HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2022-09-13
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY
Tuesday, September 13, 2022
9:00 a.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87851025975
Or Join by Telephone:
1. Dial US: +1-877-853-5257 (toll-free)
2. Enter Webinar ID: 8785 1025 975 followed by #
The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and will be recorded
and posted to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Board of Adjustment Minutes dated July 12, 2022
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Appeal 280 North Court Director Garner
The appelant seeks to appeal the use of shipping containers on a residential lot
2. Variance Request: 445 Skyline Drive Senior Planner Woeber
The applicant seeks a variance to allow setbacks from three property lines for an
existing patio and shed.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
September 1, 2022
1
NOTE: The Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.Comprehensive Plan Update
2.Meetings after a Monday holiday
3.Upcoming meeting items
ADJOURN
2
3
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 12, 2022
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually in said Town of
Estes Park on this 12 day of July 2022.
Committee: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Board
Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Newsom, Vice-Chair Moreau, Board Member Holtzman,
Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Recording
Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town Board Liasion Barbara
MacAlpine
Absent: none
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 3-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda. The
motion passed 2-0. Chair Newsom abstained.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Vice-Chair Moreau agreed to be Chair, and Chair Newsom agreed to be Vice-Chair.
Member Holtzman agreed.
VARIANCE REQUEST 458 Chiquita Lane Director Garner
The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a reduced front and rear
setback of 20 feet from the requirement of 25 feet for a new two-car detached
garage and a variance to allow a reduced front and rear setback of 17 feet from the
requirement of 25 feet for two existing accessory structures beyond the current
allowance in the E-1 Zone District.
Staff recommended the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, subject to
the findings described in the staff report.
DISCUSSION: none
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the requested variances,
one to allow 20-foot front and rear setbacks for a new, detached garage and another for
17-foot front and rear setbacks for two existing accessory structures for a property at
458 Chiquita Lane, in the Town of Estes Park. The motion passed 3-0.
REPORTS
The Comprehensive Plan is on track and on schedule.
There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m.
Wayne Newsom, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
draf
t
4
5
Community Development
To: Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
From: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
Date: September 13, 2022
Application: Appeal of Estes Park Development Code Staff Interpretation
280 North Ct., Estes Park
Jeffrey P. Moreau, Appellant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment review the
documentation and confirm or deny Staff’s interpretation of the Estes Park Development
Code.
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective
The appellant requests a review of the following Estes Park Development Code
(EPDC) citations to determine if shipping containers are allowable as accessory
structures for outdoor storage in a residential area: Sections 1.3.A, 1.3.F, 1.3 I,
1.3.M, 5.2.A.4.a, 5.2.B.2.d.1, 2, and 4a, and 7.13.B.3.
Location
The .33-acre lot, zoned R and legally described as Lot 10, Block 4, Reclamation, is
located at 280 North Ct, West of 4th Street and North of North Court in Estes Park. The
property is located in a residential area, and is bounded to the east by the Fairgrounds
complex. For detailed information on zoning and land uses, see Table 1.
6
2
Vicinity Map
Land Use Summary
Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary
Subject
Site R (Residential) R (Residential ¼-acre) Residential
North R (Residential) R (Residential ¼ acre) Residential
South R (Residential) R (Residential ¼ acre) Residential
East Parks, Recreation & Open
Space CO (Commercial Outlying) Stanley Park
Fairgrounds
West R (Residential) R (Residential ¼-acre) Residential
7
3
Zoning Map
Background
The property owners at 280 North Ct, Tilotam and Jiten Manandhar, submitted an
application for a building permit in March, 2022, to store two, 8’x20’ shipping containers
on the property. The containers are in addition to one, 90.4-square foot storage shed
listed on the survey. The Planning and Building Divisions approved the permit on March
31, 2022. In July, 2022, the adjacent property owner contacted the Planning Division to
inquire about the containers, and formally appealed the permit approval, citing multiple
sections of the Development Code that were violated by the approval. The appellant
also informed staff of an additional shed on the property that was not shown on the ILC
that was submitted for staff review in conjunction with the permit application. Staff later
determined that the shed not listed on the survey is 196-square feet and exceeds the
allowable square footage and number of storage units allowed on a residential property.
The Development Code states in Section 5.2 that “No more than one (1) accessory
building or structure less than or equal to one hundred twenty (120) square feet
and no more than two (2) accessory buildings or structures greater than one
hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be allowed on a lot of two-and-one-half
(2.5) acres or less.”
Project Description
The Appellant cited several sections of the Development Code to support their
contention that the shipping containers should not be allowed on a residentially-zoned
site, including Citations from Chapter 1 (General Provisions), Chapter 5 (Use
8
4
Regulations), and Chapter 7 (General Development Standards). Following Staff’s
review of the codes cited, some were determined to be not applicable, including the
following that pertain to home occupations:
Sections 5.2.B.2.d.1, 2 state the following:
Home Occupations
(1) Size/Area: A home occupation shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the floor
area of the building in which the home occupation is located, excluding garage
space. This size/area requirement does not apply to family home day care.
(2) Location: Home occupations are permitted in both principal dwelling units and
accessory dwelling units in all zoning districts that allow home occupations,
though the home occupation must be integrated within the building of the related
dwelling unit(s); except that on lots equal to or greater than one-and-one-half
(1.5) acres in size, home occupations may be located in uninhabited accessory
structures.
The property owners also own and operate a T-shirt shop in Estes Park, and
according to the owners, the shipping containers are on the site to store overstocked
items from their store as well as personal items from the primary dwelling. Staff
determined that the property is not being used for a home occupation, but the
applicant is violating Section 5.2.B.2.d.4(a), which states “There shall be no stock-
in-trade other than products fabricated by artists and artisans.” The containers
are being used to house and store items from their business, and while the owners
are not conducting business on the site, nor selling their products or interacting with
the public on their property, they cannot have materials from their business stored
on the property.
Given this information, the sections cited above are not applicable to the situation on
the property.
The other sections of the Code that the Appellant cited are as follows:
1.3.A: Provide for coordinated, harmonious development of the Estes Valley and the
Town of Estes Park, which will, in accordance with present and future needs, best
promote health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare, as well as
efficiency and economy in the process of development;
1.3.F: Work to improve the aesthetics and design of all primary gateways to the Town of
Estes Park, including but not limited to Highways 7, 34 and 36;
1.3 I: Preserve and protect the architecture, history and small-town character of Estes
Park's historic downtown;
9
5
1.3.M: Promote good civic design and arrangement
5.2.A.4.a: All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following conditions:
The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in
connection with the principal use;
7.13.B.3: Outdoor storage, HVAC equipment, trash collection, trash compaction and
other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and
the landscaping plan. Views of these areas shall be screened from visibility from all
property lines and separated from pedestrian areas.
Staff Findings
There is limited information included in the Development Code that pertain to shipping
containers. Staff reviewed the Use Tables associated with both residential and non-
residential uses, and the only citation listed is in Table 5-2, which regulates uses in non-
residential Zoning Districts and pertains to “Storage of merchandise and nonhazardous
materials when located in the same building as the principal use”, and is allowed in all
non-residential Districts.
Chapter 13 of the Development Code defines many of the terms used throughout the
Code, and does provide a definition for Limited Warehousing and Storage: “Provision
of storage space for household or commercial goods within an enclosed building
without direct public access to individual storage spaces. This classification
includes facilities with a maximum of five thousand (5,000) square feet of gross
floor area, but excludes wholesaling and distribution, self-service mini-storage
and vehicle storage.”
Staff contends that this definition is applicable to Zoning Districts that allow for
commercial and industrial uses, and shouldn’t be utilized to justify the approval of
shipping containers in a residential Zoning District.
The Use Table for residential Zoning Districts does not include uses for similar types of
storage. Section 5.2.B.1.b states “If an accessory use or structure is not listed in
Table 5-1 but satisfies all the conditions set forth in §5.2.A.4 above, it may be
permitted subject to compliance with the general, dimensional and operational
standards set forth in this Section.” The Appellant has cited this section in his
appeal, and staff notes that while storage is a typical accessory use to a dwelling unit,
the structure itself (shipping container) is questionable and poorly defined in the
Development Code.
Should the BOA agree with the Appellant and determine that shipping containers are
not allowed as accessory structures in residential Zoning Districts, staff will either
address the issue immediately in the Development Code with an amendment, or will
note it for the update to the Code planned in 2023.
