HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2014-12-02Prepared: November 17, 2014
* Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
9:00 a.m. — Board Room Town Hall
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes dated November 4, 2014
3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 2515 TUNNEL ROAD (YMCA)
Owner:
Applicant:
Request:
Staff Contact:
4. METES & BOUNDS
Owner:
Applicant:
Request:
Staff Contact:
5. REPORTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
YMCA of the Rockies
Basis Architecture
Variance from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5 which requires a 30-
foot height limit in all zone districts. Request to allow construction
that will exceed the height limit by approximately two feet on a
portion of a proposed buildings, after slope adjustment. Variance
would allow applicant to maintain architectural design standards
and maximize the height of an indoor climbing wall.
Phil Kleisler
PARCEL, 165 VIRGINIA DRIVE (COURTYARD SHOPS)
Carlyle Properties
Stephen Carlyle
Variance from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5 which requires a
minimum 8-foot front yard setback in the CD —Commercial
Downtown zone district. Request to allow a riser room to be
constructed approximately three feet into the setback. The
original variance was approved in May, 2013. The variance has
since expired.
Phil Kleisler
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
November 4, 2014 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice -Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom,
Pete Smith, and Don Darling
Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Moreau, Newsom, Smith, and Darling
Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: None
Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance.
He introduced the Board members and staff. Member Darling is the newest member of
the Board, residing outside the Town limits in the Windcliff area. His expertise in
construction will make him a valuable asset to the Board of Adjustment.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence. There were two people in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT
Approval of minutes of the October 7, 2014 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed 4-0, with Member Darling abstaining.
3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1740 HUMMINGBIRD LANE.
Senior Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property is located in the High Drive
area, and was developed in the 1930s as a summer cabin. The lot is zoned E-1—Estate,
which has a one acre minimum lot size. This lot is approximately'/ acre. Planner Shirk
explained the how lot size related to setbacks; larger lot, larger setbacks. The E-1 district
has a minimum setback from ail property lines of 25 feet. The lot being reviewed today is
only 45 feet wide, and very undersized for the zone district. Due to the E-1 zoning, any
improvements require a variance.
Planner Shirk stated a variance on this property was approved is 2003; however, the
property owner at that time never followed through with the project, and the approval
became null and void. The new property owner would like to make some improvements to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
November 4, 2014
2
the existing single-family dwelling. The improvements would include an addition to the
south, with a new deck to the south of the new addition. The application was routed to
affected agencies and adjacent property owners. The next door neighbor shared
concerns about the possibility of having to connect to the sewer main. He spoke with
UTSD and the concern was resolved. Planner Shirk stated the existing structure has a
septic system and is connected to the Hondius water system. The water system serves
the majority of the High Drive area; the Town provides the water, and the Hondius system
distributes it. It is not a year-round system. Planner Shirk stated if the septic system was
not adequate for the proposed improvements, the property owner would be required to
connect to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District's sewer lines. The property owner will
work with the Larimer County Health Department to ensure compliance with the septic
issue.
Staff Findings
1. Staff finds that special circumstances and conditions exist relating to lot size and
width. The existing house was built before setbacks were established. With present
setback requirements, the entire house is considered non -conforming.
2. In determining practical difficulty, staff finds the following:
a. Residential use may continue. The current 547 square foot structure, built in 1935,
is small relative to today's standards and when compared with the surrounding
neighborhood, which has an average size of 923 square feet.
b. The variance is not substantial.
c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with
the approval of this variance. The proposed addition is generally consistent with
the size and character of surrounding homes.
d. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public
services for this variance.
e. The applicant purchased the property in 2005, after the adoption of the current
setback standards.
f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance, staff finds the existing house is entirely nonconforming to setback
standards; therefore, it is impossible to do any expansion without a variance. The
only other option for the applicant is to purchase an adjacent property, combine
both lots, and rebuild to meet setbacks.
3. Staff finds the conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not general and
recurrent in nature.
4. Staff finds the variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot.
5. Staff finds the variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
6. Staff finds residential uses are permitted in the E-1—Estate zone district.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
November 4, 2014
3
7. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends that a registered land surveyor
verify building placement.
Staff and Member Discussion
None.
Public Comment
Steve Lane/applicant representative stated if the setbacks were sized for this particular lot,
they would be 10 feet instead of the required 25 feet. He stated if the previous owner would
have followed through with the proposed project (in 2005), it would have triggered a
requirement to connect to the sewer system. The current proposed plan is to add a bedroom,
which will not increase the use of the septic system. He stated the property owner desires to
have additional square footage for summer use.
Richard Jensen/County resident was not opposed to the variance. He was in attendance to
gain a better understanding of the request. He stated the improvements would still be in
character with the neighborhood.
