The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-08-02Prepared: July 26, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, August 2, 2016 9:00 a.m. Town Hall Board Room 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated June 7, 2016 (continued from July meeting) B. Approval of minutes dated July 12, 2016 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 1337 CLARA DRIVE, TEMPLE RESIDENCE VARIANCE Owner: Jim & Linda Temple Applicant: C Aubrey Carson Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires 50-foot setbacks in the RE—Rural Estate zone district. Request to allow a 30- foot side setback for a proposed detached garage. Staff: Audem Gonzales 4. LOT 2, ESTES PARK SCHOOLS SUBDIVISION, 650 COMMUNITY DRIVE, ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER VARIANCE REQUEST Owner: Park R-3 School District Applicant: Estes Valley Recreation & Park District Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires a maximum height of 30 feet in all zone districts. Request to allow a height of approximately 31 feet on a portion of the proposed Community Center. Staff: Carrie McCool 5. REPORTS A. Board of Adjustment vacancy update 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 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 12, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, John Lynch, one vacant position (County) Attending: Members Lynch, Moreau, and Smith Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Planner Carrie McCool, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Newsom Member Lynch 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 June 7, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to continue the Consent Agenda to the next Board of Adjustment meeting due to lack of a quorum (Moreau abstaining) and the motion passed 3-0. 3. LOT 24, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION, 553 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Maxwell Inn Variance Requests Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Peter and Dana Maxwell, owners of Maxwell Inn, requested variances from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, Footnote 6, which requires a 25-foot setback in the A— Accommodations zone district when the property abuts a residential zone district boundary. The request is to allow an 18.5 foot setback. The second variance is to EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zone Districts which requires maximum lot coverage of 50% for A— Accommodations zone districts. The request is to allow impervious lot coverage of 62.7%. Planner Gonzales explained the purpose of the variance is to allow construction of a 4-unit structure on the site, which currently contains 17 units. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 12, 2016 site is within the Town limits. Proposed construction includes one existing unit to be converted to a laundry facility and accessible bathroom. A separate structure would contain four units, bringing the total number of units to 20, which is the maximum density allowed for this property. The subject property is currently grandfathered in with 62.2% impervious lot coverage and the applicant would like to increase that by 0.5%. Planner Gonzales stated the proposed new building would be on the east portion of the site, and approximately 67 square feet of this building would encroach into the setback. Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies, Notices were mailed to adjacent property owners and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No significant comments were received by affected agencies, and no written public comments were received from the public. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Setback: The existing accommodations building was constructed in 1946 in the middle of the property. Additional development space is limited. Existing parking areas further limit the available space to develop. The site has many existing constraints that limit the location for further development. The variance request would relieve practical difficulties associated with developing on an existing site. Lot Coverage: The existing impervious lot coverage is 62.2%. The Estes Valley Development Code required a maximum of 50% impervious coverage. The applicant has proposed a plan that removes 1,407 square feet of impervious coverage by altering the parking area but keeping the appropriate amount of parking spaces. The new 4-unit accommodations building along with new concrete walks add 1,590 square feet of impervious coverage to the site. The actual gain in impervious coverage as proposed is 0.5%. Staff feels this project meets the intent of Code and the applicant has made an effort to reduce the legal non-conforming lot coverage percentage while trying to obtain the permitted amount of accommodations units. 2. In determining "practical difficulty": a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Setback: Only 17 of the 20 units in the main building are being used for occupancy. The remaining 3 units were repurposed in 2013 but are very small and are located underground with little daylight. The applicant has proposed to build a separate 4-unit structure to offer modernized hotel rooms for guests. Of the existing 17 units, one unit is proposed to be converted into a guest laundry/bathroom, bringing the total number of units on-site up to 20. Staff feels that full utilization of the allowed density is the most practical use of the site. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 July 12, 2016 Lot Coverage: The property is grandfathered in with 62.2% impervious lot coverage. The applicant has made an aggressive effort to reduce impervious coverage while incorporating the new -1,100 square toot building. The gain in impervious coverage is 0.5%. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Setback: The variance request would make the new side setback 18.5 feet in lieu of the 25-feet required. This calculates out to be a 26% variance. The threshold for a Board of Adjustment Variance versus a Planning Commission Minor Modification is any request over 25%. Staff does not feel this request is substantial, with approximately 67 square feet of the building to be located within the setback. Lot Coverage: The actual increase in impervious coverage from existing conditions is 0.5%. The applicant has proposed a two-story building to minimize the footprint of development on the site. The new plan improves the existing conditions by removing a significant amount of paving from the front setback. The proposed 62.7% impervious lot coverage is a 12.7% deviation from Code, which would require a Planning Commission Minor Modification or a Board of Adjustment Variance. Staff feels this request is minor. 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: Setback: The property to the east consists of residential condominiums that were constructed in the 1990's/2000. The driveway for the condominiums abutting the Maxwell Inn property is located on the western edge, serving as a buffer between the proposed accommodations building and the condos. The condos are situated 30-40 feet from the west property line. With the Maxwell Inn's proposed new side setback of 18.5-feet, the condos would roughly be 48- 58 feet from the new building. The approved development plan for the Maxwell Inn has required a district landscape buffer between the properties. The applicant has proposed to concentrate the plantings east of the proposed building to further buffer the use. Staff does not feel the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered or suffer detriment as a result of the variance. Lot Coverage: Again, the property has been operating with 62.2% impervious lot coverage for several years. A 0.5% increase would not substantially alter the neighborhood in any way. Drainage and runoff would not be affected. The approved development plan and drainage study have concluded there is very little to no impact on drainage on the site. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 July 12, 2016 d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Setback and Lot Coverage: Approval would have no 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; Setback and Lot Coverage: The applicant purchased the property in 2013 and decided to eliminate three (3) of the existing units due to their poor quality. During the design and planning process of the new building, setback regulations were in effect. The applicant has decided this plan is the best approach to restoring the three (3) units. f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Setback: The applicant has stated that it is impossible to create additional units within the footprint of the existing building. The west side of the existing building was analyzed and found not to be a practical location due to the creation of conflicts with the caretaker's unit, access would be cut off from other hotel support areas, and there would be no direct access to parking. Also, including a handicap unit at this location was found to be infeasible. A variance would be the only process to achieve the proposal. Lot Coverage: The increase of impervious coverage of 0.5%. An additional reduction of 0_5% of impervious coverage could be explored. The applicant has already reduced 1,407 square feet of impervious coverage on the site by reconfiguring the parking area. The applicant has stated it is not possible to further remove impervious coverage without sacrificing the area needed to meet parking and drive standards, and to allow for emergency vehicle access through the property. 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. Setback and Lot Coverage: The conditions of this application are not general. They are specific to this property, size and orientation. 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. Setback and Lot Coverage: No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by these variance requests. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 July 12, 2016 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Setback: Multiple factors influenced the layout proposed, including maintaining parking spaces, replacing impervious coverage, pulling parking and paving out of the front setback to the degree possible, maintaining clearances for emergency vehicles, and minimizing the amount of variance necessary. The level of variance requested is approximately 67 square feet, which staff finds to be very minimal. Lot Coverage: Again, staff finds a 12.7% deviation from Code to be a very minimal request. A variance would represent the least deviation from Code 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. Setback and Lot Coverage: The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Setback and Lot Coverage: Staff recommends no conditions of approval Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request with no recommended conditions. A survey has been completed. A staff-level development plan was approved by staff to build the proposed structure at the site. Member and Staff Discussion Member Smith inquired about the parking requirement. Public Comment Joe Coop/applicant representative stated 25 parking spaces are proposed (two of those will be inside a garage). The requirement is for 20 spaces. He stated parking spaces are triggered by square footage. Pete Maxwell/applicant was present and available for questions. Member and Staff Discussion Member Moreau recommended a setback certificate be submitted to the Community Development Department as a condition of approval. Condition of Approval RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 July 12, 2016 1. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance with the findings and conditions presented and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy. A recess was called at 9:23 a.m., as Planner McCool was delayed due to traffic conditions. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 a.m. 4. LOT 9, BLOCK 3, AMENDED WINDCLIFF ESTATES, 57" FILING; 3323 Eiger Trail; Newberg Residence Variance Requests Planner McCool reviewed the staff report. The applicants are Andrew and Stephanie Newberg. She stated there are three requests from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25-foot setbacks from all property lines and a maximum height of 40 feet in the E-1—Estate zone district. The requests are to allow: (1) a seven (7) foot setback from the east property line; (2) a 14 foot rear setback; and (3) a 2.2-foot height variance over the 30-foot maximum. Planner McCool stated the subject property is located in the Windcliff Estates Subdivision, which has a mixture of lot sizes and configurations, steep topography and lush vegetation. The typical lot in Windcliff is undersized for the zone district and has an average slope of approximately 40% Planner McCool stated the subject lot is long, narrow, and undersized for lots in the E-1 zone district, where one acre is the minimum lot size. This particular lot is 0.37 acres. The size of the lot makes it very difficult to conform to the front and rear setback requirements. Planner McCool stated the actual buildable area is 23 feet wide, with an average slope of 54%. Planner McCool stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. No comments from the public were received. Larimer County Engineering staff sent comments dated June 21, 2016. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the lot is narrow and the steep slope, along with heavy vegetation, presents challenges when planning the site layout. The lot is undersized for the zone district at 0.37 acres. The average slope of the lot is 54%. 2. In determining "practical difficulty": a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 July 12, 2016 Staff found due to the steep slope, lot configuration, and limited buildable area, a variance would most likely be required to build any single-family residence. Applicant's design minimizes the amount of the variances required. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the request is not substantial, given the physical constraints of this lot. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance: Staff found the design of the proposed single-family dwelling seeks to match the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The preservation of trees on the lot will minimize visual impact from development of this site. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found the requested variances would not adversely affect public service delivery. Larimer County Engineering provided comments as follows: Grading for Infrastructure Richt-of-Way Encroachment: The Larimer County Engineer raised concerns regarding the encroachment of grading and infrastructure in the Eiger Trail right-of-way and required the grading design be revised so contours tie in within the property boundary. The applicant revised the retaining walls and grading around the proposed house to stay out of the Eiger Trail right-of-way. The proposed driveway enters from Eiger Trail, and grading will be required within the right-of-way and the turnaround grading will enter the right-of-way. While the applicant proposes grading for the aforementioned items to be kept to a minimum to obtain safe grades and slopes, the county's comments regarding the requirement that grading for infrastructure shall not encroach into the road right-of-way must be adhered to. Turnaround and Parking with the Eiger Trail Right-of-Way: The Larimer County Engineer requested confirmation that the orientation of the proposed garage is such that the vehicles will be parked outside of the road right-of-way limits, with space on the property to maneuver vehicles to exit onto Eiger Trail in a forward manner. The applicant's plan is to park inside the garage and on the west side of the turnaround, as there is not 20 feet of space from the garage doors to the right-of-way line. The applicant asserts the current drive and parking design presents the most feasible design for this lot regarding access and parking, and if the proposed dwelling is moved further west, a greater rear setback variance would be required using more fill and higher retaining walls. Historic Drainage Patterns: The Larimer County Engineer assumes any improvements on the site would not adversely impact the drainage patterns or create erosion problems in the area. A drainage plan will be required of the applicant, to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineering Department. Any disturbance of the site should be re-established to be equal to or better RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8 July 12, 2016 than the preconstruction condition, and a native dry land see mix shall be used. The applicant confirmed the flow pattern will be maintained and directed around the proposed house. Erosion control and re-vegetation notes have been added to the site plan. Staff found all comments from the County Engineering Department shall be adequately addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff was not provided information as to what knowledge the applicant had of these requirements at the time of purchase. However, given that multiple homes have been built on surrounding properties, the owner must have purchased the lot under the assumption they would have reasonable use of the property per the E-1 zone district, which allows a single-family residence. f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found the applicant has proposed the solution with the least impact to the site by minimizing grading and disturbance of vegetation on a steep slope. Staff found the applicant's proposal could not be accommodated through any other method except a variance. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff finds the applicant's request for a variance is due to the unique topographical challenges combined with the narrow width and size of the lot. Staff found these circumstances are unique to the applicant's proposal, and are not so general or recurrent in 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 found 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 found the proposed site design was the least deviation from the regulations necessary to achieve reasonable use of the property as compared to other variances and residences throughout the subdivision. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 9 July 12, 2016 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 found the variances requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted in the E-1 zone district. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff has provided recommended conditions of approval for the Board's consideration relating to the County Engineering Department comments to be addressed. The Board is welcome to set forth conditions of approval to address any concerns that arise during the public hearing. Staff and Member Discussion There was brief discussion regarding the Windcliff HOA approval. The approval letter was shown on the screen. Public Comment Celine LeBeau/applicant representative stated the highest retaining wall would be eight feet high and located at the driveway turnaround. Lonnie SheldonNan Horn Engineering stated no infrastructure or hard features are proposed to be placed in the Eiger Trail right-of-way; however, there will be grading in the right-of-way. Excavators will need to fill from the edge of the existing road to the driveway in order to lessen the slope from the road to the garage. Mr. Sheldon stated they could not comply with the literal interpretation of the County's comment. Planner McCool stated she understood Mr. Sheldon's concern regarding the County's comments. The Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to waive the County's requests. Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall secure an access permit from the Larimer County Engineering Access Coordinator. This condition shall replace Larimer County's first comment in the email dated June 21, 2016. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall adequately address comments #2 and #3 from the Larimer County Engineering Department email dated June 21, 2016. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 10 July 12, 2016 It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the three variance requests with the findings and conditions as amended by staff and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Secretary Thompson stated Member Darling (Chair & County Representative) was no longer a member of the Board of Adjustment, as he had moved outside the Estes Valley Development Code area. Therefore, a new chair needed to be elected for the remainder of 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to elect John Lynch to serve as Chair of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment through the end of 2016 and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacancy. 