With reference to the fourth shed on the site that exceeds the allowable square footage
and number of structures on the site, dependent upon the BOA’s determination of the
10
6
shipping containers, staff will work with the property owners to either submit a building
permit application for the unpermitted shed or remove either it or the 90.4-square foot
shed to be in compliance with the three structures allowed for a site under 2.5 acres.
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been
received for the variance request. However, a neighbor to the property stopped by the
Community Development Department recently to verbally express their support to
remove the containers.
• Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on August 18, 2022.
• Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on August 19 2022.
• Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website on August 3, 2022.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the appeal, to not allow shipping containers in a residential Zoning
District, for the subject property addressed as 280 North Ct. in the Town of Estes Park.
I move to deny the appeal with the following findings (state reason/findings).
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the appeal to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
1. Appeal Letter
2. Permit Application
11
Jeffrey P. Moreau
211 Fourth Street
Estes Park, CO 80517
July 25, 2022
Jessica Garner
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
170 Macgregor Ave.
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Formal Appeal
Appellant: Jeffrey P Moreau
Town of Estes Park Building Permit no. 22-EP-00166
Subject Property: 280 North Court, Estes Park, CO
Dear Jessica Garner,
This letter is a formal request of appeal to be heard by the Estes Park Board of Adjustment (BOA). The Appeal
request is to overturn the decision made by staff of the Estes Park Community Development department. If
additional boards or agencies should be informed, please pass this onto them.
The Estes Park Community Development Department (EPCD) erred in approving the building permit for the
application of Tilotam and Jiten Manandhar (“permit applicant”). This permit is for (2) 8’ x 20’ (large) shipping
containers that were delivered on or about July 13th 2002. At the above address that is a residential property.
The approval is a gross failure to enforce the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). This permanent addition at
their property would conflict with multiple provisions of the EPDC and The Estes Park Comprehensive Plan (EPCP).
Additionally surprising is the EPCD did not verify with the site plan the Permit Applicant provided (an ILC dated
2015 not a site plan) that the existing shed that was built prior to the Permit Applicant purchasing the home . Is
11.3’ x 8.0’ was not the only shed on the property prior to the permit application. There in fact is an additional
shed that was built sometime last year that is greater than 120 square feet and was not permitted. This
unpermitted shed is approximately 190 square feet and with the addition of the two shipping containers exceeds
the allowed square footage and quantity of accessory structures per the EPDC. Keeping these shipping containers
in plain site on a residential property is an enormous issue. By ignoring the Comprehensive Plans valuable
guidelines as well as the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) the EPCD has significantly altered not only the
visual integrity of the area but has impacted the image of the entire Estes Park area. Allow even two shipping
containers in a residential area would be an affront to the neighborhood and Estes Park aesthetics. Moreover, it
will be a determent to the surrounding property values. What is worse would be for the EPCD and the BOA to
permit any shipping containers would serve to encourage and invite the shipping container industry to expand its
market into the yards of all of Estes Park.
12
Promote good civic design and arrangement; and
This in effect by the EPCD’s misguided inaction sanctions would have any Estes Park residential owner place
multiple shipping containers on their residential property and keep them there permanently.
Only a person or persons that owns or sells a shipping container would contend the a shipping container is
aesthetically appealing, or having one in a residential neighborhood in Estes Park would be good for the area or
for property values.
Per some of the attached photos it is clear that the Permit Applicant is using the accessory structures for
commercial storage of shirts for their business in town. This is clearly against many codes and inappropriate for a
residential property.
Some of the codes that are in violation are listed below.
§ 1.3 Purpose and Intent
The regulations of this Code are intended to implement the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and more specifically
are intended to:
A.
B. Protect residents from fire, floodwaters, geologic hazards and other dangers;
C. Preserve and protect existing trees and vegetation, agricultural lands, floodplains, riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and other
sensitive environmental areas from adverse impacts of development;
D. Facilitate the economic provision of adequate public facilities such as transportation, water supply, sewage disposal,
drainage, electricity, public schools, parks and other public services and requirements;
E. Coordinate transportation and land use planning to provide a safe and efficient transportation system in the Estes Valley;
F.
G. Encourage innovative residential development so that growing demand for housing may be met by greater variety in type,
design and layout of dwellings, and by conservation and more efficient use of open areas ancillary to such dwellings;
H. Encourage nonresidential development that preserves and protects the character of the community, including its natural and
cultural landscape, and that minimizes objectionable noise, glare, odor, traffic and other impacts of such development,
especially when adjacent to residential uses or to the historic downtown core;
I.
J. Strengthen and improve the downtown Estes Park as the primary government, cultural, office, financial, tourist, specialty
shopping and pedestrian district of the Estes Valley;
K. Provide adequate building setbacks and height limitations;
L. Encourage orderly and efficient distribution of the Estes Valley's population through land use
M.
5.2 -ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A. General Standards.
1. Permitted principal uses and approved special review principal uses shall be deemed
to include the accessory uses, structures and activities as set forth in this Section,
unless specifically prohibited.
2. See also §13.2, "Use Classifications," wherein incidental or accessory uses are
sometimes included in the description of a specific principal use. When a use
classification or specific use type definition in_j13.2 does include permitted accessory
and general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development;
Work to improve the aesthetics and design of all primary gateways to the Town of Estes Park, including but
Provide for coordinated, harmonious development of the Estes Valley and the Town of Estes Park, which will,
Preserve and protect the architecture, history and small-town character of Estes Park's historic downtown;
in accordance with present and future needs, best promote health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity
not limited to Highways 7, 34 and 36;
13
or incidental uses, such accessory or incidental uses shall be subject to the general
standards set forth in this Section, as well as any use-specific standards set forth in
§5.1 or this Section.
3. All accessory uses, structures and activities shall be subject to the general,
dimensional, operational and use-specific regulations set forth in this Section, in
addition to the same regulations that apply to principal uses in each district. In the
case of any conflict between the accessory use/structure standards of this Section and
any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control.
4.
b. The accessory use or structure shall be conducted and/or located on the same
zoning lot as the principal use; and
c. There shall be unity of ownership between the principal use and the accessory
use.
(Ord. 15-03 #1)
(Ord. 15-03 #1; Ord. 6-06 §1; Ord. 18-21, §1(Exh. A)}
(Ord. 15-03 #1; Ord. 18-21 , §1(Exh. A))
(Ord. 15-03 #1; Ord. 6-06 §1)
(3} Employees: No one other than a resident of the dwelling shall be
employed on site, report to work at the site or pick up supplies or
products on site in the conduct of a home occupation. This prohibition
also applies to independent contractors. Family home day care home
occupations are exempt from this requirement.
in connection with the principal use; and
and accessory dwelling units in all zoning districts that allow home
occupations, though the home occupation must be integrated within the
greater than one-and-one-half (1.5} acres in size, home occupations may
be located in uninhabited accessory structures.
All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following conditions:
a. The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found
5.2.B.2
d.
Size/Area: A home occupation shall not exceed twenty percent (20%} of
the floor area of the building in which the home occupation is located,
excluding garage space. This size/area requirement does not apply to
family home day care.
Home OccuP-ations .
(1)
(2) Location: Home occupations are permitted in both principal dwelling units
14
7.13 .. OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, ACTIVITIES AND MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
A. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all new development subject to this
Code.
B. Standards.
1. Areas for truck parking and loading shall be screened by a
combination of structures and evergreen landscaping to minimize
visibility from adjacent streets and property lines.
2. Areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading or
other such uses shall be located in the rear of the lot. If that is not
feasible, then the side yard can be used, but in no case shall areas be
located within twenty (20) feet of any public street, public sidewalk or
internal pedestrian way.
The Photo below shows a shed that was constructed sometime in 2021 to store shirts for permit
applicant’s business in town. It appears that this approximately 12’ x 16’ shed was built without obtaining
a building permit.
(4) Operational:
(a)
There shall be no stock-in-trade other than products fabricated by
artists and artisans.
service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the
landscaping plan. Views of these areas shall be screened from visibility from all
property lines and separated from pedestrian areas.
3. Outdoor storage, HVAC equipment, trash collection, trash compaction and other
15
16
The below photos show the shipping containers that were delivered in July of 2022. They are
visible from several locations. These are the shipping container that I am appealing the
decision of EPCD to allow. There was an appeal heard by the BOA on July 3, 2018 for a similar
shipping container that the BOA over turned with the then Estes Valley Planning department
decision to allow shipping container in a residential neighborhood.