Board and Staff Discussion
None.
Conditions of Approval
1. Full compliance with applicable building codes, approved site plan, and building plans.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a letter from the
Hondius Water System stating there is adequate water supply to the proposed
addition.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain any necessary
acquisition of sewer easement(s) and shall connect to the sewer or receive approval of
the Larimer County Health Department for the current septic system.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall notify the Larimer County
Health Department regarding abandonment of the existing septic system.
5. Prior to pouring foundation, a setback certificate prepared by a registered land
surveyor shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
6. Compliance with email from Larimer County Chief Building Official dated October 22,
2014.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the variance request with the
findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 5-0.
4. REPORTS
A. Planner Shirk reported on the Sombrero Ranch variance. The applicant is moving
forward and will begin hauling this week. All the issues with the various agencies,
associations, property owners, etc. have been resolved. He stated the project has
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
November 4, 2014
4
been scaled down. There is more immediate repair work than originally thought, and
some of the material to be stockpiled will now be taken directly to the repair sites. The
end result for the stockpile at Sombrero Ranch will be approximately one acre in size
rather than two acres, and the new road will not be needed because fewer trucks will
be going onto the property.
B. Planner Shirk shared information relating to the Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC). To provide continuing education to the Board, he reviewed the purpose of
setbacks, which are the most common reason for a variance request. The purpose of
setbacks is to ensure the structures are built on the property and not over the property
line. Setbacks ensure dwellings are in the right place, and allow for some perimeters
around the property lines for utilities, fire protection, emergency vehicle access, and
privacy. Other purposes are to allow for adequate air and light circulation. Lastly,
setbacks are established for aesthetics and to maintain character in neighborhoods.
C. Planner Shirk explained the process for Staff -Level Minor Modifications. Staff is
allowed to grant minor modifications to certain development standards up to 10% of
the setback requirement. Sometimes there are no issues, other times the modification
is difficult and uncomfortable, depending on the density of the neighborhood.
Therefore, staff has begun sending neighbor notices for all staff -level reviews. If there
are objections, staff can upgrade the level of review to a Board review. This
notification practice is fairly recent, and was put in place to be more transparent with
adjacent property owners.
D. Planner Shirk reported on a possible policy concerning deck replacements. He stated
many decks were originally permitted prior to the EVDC and current setback
requirements. If the property owner desires to replace the existing deck, a variance is
required; no grandfathering is allowed. Staff asked for feedback on a proposed policy
to consider those deck situations as normal repair and maintenance, which would not
require a variance. In order for the deck to qualify for the variance waiver, it would
need to have been permitted when originally built. Decks built without permits, within
the setbacks, would not qualify for the variance waiver. Instead, these situations could
be handled similar to minor modifications, where the neighbors would be notified. If no
objections were received, staff would move forward with a staff -level review. If
objections were received, the application would move to the Board of Adjustment for
review. The proposed policy for permitted decks would save applicants the $500 fee,
in addition to a six -week waiting period. Member Moreau inquired about the
requirement of a variance only if it was more than a certain percentage into the
setback. Planner Shirk stated decks are allowed up to 30% into the setback, if
constructed at grade. Fire codes also come into play with structures near property
lines. Member Newsom was in favor of the policy. Planner Shirk clarified this policy
would not apply if the variance request encroached into a utility easement. He would
work on a draft policy and bring it to the Board in early 2015.
E. Planner Shirk explained the definition of a building envelope, stating it is lines drawn
on a plat that establishes setbacks for that particular parcel. Structures can only be
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
November 4, 2014
built within those lines, or building envelope. Building envelopes cannot be granted
variances, because they are part of the plat, rather than setbacks required in the
development code. Changes to building envelopes require an amended plat, which is
reviewed by the Planning Commission. Recommendations are made by the Planning
Commission to either the Town Board or the County Commission, depending on the
location of the parcel. As an example, Thunder Mountain Subdivision established
building envelopes when the subdivision was originally created. Those envelopes
have since been vacated, and the standard zoning regulations now apply.
There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:33
a.m.
John Lynch, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Courtyard Shops
Setback Variance Request
Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division
Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE:
December 2, 2014
REQUEST:
This request is for a variance from EVDC
Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires
buildings and accessory structures be
setback a minimum of 8 feet from the front
property line in the CD —Commercial
Downtown zone district. Request to
encroach approximately four feet into the
setback to construct a 25 square foot fire
riser room addition.
The Board of Adjustment approved this
variance on May 7, 2013. Since the
original approval the applicant has
commenced the installation of a sprinkler
system throughout the building, but has not
started work on the riser room. Because of
this the May 2013 variance approval has
expired. There have been no changes
from the original riser room application.
