STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow for a 0.92-foot front setback in lieu of the required 15-foot front setback. The 11- Restricted Industrial zone district requires a 15-foot front setback for all buildings. The existing 144 SF shed/staging office has been located on this site since 2007. In February of 2016, Planning Staff performed an Initial Development Code Analysis of 444 Elm Road and found that the construction of the shed/office building was not permitted. It is located within the regulatory setback and never obtained a building permit from the County. Two options were given to the applicant; 1. Move the building to a different location or 2. Seek a Variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. This application is a result of the Initial Development Code Analysis and Planning Staff recommendations. 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 12 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 comments as of June 2, 2016. Any written comments received after this date will be posted to the "Current Applications" webpage under public comment. 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 approximately 1.727-acres in size and is zoned 11 (Restricted Industrial). The shed/office building was constrcuted in 2007 without obtaining a building permit from the County. The building was placed on a concrete foundation and is located almost entitely within the 15-foot front setback. Currently, around 50% of the site is being used due to the steepness of slope found at this location. Staff has found no reason the building could have not been located at a different location. The building is 144 SF in size and could have been easily placed outside of the setback. There are no special circumstances or conditions associated with this property that would justifiy the current building location. 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: Without the Variance, the shed/office building would need to be re-located on the property. If the Variance was granted, the building may continue to be used at its current location. Re-locating the building would create additional costs such as demolition and new construction. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The Variance request is for nearly a 100% reduction from Code requirements. Staff believes it is substantial in that regard. Staff does not find that allowing the building to continue to be used at this location is a substantial request. It has been located at this 444 Eim Road— building setback variance Page 2 of 4 exact site since 2007. There have been no comments or concerns associated with this building location as of 2007. 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 character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to view corridors, drainage, migration corridors, etc). Since the building has been erected for nine years without any complaints or documented adverse impacts, staff believes the situation has caused no detriment to nearby properties. Drainage, lighting, access, etc. were reviewed with this application. 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 application was routed to various reviewing agencies and no comments or concerns were received in regards to the 10-foot utility easement. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The shed/staging office was constructed in 2007 when EVDC setbacks were in effect. A County building permit was not applied for at this time which would have flagged this location as inappropriate. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The building could be placed at a new location that is compliant with the EVDC. Because the building is constructed on a permanent concrete foundation and no complaints or concerns have been received since 2007, Staff believes the location of this small office building is not detrimental or poses any risks to the property or adjacent properties. Re- locating the building is not financially practical. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: A Variance would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the building to continue to be located at this site. 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: Staff is recommending that a building permit be applied for with the County. 444 Elm Road— building setback variance Page 3 of 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDTIONAL TO: 1. A County building permit shall be applied for within 1 month of Variance approval. If the building permit is not issued by the County, the Variance shall become null and void. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENYthe requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site plan 5. Site photos 444 Elm Road— building setback variance Page 4 of 4 permontesgroup VARIANCE PETITION (Revised 5-12-16) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICAITON 444 Elm Road, Estes Park Lot 1A Lorimer Terminals Subdivision PARCEL NO. 35264-52001 12576 Holdings, LLC Is the owner of Lot IA Larirner Terminals Subdivision, also identified as 444 Elm Road, Estes Park. Polar Gas Inc. (Polar Gas) is the applicant and operates a propane storage satellite substation facility on the property. This facility supplies regional Polar Gas delivery trucks with propane that is then delivered to customers within the Estes Park area. The Polar Gas storage facility Is secured by a chain link fence and consists of one 12,000 gallon and one 18,000 gallon propane storage tank and a prefabricated office building. In addition to the propane storage facility, Polar Gas leases the property to Atlas Disposal & Recycling, LLC which handles disposal and recycling needs of the community. Atlas Disposal & Recycling has multiple aft wide storage containers located on the property that vary in length from 16ft to 22ft. The number of containers located on site is dependent upon service demand. If food refuse Is stored on site these containers are covered with animal/bear proof lids. Due to the steep grades of the property, approximately 50% of the site is utilized for the current business uses. Although the property is operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no employees are on site for that duration. Employees do leave their personal vehicles on site along the frontage of Kenwood Lane while performing job related duties. The majority of activities take place during daylight hours. Operations of both businesses are subject to the weather and do happen independently of each other. The intent of this application is to request a variance from the industrial Zoning Dimensional Standard 4.4.C, Minimum Building setback within the Restricted Industrial Zoning District. The existing 9-ft (W) x 16- ft (1.)x 8-ft (H) Polar Gas storage shed/staging office has been on site since 2007 and is located within the 15-ft building setback along Elm road. The building is 30-ft east of the Elm Road 22-ft travel road. This 144 sf building contains no water and sewer services and is not utilized as an on-site office for full time employees. The building is a staging location for one Polar Gas employee to pick up delivery orders that are faxed or entailed to this location. The employee will then leave his personal vehlde within the fenced building area and leave for deliveries in the Polar Gas delivery truck. At the end of the day the driver will return to the staging office to send out his paperwork and leave the yard in his personal vehicle. There have been no negative impacts caused by the building or the Polar Gas operations since it was constructed in 2007. Additional site characteristics for Lot IA are included below: a. Number of employees on site 625 Main Street, iengmont, CO 80507 Office:1720) 684-4981 Yell Free: (856) 471.7359 Fax: (888) 715-2411 www,permontesgroup.com 444 Elm Road Estes Park, CO I Variance Petition Statement at Intent Polar Gas employs up to three employees who are on site to fill the fuel tanks or to pick up fuel for delivery. Atlas Disposal & Recycling has two owners that work In the business and employs one employee who delivers refuse to the property site and then removes that refuse at a later time. b. Hours of operation Both businesses are operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The majority of activities will take place during daylight hours. However, propane is in highest demand during the winter. Also, during periods of peak demand, propane may need to be purchased from neighboring states. The proposed hours of operation are 24/7 in order to have the flexibility to access the tanks around the clock. Atlas Disposal & Recycling, LLC is most active in the summer months and when activities at Rocky Mountain National Park are most lively. c. Building and site arrangement Please see existing site plan attached. d. Vehicles used Polar Gas propane that Is stored within the 18,000 and 12,000 gallon tanks is delivered in 10,000 gallon trucks. These vehicles are typically 60-feet long, semi-trucks (approximately 80,000 pounds). A single propane delivery vehicle (33,000 pound gross vehicle weight rating) obtains propane from the storage tanks and delivers to customers within the Estes Park area. Atlas Disposal & Recycling uses one ton pickup trucks to bring the disposal and recycling to the property site. Following delivery to the site, a 32-feet straight truck removes the containers from the property site. e. The relative number of vehicle trips generated by the use Traffic at the property site is nominal. Polar Gas delivers propane to the site twice a week at most. Deliveries from the property site may happen twice a day during the winter months in most cases only one trip a day is generated. During the peak demand, Atlas may have as many as three trips of disposal and recycling being brought to the property site and up to three trips from the site to the Larimer