These are an eye sore and a detriment to the beauty of the Estes Valley and have no place in a
residential neighborhood. I urge the BOA to again overturn the Estes Park Community
Development’s Decision to allow more shipping container to be allowed in Estes.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Community Development
To: Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: September 13, 2022
Application: Setback Variance
445 Skyline Drive, Estes Park
Mary Whittenburg, Owner/Applicant
Glen Shultz, Representative
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective
The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a reduced rear setback of
zero feet (0’) in lieu of the 15 feet required, and side setbacks of 0 feet and 4.2 feet
in lieu of the 10 feet required in the R-1 (Residential) Zone District under Section
4.3.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC).
Location
The 7,616-square foot lot, legally described as Lot 5, Village Greens Subdivision, is
located at 445 Skyline Drive, west of the intersection of Vista Lane and Skyline Drive
and south of Big Thompson Avenue.
Background
The subject lot was approved and recorded as the “Final Plat and Development Plan for
Village Greens Subdivision, a Replat of and PUD Amendment to: Lots 5 – 18, Mi Casa
Subdivision, a PUD.” This was in 1993, well before EPDC adoption. The Development
Plan at that time had building envelopes for the Village Green Lots. The Subdivision,
PUD and Development Plan was an overlay on property zoned CO (Outlying
Commercial).
26
2
In 2000, the entire Estes Valley, including the subject lot, was rezoned. The lot was
zoned to R-1 (Residential). The existing single-family residence was constructed in
2001.
The property changed ownership numerous times. In approximately 2016, a patio was
built. Due to slopes on the rear of the lot, a block retaining wall and fill dirt elevated an
area for construction of a large, level patio. The construction of the patio was
unpermitted by both the Building and Planning Division at the time.
The current owner, after purchasing the property in April 2021, was notified the patio did
not comply with minimum setback requirements for the R-1 Zone District. Following a
complaint filed by an adjacent property owner, the applicant prepared a new survey and
submitted an application for a building permit in January, 2022. An Improvement
Survey showed the patio encroached slightly over the property line, approximately 4
inches. While this portion was reconstructed, the zoning violation for setbacks
remained. The block wall/patio was on the property line on the south and on the west (a
zero-foot side setback and rear setback, respectively). The block wall/patio (as well as
a small, plastic portable shed) has a side setback of 4.2 feet on the north. See the
attached Improvement Survey.
Variance Description
This is a request to approve a variance to allow the side and rear setbacks as described
above, and as depicted on the attached Improvement Survey. No new development is
proposed.
Vicinity Map
27
3
Zoning Map
Land Use Summary
Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary
Subject
Site PUD-R (Residential) R-1 (Residential) Residential
North PUD-R (Residential) R-1 (Residential) Residential
South PUD-R (Residential) R-1 (Residential) Residential
East PUD-R (Residential) R-1 (Residential) Residential
West A (Accommodations) A (Accommodations) Lodging
Review Criteria
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
28
4
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 conditions exist, due to the relatively small size of the
subject property, along with slopes to the rear of the residence. The EPDC does
have provisions for patios and decks to be within setbacks, but only if they are at
grade. Building the patio at grade was not feasible due to the slope. The
requested variance will not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the
setback standards, the EPDC, 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: There may be beneficial use of the property without the variance.
However, the current property owner is disabled, and would have little or no
beneficial use of the back yard of the property without the hard surfaced patio.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance is substantial as far as the setbacks being at the
property line. The patio and shed that do not comply with setback standards but
have minimal impact to the area and are insubstantial.
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 (or
has been) altered from a patio or a shed (both are commonly associated with
residential properties throughout Estes Park), and any detrimental impacts to
adjoining properties are extremely minimal.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: Public services such as water and sewer will not be adversely
affected by the variance. The subject patio has been in place for 5 – 6 years and
there have been no adverse impacts to the delivery of water and sewer services.
29
5
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The Applicant was not aware that the existing patio did not
comply with setback standards until after purchasing the property. The property
owners were notified prior to the closing of the sale that there may be a boundary
dispute regarding the retaining wall that runs along the subject’s southern
property line. Since then, the Applicant resolved the dispute by moving the
retaining wall so that it doesn’t encroach on the property line, and prepared the
revised survey that is associated with this request.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: There is no alternative to mitigate the Applicant’s predicament
aside from tearing out parts of the existing patio.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The proposed variances would be the least deviations from the
Development Code.
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 Finding: Staff does not recommend conditions.
Review Agency Comments
The variance application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment.
There were no objections or requirements from any review agency.
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been
received for the variance request.
• Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on August 18, 2022.
• Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on August 19 2022.
• Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website on August 3, 2022.
Advantages
The applicant would have continued use of an existing patio.
Disadvantages
None.
30
6
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with
setbacks consistent with the Improvement Survey Plat attached hereto.
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the variance request, for a rear setback of 0 feet, and side setbacks
of 0 feet at the south property line and 4.2 feet at the north property line, for the subject
property addressed as 445 Skyline Drive in the Town of Estes Park.
I move to deny the requested variance with the following findings (state
reason/findings).
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Applicant’s Standards for Review
4. Improvement Survey Plat
31
—LotSize 11o.2D G2r.
Existing Land Use ;secwiiiai rvvne
Proposed Land Use via Chawt
Existing Water Service C Town C Well
Proposed Water Service 0 Town 0 Well
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service C
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service 0
Existing Gas Service 0 Xcel C
Site Access (if not on public street)
_______________
Are there wetlands on the site?C Yes 0 No
IpIItI
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):I TOhILLI.L
III !IvpPiTi1fNIm(fl1Thbr.1m
Name of Primary Contact Person Cay]I iknc tt
Complete Mailing Address 7._i2j r.ii t-t i lhovns-un (p O2&
Phmai’Contact Person is 0 Owner AppRcsit 0 Consultant/Engineer
C Application fee (see attached fee schedule)o Statenentofintentj -CoftheEPDC :*ti--n)
C I copy (folded)of site plan (drawn aa scale of 1”=20’)--
O 1 reduced copy of the site plan (it’X 17”)
o Digital copies ci platslplans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planningestesorg
The site plan shall include information in Estes Park Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5.
The applicant will be required to provide additional coØes of the site plan after staff review
(see the Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded.
Date:
ESTES PARK
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
t1AnVIn fri )7fllotHn IA\fri-1ttL/1IniMLth
14L1L 5ki HViVe1 Sfr5 (hkZIL ‘
Record Owner(s):
Street Address of Lot:
Legal Description:Lot:
___________
Block:
_______________
SubdMsion:JL tli&€iV&Vb cuødi vfliov’
ParcellD#:qf
Tract
I
-I
I
Zoning/K I
I
o Other (Specify)
o Other (Specify)
EPSD 0 IJTSD
EPSD 0 UTSO
Other 0 None
o Septic
C Septic
-
ToWi of EtéiParkEPfl Box 1flEu1 /UMaëGrêiKyënue .,Etes raric CO 51 7
Community Development Department Phone;(0t 577-3721 4’For (970)586-0249 .c.wAw.estes.orQfCornrnunilyDeveIopment
Revised 2O.04D1 ks
32
L.,flijqjmura.mwIjm1l[.n
[!1I Record Owner(s)MGVL)j f’Zdotffri kJhifftnbUvs
MailingAddress (oLD t5luit Vetrdt L&im.y t’J
____
Phone (qflc;)gt,—l2O
Cell Phone
_____
Fax
Email rncw—Sq.Dh’)
___
Applicant ri (j ei çt
MailingAddress L.44ti 4jgm p1 lrWvni-Vh Co OW
______
Phone
___
Cell Pho:D1 ¶14 t-W€EM
Email
_______ConsultantlEngineer
Maiting Address
______
Phone
_____
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
APPLICATION FEES
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at:
www.esfes.oro/planninpforms
All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees am due at the time of submittal.
DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL
UNDER REVIEW
FOR THIS PROPERTY
970-577-3721
Revised 2020.04.01 ks
33
OWNER &APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
As Owner,I certify the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and I am the record owner of the property.
fr As Applicant,I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that in fihng the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
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 Park
Development Code (EPDC).
fr I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC,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 Park Development Code is available online at:
https://www.municode.com/library/CO/estes_valley/codes/development_code
fr 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
EPDC,
I understand that this variance requeat may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date.
fr I understand that a resubmittal fee may be charged if my application is incomplete.
The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
identification access to my property during the review of this application.