LOCATION: 165 Virginia Drive
APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephen
Carlyle/Owner
STAFF CONTACT:
Phil Kleisler, Planner II
riNg
11°vIMPu;;
REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the
Estes Valley Development Code, ail applications for variances shall demonstrate
compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein.
The Board of Adjustment is the decision -making body for this application.
REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: This request has been routed to reviewing
agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal
notice was published in the Trail Gazette.
Town of Estes Park Water Division See attached memo dated November 18, 2014.
Estes Valley Fire Protection District. See attached Plan Review comments dated
November 19, 2014.
Public. No comments have been submitted.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions,
narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other
areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not
have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific
standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding: The location of the water line/tap serving the Courtyard Shops
building was determined with the Virginia Drive paving project two year ago. At that
time the Town installed a new water service line/tap in anticipation of the need to
upsize service into the building.
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: Installation of the sprinkler system has a significant positive
impact on building use. The illegal residential units can become legal units and
as businesses change in the future, the sprinkler system provides more flexibility
for uses of individual rental spaces to change uses in the future.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial. The eight -foot minimum setback
allows for sidewalks and pedestrian access in the downtown. The adjacent
sidewalk on Virginia Drive and pedestrian traffic will not be adversely impacted.
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;
Courtyard Shops Setback Variance Request Page 2 of 3
Staff Finding: The sprinkler system will reduce risk of fire spreading to adjacent
properties and is, therefore, a benefit to adjacent properties. Building safety will
be significantly improved with installation of the sprinkler system.
d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding The applicant purchased the property in 2013 with knowledge of
the setbacks.
e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance.
Staff Finding: Per code, a room must be dedicated solely for use as the riser
room. The garage was considered as an option, but it contains mechanical
equipment and electrical panels.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation that will afford relief. The
room is small at just 25 square feet.
4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its
independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied
or modified.
Staff Comment. Staff can determine compliance with the variance without a setback
certificate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the submitted application, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with memo from the Estes Valley Fire Protection District dated
November 19, 2014.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by
staff.
I move to DENYthe requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings).
Courtyard Shops Setback Variance Request Page 3 of 3
S PA
Inter -Office Memorandum
To: Community Development
From: Steve Rusch
Date: 11/18/2014
Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: Courtyard Shops Variance
Request, Metes & Bounds parcel at 165 Virginia Drive
The Utilities Department has the following comments for the above application:
The Utilities Department has no issues or concerns with allowing this variance.
ESTES VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Date: November 19, 2014
Project Identification: The Courtyard Shops
Location: 165 Virginia Drive
Referral: Site Plan Variance for New Sprinkler Riser Room Addition
The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the
proposed project referenced above, and approves this variance request.
The following unresolved issues shall be addressed during the construction.
1. The fire riser room shall have the following identification on the door.
FACP
SPRINKLER RISER
2. Estes Valley Fire Protection District understands that this building will be protected by an
automatic sprinkler system and fire alarm system based on occupancy. The following
requirements shall apply:
A. All underground mains and lead-in connections to sprinkler system risers shall be
completely flushed before connection is made to the sprinkler piping.
B. A completed "Contractor's Material and Test Certificate for Underground Fire Line
Piping" must be forwarded to the Fire District prior to rough -in sprinkler inspections.
C. The private contractor installing underground fire line piping between a public water
main and a sprinkler system shall provide the Fire District with evidence that they
are currently registered with the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention & Control as a
Fire Suppression System Contractor- Underground.
D. The fire service main shall be hydrostatically tested at not less than 200 psi for two
hours and flushed at a minimum flow rate as determined by the pipe size for a
sufficient time to ensure thorough cleaning.
FIRE DISTRICT PERMITS:
1. All fire protection system plans (e.g., sprinkler system, alarm system), permit applications
and fee schedule shall be submitted to the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
GENERAL REGUIRMENTS:
All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International
Fire Code (2009 Edition), the International Building Code (2009 Edition) and the Town of Estes
Park Codes and Standards.
901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue • Estes Park, CO 80517 • P-970-577-09 w • F-970-577-0923
ESTES VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not
strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require
additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marc W. Robinson
Fire Marshal
Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Phone: 970.577.3689
Fax: 970.577.0923
raMir159.100 II
901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue • Estes Park, CO 80517 • P-970-577-09
111
• F-970-577-0923
LOP
24 April 2013
Ms. Alison Chilcott, Director
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park, CO
DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Statement of Intent for Variance Request for 165 Virginia Drive
Dear Alison:
Please accept this letter as our Statement of Intent for the requested variance to the
Development Code, Table 4-5 Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks for CD Zoning District. The
table requires a minimum setback of 8 feet, we request a variance to allow a small building
addition to be constructed within approximately 5 feet of the property line.