County Landfill/Recycling Center are made each day. During low demand, the trips generated to and from the project site are even less. f. Signs expected in conjunction with the use Presently, no signage for the current businesses and their use exist on the property site. g. How the uses are advertised Both businesses do use websites, the yellow pages and word of mouth as forms of advertising. h. Whether the use Is likely to be found independent of other uses on the site Polar Gas operates on the property site independently of Atlas Disposal & Recycling, LLC. I. Whether the subject uses is consistent with the stated intent and purpose of the Estes Valley Development Code and the zoning district in which it is to be located. As presented In the Findings and Resolution Approving the Petition of South Bend Development, LLC for Lot 1A and discussed in our October 15th meeting, the property use is well within the classification and applicable zoning for the project site. Description of any chemicals or solutions being used on site and the disposal methods of all solid and liquid waste products resulting from business activities Page 12 444 Elm Road Estes Park, CO I Variance Petition Statement of Intent Propane is currently the only chemical or solution that N being used on the property site. The Town of Estes Park has the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) as submitted in the original building permit for this property and it is also available online at www.polargas.com/polar_gas_tPG_MSDS.pdf. No waste products resulting from activities on the property site are currently being created and therefore the removal of these products are not applicable. Page 13 perry blifebup VARIANCE PETITION Tr, t BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICAITON 444 Elm Road, Estes Park Lot 1A Larimer Terminals Subdivision PARCEL NO. 35264-52.002 12576 Holdings, LLC is the owner of Lot 1A Larimer Terminals Subdivision, also identified as 444 Elm Road, Estes Park. Polar Gas Inc. (Polar Gas) is the applicant and operates a propane storage satellite substation facility on the property. This facility supplies regional Polar Gas delivery trucks with propane that is then delivered to customers within the Estes Park area. The Polar Gas storage facility is secured by a chain link fence and consists of one 12,000 gallon and one 18,000 gallon propane storage tank and a prefabricated office building. In addition to the propane storage facility, Polar Gas leases the property to Atlas Disposal & Recycling. LLC which handles disposal and recycling needs of the community. Atlas Disposal & Recycling has multiple 8ft wide storage containers located on the property that vary in length from 16ft to 22ft. The number of containers located on site is dependent upon service demand. If food refuse is stored on site these containers are covered with animal/hear proof lids. Due to the steep grades of the property, approximately 50% of the site is utilized for the current business uses. Although the property is operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no employees are on site for that duration. Employees do leave their personal vehicles on site along the frontage of Kenwood Lane while performing job related duties. The majority of activities take place during daylight hours. Operations of both businesses are subject to the weather and do happen independently of each other. The intent of this application is to request a variance from the industrial Zoning Dimensional Standard 4.4.C, Minimum Building setback within the Restricted Industrial Zoning District. The existing 9-ft by 16-ft Polar Gas storage shed has been on site since 2007 and is located within the 15-ft building setback along Elm road. The building is 30-ft east of the Elm Road 22-ft travel road. This 144 sf building contains no water and sewer services and is not utilized as an office for full time employees. There have been no negative impacts caused by the storage building since it was constructed in 2007. Additional site characteristics for Lot 1A are included below: a. Number of employees on site Polar Gas employs up to three employees who are on site to fill the fuel tanks or to pick up fuel for delivery. Atlas Disposal & Recycling has two owners that work in the business and employs one employee who delivers refuse to the property site and then removes that refuse at a later time. b. Hours of operation Both businesses are operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The majority of activities will take place during daylight hours. However, propane is in highest demand during the winter. Also, during periods 623 Main Streec, Longrpor5t, CO 8:150.1 i Office (720) 684-4981 loll (5665 471-7369 Fax. 03B81716 -?,111 www per 5150151e5,gi ouo cx55 444 Elm Road Estes Park, CO I Variance Petition Statement of Intent of peak demand, propane may need to be purchased from neighboring states. The proposed