I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Park 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.
I understand that I am required to obtain a “Development Proposal Under Review’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 Park Board of Adjustment hearing.
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
Park Development Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:Wici ,(cz a t.)LJ1 i ia-c,1nt
Applicant PLEASE PRINT:L-WCf (sLes lFt
Signatures:
Record Owner ..Date /.-1A -2-2.
Applicant QpsQ jQA Date
_____________
Revised 2020.04.01 ks
34
Town of Estes Park
Zoning Department
Thursday,April 7,2022
Dear Estes Park -
Hello please allow me to introduce myself,Pm Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg,the owner of the
house at 445 Skyline Dr,Estes Park Colorado.
I am making this personal request via this letterMdeo to ask for approval of the variance outlined
in the application and written statement I would be at this meeting in-person,but I am
handicapped with limited mobility with a compromised immune system that would not allow me
to travel at this time.My son Carl (lIen Schultz has Power of Attorney to act in my behave and is
representing me concerning this matter.
Please approve the Set Back Variance in this application so I can have frill wheelchair and
walker access to my beautiftul backyard Patio. I bought this property April 2021,because ft was
all flat from the driveway to the backyard patio,with no stairs for me to negotiate inside or
outside the house.A unique layout for a property in Estes Park.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
p
S
Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg
Enclosed
Variance Request Video,see flash drive
35
Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg
NEW MEXICO ti
36
Handicapped accessible patio,NW corner
445 Skyline Dr,Estes Park
—
37
Handicapped accessible patio,SW corner
445 Skyline Dr,Estes Park
38
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
C.Standards for Review.All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the
standards and criteria set forth below:
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.
Please see attached statement from Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg.
This property was purchased by Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg who is handicapped and
uses a walker and wheel chair.The property is flat so she can navigate to all corners of
the property and patio without impedance from the drive way to the patio.
We are seeking relief from the setback requirement of R-]Table 4.2 the 0.0’setback on
the Southside of the building,Westside 0.0’setback and 4.2’on the Northside of the
property.
2.In determining “practical difficulty,”the BOA shall consider the following factors:
a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The use of the back patio is limited due to Mary’s limited mobility and the need for
assistance to get to all parts of the property.if the setback is applied,she will not he able
to access the back patio ofthe property.Where the views of the mountains,golf course,
river and wildlife can be seen from the vantage point of the back patio.
b.Whether the variance is substantial.
The variance in consideration is in regard to the setback requirement for the patio to be
setback 30%from the fence.The variance is substantial in that if applied Mary has
purchased a property she will not have full use of jf the setback requirement is applied to
the back patio.For full handicap accessible use.
c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or
whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the
variance;
The neighborhood will not be impacted at all by this variance.It only impact the
useability of the property for Mary to be able to use the prime viewing spot of her
patio.
39
d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer;
The impact ofpublic services will not be impacted by this variance.No modWcation
was made or will be made that will impact these services.
e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
and
This property was purchased wit ho ut prior knowledge that this variance would need to
be applied for.
f.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Not likely since the house itself is in violation of setback requirement of 10’on the
southside of the property.So the variance is the only reasonable way to fIx this situation
fbr the house and patio bricks.
3.No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
Applicants property’are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations.
The house was built in such a way that the setbacks of the property were encroached on
the A’orthside by the 15’railroad tie retaining wall so that the 10’setback as noted on the
survey drawing this requirement can not be met (RI table 4.2)
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 applicaNe zone
district regulations.
The size of the lot will not change with the approval of this variance.Corrective action
has been taken and completed to fix a encroachment on the south property line.
5.If authorized,a variance shaLl represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
Yes,since the setback requirement was implemented after construction of this property,
and it has met all other regulations in the years since it was constructed The patio when
placed did not require a permit,the firepit did get a permit from the City of Estes Park,
and at that time there was no mention of the setback requirements for such amenities on
the property.See attached engineer letter stating that a permit is not required for the
patio.
40
6.Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted,or a
use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone
district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
This variance will not change the use cf the property no/permitted by the BOA.
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.
We acknowledge,and our intention with this variance to have Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg,whom is
disabled to have complete accessible use of her patio.
41
ESTES PARK
COLORADO
Revision Date.April 2020
Estes Town of Estes Park
Setback Certificate
Date:4-f-lA (W2-7-
Project Description:
_______
Project Address:
________
Legal Description and/or PID:
‘6’..’ct’os Pa
as33’tDO5
Building Permit Number
-.vCc-A.4jccvrc
hereby certify to the following:
a duly registered surveyor in the State of Colorado,
A survey of the foundation tiall forms for the structure referenced above was performed under my
responsible charge on 41 ji ,2Qjf_
The result of this survey showed:
(1)The outside of the foundation wall forms are
___________
and,
(2)Pick a.or b.
4r266.-3 %üsalAl-)aA?eJ;k)¼
Company Name
?Je3
Mailing Address ‘y
ALet-)14101)&t41 1-J(t’eqi .34 1ac’-..
Phone and email 3&3 -o I -
4’
Print Name of Surveyor
iv 3
Sun’r’s Signature and PLS Number
feet from the nearest property line;
_____a.
The foundation wall forms comply with the approved site plan
_____b.
The foundation wall forms do not comply with the approved site plan
NOTES:
_______
SEAL /
42
43
44
! " #$% $&"'#
!$% (( )%%*+,- . / 0#-$0)!-0$%%("-%(12/. + +..+
0%$-%(12/. + +3 //
456678595:;<=8595:>5?@5?A8:BCDDEFGHIJK5L:AMN8@8OM8?@5PL5Q5I8RS5K@M:8R8?TIUKP5:V5QJ5=[)!*\ ])%) ^ 2*( +[ba] (^[()!*\])%) ^d )!*\[)!*\ ])%) ^`"DDEFGHIJK5L:JQ5h8KJKBM:8R8?TIM8?@5PFJBKA<RB /i
45
Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Name *
Email *
Radio Button
The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following
form was created for public comment on any current agenda items.
The EPBOA will participate in the meeting remotely
Agenda Item Title
Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below.
File Upload
Comments for the
Board of
Adjustment:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Marni Shymkus
marnishymkus@gmail.com
For Against Neutral
445 Skyline Variance
If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org.
If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here.
Public Comment - Marcia property variance.pdf 48.66KB
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
The facts are clear, indisputable and agreed to by everyone.
The neighbors built a large deck illegally. Not only did they fail to get a permit (which
is against the law), they built into the setback by 10 feet (which is against the law).
“The variance is substantial” and “The patio and shed do not comply with setback
standards” - per Staff Findings
There are no Staff Findings that support the request for a Variance, particularly of
this size. The Staff Findings are opinions. The facts are the facts.
If the BOA were to approve the Variance, it would send a clear message to the
community that laws don’t matter. Your property values don’t matter. Your privacy
doesn’t matter. The harmony of the community doesn’t matter. You can do whatever
you want, and we won’t enforce the laws. We will make decisions based on
opinions, not on facts and the laws that we created.
The right and just decision, in accordance with the law, is to uphold the setback, and
require compliance. Period.
Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Name *
Email *
Radio Button
The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following
form was created for public comment on any current agenda items.
The EPBOA will participate in the meeting remotely
Agenda Item Title
Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below.
File Upload
Comments for the
Board of
Adjustment:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Madison Rothschild
Madisonrothschild33@gmail.com
For Against Neutral
445 Skyline Variance
If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org.
If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here.
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
I am against any structure being in the setback. I am not for the variance being
given to 445 Skyline.
Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Name *
Email *
Radio Button
The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following
form was created for public comment on any current agenda items.
The EPBOA will participate in the meeting remotely
Agenda Item Title
Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below.
File Upload
Comments for the
Board of
Adjustment:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Logan Smith
llooggaann11111@gmail.com
For Against Neutral
445 Skyline Variance
If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org.
If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here.
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
I am against any structure being in the setback. I am not for the variance being
given to 445 Skyline.
Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Name *
Email *
Radio Button
The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following
form was created for public comment on any current agenda items.
The EPBOA will participate in the meeting remotely
Agenda Item Title
Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below.
File Upload
Comments for the
Board of
Adjustment:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
CG Fleischer
fleischercynthia@yahoo.com
For Against Neutral
445 Skyline Variance
If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org.
If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here.
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
Dear Town of Estes Park, Town Clerk and Recorder Jackie Williamson, and BOA:
Unaware until very short time ago re this case.