6. REPORTS 1. Secretary Thompson reported Randy Hunt has accepted the position as the Community Development Director. Mr. Hunt will be moving to Estes Park from Laramie, Wyoming. His first day will be July 19, 2016. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 1337 Clara Drive. - 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 C)) ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: August 2, 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 30-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 50-foot required side setback. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 1337 Clara Drive, within the unincorporated Estes Valley. VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Aubrey Carson/Jim and Linda Temple STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner i PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow for a 30-foot side setback in lieu of the required 50-foot setback. The RE zone district standards require a 50-foot all on property sides. The applicant is proposing to build a two car detached garage (also including a carport) approximately 1,200 SF in size on the east side of the existing small residence (legal non-conforming ADU). The proposed new side 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 5 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 in regards to this application. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. sterrFffndIng: The property is zoned R Rural Estate, which has a minimum setback on all sides of 50-feet. The lot is approximately 4.38 acres in size, which substantially meets the 2.5 acre minimum for this district. The property is currently built with one single-family home, one legal non-conforming ADU and one barn. A variance was granted in 2014 to construct an addition and now dock to an accessory dwelling unit built in 1924. This variance stated Figure I: Green construction bin shows approximate location of detached the location of this structure .garage. Rock outcroppings shown to the west ofproposed location, between was atop a rock foundation garage and existing ADU structure. with several exposed boulders around it. The proposed -23-foot tall detached garage is located near the ADU structure and in placed in an area where there are minimal rock outcroppings. The applicant has stated the reason for this proposed location was to avoid rock blasting and destructive earth work. Locating the building on the west side of the ADU would require excessive rock blasting and could potentially affect a key drainage area on the site. Small rock outcroppings are also located between the proposed location and existing ADU (shown in Figure 1). Staff believes the proposed location is appropriate for this structure. The north portion of the lot was found to be a very challenging site in regards to topography and natural features with the 2014 variance application. The strict application of the Code would require the building to be placed in areas requiring excessive disruption of the site. 1337 Clara Dr. — Setback variance Page 2 of 5 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 ADU can be used without a detached garage. The lot may have up to approximately 3,000 SF of gross floor area of accessory uses. The proposed accessory use is allowed on the property. The proposed location seems to be a practical location for the structure. In order to avoid a main drainage feature on the site and rock blasting, the applicant has proposed to place the building on the east side of the existing ADU. In order to avoid small rock outcroppings, the building was placed 30 feet from the east property line versus the 50 feet required. The structure also proposes to utilize the existing driveway on the site, another practical reason for this location. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial in regards to the level of deviation requested. The deviation from Code standards would be a 40% deviation. The Board of Adjustment is the decision making body for requests over 25%. 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). The property to the east of the subject property is developed with a single-family home and a small cabin which is located 8 feet from the property line. The small cabin would be located approximately 38 feet from the proposed garage at 1337 Clara Drive. Staff has found that several homes and small structures have been built within the 50 foot required setback in this neighborhood. These structures were most likely built prior to setback regulations and are considered legal non-conforming structures today. 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. 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 2012. RE zone district setback requirements were in effect at the time. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 1337 Clara Dr. — Setback variance Page 3 of 5 Staff Finding: A variance appears to be the only practical method to construct this building at this location. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions of situations. Staff Finding: The conditions of this application are not general. They are specific to this property, size and orientation. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The new structure appears to be a reasonable development proposal and aims to make a practical decision in the placement of the building. This variance would represent the !cast deviation from Code 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 variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: A setback certificate shall be provided to Staff for review to verify compliance with the approved variance for the detached garage. 1337 Clara Dr. — Setback variance Page 4 of 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDTIONAL TO: 1. A setback certificate shall be provided to Community Development Staff to verify compliance with the approved variance for the detached garage 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 and elevations 1337 Clara Dr. — Setback variance Page 5 of 5 Town of Estes Park Community Development Vicinity Map Protect Name: 1337 Clara Drive Variance 1 in = 125 ft Protect Description: Variance tc 50-foot setback 0 60 120 Petitionerist Aubrey Ca d Linda Temple Feet pl ESTES PAF COLORAD Printed: 7/28/2016 Created By: Audem Gonzales Parcels-Larimer A Variance Request For: 1337 Clara Drive Detached Garage We are requesting a variance from the required 50 foot side yard setback to our proposed 30 foot side yard setback. See attached site plan. We would like to construct a new 2 car detached garage on the East side of the existing small residence. We propose that the new garage be constructed with a 30 foot side yard setback from the east property line as opposed to the required 50 foot side yard setback. After a detailed review of topographic conditions and the very large rock outcroppings that are present on the site. The proposed location is the only location that would not require blasting and/or destructive earth work, as well as disruption of the existing natural drainage path. The proposed location will require the minimum disruption of the existing natural environment. This proposed location will tie in with the existing drive. We are proposing this location for the new garage because it is what we consider a oractical distance from the home that it will serve. As well as reasonable distance from .he east property line. a Conclusion we ask that you review the attached site plan and grant the requested variance. Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) tia7 :I copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of V = 2a) — C/1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") °j/ Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planningaestes.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. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION z• 11'0 Submittal Date: Record Owner(s): Ja-.0-16.5 if_ Street Address of Lot: /3?..,1 ( 15t,11 De-i v4. Legal Description: Lot: Block: Tract: Subdivision: 74 7: 57,4 Thy . Parcel ID # : 35 2.4 I — OO — 001 W.:, if: 310:.:1 4. ?t, Fterti,A. r Existing Land Use If.,46,rdenc.e, Proposed Land Use t.„16s..4.: Lot Size Zoning Existing Water Service I. Town Proposed Water Service " Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service ' Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? y,. Well r Other (Specify) Well •-• Other (Specify) ..Afp EPSD UTSD EPSD UTSD Other ',1( None .off ,Yr (Jar 'Dee tt-c, Yes No 14410g- T.p mew 4ARA,. W. Septic i( Septic /JD NEW Se-VU Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): ;414 tied Selloack reivi;tre. rnos00,,,t,4 .or taf keel 67-le A6t0-- Name of Primary Contact Person Avtoreq er,avSoo Complete Mailing Address 4 i3 arrnoraot C4, Fed- Coffins 1,0 8052,5 Primary Contact Person is r Owner Applicant Consultant/En. ineer own oi a es . PDX IL .6 iacuregcl venue -0,, es au, Comm unity Development Department Phone: (970) 677-3721 . Fax: (970) 556-0249 • www.estes.orgiC OM munItyD evelop ent i Clan 01. rifEuro ._.,.., Record Owner(s) L,Tro,,,, i, flf Le it/Ali --T.;- yr; la t- Mailing Address 'llti C. .1-4 a 1.0-1;101.#. tAr7, 1 6 - 1„‘ co v. 4 n1 ( ;v ID ,Fin51-C Phone (6t70) '610 /467/6, I Cell Phone (61W) 541,1 209 d', Fax iki A email._ -, ;01,. 1404 e:/...R irira•l• Co vn i Applicant I . '142krel ( altrorwl Mailing Address 4/5 ri) i f erioratii4 ri. Fi,r1 /445 th i30525 Phone (4170 ) .4f5i '33 cat,— Cell Phone (q7r) 4g4 2'5(.40 Fax kr A Email tai sop i..;1 -,41. C. Comras , a7c Consultant/Engineer ,.) Mailing Address 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://www.estes oro/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlannincAoplicationFeeSchedule.pdf 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. 10. 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). It. 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://www.estas,oro/CorriDev/DevCode PP I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. 1). 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. I' I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ta. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. P. 