hours of operation are 24/7 in order to have the flexibility to access the tanks around the clock. Atlas Disposal & Recycling, LLC is most active in the summer months and when activities at Rocky Mountain National Park are most lively. c. Building and site arrangement Please see existing site plan attached. d. Vehicles used Polar Gas propane that is stored within the 15,000 and 12,000 gallon tanks is delivered in 10,000 gallon trucks. These vehicles are typically 60-feet long, semi-trucks (approximately 80,000 pounds). A single propane delivery vehicle (33,000 pound gross vehicle weight rating) obtains propane from the storage tanks and delivers to customers within the Estes Park area. Atlas Disposal & Recycling uses one ton pickup trucks to bring the disposal and recycling to the property site. Following delivery to the site, a 32-feet straight truck removes the containers from the property site. e. The relative number of vehicle trips generated by the use Traffic at the property site is nominal. Polar Gas delivers propane to the site twice a week at most. Deliveries from the property site may happen twice a day during the winter months in most cases only one trip a day is generated. During the peak demand, Atlas may have as many as three trips of disposal and recycling being brought to the property site and up to three trips from the site to the Larimer County Landfill/Recycling Center are made each day. During low demand, the trips generated to and from the project site are even less. f. Signs expected in conjunction with the use Presently, no signage for the current businesses and their use exist on the property site. g. How the uses are advertised Both businesses do use websites, the yellow pages and word of mouth as forms of advertising. h. Whether the use is likely to be found independent of other uses on the site Polar Gas operates on the property site independently of Atlas Disposal & Recycling, LLC. I. Whether the subject uses is consistent with the stated intent and purpose of the Estes Valley Development Code and the zoning district in which it is to be located. As presented in the Findings and Resolution Approving the Petition of South Bend Development, LLC for Lot 1A and discussed in our October 15th meeting, the property use is well within the classification and applicable zoning for the project site. Description of any chemicals or solutions being used on site and the disposal methods of all solid and liquid waste products resulting from business activities Propane is currently the only chemical or solution that is being used on the property site. The Town of Estes Park has the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) as submitted in the original building permit for this property and it is also available online at www.polargas.com/polar_gas_LPG_MSDS.pdf. No waste products resulting from activities on the property site are currently being created and therefore the removal of these products are not applicable. Page 12 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION wakoul IMMimuMNIP Submittal Date: Tract: Legal Description: Lot: Subdivision: Lorimer Terminals Subdivision 1A Block: 1.72 Lot Size Zoning 1-1 Restricted Industrial Industry/Industrial Services Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Town Proposed Water Service Town EPSD 3 EPSD 3 Other I" Well Other (Specify) Well r Other (Specify) 3 UTSD UTSD 3 None Pc- No Am there wetlencl.s on the site? r Yes 10.3rtanCe. (Building Setback) e ne-r et int o rmetkan Record Owner(s): 12676 Holdings LLD Street Address of Lot: 444 Elm Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 Parcel ID # : 35264-52.001 Misr InfOrMt1(1011 Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Xcel industry/Industrial Services N/A N/A Septic N/A Septic N/A Site Access (if not on public street) Entrance from Elm Rd; Exit from Kenwood Ln. Variance Desired (Development Code Section ft): Building Setback Code # 4.4C Dimensional Standards Primary Contacl inlonnation Name of Primary Contact Person Permontes Group, Inc. - Mickey Leyba Complete Mailing Address 825 Main Street, Longmont, CO 80501 Prtmery Cpntpct Parson is r Owner r A licant IX ConsvItont/EnainpAr X Application fee (see attached fee schedule) IX Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) iX 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') " !X 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") IX Digital copies of plate/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 Park •sr P.O. Box 1200 •A 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 -sr Fox: (970) 586-0249 -sr www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopmeni Revised 2013.08.27 KT Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email 12576 Holdings LLC P 0 Box 187, Brighton, CO 80601 303-659-1806 303-918-5513 nathanreed@polargas.com Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email 12576 Holdings LLC P 0 Box 