Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2018-04-03 Prepared: March 29, 2018 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, April 3, 2018 9:00 a.m. – Board Room Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated March 6, 2018 5. 260 Stanley Avenue Owner: Mike Kingswood Applicant: Tom Bergman/Van Horn Engineering Request: Variance from EVDC Section 7.5.F.2, 7.5.G.2, Landscaping Requirements allowing parking in the required 15’ Landscaping Buffer and relocation of the Landscaping Buffer in RM-Multi-Family Residential zoning district. Staff: Robin Becker 6. 1051 Sutton Lane Owner: Dianne Richter Applicant: Thomas Beck Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3 Table 4-2 which requires 25-foot setbacks in the E1-Estate zone district. Request to allow a setback of approximately 13 feet on the east property line for a proposed addition. Staff: Jeff Woeber, Senior Planner 7. Cheley High Ropes Course Owner: Cheley Colorado Camps Applicant: Jeff Cheley Request: Variance from EVDC Table 4-5, Allowance of “High Ropes Structure” to be 43’ in lieu of the maximum 30’ height allowance for A-Accommodations zoning district. Staff: Jeff Woeber, Senior Planner 8. REPORTS 9. ADJOURN 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 March 6, 2018 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair John Lynch, Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, Smith, Moreau, and Poggenpohl Also Attend ing: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner I Robin Becker, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: None Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were six people in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. 1. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Poggehpohl/Smith) to approved the agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated December 5, 2017 Approval of minutes dated November 7, 2017 It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Smith) to approve the minutes for December 5 and November 7 as presented and both motions passed unanimously. 4. 3265 Eiger Trail, Lot 8, Block 3, Windcliff Estates 5th Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The variance request is to allow a 2-foot setback in lieu of the 25-foot required setback in the E-1 (Estate 1) zone district. The E-1 district required 25-foot setbacks on all sides. The applicant desires allow and existing building to remain and adjust an existing setback to allow for further addition. Planner Becker reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There were no public comments received. Staff recommends approval of the variance with no conditions. Staff and Member Discussion There was brief discussion regarding the lot size and the result of the variance, and the history of zoning in Windcliff Estates. It was noted that the Setback is on the East side of property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 March 6, 2018 Lonnie Sheldon from Van Horn Engineering was available for questions. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Popggenpohl) to approve the requested variance, adding the East Setback to the description, with findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. 351 Prospector Drive, Lot 34, Black Canyon Hills Addition Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The variance request is to allow a 9.2-foot setback on the north side of property and an 18.7-foot setback on the south side of property in lieu of the 25-foot required setback in the E-1 zone district. The E-1 district required 25-foot setbacks on all sides. The applicant desires allow and existing building to remain and adjust an existing setback to allow for further addition. Planner Becker reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There was one public comment received regarding the distance of new deck in relation to his property. Applicant David Margheim was available for questions. Board recommends approval with the condition of redesigning the deck on the north side so it does not encroach into the neighbor’s property. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Poggenpohl) to approve the variance from the EVDC approving 18.7 foot set back variance on the south side of property and 13.7 foot setback variance on the north side of property and construct the deck to remain parallel to the property line and the motion passed unanimously. 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2018 Board nominated Rex Poggenpohl as Chairman. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch). Board nominated Jeff Moreau as Vice Chair. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom). Both motions passed unanimously. 7. REPORTS 1. Director Hunt reported that there is an active interview process for Planner II position, beginning March 15 2. Director Hunt noted that there is hope of a Comprehensive Plan update. The Board of Adjustment may be asked for advice and counsel. Members Poggenpohl and Moreau volunteered to help. 3. Board member Smith requested the addition of the legal notices to packets. 4. Director Hunt mentioned that there is a Code Amendment working its way to the Planning Commission to expand the perimeter of neighbor notifications and signage at project sites. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 March 6, 2018 There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:43 a.m. ___________________________________ Rex Poggenpohl, Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: April 3rd 2018; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 7.5.F.2 and 7.5.G.2 Landscaping and Buffer F. Buffering and Screening G Parking Lot Landscaping. The Variance would allow the location of parking spaces within the 15’ landscape buffer. The second part of this variance is to waive the required landscaping buffer The purpose of the Variance is to allow parking spaces where the 15’ landscaping buffer would be required. This variance also requests in lieu of the required landscaping provide an alternate plan for the planting requirements. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 260 Stanley Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Michael and Cynthia Kingswood / Same as Applicant STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Variance would allow location of parking spaces within the 15’ landscape buffer. The second part of this variance is to waive the required landscaping buffer and request use of an alternate plan for planting requirements. This request is part of an eight unit townhome development on the current site. The lot size is a .50 acre lot that due to the unique shape of the site greatly limits where access, units, and parking can be located. The preliminary plan for the site was discussed with Estes Valley Fire and the current layout is designed to accommodate access for turnarounds for the trucks. Furthermore access easements greatly limit the location of where multi story units could be located, hence the current configuration. This limited where 5 of the required parking spaces could be located. The conflict occurs because the only location on site left is for both the required landscaping buffer and parking on the east lot is not large enough. The landscaping is requested to not be located in the 15’ buffer from parking as the public sidewalk is located more than 10’ east of the property line and landscaping in the Public ROW is not permitted by Public Works. 