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, Ow 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 comer 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. D 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: inn l td Applicant PLEASE PRINT: i2. At4birel tarScAl Signatures: Record Owner Date -76 -A- Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts 1"" f.-- . , .. - ' '. -4 : , 1,404: = I le . 1,,44torii4 iv,,' 4144.44. 4 41 : 40 -44* `, .-1 , • • , RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 E-1 1 1 Ac. [3] 100 25 25 25 30 20 E 2 li Ac. [3] 75 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 15 30 20 R 4 _ _ IA Ac _ _. _ 0 ____ g __ 25-Arignals; 15- . . other streets 10 - —15 - .30._-.- -...-20 R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 R-2 4 Single-family = 18,000; Duplex 27,000 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 10 30 20 RM (Ord. 18-01 §14) Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [6] (Ord. 25-07 0 ; Ord, 15. 11 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: 1/2 M. 60; LOIS Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 (Ord. 15-11 §1) 10 30 20 [5] Notes to Table 4-2 (1) (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.0, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.0.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2.02 §1) (2) See Chapter 7, §7.6, for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2.02 §5; Ord. 11.02 §1) (3) If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shah be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." (4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1) (5) Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park (6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 §14) (7) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or oft-site dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 §3) (Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) 4-7 p 1 I I II Il Clara Drive Variance - 1337 - T Detached Garage.xls ge 1 Owner USA - Dept of Interior Will & Linda Temple Muriel MacGregor Trust Christy & Gary Slier Earle-Graham Trust Kenneth Lewis Owner II Address City ST Zip 1000 Hwy 36 Estes Park CO 80517 3919 Harbor Walk Ln Ft. Collins CO 80525 PO Box 4675 Estes Park CO 80517 2600 Watkins Rd Mountain Brook AL 35223 PO Box 258 Tomales CA 94971 1295 Burns Dr NE Gainesville GA 30501 1 ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ,1 4011141. the 115",471:tell it Lind firnuts kit Me th,fiov *II Sufwv.pin rip r Sr : PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: July 19, 2016 Project Identification: '1337 Clara Drive Temple Residence Location: 1337 Clara Drive Referral: 1337 Clara Drive Temple Residence The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the proposed project referenced above, and has no comments or concerns regarding those plans. However, when future developments and / or changes are made to this area, the Fire District shall require new plans for review. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2015 Edition), the International Building Code (2015 Edition) and the Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marc W. Robinson Fire Marshal 970-577-3689 mrobinsonPestesvallevfire.org 901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue • Estes Park, CO 80517 • P-970-577-0900 • F-970-577-0923 7/28/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail - Re: REFERRAL FOR COMM ENT: 1337 Clara Drive - Metes and Bounds PIO 35241-00-002 - Temple Residence Variance Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org> E 5 T E $ PARK Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: 1337 Clara Drive - Metes and Bounds PID 35241-00- 002 - Temple Residence Variance 1 message Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us > Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:25 PM To: Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>, Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org> Karen and Audem - I have reviewed the side yard setback variance and the Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any concerns with the request. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> wrote: TO REVIEWING AGENCIES The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department has accepted the below referenced development application(s) as complete for review, i.e. minimal submittal requirements have been met and the application is ready for review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. PROJECT NAME, TYPE, & LOCATION Name: Clara Drive - 1337 — Temple Residence Type: Variance Legal: Metes & Bounds, PID 35241-00-002 Project details can be found in the Statement of intent & Application COMMENTS DUE ON OR BEFORE 5 P.M. FRIDAY, JULY 22, 2016 EMAIL COMMENTS TO Property Owner: Jim & Linda Temple temple1404@gmall.com Applicant: C Aubrey Carson carsondesign@comcast.net Consultant/Engineer(s): n/a Planners: Audem Gonzales agonzales@estes.org Email addresses can also be found in the email distribution list above. httns•llmail amnia comirnall/u/Onui=28dk=c0a7e0f533&view=et&a=clara%20drive&orztruelisearch=query8sth-=155f03d0977f40306sim1=155f03d0977f40a0 1/2 /11.01/ 111211W19 X 0 70 I I 335 2' 000,00%00t Mae - - - - - - - - - - - - to / / / / / 1:::r *Am Came Nista IA (V70) 4111,3514 f Do ,....-.. ......._ —...,........ Detached Garage for Jim & Linda Temple i 48111 1337 Clara Drive Estes Park. Colorado 80517 Pm* lat....0.1. ••••••imwm• (13,460KNArtlytr.t417.rard4:4:1491M2tIrc,R6grgpwriAlvtrara„;,...cgr,,,,TomvitAtIVg :LC. ic conEwmar to rtywit17.0IT Vilnl GIM7:14 'MM. PIM ND C.5,1 , ! ..., iii 1, II 6i • , ' 9 '. Ii iiiil., . 1! t il 1 '7—_. , ilk a , 101: _ !, , : ,i l• i I • , L i i ,,.. ., 1 ,.. , •..1 ;1 1 ' f I I 4 411)1 '.., . i 1 I. 1 1 f I, 11 171 tAiT LLEVATIO/1 Iwo -jo . . . • Eiffr.2"."7.*1 PAW N. O tiORTti tLEVATIOA Bola Ito ' -e•••• - •0••••,.: • • LIIIME• .(3) VUT tLtVATIO/1 kfy bade IPP. ri\ YOUTH LtVATIO/1 T in Ye. INC' /1-- ;-1 -f--C -.-------7 ,,. --- 1 h:-- ,. /L-.--.-• =: : ,:-. [ 1 '1,„-:.: ..,i • . _ . ?,...., ill , 4 q71' HI II IllAsIS3s AsSs.s, Iss. 4.g...602L.9 144.S. *II wary tr. •Yri Ora hOlOVATOO A %Mr ftitillO NOW. Jana, nos 3,1 ATP hOOONOG PIO .r...h..13O4 XI d 41.0 Oh 7n Ox1O/11 orDISIO hOi.o+) h.h, SOOPLONGo '.o ...OKI OM II Oho*. MOO whoOow ih /MO WO Ponlio OiniKidiffehl 110N OV til *WOW IldhION mIt hOhlOastah 119.3,410 elhilli 44 ....... r...'Zang -a _ a.m. MM. ammo, 'mum ''''' L. H 4109 oPuctx) Vogl gan 2Aliel DA:30 ATI 1 ... E .... WW."'M ShO4elo 2FIUDi cPull 9 4PN acut RIMPLI siss=sur. Phhowlop -.40 siu-lbfiNV "NAIIIIPW W Wed ILA S WI A.., s • I • • . i -- :. • -1 if; ;.; ,:1 I : . ? i I '.•.- ../ 1 r ' •-•-* i ........-4 I' i . . j , ii......,.....,...41-12 fd ; 7....,:,.. .. ---.., i •,..-i, "--;:::-.^.;, • . ---,-, , '-: •-••,:*-:......',7-O ....... —^7.---= ,...4."; •-• , • . . 11/ :11;.Li :Y7 1 . ... .. : . . SMILI MOM "WO twa =mils mras SIM 211141110 ILIANK RIM , ' , 0.9 -•••' 1 1 , • 1 GIS Teo as.1101.141 .Wt ' -. 1 I 1 -7W gatme 416.! k.,•• figure a iguana! vicinity Map of Subject Site Estes Valley Community Center Maximum Building Height 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: August 2, 2016 REQUEST: Height variance from Section 4.4 (C)(4), Table 4-5 of the Density and Dimensional Standards, to exceed the maximum 30-foot height limit by 1' 0 3/8" in order to accommodate a defined main entry to the community center building. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Community Drive and Manford Drive (660 Community Drive). Figure 1 depicts the overall vicinity of the project and surrounding land uses. APPLICANT: Estes Valley Recreation and Park District PROPERTY OWNER: Estes Park School District R-3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant received concurrent Location and Extent Development Pian and Minor Subdivision Plat conditional approve] to accommodate a publically-owned Community Recreation Center located at 660 Community Drive. The subject property is zoned (CO) Outlying Commercial and previously contained the old elementary school, which was demolished a few years back. The proposed 66,401 square foot community center design incorporates the existing 12,552 square foot aquatics center, includes four-sided architecture and incorporates material and façade changes on the main entry facing the parking lot on the east side of the building. The west elevation that faces Community Drive, incorporates exterior awnings, a sloped roof, multiple windows, building variation, and material changes to enhance the appearance of the building along the street. The 6.49-acre site slopes toward the north and includes frontage on both Community Drive and Manford Drive. The land uses surrounding the site are Stanley Park (Public Open Space) and Stanley Fairgrounds to the north, schools to the east, school play fields to the south, and multi-family residential to the west. The applicant is requesting a building height variance to exceed the maximum 30-foot height limit set forth in the EVDC by 1' 0 3/8 to accommodate a defined main entry to the community center building. SITE DATA TABLE: Architect: Robert McDonald, Oh!son Lavoie Collaborative Parcel Number: 25304-00-910 Lot Area: 6.49 Acres Existing Land Use: Aquatics Center Proposed Land Use: Community Recreation Center and Aquatics Building (to remain) Zoning Designation: CO Outlying Commercial Adjacent Zoning: East: CO Outlying Commercial North: Public Open Space West: RM Residential Multi-Family South: CO Outlying Commercial Adjacent Land Uses: East: Schools North: Stanley Park and Fairgrounds West: Multi-Family Residential South: School Play Fields Development Standard: Proposed: Front Setback: 15 feet 35 feet Rear Setback: 15 feet 1 255 feet Side Setback: 15 feet 1 30 feet Height: 30 feet 31 feet - 0 3/8 inches Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.25 0.24 Max Lot Coverage: 65% 71.7% (Minor Modification approved by EVPC) Minimum Lot Size: 15,000 sq. ft. 1 282,676 sq. ft. r Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District REVIEW CRITERIA: En 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 "Comment Response" document dated June 27, 2016 for the Applicant's comments regarding the variance request. 