187, Brighton, CO 80601 303-659-1806 303-918-5513 nathanreed@polargas.com ConsultantlEngineer Permontes Group, Inc. - Mickey Leyba Mailing Address 625 Main Street, Longmont, CO 80501 Phone 720-684-4981 Cell Phone 303-746-3530 Fax 888-716-2411 Email mieyba@permontesgroup.com ,i_1ant.ICI I nfo rn-tatscFn 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.orgiComDeviSchedules&Fees/PlanninAcolicationFeeSchedule.odf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 KT Record Owner ParASE maw I Z-12.1( ; 6 Ll.C. ai1ta 4r, Applicant pi OW MOO P r rtc Signatures: Record Oconee - - LP' Date 41/41/16 Ode 0446 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION a I hereby way that the intormation and exhibits heninelh submittod are true and corral ho the best of my knowledge and that le tang the appication I am acting with the knoWedge and consent rd be owners of the property * In subrnetingttt,e applscaton materials and swig this applaud= agreement. I etimowledge and agree that the tdadleatren 4 gabled to the applicable processing and pubar hearing reguiremenix eel forth in the Cites Volley DOveloperient Code fEVOC) ► I acienowiellge thin I have obtamett Or have *coma to the E' )C, and the!. prior to Wig des appricolica t have had the OppOrlunity to COM* the reievord provisions governing the processing of and decision on the swim:ahem The Cates Wiley Development Code in available eters at pi ormw•etteIRCIVCATOOf2EvCr.ette a I understand that acceptor= of this appal:alien by the Town of Estes Park fee filing and receipt of the appbeation tee byline town does not necessardy mean that the emir:dim is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC • understand that this valiance request rimy be delayed in processing bye month or Mat if PM bionnation provided is incomplete. inaccurate, or submitted attar the deadline et* a I understand that a resubmitted fee will be deemed if my opplicalien is incomplete 11' Me COrerliefitY Development Deportment vie nedly the cant in twang of the dale an which Ile ispitleatiori is determined to be Complete. le i gram permission for Town of Estee Park Employees end Members d chit Bost of Adjustment web proper identification access to my property during the review ethos apolleaten p. l ecknowtedge mat I have received the rates Vetey Board of Aclpsiment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my aWinitibri or the approsol el my application becoming red and void I understand that full 1104 cod be chimed for the resubniald of en application that has become red and void to I enclorstand that t en) MOM to obtain a "Vinare* Notice sign born the Canner* Development Department end that t sign mud be posted en my preporty where it is dearly visible from the toad. t understand that the comers of My properly and Pie poetised binichrigfstncture comers must Or geld slaked t widerstand rut Me sign must se posted erne the making completed ha lase than tee OM Maims* days prior to the Estes Valley Board of A4usenent Weft o I understand that dew Boric of Adjustntent approves my Matted. Teller* elan adttighlrlf to apply ter & permit and commence COMATUCti011 or SCUM with regard to the variance approve within one (l) pow of receiving /wpm* at the 10811017ft rreay auternalleany render the decision of the BOA null and void* (Estes Wary Devolorment Code Section 3.03D) Nemec 1 ferkio fee es*noci 2013 Co..22 inning Districts § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Zoning District A Minimum Land Area per Accommodation or Residential Unit (sq. ft. per unit) Minimum Lot Size [7] Minimum Building! Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Max. Bldg Height (ft.) [9] Max. FAR Max. Cover- age (%) Area (sq ft) Width (ft.) Front (ft.) Lot Side (ft.) Rear (ft.) Accommodation Unit =1,800 [1]; Residential Units: SF = 9,000; 2-Family = 6,750; MF = 5,400 40,000 [2] 100 [3] Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 15 [6] 10 [6] 30 N/A 50 A-1 10,1390 15,000 [2] 50 [3] Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets 7-• 15 15 10 30 .20 30 CD 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; All other uses = Na Mini- muLTI = Maxi- mum = 16 If lot abuts a residential property = 10; All other cases = 0 If lot abuts a residential property = 10; All other cases = 0 30 2.0 n/a CO n/a Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commercial Recreation/ Entertain- ment = 40,000 [2] All other lots Fronting arterials = 200; All other lots = 50 = 15,000 [2] Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets =15 15 [6) 15 [6] 30 .25 65 Supp. 5 4-21 1141144nm Land Area per Accommo- dation or Zoning Residential Unit District (sq. ft per unit) Residential Units (21' Floor) 0 1 unit 2.250 sq, ft CFA of principal use. Minimum Size [11 Area Width (sci ft) (ft.) Fronting Arterials = 15,000 200; [2] All other lots = 50 Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks [41 [8] Front (ft.) Arterial = 25 [5]; Ali other 15 (8] 15 [6] streets 15 ide (ft.) Rear (ft) CH nla l-1 n/a 6,000 [2] 50 15 Fronting Artonai Arterials = 25 [5]; 200; l All other All other streets lots = 50 =15 0 [61 f.) [5] J, 10 (6] 10 15,000 [2] (Ord. 2-02 #6; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 15-03 #3) Zonit Kr Districts § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning District& Max. Building Height (ft.)191 Max. FAR Max. Lot Coverage (%) Sri .25 50 30 .50 80 30 .30 80 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'§5.1.13 below. If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." For lots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shalt 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 he landscaped according to the standards set forth in §7.5 of this Code. Setback shall be increased to 25 feet lithe 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-11` district. (Ord. 11-02 §1) pj 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. 5 4-22 Vicinity Map Proied Name: Town of Estes Park Community Development Printed: 6/2/2016 Created By: Audem Gonzales 1 in = 83 It 444 Elm Road - Polar Gas Variance COLORADO ES PARK Vicinity Map EST immemm=i 0 40 80 Feet Project Description: Variance to 15-foot building setback Petitioner(s): 12576 Holdings, LLC (Polar Gas) 1-1 Town Boundary 13fTE ACCESS 2.1 FROFERT+ LNiL EASEMENT LINE CONTOURS LEGEND ~WANG UCCK STORAGE PARKING CONCRETE P101ed !Weil JANES' 030:AYEP P,0240) OWNER/APPLICANT OWNER 12578 HOLDINGS, LC APPLICANT: POLAR GAS INC. PO BOX 187 BRIGHTON, CO 80601 (303)6594800 CONTACT: NATHAN REED EMAIL• NATHANREED@POLARGAS.COM PIANNINGENCINEERING PERMONTES GROUP, INC. 825 WM STREET LONGMONT, CO 80501 (7201884.4901 PHONE CONTACT: MICKEY LEYBA EMAIL• IALEYBA@PER6AONTESGROURCOM PROJECT No.: 137.007 APPROVAL APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT THIS DAY OF 2015. SHEET NO. BY: ALISON CHILCOTT a SITE LOCATION MAP r=200' SHEET 1 OF 2 6 re D. 1 1 OWNER. AND LiEMOLDER'S STATEMENT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THIS SITE DEVELOPLENT PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND AM OTHER ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, PERTAINING THERETO. OWNER: 12576 HOLDINGS, LLC BY: NATHAN REED R.113 ML DATE: 8111118 SCALE NIA S1 SHEET 1 OF 2 COMONED PAL DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: ML SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COVER SHEET POLAR GAS - ESTES PARK VICINITY MAP =1000' II 1161.1.1.611•4_ _ POLAR GAS — ESTES PARK a I A 1 g i is SITE PLAN 8 i ; LOT IA, BLOCK 2 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 10A, BLOCK 3 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 10, BLOCK 3 OF LARIMER TERMINALS SUBDIVISION i 5 LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF ESTES PARK, STATE OF COLORADO 75.247 S.F.. 1.727* AC " -1C 6113JTY MYR. I ILDG SE11140. EXISTING BUILDINC 1 der.Ailg irma LOT I OD rive,46V*. V1,1. (100211.1 ViWt7i'224 • EIVEITtlsk; BUILDING LOT 2A 76.&86 S.F. 1.756 AC. 61Dfikk If r j I LIMN* MU. I ids &Mimic z re 0 0_ .1 5 455 E 11 z I— cri POLAR GAS - ESTES PARK SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEMONS/ BY: I ML EITAINN SY: RJB •,- CHECKED SY: IML - AP- PRom 13Y: CM ' PROJECT No.. 137.007 DATE. 54111111 SCALE: = SHEET NE S2 SHEET 1 OF POLAR GAS - ESTES PARK SITE PLAN LOT 1A, BLOCK 2 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 10A, BLOCK 3 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 10, BLOCK 3 OF LARIMER TERMINALS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF ESTES PARK, STATE OF COLORADO. 76,247 &F., 1.727± AC SHEET 2 OF 2 SITE PLAN FLAG NOTES ' DOME Poje GAS STORAGE WED/ STAGING OFFICE $621141616.6(360 1:1 D7STING CRAIN LINK FENCE 30 ANIIML-PRCOF REFUSE DISPOSAL CONTAINER ITyp.) (LOCATIONS MAY VARY WITHIN DESIONATIED STORAGE AREA) M OUTDOOR STORAGE =TAMER (TYP.) M. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND EQUIPMENT STAGING AREAS PARKING AREA 1:100( UNLOACINGGTAGING AREA •7. crROMATION AND TRAVEL MEM SiTE TRUCK ENTRANCE SITE TRUCK EMT ACCESS GATE :111 LOCATION OF 2ECTRIC SERVICE TO BUILDING PARTING SPACES f4 SITE NOTES 1. FXiSTINGPNIME 1-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 2. APPROMMATELY 5C16 OF TIE SITE iS CURRENTLY SANG UlluZED DUE TO THE STEEP GRADES °FRE PROPERTY. 3- THE INLRIBER Of EMPLOYEES ON THE SITE IS YMEMAL 4. HOURS OF OPERATION ARE 24 HOURS PER DAY.? DAYS PER WEEK FOR EMPLOYEES TO ACCESS TIE SITE MO EMPLOYEES ON THE SITE Fla TINE. 5 VEIMUtAll ACCESS TO THE PROJECT STIE IS FROM ELM ROAD. VEHICLES DEPART THE SITE USING KENWOOD LANE. S. SRE PARKING IS WOOED ALONG THE KEN WOOD LANE FRONTAGE 7. ALL APPROVED 3118114E63 OPERATING MID PROVIDING SERVICES FROM THE SITE SHALL FAYE A TOWN BUSNESS LICENSE. USABLE AREAS OF LOT 1A AND ADJACENT RailT•OF-WAYS ARt SURFACED WI NI ROAD BASE/GRAVEL. 63,ORT MAK lJ GPASIS - 3 Aka s IV #0,M NIT WI • EIM ROAD 60' RO E I) F R^.-A6 TRAVEL LANES ?WIDTH VARIES &ram 0 3d SCALE: =