The existing building, Courtyard Shops, located at 185 Virginia Drive, is currently a non -fire
sprinklered building and must be sprinklered to bring the facility into building code and fire code
compliance. A 8" water supply line is currently stubbed to the property on the east side, at
Virginia Drive. A small, less than 25 square feet, fire riser room addition is proposed to enable
the fire line to enter the existing structure. This small addition will allow for proper fire
department access and will be insulated and conditioned to prevent freezing.
We believe this variance is warranted on at least two counts:
1. The location of the proposed riser room addition will not interfere with pedestrian traffic
nor significantly affect existing sidewalk circulation due to the geometry of the sidewalks
already in place.
2. This riser room addition Is necessitated by the need to provide the existing building with
an NFPA approved fire sprinkler system, which is truly a life and safety concern within
the community.
Thank you for your consideration In this matter.
Truly,
LOCKWOOD ARCHITECTS, INC.
Dana W. Lockwood, Architect
Comgard Shops Valance. pep 1 of 1
LOCKWOOD ARCHITECTS, INC, 415E Atkin 8110s4. Fol canna. Colo ado 80524 p 470 403 1023
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
Submittal Date:
General Information
Record Owner(s):
Street Address of Lot:
Legal Description:
Subdivision:
Parcel ID # :
Site Information
Lot Size _31t is e ,'7 z,1 /rs zoning C.i
Existing Land Use 0lVi1i er C L4( ) Rata * I 4t 4' f i A(
Proposed Land Use l�r'Yi G
Existing Water Service own r Well r Other (Specify)
Proposed Water Service r Town
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service
Existing Gas Service Xcel
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site?
Variance
r EPSD
✓ EPSD
✓ Other
✓ UTSD
✓ UTSD
✓ None
✓ Septic
✓ Septic
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): 81e Z4 -4 l f r t (►1 i
le A:.
Primary Contact Information
ti
II!
Name of Primary Contact Person S1 `Gta°°
Complete Mailing Address j 4.5 Sf c
Prima Contact Person is P wner r A..Iicant r Consultant/En•ineer
Attachments
✓ Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC)
r 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') **
r 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
✓ Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org
**The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached).
The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review
(see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded.
own I C 7`0"MacGregor ?venue •n 1 !
of Fork .a+ P: B x
Estes IP arla:. CO
Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 •as Fax: (970) 586-0249 -41, www.estes.org/CommunityDevetopment
Revised 2013.08.27 KT
246,
ff �� Goilt ct �I1(OI1nc311011
Record Owner(s)
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
Applicant
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
Consultant/Engineer
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
ri
15
441-1
APPLICATION FEES
For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at:
nF
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Revised 2013.08.27 KT
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, 1 acknowledge and agree that the
application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
► 1 acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at:
.e es. r l,qy"�
► 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 compllete under the applicable requirements of the
EVDC.
► I understand that this variance request may be dellayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
► II understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
► The Community Development Department will) notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application 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 Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of
my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no (later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
► II 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 (I) year of
receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes
Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:
Appllicant PLEASE PRINT:
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
ror (
Date
Date
I m 1
Revised 2013.08.27 KT
Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
1
CD
§ 4.4 Nonresidential 7oning Districts
4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Minimum Land
Area per
Accommodation
or
Residential Unit
(eq. Iper unit)
Accommodation
Unit=1,800 [1];
Residential Units.
SF = 9,000;
2-Family = 8,750;
MF = 5,400
Minimum Lot Size [7]
Area Width
40,000 [2] 100 [3]
10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3)
Accommodation
Units Only =
1,800;
SF & 2-Family
(stand-alone) =
9,000;
Dwelling Units
(1st Floor)1 unit
per 2,250 square
feet of gross
land area
Dwelling Units
(2nd Floor) No
minimum gross
land area per unit
(Ord. 15.03 63)
Accommo-
dation uses
= 20,000
All other
uses = Na
SF &
2-Family 1
(stand-
alone) = 25;
MF (stand-
alone) _
100;
All other
uses = Na
CO nla
Lots fronting
arterials =
40,000 [2];
Outdoor
Commercial
Recreation/
Entertain-
ment =
40,000 [2]
All other lots
= 15,000 [2]
Arterial
=25[5);
All other
streets =
15
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other • 15
streets =
15
Minimum Building/
Structure Setbacks [4] [8]
Front Side
() (ft-)
15[8]
Mini-
mum =
8
Maxi-
mum =
18
Rear
(I.)