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shaiiowness 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 subject development indudes an adaptive reuse component of the existing Aquatics Building which limits significant grading of the site and promotes a more environmentally sustainable project, saving both material and Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 2, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Estes Valley Community Center Building Height Variance Request energy resources by using as much of the existing facility as possible. Due to the sloping nature of the site, the sloping roof above the building entry/lobby protrudes slightly above allowable limits. The proposed height and materials are consistent with the existing Aquatics Building structure and surrounding school buildings. As such, the interior configuration of the building and ability to incorporate the aquatics facility into the building design, makes it an appropriate location for additional height slightly beyond that permitted in the Outlying Commercial zone. Staff finds the proposed development advances several adopted Community-Wide Policies set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, especially in consideration of design and breaking up the facade to create visual relief and stepping down buildings with sloping grades. It also advances community design, mobility and circulation and economic policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 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 proposal includes the redevelopment of the site of the old elementary school, which was demolished a few years ago. The applicant proposes to retain the existing Aquatics Building and create a Community Center addition that steps down with the sloping grade. Decreasing the height by 1' - 0 318" significantly impacts the sloping grade and proportions of the facade, making development of the Community Center challenging. Considering that the portion of the roof that is visible to the public will be in compliance with the building height regulations, staff finds that the current design meets the intent of the code. The property could be put to beneficial use without the variance; however, granting the proposed variance will effectively improve the visual appearance of the building and will not create a visual obstruction. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: The variance request includes a maximum deviation of 1' — 0 3/8" above the 30' height limit, with the greatest height located on the downhill slope along the eastern building frontage, most visible at the main entry (interior to the parking area). The new addition will not appear out of scale with the surrounding form as the peak height of the building will not be visible at the pedestrian street level. The variance requested is less than a 10% deviation from requirements, consistent with surrounding form, and is not found to be substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Staff Finding: The adjoining properties will not be substantially impacted by the results of the variance. The tallest point of the building is internally-oriented towards the parking area on the east elevation, with a separation of approximately 200 feet from the western property line, and accommodates the sloping roof that creates a defined main entry. The only elevation where the roof protrusion may be visible to adjoining properties is along Community Drive Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 2, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Estes Valley Community Center Building Height Variance Request (west), but will likely not be seen at the street level. The proposed height is compatible with surrounding building form. 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 subject property is owned by the School District. The applicant, Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, will purchase the property with the knowledge that a height variance is necessary to construct a quality community center as proposed. 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 has explored the possibility of reducing the grade by another foot to accommodate the height, but the 2:12 slope would be a challenge for development and building at this grade would change the proportions of the building significantly. By reducing the height, the architectural interest of the building would be lost. 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 unique site characteristics and the adaptive reuse component of this particular project. Incorporating the existing aquatics building limits the ability to considerably grade the site, but slopes on the site create a challenge. The applicant has provided mitigation strategies (consideration of location, architectural enhancements and varying roof heights) to alleviate potential impacts and improve the overall appearance of the façade. The conditions of the site are not a commonality, 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 the Estes Park Schools Subdivision. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 2, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Estes Valley Community Center Building Height Variance Request 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 lobby/entry can be accommodated by a minimum height of 31-0 3/8" or 1'-0 3/8" variation from the 30' height limit. In order to minimize the height of the entry/lobby area, the applicant would have to construct further below grade to accommodate the lobby area design. The applicant has incorporated exterior awnings, a sloped roof, multiple windows, building variation, and material changes to enhance the appearance of the building and effectively minimize the additional 1-0 3/8" in building height along Community Drive. As such, the proposed architectural design represents the least variation from the building height requirements that will afford relief, and ensure the character of the area is maintained. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The variance requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted in the Outlying Commercial 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. Staff Finding: Staff does not have any recommendations for conditions of approval relating to the building height variance; however, the Board may set forth 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 Location and Extent Development Plan and Minor Subdivision applications. No comments or concerns related to the variance request were received. The public hearing for the variance request was publicly noticed in accordance with the applicable public notification requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. No public comments were submitted to the Community Development Department in regards to the height variance request. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that the application for the proposed height variance request complies with the applicable review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 "Standards for Review" of the Estes Valley Development Code and advances goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: Below are the Board of Adjustment options related to the variance request: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 2, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Estes Valley Community Center Building Height Variance Request 1. I find that the application substantially meets me criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of the variance request applications with no conditions. 2. I find that the applications substantially meet the criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of the variance request applications with the following conditions: a) [The Board may include any condition(s) that it determines will render the application compliant with all requirements, based on all the evidence and testimony presented at the continued hearing.] 3. I find that the application does not substantially meet the criteria above, and move to recommend DENIAL of the variance request applications. 4. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the applications and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional materials. ENCLOSURES: Exhibit A: Statement of Intent Exhibit B: Applicant's Response to Town Comments dated June 27, 2016 Exhibit C: Architectural Elevations (Sheets (Al and A2) Exhibit D: Development Plan (Sheet DP101) Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 2, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Estes Valley Community Center Building Height Variance Request OHLSON LAVOIE COLLABORATIVE 615 E SPEER BLVD DENVER. COLORADO 30203-4213 T: 303.294.9244 F: 303.294.9440 www.01cdasigns.com ARCHITECTURE AQUATICS 'TERIORS TECHNOLOGY July 6, 2016 EXHIBIT A Ms. Carrie McCool Planning Consultant for the Town on Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Estes Valley Community Center Height Variance Statement of Intent Dear Ms. McCool, Application for Variance The intent is to apply for a variance to the following specific Code standards: 1. Chapter 4, Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards, CO District: Maximum Building Height — listed in the table as 30 feet, request the highest peak on the building be allowed to be constructed at 31'-0 3/8" above existing grade. a. Explanation: A sloping shed roof is in place to designate the main entry to the building. The high point of this shed roof is within the allowable at the exterior of the building, however where it terminates above the building lobby it is 1'-0 3/8" higher than allowable, due to the sloping nature of the site. b. Special circumstances: The existing topography on the site slopes steeply in the north/south direction, resulting in a maximum height calculation that is slightly above that allowed by Code. Around the exterior perimeter of the building, where it will be perceived by the public, the structure is in compliance, whiCh therefore does not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, the Code or the Comprehensive Plan. c. The variance requested only occurs at approximately 20 feet of the structure, and is only 3% above the standard. d. Considering that the portion of the roof that is visible to the public will be in compliance with the ordinance, the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance. e. The variance will not adversely affect the delivery of public services. f. The Applicant was not aware of the requirements when the land was conveyed. 