1/ Just because a complainant is not lawyered up; does not legally preclude said
person from accessing process and documents in support of their arguments.
2/ Your process as it goes to accessibility- is cumbersome and not current as to
updates- which deems it very difficult to navigate on line.
3/ It would appear that this property owner should be given more time to present her
case- which appears to be, on the surface, a case of non- permitting- and title
muddying.
Regards to all,
Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Name *
Email *
Radio Button
The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following
form was created for public comment on any current agenda items.
The EPBOA will participate in the meeting remotely
Agenda Item Title
Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below.
File Upload
Comments for the
Board of
Adjustment:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Anastasia Rothschild Barleen
themansonchic@gmail.com
For Against Neutral
445 Skyline Variance
If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org.
If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here.
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
I am in favor of the setback in that it would create peace for all involved
Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form
Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public
comment.
Name *
Email *
Radio Button
The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following
form was created for public comment on any current agenda items.
The EPBOA will participate in the meeting remotely
Agenda Item Title
Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below.
File Upload
Comments for the
Board of
Adjustment:*
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Timothy Fuller
timothyfuller1@gmail.com
For Against Neutral
Public comment not on agenda
If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org.
If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here.
25 MB limit.
Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
I would like to vote against 445 Skyline being given approval of a variance to keep
the wall and elevated deck in the setback. I have known the Marcia Rothschild (the
neighbor) for one decade and have visited her property many times. Not only was
the patio not built within the set limits, but the it fringes on Marcia's property and
drains water onto her yard (at her expense).
The setback was created to give everyone space and relieve tension between
neighbors, thereby creating room for community and positive interaction and instead
it has caused conflict. The current owners bought the property with full knowledge
that Marcia was in contention with the patio built on the setback.
The patio on the setback has not only affected Marcia financially (offers on her
home are now $140K below listing price), but mentally and physically as well. She
has told me numerous how the late-night gatherings on the patio have affected her
sleep. For these reasons I vote against the variance.
I APOLOGIZE FOR COPYING THIS FROM A PDF TO RESPOND,
WHICH WOBBLED THE ORIGINAL TYPE, BUT I WANTED TO
RESPOND. SEE MY REPLIES IN BLUE, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
Memo
To: Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: September 13, 2022
Application: Setback Variance
445 Skyline Drive, Estes Park
Mary Whittenburg, Owner/Applicant
Glen Shultz, Representative
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective
The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a reduced rear setback of
zero feet (0’) in lieu of the 15 feet required, and side setbacks of 0 feet and 4.2 feet
in lieu of the 10 feet required in the R-1 (Residential) Zone District under Section
4.3.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC).
Location
The 7,616-square foot lot, legally described as Lot 5, Village Greens Subdivision, is
located at 445 Skyline Drive, west of the intersection of Vista Lane and Skyline Drive
and south of Big Thompson Avenue.
Background
The subject lot was approved and recorded as the “Final Plat and Development Plan for
Village Greens Subdivision, a Replat of and PUD Amendment to: Lots 5 – 18, Mi Casa
Subdivision, a PUD.” This was in 1993, well before EPDC adoption. The Development
Plan at that time had building envelopes for the Village Green Lots. The Subdivision,
PUD and Development Plan was an overlay on property zoned CO (Outlying
Commercial).
2
In 2000, the entire Estes Valley, including the subject lot, was rezoned. The lot was
zoned to R-1 (Residential). The existing single-family residence was constructed in
2001.
THE PATIO WAS BUILT OVER 2016/2017. The owners at the time, the Champlins,
never even conferred with the Town. They told me they had it permitted. There would be
no “due to the slope on the rear of the lot necessary if they had not built in the setback. I
have supplied pictures, and I can have the prior owners to this attest that the setback area
was a flat plateau. Thus, if they had notified the Town, asked, asked their neighbors, and
built within the set limits of the lot and not in the setback, there would be no need for a
block retaining wall at all.
The property changed ownership numerous times. In approximately 2016, a patio was
built. Due to slopes on the rear of the lot, a block retaining wall and fill dirt elevated an
area for construction of a large, level patio. The construction of the patio was
unpermitted by both the Building and Planning Division at the time.
The current owner purchased the property in full knowledge from the realtors that I was
in contention of this being built in the setback and partially on my lot. My grievance was
the deck occupying the setback. A setback set up so we all can have space, create less
tension between neighbors, and create ways for positive interaction and community.
The current owner, after purchasing the property in April 2021, was notified the patio did
not comply with minimum setback requirements for the R-1 Zone District. Following a
complaint filed by an adjacent property owner, the applicant prepared a new survey and
submitted an application for a building permit in January, 2022. An Improvement
Survey showed the patio encroached slightly over the property line, approximately 4
inches. While this portion was reconstructed, the zoning violation for setbacks
remained. The block wall/patio was on the property line on the south and on the west (a
zero-foot side setback and rear setback, respectively). The block wall/patio (as well as
a small, plastic portable shed) has a side setback of 4.2 feet on the north. See the
attached Improvement Survey.
The current owner also hid the sign designated by the Town to be posted in public by
setting it behind the flower bushes on my property and only looking at the entry gate and a
hill. I made a video so you can see it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jw33APDRquw
Variance Description
This is a request to approve a variance to allow the side and rear setbacks as described
above, and as depicted on the attached Improvement Survey. No new development is
proposed.
Vicinity Map
3
Zoning Map
Land Use Summary
Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary
Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses
Subject
Site PUD-R (Residential) R-1 (Residential) Residential
North PUD-R (Residential) R-1 (Residential) Residential
South PUD-R (Residential) R-1 (Residential) Residential
East PUD-R (Residential) R-1 (Residential) Residential
West A (Accommodations) A (Accommodations) Lodging
Review Criteria
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
4
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.
My property is very small as well. The slope is on my property on my side of the setback.
Their side of the setback was a flat plateau. Look at the pictures in my pdf. Check the
measurements and see there was no slope there. So much rain falls from the wall, directing
water that should have settled on their property but goes onto mine. I am told by
contractors that is against the law of Colorado for a structure to affect another property
with water flow.
Staff Finding: Special conditions exist, due to the relatively small size of the
subject property, along with slopes to the rear of the residence. The EPDC does
have provisions for patios and decks to be within setbacks, but only if they are at
grade. Building the patio at grade was not feasible due to the slope. The
requested variance will not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the
setback standards, the EPDC, 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;
The current owner has never been to this property. I wonder if she can be up int his heigh
elevation due to our low oxygen levels. The current owner has multiple homes and Glen
Schultz and his young and able family are the ones that use it on the weekends. An elderly
woman with a wheelchair has a very difficult time with a deck made of varied rock tiles.
They would have been better to buy a patio with a smooth service, just like the driveway in
her video to the BOA for consideration.
Staff Finding: There may be beneficial use of the property without the variance.
However, the current property owner is disabled, and would have little or no
beneficial use of the back yard of the property without the hard surfaced patio.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
There are a lot of non-compliances being allowed for 445 here, yet not for me, and I can’t
even get my HOA to clear a privacy fence for my home from the noise from when they are
on the deck.
Staff Finding: The variance is substantial as far as the setbacks being at the
property line. The patio and shed that do not comply with setback standards but
have minimal impact to the area and are insubstantial.
I couldn’t sell my home for a fair price, and the only offer I had was $140k below listing
price is a great example of how this is a detriment to my property.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be
substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a
substantial detriment as a result of the variance;
The loss of sleep, aggravation, when they are on the deck. The fact that I can’t sell my
home for a reasonable price are more than extremely minimal detrimental impacts.
Staff Finding: Staff does not find the character of the neighborhood would be (or
has been) altered from a patio or a shed (both are commonly associated with
residential properties throughout Estes Park), and any detrimental impacts to
adjoining properties are extremely minimal.
Not true: First, they had an illegal pipe sending water out onto my property from their
property. Then, they destroyed my little waterway when they re-built the wall. Third, I
already stated how this wall impacts my property with far more water as the tall and large
wall just creates a slide for more water on my property.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: Public services such as water and sewer will not be adversely
affected by the variance. The subject patio has been in place for 5 – 6 years and
there have been no adverse impacts to the delivery of water and sewer services.
Absolutely not true, and Glen Schultz confessed he knew in front of one of my best friends
who can attest to this fact. She and her husband have been contributing members of this
community for over 30 years. I have proof I called the realtors the day before closing and
can show on my phone records that it was a call that went on for over 5 minutes. I made it
very clear it was a dispute that the deck was in the setback.