260 Stanley Avenue – Landscaping and Landscaping Buffer Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org 260 Stanley Ave– Landscaping/ Landscaping Variance Page 2 of 4 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 7 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 (Attached). Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No significant comments/concerns were received by reviewing agency staff. Public Comments. Staff has received no public comment to date. Any written comments received after March 29, 2018 will be posted to the “Current Applications” webpage under public comment. STAFF FINDINGS: 1) Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The property is approximately .50-acres in size and is zoned RM. There are zero setbacks for this Townhome Development. The required fire access and unique shape of the lot are not common to other areas or buildings. Staff believes that the special circumstances of both the required access, and site shape are not common and will not nullify the intent and purposes of the specific standards the code or 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: Without the Variance, there cannot be beneficial use of the property. This variance would allow multifamily housing, which is greatly needed in the Estes Valley to develop and still provide for landscaping planting and required parking. All will provide adequate parking and access. b) Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance would establish required parking where the landscaping buffer would have been. The overall proposed landscaping variance is 260 Stanley Ave– Landscaping/ Landscaping Variance Page 3 of 4 substantial but the proposed five parking spaces will be minimal as the location accommodates access needs on site. Staff does not find that granting this variance would be a substantial request. c) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to drainage, migration corridors, etc). The ROW will not be planted on and public sidewalk provided for. Furthermore there are limited properties that would be impacted to the east. Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any detriment to nearby properties. d) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Town Utilities did not have any comments. Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any detriment to the delivery of public services. e) Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant was unaware of the Estes Valley Fire access requirement until far into the preliminary site design stage. Staff finds that granting the variance would help the applicant overcome the hardship of making sure the Townhome Development is within compliance and providing adequate landscaping and parking on site. f) Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: As stated previously the applicant was made aware of the requirements for the parking and landscaping on site. This impacted the site design and staff worked with the applicant to try and accommodate the design as much as physically possible with the difficult shape of the lot. Staff finds that short of not allowing the development to occur there is no other method that can mitigate. 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 to the Estes Valley. It is not common to have landscaping buffers and requirements waived. Although it can be argued that the landscaping required of this (and other) multifamily properties is excessive to begin with, 260 Stanley Ave– Landscaping/ Landscaping Variance Page 4 of 4 any significant change in zoning requirements is not likely to be accomplished quickly or easily. A variance is the only feasible alternative in the short term. 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: A Landscape/ Landscape Buffer Variance as requested would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the current development proposal to be built at this site furthering housing needs. 6) Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7) In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff is not recommending any conditions be placed on this approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Agency Comments 3. Public Comment 4. Statement of Intent 5. Application 6. Variance sign photos 7. Site plan Page 1 of 2 STATEMENT OF INTENT STANLEY AVENUE TOWNHOMES LANDSCPING VARIANCE of a Portion of Lot 20, Little Prospect Mountain Addition to the Town of Estes Park, 260 Stanley Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado VARIANCE REQUEST: The development is seeking a variance to parking lot landscaping buffer, as well as placing the parking area in said landscape buffer. The required landscaping is requested to be located in an alternate location. The variances requested both lie along the eastern property line. The primary reason for this variance request is due to special circumstances due to the shape of the lot and the narrowness of the parcel. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed development is a portion of Lot 20 of the Lit tle Prospect Mountain Addition to the Town of Estes Park, CO located at 260 Stanley Avenue. OWNERS: The owners of this land and the applicants are Michael and Cynthia Kingswood. There is no lienholder on the property. The owners are developing the property with the intention of providing workforce housing townhome units. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is an 8 Unit Townhome Development. In the process of developing this 0.50 acre lot it was determined that the best location for the parking is to place it along the east property line. Due to the narrowness of the triangular shaped property a single access point currently exists directly opposite Dunraven Street. This access will be abandoned and a new access created approximately 130 feet north of Dunraven Street. The parking on-site is provided by garages in each unit and an additional 9 parking spaces in two areas of the property, 5 of which need to be placed along the east line of the property. Part of the need for this variance is due to fire access. The preliminary plan was discussed with the Estes Park Fire Department to ensure adequate access for their equipment. In order to provide access for emergency purposes it is necessary to turn the fire apparatus quite far into the property. It is undesirable to place the multi-story building units immediately against the eastern property line, and several easements required for utilities elsewhere on the property did not readily lend itself to an easy solution. In order to locate sufficient parking on this narrow lot it became apparent that the best parking option to accommodate vehicles was for 5 of the required parking spaces to be placed right up to the easterly property line. This project provides zero setbacks along the east side of the property for this development. However, the current location of the parking does not allow the 15’ wide landscape buffer. The parking is proposed to be located in said 15’ wide landscape buffer abutt ing the eastern property line. A variance is requested to locate parking spaces in the 15’ landscape buffer along and up to the east property line. Additionally a variance is requested to not place the required landscaping for the parking area adjacent to the parking area. The public sidewalk is located more than 10’ east of the property line and that there is limited space to place the required landscaping in the R-O-W, but Page 2 of 2 placing the required landscaping there was not permitted by public works. As such there is a grass buffer between the parking and the street and sidewalk. We feel that this is a reasonable variance request given the corridor between the parking spaces and t he public sidewalk and road. In determining the practical difficulty the items listed in the standards for review are addressed below: A. This variance is requested due to practical difficulties applying workforce housing density bonuses as permitted in the Estes Valley Development Code. For any property to practically use the workforce density to maximize lot coverage the required setbacks become very difficult to meet code. This variance is requested to utilize the beneficial purpose of workforce housing needed in the community. B. The variance is requesting locating the landscaping in an alternate location, displacing the landscaping to other areas on the property. Since the landscaping is being provided alternatively, and the screening is primarily for passing traffic along Stanley Avenue which is passing neighboring uses that are commercial (auto repair and storage facility) it does not appear that this variance is substantial. C. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected by this variance as the landscaping would be located across the street from a storage facility and the auto repair business (neither of which have any existing screening). The variance to landscaping does not substantially decrease buffering to residential properties. D. There presently are no existing or future utilities that will be compromised as a result of not providing landscaping in this area. In fact the location of utilities is being provided along the frontage due to the required landscaping not being able to be placed above utilities or under power lines, so this variance will enable delivery of public services that already exist. E. The applicant was partially aware of the situation and was informed by planning staff that this variance was a reasonable request for development of the property. He had communicated his intention for the property, locations of buildings, parking and utilities and acted in good faith to reasonably develop the property as he understood from planning staff guidance. F. The usage of the property without this landscape variance is not easily mitigated. The applicant is placing one parking stall in garages under each new unit and locating the remaining required parking where available. In order to relocate the parking it would be necessary move utilities, access aisles, parking and the buildings which would need to be relocated into the same landscaping area and require the same variance request. The shape of the lot, placement of public utilities, easements and access requirements do not allow for other methods of placement that do not also require using this area. In lieu of placing the required landscaping adjacent to the street this project is requesting to use an alternate plan for planting requirements. The entrance to the property, fire hydrant, sewer and utility easements forbid planting trees within their respective areas, which further reduces available area for landscaping along the eastern property line. However two small islands were created along the east property line and a larger portion on the southeast to maximize where plantings can be located. This alternate landscape plan provides the number of overall plantings as required (for the non-arterial Stanley Avenue) by the landscaping plan, but moves the location of said landscaping around the property wherever it can be reasonably facilitated without compromising utilities, roads, parking and private areas. We feel this is a reasonable alternate plan; especially considering the property, as it exists, did not naturally facilitate growth of trees and shrubs other than the existing two trees and one shrub shown on the existing conditions site plan. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: April 3, 2018, 9:00 a.m.; Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for approval of a variance to allow a side setback of 13 feet, in lieu of the 25 foot minimum required in the E-1, Estate Zoning District, per the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Table 4 – 2, Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Staff is recommending approval of this variance. LOCATION: 1051 Sutton Lane, in unincorporated Larimer County LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Within a portion of the NW ¼ of Section 1, Township 4 N, Range 73 W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County VICINITY AND SITE MAP: See attachments APPLICANT/OWNER: Dianne Richter STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow a side setback, along the eastern property line, of 13 feet in lieu of the 25 foot minimum required in the E-1, Estate Zoning District. The applicant proposes an addition to an existing residence. A similar variance was approved for an attached garage, in 2011. That variance was restricted only to that garage addition. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. The application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The site has been posted with a “variance pending” sign. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. The memos and emails from reviewing agencies are included as part of this staff report. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with the EVDC, Section 3.6 C., Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and 1051 Sutton Lane, Variance Request Side Setback Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org 1051 SUTTON LANE VARIANCE REQUEST, SIDE SETBACK PAGE 2 OF 18 criteria contained therein. These standards and criteria are outlined under “Staff Findings,” below. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Special circumstances do exist—the property, 85 feet in width, was created well prior to the EVDC adoption in 2000. In 2000, it was zoned to E-1, Estate. E-1 requires minimum setback distances of 25 feet from all property lines (front, sides, and rear). Larimer County Assessor’s records show the house was constructed in 1946. The existing structure was not in compliance with the E-1 setback standards when applied in 2000, creating a circumstance where it not practical to add to the structure and meet current setback standards. 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: There is beneficial use with the current residence. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance may be considered to be substantial, with the 25 foot minimum setback distance proposed to be reduced to 13 feet. Staff notes when this property was rezoned in 2000, E-1, with 25 foot side setbacks, was not the most appropriate zoning to apply to a property of this width that contained an existing residence. 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: Staff does not find the character of the neighborhood would be altered, and there would be no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties with approval of the proposed variance. 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; 1051 SUTTON LANE VARIANCE REQUEST, SIDE SETBACK PAGE 3 OF 18 Staff Finding: The EVDC was adopted in the year 2000 and was readily available to the public. The current owner purchased the property well after the year 2000. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: There is not a method to construct an addition that will meet the applicant’s needs, other than through redesigning the addition to be within the side setback. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: A variance is the least deviation from the regulations. There is no process that could provide a lesser deviation than the proposed variance. 4. 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 Comment. Staff does not find any conditions necessary for granting the variance request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE the requested variance, allowing a side setback of no less than 13 feet, along the east side of the subject property at 1051 Sutton Lane, Larimer County, with findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site plan 5. Review Agency Comments 6. Photograph, Variance Sign ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 5 PHOTOGRAPH PROVIDED BY APPLICANT, 3/19/18 ATTACHMENT 6 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: April 3, 2018, 9:00 a.m.; Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for approval of a variance to allow a height of 43 feet, in lieu of the 30 foot maximum allowable in the A, Accommodations Zoning District, per the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Table 4 – 5, Base Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Staff is recommending approval of this variance. LOCATION: 3960 Fish Creek Road, in unincorporated Larimer County. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 88 Westover Manor Subdivision, within a portion of the Southwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 12, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County. VICINITY AND SITE MAP: See attachments APPLICANT/OWNER: Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc. STAFF CONTACT: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow height of 43 feet, in lieu of the 30 foot maximum allowable in the A, Accommodations Zoning District. The applicant is installing a “ropes course” for an existing summer camp. The ropes course poles must be installed at a certain height, that exceeds the maximum allowed. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. The application is posted on the Town’s “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. Two agencies responded to the request for comment—Estes Valley Fire Protection District and Town of Estes Park Utilities—each of whom stated they have no comment or objection to the variance request. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with the EVDC, Section 3.6 C., Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. These standards and criteria are outlined under “Staff Findings,” below. Cheley Camp Variance Request Structure Height Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org CHELEY CAMP VARIANCE REQUEST, HEIGHT PAGE 2 OF 11 The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Special circumstances do exist—the summer camp is a unique use, and has existed in this general area for over 90 years. Maintaining a summer camp that meets expectations of guests can require installing structures higher than the maximum height allowed per zoning standards that were established 18 years ago. 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: There is beneficial use of the property without the variance. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance may be considered to be substantial, with the 30 foot maximum allowable height proposed to be increased to 43 feet, however, the horizontal footprint is much less than a typical building. 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: Staff does not find the character of the neighborhood would be altered, and there would be no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties with approval of the proposed variance. This site is forested and hilly, with no nearby neighbors or uses that would be adversely impacted. 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 owner/applicant has owned the property since well before the adoption of the EVDC in 2000 (or any development codes in the Estes Valley). f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: An effective “high ropes course” would not be feasible with a shorter structure. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. CHELEY CAMP VARIANCE REQUEST, HEIGHT PAGE 3 OF 11 Staff Finding: A variance is the least deviation from the regulations. There are no other viable deviations from the regulations available for the applicant to establish the ropes course use as proposed. 4. 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 Comment. Staff does not find any conditions necessary for granting the variance request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE the requested variance, allowing a “ropes course” structure, with associated structures and equipment, to be built at a height of 43 feet, with findings and conclusions as outlined within the staff report. 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. Drawing of Ropes Course Structure 5. Site Plan 6. Photo, Variance Sign ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 5 PHOTOGRAPH PROVIDED BY APPLICANT, 3/19/18 ATTACHMENT 6