9. The roof slope in question is currently set at 3:12, a common sloped used in building construction. Lowering the roof by 1' would result in overly complicated dimensions for construction, and lowering it to a 2:12 slope changes the proportions significantly and would be detrimental to the character of the building and surrounding properties. On behalf of the Estes Valley Parks and Recreation District, I would like to thank you and the Town of Estes Park for working with us to develop this community project. if you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to me or any member of the design team and we'll be happy to provide any clarifications necessary. 7161161 DB CAUsere \Dave BengslAppDatalLooahMicrosofftWindows\INetCacheMERMS2V7JIHeight Page 1 of 2 CLIENT -CENTERED CREATIVITY Variance Itr 160706 SOLdoex Sincerely, Robert L. McDonald, NCARB, LEED AP Senior Principal Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative 7/6/16 la 15:19 / 013 CAUsersIDeve Page 2 of 2 BangskAppDatallocalMicrosoftWVIndows1INelCacheMEJZMS2V7J\ Height Variance Itr 180706 SOirdocx Street Address of Lot: 1050 C_opemi.,)0A rive_ Legal Description: Lot: G.. Block: Tract: Subdivision: trf,Tp% Step/L.-J/-5/ c;v1.) Parcel ID # - :15.0 1-1" CD -44 Lot Size Lk., 35 Zoning Existing Land Use Pub! ilroS0A-c Proposed Land Use putrxtSchaf,t GrA sr.nnu N-ty Catv,..eA— Existing Water Service P Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service I Town r Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD g UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD t UTSD r Septic Existing Gas Service IR Xcel r Other r None Site Access (if not on public street) tYlft,nfl)( e‘i Rr 0,4;Q./ Co crtirloilliry Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes 1SC No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): 5Eati") Name of Primary Contact Person ba.skila BOXI5s Complete Mailing Address 144 2) gc-in Croy . Primary Contact Person is r Owner r Applicant 15 Consultant/E hoer p Application fee (see attached fee schedule) R Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) tiz 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20)** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17 ) w Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planningagestes.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 -tr, P,O. Box 200 -6 170 macGregorAvenue Ylfesl'ari. CO Sti517 Community Development Deportment Phone:1970) 577-3721 .as Fox:1970) 586-0249 wwwestes.org/ComrnunityDevelopment Submittal Date: • • ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 6 ?Ct$ p; v.,!•• • 11 Record Owner(s): Revised 2013.0E127 KT Record Owners)-?E5 thabl Rae-e791A1 gi-O-KG 7)5757 r Mailing Address Fo Foic /Z)9,s Ale e:_ Fes(9- Phone / Cell Phone Fax Email 'tote eilr ces.A.A Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email seP7-- 1)1.414.1.14—`109 Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone PA/ /cs-he (laze. ,?O A:76- ?,9re Fax Email ---341/1d 6,4e a czar s C.601.1 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.oro/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninnAvollcationFeeSchedultpdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 KT APPLICANT CERTIFICATION p. 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). 1 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://wvvw.estes.oro/ComDev/DevCode 0- 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. 0- 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. le I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application determined to be complete. le 1 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. lb 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. se 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: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: o C.arost,(1. Za'reclor eve...ph Applicant PLEASE PRINT: / estrptf."14 berfAir C 11--Pi) Signatures: Record Ownerer- Applicant C9-2-p— Date Date —Vito /I, LI -1 4/11, Revised 201108.27 KT EVCCVariance-500Feet.xls Page 1 Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip James Arvidson 3065 Wildes Rd Loveland CO 80538 Christophe Maniglier-Poulet 12457 E Kentucky Ave Aurora CO 80017 Gary & Glennys Dougherty 3105 Coverdale Dr Tyler TX 75703 Todd & Leisa Krula 615 Community Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 Lone Tree Village Apartments, LP 3201 S Tamarac Dr Denver CO 80231 Donald & Sandra DeSanti PO Box 2324 Estes Park CO 80517 Rick & Claudia Jordan 1433 Matthew Cir Estes Park CO 8051.7 John & Beverly Baney 1600 Wapiti Cir #42 Estes Park CO 80517 Park R-3 School District PO Box 1140 Estes Park CO 8051.7 Rick & Cathy Dill 19251 Hatranch Dr Belle Fourche SD 57717 Susan Hoyt 3600 Terry Lake Rd Ft. Collins CO 80524 Clear River Properties, LLC 5027 Radbrook PI Dallas TX 75220 Timothy Dawson & Leigh Wolfe-Dawson 1437 Matthew Cir Estes Park CO 80517 Allnutt Funeral Service, Inc. 702 13th St Greeley CO 80631 Mark & Melanie Kozlowski 675 Community Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Joan Baker Rev Trust 1443 Matthew Cir Estes Park CO 80517 Beverly Ramacher 1600 Wapiti Dir #43 Estes Park CO 80517 Estes Park Self Storage II, Inc. PO Box 2445 Estes Park CO 80517 Susan O'Connor & Michael Mangelsen PO Box 3801 Estes Park CO 80517 Michael Barthouse 667 Community Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Susan Boulter 7448 Sugar Maple Ct Castle Rock CO 80108 Marian & Janet Vaughn 4701 Carmel Ct Lawrence KS 66047 Charles & Sandra DeJoseph 1600 Wapiti Cir #44 Estes Park CO 80517 Francisco Federico 654 Halbach Ln Estes Park CO 80517 Mary Christopher PO Box 2747 Estes Park CO 80517 David & Debora Bouziden 8417 Huckleberry Rd Edmond OK 73034 Melissa Mason 652 Halbach Ln Estes Park CO 80517 Jeffrey Crona 1350 Graves Ave Estes Park CO 80517 Arnold HT, LLC 1081 Pine Knoll Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Christina Long 605 Community Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Mary Stillman PO Box 200496 Evans CO 80620 Ronald & Colleen LaRue 313 Trailwood Dr Crockett TX 75835 - - EXHIBIT B llVE ;11 JUN 2 7 2016 I I' COMMtilITYDEVELOPMENT • . •=- try LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, Inc. 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park CO 80517 tel 970-586-9388 vhe@airbits.com www.vanhornengineering.com June 24, 2016 Carrie McCool Planning Consultant Town of Estes Park Community Development Department 170 MacGregor Avenue, Room 210 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Application for Minor Subdivision, Location and Extent and Variance Review Dear Carrie: Thank you for forwarding on the applicable affected agency review comments related to the Affected Agency review for this project. In preparation for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant's team offers the following explanations and response to such comments to help aid in reviewing the revised application package provided with this response letter. PLANNING DIVISION Please iefer to the attached letter from the project architect Dhlson Lavoie Collaborative for responses to all Planning Division comments from the Memo dated June 20, 2016. UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION The comments below are copied from the Memo dated June 16, 2016 from Upper rnompson Sanitation District. Applicant response is included below each comment EXHIBIT B The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following general comments for the above referenced property: 1. The subject property is within 400 ft. of the District's sewer system. Per Larimer County rules, the facility must be connected to sanitary sewer. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. 2. Private lateral sewers shall be constructed in accordance with Appendix B — Lateral Sewer Specifications of the District's Rules and Regulations. Please include information regarding the private lateral sewer with the sewer system extension submittal. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. 3. District personnel will determine plant investment fees due. Plant investment and permit fees are due before connection is made to the collection system. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. 4. Construction plans not signed by the engineer will not be considered as official construction plans. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. 5. The customer shall schedule a pre-construction conference with the District prior to construction. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following specific comments for the above referenced property: 1. The District will require an anticipated flow rate and maximum occupancy capacity for the proposed development. Applicant Response: The project architect has confirmed that the maximum occupancy capacity for the proposed development is 1,780 Occupants. 2 EXHIBIT B The project mechanical engineer offers the following information regarding anticipated flow rates: The sanitary sewer line maximum flow rate will he in the 450gpm (estimated) based on the existing sand filter. This is once or twice a week for 5 minutes. The average peak sanitary sewer flow would be 70 gpm whenever the backwash isn't happening. The average daily sewer discharge (less backwash) is estimated at 2775 gallon per day. 2. The proposed grease interceptor must be sized appropriately. Applicant Response: Please refer to the attached preliminary documentation on grease trap size from the project Mechanical Engineer. 3. Upper Thompson Sanitation District will require a Joint Use Agreement between the School District and Estes Valley Recreation District before connection is made to the School District main line. Upper Thompson Sanitation District will require a copy of this Joint Use Agreement to have on file. Applicant Response: It is my understanding that this document is still in the process of being completed between the Recreation and School District representatives. Applicant acknowledges it must be in place prior to making a connection to the School District main line. TOEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The comments below are copied from the Memo dated June 20, 2016 from TOEP-Public Works Department. Applicant response is included below each comment, Public Works offers the following comments and conditions on the Estes Valley Community Center Development Plan application as submitted. Comments and Conditions are applicable for plans received on May 25th, 2016. Transportation: 1. Condition: ADA compliant access ramps, crosswalks and signage should be shown. Applicant Response: ADA ramps and signage are shown for the two ADA parking areas directly adjacent to the facility. The proposed walk to he constructed along the eastern side of Community Drive is a replacement of an existing walk along Community Drive and is not ADA compliant due to the existing longitudinal grade of Community Drive of -7%. 