5
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The Applicant was not aware that the existing patio did not
comply with setback standards until after purchasing the property. The property
owners were notified prior to the closing of the sale that there may be a boundary
dispute regarding the retaining wall that runs along the subject’s southern
property line. Since then, the Applicant resolved the dispute by moving the
retaining wall so that it doesn’t encroach on the property line, and prepared the
revised survey that is associated with this request.
This entire situation could have been avoided if the Town had moved quickly enough when
I informed them at the beginning of 2021 and when the Town told me it was an illegal deck
that should have been permitted and not in the variance. This is a sign for the laws and
bylaws of the Town to be reconsidered and how to create better support and community
for our Town.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: There is no alternative to mitigate the Applicant’s predicament
aside from tearing out parts of the existing patio.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Less for them, yes. It has cost me emotionally, my health and financially.
Staff Finding: The proposed variances would be the least deviations from the
Development Code.
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 Finding: Staff does not recommend conditions.
Review Agency Comments
Of course, none of the departments have any disputes with it. I wouldn’t with the way it
was written. No mention of the effect on my home’s value and our peace of mind. Thie
“pre-existing condition” is what Glen Schultz knew, buying this home for his family, even
though his mother has the money and owns it.
The variance application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment.
There were no objections or requirements from any review agency.
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been
received for the variance request.
My enevelope is clearly marked by the Town September 29th. My notice inside says August
18th. I was able to read it on September 6th.
• Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on August 18, 2022.
• Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on August 19 2022.
• Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website on August 3, 2022.
Advantages
The applicant would have continued use of an existing patio.
Disadvantages
None.
6
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with
setbacks consistent with the Improvement Survey Plat attached hereto.
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the variance request, for a rear setback of 0 feet, and side setbacks
of 0 feet at the south property line and 4.2 feet at the north property line, for the subject
property addressed as 445 Skyline Drive in the Town of Estes Park.
Ihttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/x0_Uzq4ev0o.
IF ANYTHING, THEY COULD HAVE REPLIED TO ME AFTER THEY FINALLY
ADMITTED THEY KNEW PRIOR TO BUYING THE PROPERTY. THEY KNEW I
WAS STILL TALKING TO THE TOWN. THEY COULD HAVE ASKED FOR
MEDIATION. I TEXTED GLEN OFTEN. BUT NO, IT HAD TO GET TO THIS, AND
THEY ARE SLOWLY BUT SURELY WINNING. THEY DON’T HAVE MUCH SKIN IN
THIS GAME. IT’S ONE OF MANY HOMES THEY RESIDE IN FOR THEMSELVES
AND MARY WHITTENBURG. THIS IS MY OWNLY HOME. PLEASE.
I move to deny the requested variance with the following findings (state
reason/findings).
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Applicant’s Standards for Review
4. Improvement Survey Plat
— LotSize 11o.2D G2r.
Existing Land Use ;secwiiiai rvvne
Proposed Land Use via Chawt
Existing Water Service CTown C Well
Proposed Water Service 0Town 0 Well
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service C
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service 0
Existing Gas Service 0 Xcel C
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site? C Yes 0 No
IpIItI
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): I
TOhILLI.L
III !IvpPiTi1fNIm(fl1Thbr.1m
Name of Primary Contact Person Cay] I iknctt
Complete Mailing Address 7._i2j r. ii t-t i lhovns-un (p O2&
Phmai’ Contact Person is 0 Owner AppRcsit 0 Consultant/Engineer
C Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
o Statenentofintentj -CoftheEPDC :*ti--n)
C I
copy (folded) of site plan (drawn aa scale of 1” = 20’) --
O 1
reduced copy of the site plan (it’ X 17”)
o Digital copies ci platslplans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planningestesorg
The site plan shall include information in Estes Park Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5.
The applicant will be required to provide additional coØes of the site plan after staff review
(see the Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded.
Date:
ESTES PARK
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL
UNDER REVIEW
FOR THIS PROPERTY
970-577-3721
Revised 2020.04.01 ks
OWNER & APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
As Owner, I certify the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and I am the record owner of the property.
fr As Applicant, I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that in fihng the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
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 Park
Development Code (EPDC).
fr I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, 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 Park Development Code is available online at:
https://www.municode.com/library/CO/estes_valley/codes/development_code
fr 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
EPDC,
I understand that this variance requeat may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
fr I understand that a resubmittal fee may be charged if my application is incomplete.
The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
identification access to my property during the review of this application.
I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Park 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.
I understand that I am required to obtain a “Development Proposal Under Review’ 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 Park Board of Adjustment hearing.
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
Park Development Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Wici ,( cz a t. )LJ1 i ia-c ,1nt Applicant PLEASE PRINT: L-WCf (sLes
Thursday, April 7, 2022
Dear Estes Park -
Hello please allow me to introduce myself, Pm Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg, the owner of
the
house at 445 Skyline Dr, Estes Park Colorado.
I am making this personal request via this letterMdeo to ask for approval of the variance
outlined
in the application and written statement I would be at this meeting in-person, but I am
handicapped with limited mobility with a compromised immune system that would not
allow me
to travel at this time. My son Carl (lIen Schultz has Power of Attorney to act in my behave
and is
representing me concerning this matter.
Please approve the Set Back Variance in this application so I can have frill wheelchair and
walker access to my beautiftul backyard Patio. I bought this property April 2021, because ft
was
all flat from the driveway to the backyard patio, with no stairs for me to negotiate inside or
outside the house. A unique layout for a property in Estes Park.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
p
S
Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg
Enclosed
Variance Request Video, see flash drive
Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg
NEW MEXICO ti
Handicapped accessible patio, NW corner
445 Skyline Dr, Estes Park
—
Handicapped accessible patio, SW corner
445 Skyline Dr, Estes Park
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
C. Standards for Review. All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the
standards and criteria set forth below:
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.
Please see attached statement from Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg.
This property was purchased by Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg who is handicapped and
uses a walker and wheel chair. The property is flat so she can navigate to all corners of
the property and patio without impedance from the drive way to the patio.
We are seeking relieffrom the setback requirement ofR-] Table 4.2 the 0.0’ setback on
the Southside of the building, Westside 0.0’ setback and 4.2’ on the Northside of the
property.
2. In determining “practical difficulty,” the BOA shall consider the following factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
The use ofthe back patio is limited due to Mary’s limited mobility and the need for
assistance to get to all parts of the property. if the setback is applied, she will not he able
to access the back patio ofthe property. Where the views of the mountains, golf course,
river and wildlife can be seenfrom the vantage point of the back patio.
b. Whether the variance is substantial.
The variance in consideration is in regard to the setback requirement for the patio to be
setback 30% from the fence. The variance is substantial in that ifapplied Mary has
purchased a property she will not have full use of jf the setback requirement is applied to
the back patio. Forfull handicap accessible use.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or
whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the
variance;
The neighborhood will not be impacted at all by this variance. It only impact the
useability of the propertyfor Mary to be able to use the prime viewing spot of her
patio.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer;
The impact ofpublic services will not be impacted by this variance. No modWcation
was made or will be made that will impact these services.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
and
This property was purchased witho ut prior knowledge that this variance would need to
be appliedfor.
f. Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Not likely since the house itself is in violation ofsetback requirement of 10’ on the
southside of the property. So the variance is the only reasonable way to fIx this situation
fbr the house and patio bricks.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
Applicants property’ are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations.
The house was built in such a way that the setbacks of the property were encroached on
the A’orthside by the 15’ railroad tie retaining wall so that the 10’ setback as noted on the
survey drawing this requirement can not be met (RI table 4.2)
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 applicaNe zone
district regulations.
The size of the lot will not change with the approval of this variance. Corrective action
has been taken and completed to fix a encroachment on the south property line.
5. If authorized, a variance shaLl represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
Yes, since the setback requirement was implemented after construction of this property,
and it has met all other regulations in the years since it was constructed The patio when
placed did not require a permit, the firepit did get a permitfrom the City ofEstes Park,
and at that time there was no mention ofthe setback requirements for such amenities on
the property. See attached engineer letter stating that a permit is not required for the
patio.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a
use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone
district containing the property for which the variance is sought.
This variance will not change the use cfthe property no/permitted by the BOA.
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.
We acknowledge, and our intention with this variance to have Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg, whom is
disabled to have complete accessible use of her patio.