10 [8]
10
If lot If lot
abuts a abuts a
residentiat residential
Property = property
10; 10;
All other All other
cases = 0 cases = 0
Fronting Arterial
arterials = = 25 [5];
200; All other
All other streets
lots = 50 =15
Max.
Bldg
Height Max.
(fL) [9] FAR
30 N/A
.20
Max.
Lot
:aver
age
(%)
50
30
Supp. S
4-21
Zoning Districts § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Minimum land
Area per
Accommo-
dation or
Zoning Residential Unit
District (sq. ft. per unit)
0
CH
1-1
Residential Units
(2nd Floor)
1 unit 2,250 sq.
ft. GFA of
principal use.
n/a
nla
Minimum
Building/Structure
Minimum Lot Size [7] Setbacks [4] [8] Max.
— Building
Width Front Side Rear Height
(t.) (ft.) (e.) (ft.) (ft1191
Area
faq ft)
15,000
[21
6,000 [2]
Fronting Arterial
Arterials = = 25 [5];
200; All other 15 [6] 15 [6] 30
All other streets
lots =50 =15
60
15
Fronting Arterial
15,000 Arterials = = 25 [5];
�1 200; All other
All other streets
lots=50 =15
(Ord. 2-02 #8; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 16-03 #3)
NOTES TO TABLE 4-5:
0 [6]
10[6]
0 [6]
10 [6]
30
30
Max.
FAR
.25
.50
.30
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
50
80
80
[1] For guest units In a resort lodge/cabin use that have fill![ kitchen facilities, the minimum land area requirement
per guest unit shall be 5,400 square feet. See also §5.1.P below.
[2] if private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set
forth In §7.12, `Adequate Public Facilities"
[3]
[4] See Chapter 7, §7.8 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11.02
§1)
All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set
forth in §7.5 of this Code.
[61 Setback shall be increased to 25 feet If the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary.
[7] See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an Increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep elopes.
(Ord. 2-02 #8)
[8] All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The
setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or
recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable
minimum building/structure setback. This setback is applicable only in the "A-1" district. (Ord. 11-02 §1)
9 See Chapter 1, 1.9.E, which allows an increase In the maximum het ht of butidines on silo •es. Ord. 18-02 #3
(51
For lots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shall be 200 feet.
5. Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel.
a. Maximum Number of Pt ncIDal des Permitted. One (1) or more principal uses
shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that In the A zoning
district, only one (1) principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or
development parcel.
b. Permitted MI4 of yses. Where more than one (1) principal use is permitted per lot
or development parcel, mixed -use development Is encouraged, subject to the
following standards;
(1) More than one (1) principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by
right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or
established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure,
provided that all applicable requirements set forth In this Section and Code
and all other applicable ordinances are met.
Supp. 5
4-22
Courtyard Shops
00 N N n n n n n n n n n n n n n Ol n
• N N N N N N N N N LA tl N N N N O O N
Q
O.
OO co DO c�c�00000000�00
o00 00 c00 06 00 C000 00 00 00 00 CO00 00 CO0�0 00 03
fV
i_0 0 0 000 0 0 00000 000 x 00
ai
8
G1
c
0
1769 ROCKY MOUNTAIN AVE
167 EAST ELKHORN LLC
9552 W HIGHWAY 14
BRECKENRIDGE ROBERT
FORT COLLINS
145 W SWALLOW RD
CARLYLE PROPERTIES LLC
ESTES PARK
PO BOX 4607
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH/HOLLY SUE
DALEY LOUIS EUGENE
ESTES PARK
PO BOX 1084
DERMODY CARROLL G REVOCABLE TRUST
PO BOX 2800
FUN -WEAR BRANDS INC
250 VIRGINIA DR
2
w
x
cC
u
w
0
w
ce
u-
CC
w
VI
0
ESTES PARK
1495 PROSPECT MOUNTAIN DR
JASTER THOMAS A
ESTES PARK
125 BOYD LN
KAEPPLINGER GARRY D
ESTES PARK
PO BOX 1973
LEE GEORGE/MEI-CHI
ESTES PARK
212 VIRGINIA DR
MALPIEDE GLENN
ESTES PARK
PO BOX 1093
NIKOLAI JULIE A
ESTES PARK
PO BOX 3915
NYDEGGER KENNETH M
ESTES PARK
215 VIRGINIA DR
PAUL SANDRA L
PAUL WALDEMAR 0
ESTES PARK
PO BOX 2128
PROSPECT INN LLC
ESTES PARK
867 CRABAPPLE LN
RAY ALICE CLAIRE
PO BOX 948
PO BOX 1200
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
ESTES PARK
801 OLD RANGER DR
WAGNER ROBERT E IRREVOCABLE TRUST
Courtyard Shops Variance 2014 APO.xls
E9 ES ES PA K, COLORAP
21.690
7000
5.60%
2
MONO PARKINS atenwe DRIVE
sy://efe eird 0/0 •
,,Zrr 74
SITE P AN
SCALE: 'I" at7 - 0"
0 0
APPROX
RISER ROOM Aortmon
SEE SHEET Ali
4Lio• ArrRox.