3 EXHIBIT B 2. Condition: Pedestrian connection points to adjacent public walkways, schools and facilities should be identified on a single sheet. Type and size of existing walkways and direction arrows to where they extend should be identified. Applicant Response: An additional sheet has been added to the Development Plan set (C110) depicting the pedestrian circulation and connection points. 3. Condition: Provide sight visibility triangles on the landscape plan to confirm proposed trees and landscaping will not impact safe access onto public right-of- way. Applicant Response: Landscape Plans have been updated to illustrate sight distance triangles, and that landscaping is not impacting sight visibility triangles_ 4. Condition: Show existing and proposed striping on Community Drive and Manford Avenue. Applicant Response: Existing and proposed striping on Community Drive is now shown on the Development Plan Set. The final Layout of striping will be shown on the Construction Drawings submitted for approval. 5. Condition: Relocated High School access entry on public right-of-way should be shown to align with the Community Gardens access road. Applicant Response: The proposed relocated High School access drive has been shifted east to align with the Community Gardens gravel access road. 6. Condition: Final construction plans will need to be approved prior to installation of any transportation related infrastructure. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. Transportation impact Study, Delich Associates, May 2016 Applicant Response: Please refer to Memo from Matt Delich, P.E. with Delich and Associates for response to Transportation Comments 7-11. 7 Comment: The Community Center site is outside the IA mile distance from an arterial that would require any off-site improvements at the intersection with SH 36. 4 EXHIBIT B 8. Comment: Evaluation of the existing traffic conditions indicate turn lane improvements are recommended at SH 7/Graves Avenue and at SH 36/Community Drive. This application is not proposing to improve those. 9. Condition: Only afternoon peak hour traffic is evaluated. The study should indicate the peak volume occurs in the afternoon assumption made as to why the morning peak is not evaluated. 10.Condition: Include an evaluation on the storage length, tapers and overall configuration of the existing turn lanes around the site on Community Drive and Manford Avenue. 11. Condition: Manford is classified as a "connector street" in the study. The Town recognizes local, sub-local, collector and arterial streets in its code. This classification should be confirmed. Drainage & Grading: 1. Comment: All on-site drainage infrastructure will be privately owned and maintained. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. 2. Condition: Show the effective high water line for the detention pond to confirm that proposed landscaping is not impacting the functionality of the detention pond. Applicant Response: The effective high water mark for the 100-year storm event has been added to the Development Plan set. 3. Condition: Show drainage easements for the detention pond and storm sewer. Applicant Response: Per phone conversation with Kevin Ash on June 24, 2016, it was mutually agreed that drainage easements for a private storm sewer system were not required and therefore are not shown on the Development Plan set or the Subdivision Plat. 4. Condition: Final construction plans will need to be approved prior to installation of any drainage or grading infrastructure. Applicant Response: Acknowledged.. 5 EXHIBIT B Preliminary Drainage Report, Van Horn Engineering, May 2016 5. Comment: No off-site flow from the south directly impacts the proposed drainage design. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. 6. Comment: All on-site developed runoff from the building and parking lot is routed into the proposed detention pond at the northwest corner of the site. Applicant Response: Acknowledged. 7 Condition: Remove the last sentence on the second paragraph that pertains to Community Drive repairs, Applicant Response: Per your request this sentence has been removed from the Preliminary Drainage Report. Estes Valley Fire Protection District At the time of this re-submittal, Fire District Comments have not been provided for response, TOEP Utilities Department-Memorandum Dated 6-23-2016 No response necessary Please let me know if you have questions about any of the Applicant's responses, or if you need additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, David A Bangs, P.E. Project Manager For Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 970-586-9388, ext 14 davidvhe@airbits.com 6 Project Name: Project Number: Estes Valley Community Center 16023 Date: ittl##### The Ballard Group Fixture Count D.F.U. Total D.F.U. Floor Drain (Emergency) 3 2.0 6 Hand Sink 3 2.0 6 Triple Sink 1 4.0 4 Double Sink 1 2.0 2 Utility Sink 2.0 0 Mop Sink Basin 1 3.0 3 Dishwasher 1 4.0 4 Total 25 Retention Time (Mins) 30 GPM 50 Capacity Required 1500 See attached grease interceptor calculation, what we have found is the retention time varies. Per the American Society of plumbing Engineers (ASPS) it is based on grease droplet sizes that vary depending on type of grease, temperature of grease etc but based on medium size droplets and average temperature they recommend roughly a 20 to 30 minute retention time. Denver Wastewater recommends a retention time of minimum 3 minutes but doesn't indicate a maximum. Another publication based on Manning's formula indicated a 24 minute retention time. Therefore we use a 30 minute retention time for our calculation. EXHIBIT B RELIC I1 ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering .1=0111 LiErsPswa 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 =7 /7. r3w MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Jordan, RLH Engineering Dave Bangs, Van Horn Engineering Town of Estes Park FROM: Matt Delich DATE: June 24, 2016 SUBJECT- Estes Valley Community Center Transportation Impact Study Response to staff comments/conditions (File: 1632ME02) This memorandum provides responses to Estes Park staff comments/conditions pertaining to the `Estes Valley Community Center Transportation Impact Study" (EVCCTIS), dated May 2016. The staff comments/conditions are contained in a memorandum from Kevin Ash/Greg Muhonen dated June 20, 2016. The responses are numbered corresponding to the comments/conditions. Due to the timing of receipt of the comments/conditions, on June 23, 2016, rigorous analyses and/or revision of the EVCCTIS are not practical. Comment 7. Acknowledged. Comment S. The NBRT lane at the SH7/Graves intersection is not required with the existing traffic, but will be required with the short range (2021) total peak hour traffic. The WBLT lane at the U836/Community intersection is required with the existing traffic. However, in conversations with Gloria Hice-Idler, CDOT, and Kevin Ash, Estes Park, it was agreed that this improvement was known to be required and should be identified as such in the EVCCTIS. This improvement should be implemented by the Town, in conjunction with COOT, when deemed to be appropriate. The EBRT lane at the US36/Community intersection is not required with the existing traffic, but will be required with the short range (2021) peak hour total traffic. It is my understanding that the size of the building may be reduced. Since the trip generation is tied to the building size, some of the auxiliary lane improvement recommendations may be modified, depending on the size of the building. Condition 9. Evaluation of only the afternoon peak hour is addressed on page 5 of the EVCCTIS. It was also discussed with and agreed to by Kevin Ash. Condition 10. As noted on page 12 (Geometry) and Figure 9 in the EVCCTIS, ail turn lanes on Community Drive currently exist. Due to physical constraints and intersection spacing, it is recommended that the segment of Community Drive, from Manford Avenue through the South Access, be striped as a continuous two-way left-turn lane. Condition 11. With regard to street classifications, I accessed the Town website which contained elements/maps from the "Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.' As shown on Map 5.10, Long Range Transportation Plan, Manford Avenue was classified as a connector street. Do not hesitate to contact me if there are questions with regard to these responses. B C 0_ E F_ 13 1 12 1 13 3 10 24.726_SQ FT A '9 [8 [7 I B 1 8 ?JEW UPPER LEVEL AREA = 29.129 SQ FT USES: INDOOR POOL SPORTS POOL LOCKER ROOMS FITNESS CENTER OFFICES EXISTING UPPER LEVEL AREA = 12.552 SQ FT USES: INDOOR POOL LOCKER ROOMS TOTAL UPPER 41.675 SQ FT 1 4 3 1 2 ,1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5111witk scot-ice „ mem- 04141se1E' rip wir_piau.Y XlItielINtagegi 1,011 , 44.1411' 00 Lu 2 8 > ce < ci- LU- o w w Ci) cb LLI co cis Lu rialurlekn 61414 RAN *Bib:442e cotowler ppoitis Tp44aLutertr FtwafeAmerigre fogrize fOienti 6T1. - Pm* NO. DATE: TITLE/PURPOSE' 1. 05/101111 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06124116 RESPONSE 7. 91) AIL too corkietnEr eTetie era 144seti Olear136 4R04104114. 1.4 L, P. NW* 1, u riNAria4. worse Verte6 1- tletiutiet4ree1N me/Avon! SCALE: 20'-Cr ISSUE DATE: 05/16116 DRAWN BY: Author REVD BY: Checker PROJECT 4: 16003 SHEET TITLE: CONCEPTUAL BUILDING FLOOR PLANS %.1.1. CONCEPTUAL UPPER LEVEL PLAN V = 20%0" SHEET 6, Al 9 10 [ 7 1 6 32 [ 5 13 NEW LOWER LEVEL AREA. USES: GYM FITNESS AREAS SENIOR CENTER COMMUNITY ROOMS 11? GROIP U 1,71551 10.0,5 3, FMAES5 3.27%5, CONCEPTUTAL LOWER LEVEL PLAN •:;%' V = 20'40" EXHIBIT C • AIICHITI Cruet OHLSON LAVOIE COLLABORATIVE vavAv.olcdesIgne.com 010E SPUR BLVD DENVER, COLORADO 002094213 T: 303.284.0914 10 19 EXHIBIT C A_ VANANNIURIO 51,54 vEN077 fr.05-1124 PAIM 55,N5Ntit. ,et3. CWIEN 5555 ;AN Pyyn100 VER5V,I 1•13NCENRNI 3010„-3.14EUR71 PANT 01 33eRLD,101T 734113 OWE GREEN 5 PAW DX liER 011110110• STAN 5N TINIF,k7R.I.N.i.Pe,0 OR BENNITML 54,-,-0501,L,N,XTE05,.70170 ARCIIIRECTURE OHLSON LAVOIE COLLABORATIVE vnvw.oledestghs.com 1353, CO654 33031ALIMIN0NFRAt.5 mm0,5111417/ 0551k -TO MAIM GNP]!' PM.70.45110 NEM Ca51,5, 7151117 01 Cogift 0.5:VviDef5555,r Rea' 3 IO Exterior Material Legend 1".1LO" O West Elevation Conept 1" = 20M0 r ........,... lalliltisdefilmil aINCW 2P-' • 3 1/2. !TTI E tern eifrq rd. L ele E SPEER BLVD DENVER, COLORADO 30213.4213 T: 303284,9244 .774 'Jr 311, • JOATV'WV44 " Gme ur,E • 16 : E.Yog NI NIN,N4511, 31'11 355. 