ESTES PARK
COLORADO
Revision Date. April 2020
Estes Town of Estes Park
Setback Certificate
I WILL PAY $10,000 TO HAVE THIS WALL PUT PAST THE SETBACK TO CREATE
SPACE AND COMMUNITY AS ALL NEIGHBORS NEED THIS SPACE FOR BETTER
RELATIONS. THANK YOU.
Board of Adjustment, September 13, 2022
Setback Variance, 445 Skyline Drive
Mary Whittenburg (Owner), Glen Schultz
(Representative)
Property is zoned R-1, Residential. Variance
request for rear setback of 0, in lieu of 15 feet
required. Side setbacks of 4.2 and 0 in lieu of 10
feet required.
2
3
Key Points
Patio and shed are existing, no new improvements are
proposed
Current owner bought property fairly recently, the patio was
built around 2016 without building permit
Current owner has trimmed a piece of the patio that was over
the property line
Impact to adjacent/area properties is extremely minimal
Opposition from one adjacent owner
Standards for Review
Recommendation
THE 445 SKYLINE DRIVE DECK DEBATE
By Marcia Rothschild Moellers
First of all, thank you for taking the time to review this. I’m not in the building business, so I’m going to try to take you through this in a
way that makes sense to me, the typical person.
Here is 445 Skyline Drive pre-Champlin's before they owned it. (photo courtesy of the Greens who owned it prior to the Champlins)
NOTE: The house is gradually raised as it goes back. See the space between our homes. I have 6 ft leeway, they have 5 ft leeway,
for a total of 11 feet.
Here is a crop of the backend. It’s generally a plateau with a mild gradation towards my yard, definitely not a steep hill – absolutely no
reason for a retaining wall – unless you were building an elevated deck.
NOTE: The plateau goes about 5 feet past the house to the end of their property line.
Here is the photo of what the Champlins did – no permits from the Town other than for gas installed presumably in the elevated deck.
Here is a crop of the backend to the deck.
NOTE: You can no longer see the elevated house due to the 8 inches of gravel near the deck. Where there was a soft little decline is
now a huge wall next to an elevated deck. At the highest point, the stone wall and rod iron fence is 97 inches – over 8 feet tall.
Here is a crop of an old picture pre-Champlin's to show how the house was elevated with cement. (photo courtesy of the Greens)
A picture of the old backyard. The Champlins made sure to build a monstrosity right up to my property line (and over it – see page
41). Brenda Champlin snapped my head off when I questioned the deck – she called it a “splashback patio”, and that I wasn’t
messing with the $90,000 they put into it. When does a patio' cost that much money? I heard her husband worked in the business
and brought up his own people. I myself, and every contractor I know, wondered how they got it past the Town. Well, they didn’t.
They didn’t permit it.
NOTE: The fence to the right in the picture. See how it’s on a plateau with no need for any retaining wall on that side if they were just
building a patio and not an elevated deck.
Even here in their sale document, which by the way, the big selling point has been edited out – the deck.445 Skyline Drive Sale on
Redfin We all know that any realtor/homeowner would pitch the heck out of that deck, and they did. But, they missed this point – it
says it’s a LEVEL LOT - so why a retaining wall and why is it elevated if it’s a patio?
As a consumer, I decided to do my own research. I looked up the definition for a patio.
I then looked up Patio Design Samples. Here is a sample of what was overall the general consensus. NOTE: The first two I felt were
close to 445 Skyline Drive – but 445 is more elevated and obviously a deck.
What I mainly noted in research – patios are overall LEVEL with the ground. Anything above, is referred to as an elevated deck.
t.
Then, I looked up the definition for a deck.
I researched Deck Design Samples.
Note: I am showing sampledecks that are not 2nd floor or raised with columns to prove that a deck is defined as elevated, even if
very little.
Then I wanted to research stone decks, and look at these – how elevated decks are made!
Some samples of stone decks. This one looks similar to 445, but without the unnecessary mammoth-size engineered stone wall.
I researched “retaining wall”. I found this under Larimer County – any retaining wall over 4 feet must have a permit.
Under Building Codes for a retaining wall, it kept coming up over and over that it had to be permitted if over 4 feet. The wall on the
Champlin-built one is 57 inches PLUS 40 inches of fence on top. So, why didn’t they have to get a permit to build this one?
Since part of the wall is already found to be on my property, and the rest is
viewable from a part of our Village Greens subdivision where any of the owners
can be, I took the following pics on September 7th, 2021, by myself. The wall
itself is 57 inches, the rod iron fence is 40 inches = over 8 feet tall.
I’ve had 5 contractors advise me, all esteemed in our Town. They came to see
445 from my own deck and property. Every one of them says it’s a deck. They
push me that this has to be corrected by the Town. I’m keeping their names out
of this as they all have to deal with the Town Building Department, where there
appears to be some politics/ego within the ranks, clouding clear judgment.
Here is a crop of the picture so you can see the 57 inches better.
I didn’t want to physically get up on the wall/fence, so I measured it on my tippy toes, and here’s the only way I could take a picture.
These previous shots show that I have to deal with over 8 feet of a wall that doesn’t
even need to be there UNLESS you’re elevating the floor, packing it with
materials/dirt, thus building a deck, and it would have to be permitted. Withstanding
that I can hear every word from my bedroom (never did before pre-Champlin's), have
had to have a contractor build a wall on my deck to protect my bedroom from an
invasion of privacy (cleared by the Town which inspected my deck), and I had to
totally re-arrange my bedroom and get a fan to block out noise. And, I still don’t
understand how over 8 feet was cleared by the Town’s Building Department.
One of the esteemed contractors noted if the Building Department continues to insist
on calling it a patio, it has an enclosed fence and is against regulation, “A patio would
have to comply with wildlife protection which states no enclosed patios, and it is
definitely enclosed.”
Chapter 7.20.010 (f)
Enclosed structure means a residential building, commercial building, accessory
dwelling unit, garage or shed. Enclosed structure shall not include a patio, deck,
driveway, or other area located outside of the walls of a residential building,
commercial building, shed, garage or accessory dwelling unit.
Here is the side wall:. NOTE: I put a white plastic bag to the right of the wall so you could see where ground level is. The deck floor is
4 stones higher (the floor of the deck is visible through the empty brick for water runoff). From the previous owner Green’s photos, we
already know there wasn’t a huge, steep cliff to be retained. Many contractors have noted that this huge wall is completely overboard.
Here’s some side views of the deck (some new stone and gravel has been laid along the side, not sure why, but it’s odd that it was
just put there recently all the same). They obviously filled in materials/dirt past their plateau to get as much room as they could for the
value of their deck/property – at the expense of my property.
Here shows the gradual decline from the plateau of the property. That new gravel and dirt really sticks out. it's obvious there was no
need for a retaining wall UNLESS you’re building an elevated stone deck.
NOTE: The very cute chihuahua, that’s my rescue Vivien ❤
A picture from my deck. I had to put 200 pounds of dirt next to the wall. That wall has destroyed my property, so much run-off. Didn’t
have that when the Greens lived there pre-Champlin's. Why is the wall so high, and how did that fence get cleared?
Does this look like a patio to you? It doesn’t look that way to 5 esteemed contractors in our Town, nor anyone else in Town or out of
Town that I’ve had over to see it, or on zoom or Facetime.
I feel it’s crucial to lay out the historical facts. I went through hell with the Champlins. They own multiple homes, are very
wealthy, and in my opinion, don’t care about anyone else but themselves. I’ve only experienced disdain and judgment
from them about Estes Park. They built over my property line, but told me they had it all permitted through the Town.
When I was setting up my B&B, I had a contractor over, and he begged me to check with the Town, then the HOA told me
the same, and I found out from the Town it was never permitted.
How did I go from my journey starting January 12th, 2021, where I started the process for a B&B with the Town, to calling
the Abels (the realtors who sold the property for the Champlins to the Shultz family) on Wednesday, April 28th at 9:18 am,
to inform them that:
1. The Town had been sending letters to the Champlins in regards to the illegal deck with no response whatsoever. NOTE:
If the Champlins were so innocent, then why didn’t they respond? The Town had the same email address as me, and
Brenda Champlin responded to me in less than 4 hours on March 11th, 2021.
2. That I was the neighbor who was upset to find out they had not permitted it and were most likely over my property line.
3. I was going to make sure that this was resolved, no matter what steps I had to take. My property has been severely
impacted by this.
Whereas, somehow the Abels have a miracle connection with the Town and Bangs (their surveyor), and they were able to
in less than one business day work it out with the Town that it was no longer a deck but a patio with a retaining wall.