V 2L14
COPAMUNIHr" D-EVEL6P-MST
p OJE'CT INFORMATION
Owner/Landlord: CARLYLE PROPERTIES. LLC
i�%j"%'�
i
2515 Tunnel Road (YMCA)
Height Variance Request
Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division
Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517
t»y Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE:
December 2, 2014
REQUEST:
This request is for a variance from the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section
4.4, Table 4-5, which sets a maximum building
height of 30 feet, with additional height
allowances for sloped land.
The Applicant requests a variance to construct
an indoor climbing wall two feel above the
slope -adjusted height limit.
The development plan includes a 5,400
square foot building, 6,200 square foot
walkout area and a 55-space parking lot. This
LEED Certified building will be constructed in
one phase, though the construction date is not
yet confirmed. Generally speaking, the
building will have an open floor plan that will
accommodate a variety of recreation sports
(biking, hiking, fishing, rock climbing wall, etc)
for use by on -site guests. The Estes Valley
Planning Commission approved the
development plan on October 18, 2014.
Northeast Elevation
"Project site. approximately a
096`slope
LOCATION: 2515 Tunnel Road
APPLICANT/OWNER: YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park/Owner, Steve Lane/Architect
STAFF CONTACT: Phil Kleisler, Planner II
REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the
EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable
standards and criteria contained therein.
The Board of Adjustment is the decision -making body for this application.
REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:
In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code,
legal notices were published in the Estes Park Trail -Gazette and postcards were mailed
to all property owners within 500 feet of the property directly notifying these owners of
the public hearings.
As of November 25, 2014 no written comments have been received for this application
package. Written comments will be posted to wowy. tguggigynnim lic if
received.
One nearby property owner visited with staff to ask general questions about the project.
The individual was not concerned once he learned that the building would not be visible
from his home along Highway 66. No members of the public commented on the
associated development plan, which was approved by the Planning Commission on
November 18, 2014.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions,
narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other
areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not
have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific
standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding: The project site has an average slope of approximately
10%. This slope, combined with the proposed layout of the building,
presents practical difficulty in meeting the height limitations.
2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff Finding: The accommodations use may continue.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance;
2515 Tunnel Road (YMCA) Page 2 of 4
Height Variance Request
Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Given the size of
the YMCA property (593 acres), the building will likely not be seen from
surrounding residential properties. The distance to the nearest residential
property is (over 1,000 feet) and generally screened by topography and
vegetation. There also appears to be little or no impact to surrounding
cabins on the YMCA property.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: Affected agencies expressed no concems relating to public
services for this variance.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: No, the YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park was established in
1907, long before land use codes. The YMCA did receive approval for their
long range master plan in 2007, after the adoption of the current height
standards.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance.
Staff Finding: In this case a variance is the only option to obtain this
height.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The applicant has designed the building with height
limitations in mind, sinking the lower floor approximately three feet below
existing grade. According to the application, sinking the building further
down would negatively impact the parking lot.
Altering the pitch and design of the roof Is possible, but this would further
shorten the climbing wall and may be out of character with other YMCA
buildings.
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: Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends a
Surveyor Certificates be required to confirm compliance.
2515 Tunnel Road (YMCA) Page 3 of 4
Height Variance Request
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO:
1. Height (elevation) certificates shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by
staff.
move to DENYthe requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings).
2515 Tunnel Road (YMCA) Page 4 of 4
Height Variance Request
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE STATEMENT OF INTENT
YMCA of the Rockies, Estes Park Center
2515 Tunnel Road, Estes Park, Colorado
Mountain Center
This application is a request for a variance from the height requirement of Table lri,of 30 — feet, and the
associated provisions of 1.9.E 1+2, height measurement, including slope adjustment. The maximum variance
requested, which occurs at the westernmost edge of the northwest dormer ridge, is 2'-0" above what would
otherwise be the slope adjusted height limit, however the variance reduces along the same ridge to zero (re:
drawings). Currently the variance would be approximately 9-inches, however to allow for the ability to make small
adjustments in grading and roof structural design, a maximum deviation of 2-feet is requested.
The reason for the variance is to allow the YMCA to maintain architectural design standards and maximize the
height of an indoor climbing wall with minimal impact to surrounding cabins.
Review Standards
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: The property is part of the YMCA Camp. The property is in
Larimer County, and was re -zoned in 1999 and incorporated into the Estes Valley Development area.