51 25' - 3 1,2. ------------ 171 tp_WER LEVE4,S ly l 7 r. E E T 315571101 GRADE ONE 1037,7-5ED GRADE UNE LIPPER.EVF.L r & O North Elevation Concept 1" = 5. 7. ‘Ne . ppl L51.131.._ • 1 East Elevation Concept 1' = 20'.0" E fuc V z 1- 2 E 02 0 ›LLI 117 ▪ .< I— W U 1— Tn w • s DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. DATE: 1TILE/PURPOSE: 0615;15 DEVELOPMENT PLR. 2. 66,24416 RESPONSE 3. 00515 REISSUE 4. 6, 9. 10. SCALE As Indicated ISSUE DATE: 071051111 —DRAWN BY: LM REVD BY: Checker PROJECT14: 16003 —SFEE1 lira CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHED" #: A112 0 EJ F] Hi f l .5' • Er III 2 OMER: 113E0 P0 DV 17o0 E5075 PARC co 83017 GAHM MEP P3 A33 1.200 csm3 PR% CO 60117 CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL- TIE UNDERSIGNED. KING THE mom DO HEREBY AGREE THAT OE RFAL PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN THE APELICATON FOR OLVELOPIENT PLAN RENEW FLED HER M11 AND AS MOAN 005 THIS SITE PUN SHALL BE 646.001 10 THE PRIBASIONS Of TITLE 17 or THE MUNIOPAL CODE OF DIE 701144 OF ESTES PARK, CMORADO AND ANY 010102 ORINNANCF_S OF THE Tow ON ESTES PARK, =LORAN) PERTAINING DERMA ESTES PARK SC14004 DISSECT R-E, ERNOG, PLANNING COMM...WON CERTIFICATE: APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ESTES VALLEY PUNNING CONSSFON ON A 1715711110N ON 71113 - MD OF OHLSON LAVOIE COLLABORATIVE wwri.oledealons.eam CLERK 01.135 Few 135:Y.71 SHEET TRLE: Unnamed SHEET tr. DP101 5644 VICINITY MAP in - woo' • 8. 6 ; ' SCALE: ISSUE DATE 05118/16 _ DRAWN BY: Author onto BY; Checker --PROJECTS 16503 616E SPEEN BLVD DENVER COLORADO 30203-4213 T: 303.281.3244 DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. DATE: _717LE/PORPOSE: L_ 1._05125116 DEVELOPMENT PIA _01124/16 _RESPON E TO AGENCY E . 3. _Owns RESPONSE TO FLINN! • 4. ORISION REVIEW MIT*YRODX6197 FFE.4631134 EXHIBIT D 13 12 11 5 ESTES VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER A PORTION OF THE SE OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., TOWN 0 ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. 5105591111 1769.95' W 1304.001 F D OMER. LONE TREE IALLICIE APARINENTS LRAMS PARTHERSHP 3201 S 7A10•40,2 OR 0044711. CO 60231 20NEEt RN 14 REBIR UES *Mr EAST CC CAUMIATED 41, UNE 0474107, .1EFF117 A CROW 1350 GRAVES AS& ISTES FMK DO COW. oak. M Ut 1061 PAN 1040.4 PAK MGM PAM. CO 15717 Otornt SUSAN N 1301.77 741E SUGAR WALE Cr 0051ERCER. CO BOMA 04171184 COM 005 COMILINITY DONE ESHER PARK CO 110617 EFE M21. WIEN11531 1105FEW- -..TA7CIET. WEIEWEaTI ME:== CLEVE OGLE WYTTMETM 4EF-M =P= W2=EIRWrAM^= M tn&TM ME=CIE T1. YLTii 0•,,,-zirrim MI:=MMWIl="= maim:Elea ,w7777. Mumma 47.04775 BOUNIINTY KVI]mmmil Onrme=mr,=m WW3.165er-A ORE LENGTH Cl 3377 1GOU51 COSA 40.10 3347,9" OCRO 4044140 c1KR9 CFSTA147E oaro0V7-9 3027 a 402.15 ;701.59 1271751. 229334,2•E 30 gum 611=MMTVIFFFM C3 21510 03050 4320,51. AnISES2W ftir. .44,G77-40-.7.-.0-•-••ALI-417._AR STATISTICAL INFORWATMAr; 1. 27010 - CO (0311110774 =LYNG) DROSS PXOJEC, AREA - 2212,713,4 SF, 0.49 AC (PROPOSED LOC 2) an CC INTO NaDER 11.020 PAIR 0 7 AREA IN M1OO4E0 NONTS-OFHIAT DEOCATIONS - 0 NET Proluscr MFA OFR 254,670,4 10 2. FIDOR AMA RATIO PROPOSER 0.24 AIMINUM FLOOR AREA ROM 015 2. ROT orwomor PROPOSED - wax. sr - 202,174 SF / 23.1476.4 SF 71.71 mum Loy 225E51IE AMU) DEMI - goer ONOR IDMF1CATION REOUESTED-EWC) OPER SPACE MOWED- N/A IN CO ME DOTIOCZ PER [MAIER 4 OF 4400 4. TOTAL OFF 011WET POEMS SPACES OT0UVED 0.1 DI),ENASE PER 514170) 503/VBC (6534 IHOICEMIF PEAK MONO) 634 NSF • 3.1 spociNDEF - 200 SPAE16 (YEP/0E) 66.4 17 • 333 17450/17 .4 334 SFACIM (7111 11 PEAK DEMO) OFT STREET PIA50140 SPACES P22110W Ce, 114E - 269 SWIM ORATE CHASM 41E=40 (5171 PARKINS NMI) - 4470 0P1C1M TOTAL MACES FROMM - 3330 IN 1410? SPACED =UM - 7 10TAL (5 011 NM 1 050 IINEACAP SPAcEs FROYIED - 11 TOTAL (11 CM AEC 10 NANO THEE MR 11. IMMO MATES REPIAREIS 3 FROMM ONE SPACES !BOUM A. 269 95159/20 - 14 SPADE SAL SPACES PROW= II MUM MAMA 19111910 NOWT - 307 111441310 CREATOI MONT AUTKIR=0 POMMY TO SPECIAL REAM MOO 10 OE REVEY/ED IN ACCORDANCE MTH 4401. CAF CVDC FEDI/MEM NAMUR BROOM NEWT PROPOSED - XEM1 10 ROOF HOGG 0A904.0no8 oN THE STE PLANS mem (4ARRS. REGAM1E3-07) E. BLUING 50146E FITOTMM 66,401 SD FT 1E9 UPPER 10419. AREA - 20.123 wa Fl USES: INCOOR POOL siNNFTS PAOL LOCIMIT MOAB MESS CORER OFFICES COSTING UPPER LEVEL AREA - 12.552 SO FT USES: INDOOR 00045 1,001. LocKER TOTAL UPPER LAE. AREA - 41.6715 92 FT NEN LOWER LEAL IAEA 24.724 97 FT USEG On. FITNESS AREAS mow cuolit COMmular ROOMS 71I OMER SHALL SE PE 1 0 ( TO FROMM FOR 110.11)1C1P ACCESSERITT IN ACCORDANCE MTH IRE ADA. A1111 I.S.C. WHIT. ECIERIOR HC TALL BE LOCATED AT THE REQUIEM ENTRY Porn OF THE NEW BUILDING, ATTACHED TO THE DUBBING AND VA SHIELDED AND DEFLECTED DOWNWARD. COMPLIANCE WEN SECTION 7.9 OF WE ESTE3 VALLEY DEELOPIENT CODE IS 3. AIL MOWED RAPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COI/PLOW OR GUMAIFTEED IN ACCORDANCE 117F14 EEC swam 7.12 AND 10.51,- 4.. PER SECTION 7.13, 1:13.1C.M, METERS, VENTS AND OTHER =PHEW/ ATTACHED 10 THE 5Lwnic c4F PROTRUNNG FROM INF. fr u. r . E .ES E : REOURED. ROOF SHALL BE SCREENED, COOED OR RON= TO UNDO2E Yowl. ILIPACTS.' 5. FENCES FOR THE TRASH ENCLOSURES 511,41.1 CONFORM 70 Dom PREDONDMArt LIA,TERIALS ANL, COLORS Of THE BLIL.CFNOS 11. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN CREATES A 11BIED PROPERTY RICHT PURS1mArt TO ARTICLE 55 OF 1111Z 24, 0,1/2. AS AMENDED. 7. CONTOURS SNORE HERE014 ARE BASED UPON LOCAL CONTROL NTAELLSHED THROUGHOUT DIE sly_ S THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT FALL worm ANY 701191 OF ESTES PARK HS HAZARD 101110A111791 AREA (MARE OR GEOLOGIC). 9. TILDE ARE NO JURISDICSONAL volLANDS OR WATERS OF THE us LocATED 004 1HIS BITE 10. THIS SHE IS CLASSIFIDE AS ZONE 0 UNSHADED ACCOR5P40 TO IRE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY-FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCIES RCM PISURANCE RATE MAPS (PANEL IONE). 11. A TRAFFIC IIPACT ANALYSIS AHD PARKING STUDY HMSBEEN COMPLETED FOR DIE PROJECT BY OEL1571 AHD ASSOCIATES (MATT OSual, COLORADO PE 15253) AND SHOULD BE REFERRED FOR TRAFFIC/PARKING DELIANDS AND IMPACTS. 12. THE PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO BREAK GROUND FOR CONSTROCON DURING 720E FALL OF 2015 AND IS ANTICIPATE) TO BE COMPLETED IN A SOLE PHASE, FE. Dis DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE MTh THE IFITERNAUCNOL FIRE AND INTERNATIONAL BULDO4C MEE 14. 11115 DENELOPMENT REQUIRES COMPUARCE MTH THE 0510$ pAFX MIN OPAL CODE 15. UNITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE [ENGEM= IN THE FIELD PFDER TO CCGWENCDFLENT OR EXCAVATION, GRADJNG, OR CCHSTRUCDON MM CONSTRUCTiON BARRIER FENCINO OR SOLE 0111ER METHOD APPROVED By STAFF. 15, STUCKPAJF93 SHALL 0407 OCCUR MONDE THE DELINEA7M3 LAGS OF DISTURBMCE. 17. NO FENCING ALLOYED. INCEPT AS REQUIRED TO PROTECTLANDSCAPING. LicHnING NOT NECESSARY FOR SECTIRITY PURPOSES CANE TURNS) 47F APPROXIMATELY ONE-HAIF HMI BEFORE A110 AMIN OPERATING HOURS. 19. Liarova soul. BE REDUCED AFTER 10 PIA LEGAL DESCRIPOTON (VERBATIM PER TITLE' COMMITMENT)- EIEWIIMG AT NA ITHICIAL MSS CAPPED OS. KNEW OF 1AND NINIMPENT WORM THAT HEMS WIN 00 DE5FEE5 24 mums %BST A OMR= OF 131 FM MOM TIE MOST DARTER COMER 7 5EE4M4 29. Tonneap 5 NOR111. PACE 72 NEST OF INE 6T14 PSI; THENCE 9EC114 02 SEGOECS 24 MAU= EMT NOM 110 SECTION UNE A 00TANIX of 579 FEET, THENCE MORN 69 77E6 II 01011/102 1031 A 061700E OF 7304,D FM TO TIE EAST 934.14871 EC IVE 6174•710 0411741304 TO THE TOM 17 ISM PAM CCIBRAEO, 1,417NeE =ha SAID EAST MAMMY 3:9711 00 411GRE3 CD Awn. AEsT A =AM OF 1060_0 FM, 'PENCE DWT 1040.0 MEE To 11E Ea, idaer or 507 Led oF 144 (Emm)) Ras CREDE RIM TI MM Nova YID MONT OF MT NORM [41 EOM= Ai PINVTIM MST A ORTANCE OF 141.5 FEET 10 A POINT OF CURINIURE OF A CURVE TO TIE LEFT WIN A FACCS OF Si FEETIDENEE NOM DOD WM A DEDUCE OF 111.3 FEB TO THE EfTEREECGON OF THIS LAE WITH T111 U.S. 014385LEN, PROPEMY 170.312ARY 61141 AP 105 70 AP. 1174 SENT SOUTH 05 1111703 02 51 31116 WEST ALOIS SAC 001112111714/ LIE A 171511447 OF 1/15 FEET MORE M LEss 10 7K crowNAAENT mom came PROPEMY MARKER SIANPED AP. 1011 THENCE CONTINUM AIDNO THE SOVERNIENT FRoPorP0 HORN Ed 0000 13 MFR. REST A 5500 C[ OF ISSN FEET EDP. 1071 1171101 NORM 31 DEMOS 17 MUMS WEST 4 0917AGE OF 202.4 FEET: Q.P. 100k THERM NORTH 04 =NEM 07 NORMS EA-M. A IXISIONEZ OF 111.311 FEET; (AP. 1055 110140 NORTH 29 MAW 41 worms EAST A EISEANIX OF 713.2 FELT, (A.P. HO), -MICE MOWN 74 =REIM 92 1136.0121 NOB A bISTANCE OF 3116.0 FEET: GUS 111/ 1177 MORD A CURIE 141 111E MO NT NM A 005110 OF MOM FELT %Mom LIMO CHORD BEMS IfORNI 71 DEGREES 11 19161,11B111137 A INSTANCE Or 120.4 FEET: O.P. 112) TO TNE POSIT OF BECIWINE. 405011 THAT MIRROR mum AS WPM RE THAT IS 60 FEET PI MOM LYRIC FAST OF THE COURSE ENDICRIM) AS SOUTH 00 01321TEM 24 IWPFTED DOT A POTNICE OF 500.9 FEET AND SOON Cr 711E COURSE DESCRIED PS MOTH 139 DECREES 11 IMAM WEST A DISIMEE OF 1370 FRET; 7411.117 OF LAMER. STATE 04 CRONE.% CONT014010 *371 ACRES MORE OR LEE& ,SHEET INDEX: DP101 COVER DP102 KEY SHEET C101 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C102 GENERAL SITE PLAN 1 C103 GENERAL SITE PLAN 2 C104 GENERAL SITE PLAN 3 C105 GENERAL SITE PLAN 4 C106 UTILITY PLAN ▪ COOS Cl 09 C107 LANDSCAPE PLAN EROSION CONTROL PLAN GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN CI10 OVERALL PROPERTY INTERCONNECTION C111 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN L100 L101 LANDSCAPE PLAN L102 LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN L103 LANDSCAPE NOTES L104 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L105 ELECTRICAL PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN NORTH EP101 ELECTRICAL PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN NORTH EP102 ELECTRICAL PHOTOMETRIC CUTSHEETS EP103 Al CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLANS CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS A2 i