The Abel/Champlin’s connection is so amazing that I have asked and asked and asked the Building Department, and
pretty much at points, have been stonewalled by this Department. I couldn’t get answers into the summer (I have dates,
phone calls, and notes). I had to try another man in the building department recommended as “more objective and not
politically motivated”, but later got stonewalled again, and ended up with 5 men on an email and little old me. I pointed out
this discriminatory move of intimidation last week, and they put a woman on the next email (that was funny) only to be told
they were sticking to their decision even though 5 esteemed contractors and my surveying company state they are wrong.
The Schultz family wonderfully had a surveyor from Boulder come out and discovered they are over my property line and
will be taking care of the encroachments.
Here are the pictures I took right after their surveyor was done, showing how far they are over my property line. Thank God I have
these pics, especially in case of any movement. They are approximately 9 inches over on my property.
Here is by the deck where they are over my property line, including the entire wall on this side. On the opposite side of the wall,
which is visible above in one of the pics, they are over my property line by about 4 inches. Thus, the entire wall must go.
Here is how much gravel they put into make it look like it’s all level, when it is not.
Glen Schultz wonderfully emailed to say he’s taking care of the encroachments. He and his family have not been in the house since I
informed them of the transgressions. I assume this means they are in litigation against the Abels and the Champlins. They were in
the house all the time before I let them know the extent of everything.
So, that means there’s a lot on the table. The Abels could potentially lose their realtor license. The Champlins may lose money, and
we can only imagine how much they hate that. The Building Department is damned if they do and damned if they don’t because they
told me one thing, reversed it, took forever to help me, instantly helped the Abels/Champlins, and if they renege on what they told the
Abels/Champlins, they are in trouble with them is my guess.
My questions are this
1.Why did the Town Building Department reverse their decision? Michael Madachy told me that he had dotted his i’s and
crossed his t’s and was being very careful, checked with the Building Department, did everything was done just right so the
Champlins had no other recourse but to fix it.
2.What is the special relationship between the Abels and the Town that they could magically waltz in and get the decision
reversed in less than a day?
3.The realtors pressured the Schultz family, telling them they couldn’t do a survey or check anything out because there was a
cash offer on the table right behind them for even more money. Why did the Abels do that? For what reason did they have the
surveyor Bangs (who by the way told another homeowner seeking his services at the same time that he was booked out over
2 months) and the Building Department make this happen in less than a day before the closing? With Bangs, contractors in
Town state it would have had to be a lot of money or he somehow owed the Abels big time.
4.Why am I such a threat? I point out so simply what is obvious: This is discrimination. It’s 5 men on an email and one woman
and they don’t see that as discriminatory intimidation?
5.Why when I asked the Building department repeatedly for an investigation into how the Abels/Champlins got the Building
Department’s decision reversed in less than a day, and I received no reply to my request whatsoever? I was definitely
referring to how someone in that department did a big favor for the Abels/Champlins, and that is definitely discrimination me,
and might be a few other things.
6.Why does the Building department keep telling me I have to get a survey? For what? It’s not their issue if the owner is over
my property line. I already took care of that, and they know that. The building envelope is, but I let them know the Schultz
family got a surveyor. The issue is plain and simple: The Building Department is calling it a patio with a retaining wall. It’s not.
It's an elevated deck and an engineered wall that should have been permitted.
Once the Schultz family takes care of the encroachments, which means the wall is going down, I want to be assured this doesn’t ever
happen again to anyone like myself, or for that fact, anyone else that’s not all chummy with the Building Department, and still a
citizen of our fine Town who deserves to be treated equally and fairly.
I have always experienced exemplary professionalism from the Town. It’s key to me that the Town business is done correctly - which
means that the Schultz family is made aware that if they plan to rebuild/renovate, that this elevated deck and engineered wall will
have to be submitted to the Town for a review, AND it must follow Village Green HOA Guidelines – which is exactly what I have in an
email from the Building Department this past year when I inquired about putting up a fence. I expect the same treatment with the
Schultz family.
I hope this helps. This has been the most horrible experience I have ever had dealing with any form of government, and my life hasn’t
been a cakewalk. I have always dealt with exemplary police professionalism from our Town (did have a run-in with an awful one from
the County). Maybe I’m just lucky, but I’d like to think professionalism and caring says something about Estes Park. I have always
defended the Town government to the hilt when I hear people negate it. This situation has been awful as my greatest dream was to
own my home here and keep it forever. It has kept me up at nights honestly.But, every other interaction I’ve had with the Town has
been amazing, incredible customer service – the Town clerk/utilities/accounting departments are rockstars, administration has always
helped me out, and I’ve always felt supported. I don’t think everyone in the Building Department is awful. Michael Madachy was
exemplary. But, I know that someone has done something very wrong, and I am now made to feel like the enemy. I feel severely
pitted against, to the point that I now want to move. And I can’t, per my realtor, until this is taken care of as no future owner wants to
deal with this. Plus my home would sell for $50-70,000 under value. That’s a lot of money for me to lose because someone else has
to save their skin at my expense.
Thank you for looking at my presentation (which I put together last night. I have very detailed records of calls, emails, meetings and
thorough notes. I research the heck out of things. But, I have definitely had moments in the emails with the Building Department
when I have been so upset that I may have said the wrong building phrase or date.This experience has completely changed my
mind set. Then, when it got to me being completely stonewalled and being told to go get a $5,000 survey for a problem that doesn’t
involve the need for that anymore, I called a spade a spade, my nice gloves came off and I called it what it is. I know I am standing
on the right side of justice. I hope you see that, too.
I am looking for this to get resolved.
I can send you the letter showing that Glen Schultz plans on taking care of the encroachments. The Town can simply email him,
stating that since he will be in the phase of renovation and with the removal of the wall, plus due to all of the conflict around this, the
Town would like to see what the retaining wall is holding back. I may be wrong, but I bet I’m right. I bet it’s an elevated deck filled with
materials and added dirt. Plus, from what I’m told, it can’t be an enclosed patio due to the wildlife preservation code – guessing an
oversight on the Building Department with this new ruling.
If Schultz plans on rebuilding the wall, maintaining that it’s a patio with the retaining wall, then the burden of proof should fall on him.
If he refuses, then he shouldn’t be allowed to rebuild it. Plus, he should be reminded, as I was, that he must be within HOA guidelines
and to check with Village Greens HOA. I would expect the same courtesy to be given to my neighbor.
Since I am the neighbor who is dealing with the most from this situation, I would like to see proof of this correspondence, and I have
been advised it’s within my rights. I would like to forward this to my HOA to be assured they do their part and maintain the Village
Greens Covenants.
Then, I will consider the situation resolved. I am of course open to any other resolution as that is what it’s all about. Finding solutions.
Thank you again for your consideration.
46
NOTICE
On Tuesday, September 13, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., a virtual meeting will be held by the
Estes Park Board of Adjustment to consider the applications described below.
Legal Description: Lot 5, Village Greens Subdivision, Estes Park
Type and Intensity of Use: Variance is proposed to allow setbacks from three property
lines of 0 feet, 0 feet, and 4.2 feet. The reduced setback is for an existing patio and
shed. Property is zoned R1 (Residential), located west of the intersection of Vista Lane
and Skyline Drive.
Owner, Mary Elizabeth Whittenburg
Legal Description, Location
LOT 10, BLK 4, RECLAMATION, ESTES PK
280 North Ct., Estes Park, Colorado
Owner: Tilotama/Jiten Manandhar
Appellant: Jeffrey P Moreau
Appeal: Appellant has formally appealed a decision of the staff (Community
Development Dept.) that two storage units meet the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC) criteria to be classified as an “accessory structure.” Appellant asserts that the
unit does not meet Code under Sections 1.3.A, 1.3.F, 1.3 I, 1.3.M,1.8, 5.2.A.4.a,
5.2.B.2.d.1, 2, and 4a, and 7.13.B.3. Appellant meets criteria in Code to be a “party-in-
interest” per Sec. 12.1 et seq. of the EVDC; has filed a formal appeal in accordance with
EVDC; and has filed within the 30-day appeal period.
Any person may appear at such hearing and comment on any matter to be considered.
For more information, please visit www.estes.org/currentapplications, or contact the
Community Development Department at planning@estes.org or 970-577-3721. Please
check the website two days prior to the meeting for notice of any changes, such as
meeting continuances.
47