The proposed development is part of the approved YMCA Master Plan. The area selected for this
building is a small meadow set in a grove of pines on the north side of the camp, which slopes away to
the northwest, eventually fairly steeply. Adjacent buildings include a cookout shelter to the north and
cabins to the south and east. There is no development planned to the northwest.
Much effort has been undertaken by the YMCA in recent years to create an architecturally cohesive
style throughout the campus. The style includes materials such as siding, stucco and stone, but also
consistent roof slopes and features such as gable dormers.
2. Practical Difficulty
a. The property could be used without a variance. However, either architectural character or the
climbing wall experience would suffer. A lower roof slope would not match other buildings on campus.
The climbing wall height sits just under 27-feet as proposed, which is already on the low end of
recommended wall height .
b. The variance is not substantial. It tapers from a maximum of 2-feet at the edge of the dormer
ridge to zero back along the same ridge. As mentioned the more impactful main ridge is kept under
the limit.
c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, nor would adjoining
properties suffer detriment as a result of the variance. In fact, an argument for the variance is to
support the architectural character of the campus. The building has been placed such that the main
ridge (the portion of the building visible from the cabins) meets the height limit, and screens the
northwest dormer from view, so there really is no impact to surrounding cabins.
d. The variance would have no effect on public services.
e. The YMCA camp property existed long before the EVDC was adopted.
f. The building has already been placed so that the lower floor sits approximately three feet below
existing grade, so attempts have been made to 'sink' the mass down into the site. Further recessing
the building into the site would negatively impact the parking lot grading.
3. The conditions reflected in this application are not general. They are specific to this particular building,
use, and property, size and orientation and the grading conditions.
r�'rvurid"
4. No reduction in lot size or increase in number of Tots is proposed by this variance request.
5. The plan proposed is not excessive, as detailed above.
6. The variance does not propose a non -permitted or prohibited use.
Prepared by: Steve Lane, AIA
BASIS Architecture PC
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
Submittal Date:
Legal Description: Lot Block: Tract-
Subdivision:
Parcel ID # :
ail, eri, ,•
Lot Size
Existing Land Use
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service
Proposed Water Service I' Town Well i Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service L ..PSD UTSD Septic
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service g EPSD UTSD a M Septic
Existing Gas Service Xcel w.`. Other w...... None
Site Access (i1 not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site? II Yes
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): ,
Name of Primary Contact Person
Complete Mailing Address
P Contact Person is 1 Owner
Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC)
1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20')
1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17)
Digital copies of plets/plans in TIFF or PDF format maned to ptanntng@estes.org
The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached).
The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after stag review
(see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule)„ Copies must be folded,
own of Estes Pork 4.1 . x aPOEr4. ' 4^=, vac venue 4. es
Community Development Depalinenl Phone 19701577.3721 4. Fox: (970) 586 0249 ,a www„ester„org/CommunlryDevelopmenl
111111 1111111111111011111011 1111 1111111111111111111110111M11 1 111,111,11111111111111111 11 1 1,11111111 1111111111111111,111111111111011111 11111111, Him .1111111,11111111,11,11, 11111'111 11,11 111
Record Owner(s)
Mailing Address,
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
E mall
Applicant
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
ConsuftanuEnglneer
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
1(0411. PAZ&
044 #1/4-eerl-tkve-t
APPLICATION FEES
For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both Inside and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included In your application packet or view the fee schedule online al:
Ekiqvt.,?irdl.::',If:y1:5;c:npordles&Illenn;.051biannirne),ppyr,;.,011119191Fee§pheokilluslir
All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
P. I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the bast of my knowledge
and that in filing the application 1 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 pudic hearing requirements set forth to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
► I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to fding this application, I have had the
opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Valley Development Code is available online al:
P. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Timm of Estes Park for fding and receipt of the application fee
by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application Is complete under the applicable requirements of the
EVDC.
► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
Incomplete. inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date.
► I understand that a resubmittal fee wdl 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.
P. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
identification access to my property during the review of this application.
► t acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shad result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming nutl and void. I understand that full fees will be charged tor the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where It Is dearly visible from the road. I understand that the comers of
my property and the proposed budding/structure comers must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, 'Failure of an applicant to apply for a building
permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of
receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes
Valley Development Code Section 3.8.D)
Names:
Zowing Districts
Nonresidential Toning Districts
Zoning
District
A
4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Minimum Land
Area per
Accommodation
or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
Accommodation Unit =1,800 [1];
Residential Units:
SF = 9,000;
2-Family = 6,750;
MF = 5,400
Minimum Lot Size [7]
A-'t
CD
10,890
Accommodation
Units Only =
1,800;
SF & 2-Family
(stand-alone) =
9,000;
Dwelling Units
(1st Floor) 1 unit
per 2,250 square
feet of gross
land area
Dwelling Units
(2nd Floor) No
minimum gross
land area per unit
(Ord. 15-03 #3)
Area
(sq ft)
Width
(ft.)
40,000 t2] 100 [3]
15,000 [2] 50 [3]
Accommo-
dation uses
= 20,000
All other
uses = n/a
CO
n/a
Lots fronting
arterials =
40,000 [2];
Outdoor
Commercial
Recreation/
Entertain-
ment =
40,000 (2]
All other lots
= 15,000 [2]
SF &
2-Family
(stand-
alone) = 25;
MF (stand-
alone) =
100;
All other
uses = n/a
Minimum Building/
Structure Setbacks [4] 18]
Max.
Bldg
Front Side Rear Weight
(ft.) (ft.) (ft) (mil [9]
Arterial
= 25 [51;
Ail other 15 [6] 10 [6] 30
streets =
15
Max.
Lot
Cover -
Max. age
FAR (%)
N/A 50
Arterial
= 25 (5];
All other 15 10 30
streets =
15
Mini-
mum =
8
Maxi-
mum =
16
Fronting Arterial
arterials = = 25 [5];
200; All other
All other streets
lots = 50 =15
If lot If lot
abuts a abuts a
residential residential
property = property =
10; 10;
All other All other
cases = 0 cases = 0
15 [6]
30
.20 30
2.0 n/a
15 [6] 30
.25 65
Supp. 5 4.2'1
Zoning Districts
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Minimum Land
Area per
Acco%nmo-
dation or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)
Residential Units
(2"d Floor)
0 1 unit 2,250 sq.
ft. GFA of
principal use.
n/a 6,000 [2]
15,000
[2]
Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
50
Fronting
Arterials =
200;
All other
lots = 50
(Ord. 2-02 #6; Ord. 11-02 §1 Ord. 15-03 #3)
NOTES TO TABLE 4-5:
[1] For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that have U. kitchen facilities, the minimum land area requirement
par guest unit shall be 5,400 square feet. See also'§5.1.P below.
[2] if private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set
forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities."
For lots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shall be 200 feet.
See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02
§1)
Alt front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set
forth in §7.5 of this Code.
Setback shall be Increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary.
See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes.
(Ord. 2-02 #6)
[8] All structures shalt be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The
setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or
recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable
minimum building/structure setback. This setback Is applicable only in the "A-1" district. (Ord. 11-02 §1)
See Chapter 1, • 1.9.E, which allows an Increase in the maximum help ht of buifdin•s on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3
5. Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel.
Minimum
Building/Structure
Setbacks [4] 181
Front Side Rear
(fL) (ft.) (ft.)
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other 15 [6] j 15 [6]
streets
= 15
15 0 [6]
Arterial
= 25 [5];
All other
streets
= 15
10 [6]
Max.
Building
Height
(11)[9]
Max.
FAR
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
30 .25 i 50
0 [6] 30 .50 80
10 [6]
80
a.
Minimum Lot Size [7]
Area Width
(Bq ft) (ft)
15,000
[2I
Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted. One (1) or more principal uses
shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that in the A zoning
district, only one (1) principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or
development parcel.
b. Permitted Mix of Uses. Where more than one (1) principal use is permitted per lot
or development parcel, mixed -use development is encouraged, subject to the
following standards:
(1) More than one (1) principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by
right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or
established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure,
provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code
and all other applicable ordinances are met.
SupP• 5 4 2
z
S7I.LSLLVLS .LN
�z
2
uj
n.
0
CC
2
111
C.)
2
2
irt
0
2
00
0
I "
',
\ \ \\
\: EN''‘'
\ \
\\„
\
\
111
is 1
\\ \
\ \ \ \ ‘1
•
\ 1, 1 \ 1,
\
\
L'71
eh:Z1-7
likvki*1
Wv/
0\
0
0
e
0
0 0
'z r-a m 9 c Z co
YMCA of the Rockies
Mountain Center
2515 Tunnel Rd
Estes Park, Colorado 80511
N
zt
0
II ER
✓
CD
• Oo
• a
5»
pEa
11
A A
t7 tiA o
ER
9
0.1611,4 *al
z
g
BAS 1 S
1692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
L1909 oPeio1o3' ed ee4e3
004 e)mg'enueny uoedWoyl 6!9 L691
S
SVH
d
Northeast Elevation
M
lLQO8 opeioioo ')IJ9d sa;s9
pb iauunl g LgZ
Je;uao uie;unoy i
safl3o21 a4; in VJWA
0
0