The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2012-11-06JL Prepared: October 26, 2012 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:00 a.m. - Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated October 2, 2012 3. LOT 1, DEVILLE SUBDIVISION, 540 S. St. Vrain Avenue Owner: Gregg Peterson Applicant: O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the side property line in the CO —Commercial Outlying zone district. Request to allow a 7-foot side setback to construct a proposed commercial retail building. Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. LOT 1, LITTLE Way Owner: Applicant: Request: PROSPECT ADDITION (Portion of Stanley Park), TBD Rooftop Staff Contact: 5. REPORTS 6. ADJOURNMENT Town of Estes Park Norris Design Variance from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which limits structure height to 30 feet above natural grade in the CO — Commercial Outlying zone district. a. Stall barns roof height without the cupolas sits below the 30' height requirement. The cupolas, which are 6'6" wide and approximately 8' tall, would take the building height to approximately 35' 3". b. Multi -Purpose Event Center (MPEC) primary roof structure sits below the 30' height requirement, and the clerestory portion of the roof is 34' 1" to the top of the wall monitor with a roof pitch height of approximately 36 ' 1 ". Dave Shirk A meeting packet is available for review in the Community Development Department and the Estes Valley Library two business days prior to the meeting. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. [Type text] RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Members Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, Jeff Moreau, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Chris Christian Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Smith, McCreery, Newsom, and Moreau Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were approximately 65 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the August 7, 2012 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. UNIT 19, BUILDING 3, ROCK ACRES CONDOMINIUMS, 660 MacGregor Ave Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant has requested a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 7.6.E.1.a(1), which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 30 feet from the defined bank of the river. The applicant requests to allow construction of a proposed deck approximately 20 feet into the stream setback. A portion of the deck would be built over an existing patio, then extend further toward the river. Planner Shirk noted this was the only unit that did not have a deck. He explained Rock Acres Condominiums were developed under the old development code, which had a smaller stream corridor setback. The applicant's unit is near the middle of the development. The deck would be consistent with the rest of the development. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Two members of the development did not support the variance. Staff found the variance was not substantial, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment. Planner Shirk stated the variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Planner Shirk stated prior to final approval, a letter of approval from the condominium association would be required. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance with conditions listed below. Public Comment Steve Lindberg/applicant stated if a line was drawn between the two existing adjacent decks, this proposed deck would not come out further than that line. Therefore, the proposed deck would be less infringing than the adjacent units decks. Johanna Darden/Town resident was opposed to the variance request. Public comment closed. Staff and Board Discussion Member Newsom would support the request, stating the proposed deck did not protrude out further than the existing decks. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 2 Conditions 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Written approval from the condominium association shall be provided prior to work. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the variance request as presented with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. MURPHY'S RIVER LODGE, 481 W. ELKHORN Planner Shirk reported reviewed the staff report. The applicant has requested two variances. The first from EVDC Section 7.6.E.1.a(1) to allow a river setback of 5.6 feet in lieu of the 30-foot setback required, and the second from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5 to allow a side setback of 6 feet instead of the 15-foot setback required in the A —Accommodations zone district. He stated the lodge has new owners who are doing extensive renovations. The applicant needs to replace the existing boiler, which is currently located in a crawl space under one of the buildings. The applicant proposed building a four -foot by seven -foot mechanical shed to house the new boiler, placing it in the northeast corner of the lot, attached to the existing structure. Planner Shirk stated the development was constructed prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code, and received a setback variance at that time. He stated the main purpose of the river setbacks was to address floodplain issues and wildlife habitat. This location has neither of those, due to the location of the existing building and a retaining wall. He stated in this situation. the purpose and intent of the setback standards would not be detrimental to the purpose of the development code. Planner Shirk stated the appiiication was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. The Utilities Department agreed to allow the new structure be located in an electric easement, though any lines relocated in association with this construction must be at the owner's expense. They noted the deck to the west of the proposed structure was located in the easement and was considered non -conforming. if this deck was voluntarily removed, it could not be rebuilt. The Utilities Department requested this information be noted on the building site plan. Staff found the variance request was not substantial, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services, and represents the least deviation from the regulations that would afford rellief. Staff recommended approval of the variance request with conditions listed below. Public Comment Bruce Hetke/Murphy's River Lodge Manager stated the current boiler was very inefficient, and installing a new boiler would make the heating system more environmentally friendly and efficient. He stated the structure would be attached to the existing building, with steel access doors. The roof wound have a small incline for moisture removal. Staff and Member Discussion None. Conditions 1. Compliance with the site pllan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. The site plan shall note the deck encroaches into the electric easement and is nonconforming and cannot be rebuillt. 3. Any relocation of electric lines shall be at the owner's expense. 4. Any disturbed areas shall be successfullly revegetated within one growing season. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the variance requests as presented with the the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 5. ESTES PERFORMANCE INC (EPIC), 116 E. ELKHORN AVENUE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requested a variance from Section 4.4.C.4 (height limit) and Section 7.6.E (river setback) to allow construction of a performing arts center. Planner Shirk stated this proposed art center would be located in the CD —Commercial Downtown zone district and would include the following: 1) State of the art 760-seat performing arts theater, with associated spaces such a box-office, lobby, green room, dressing rooms, stage shop, etc.; 2) Commercial and office space; and 3) enclosed atrium spanning the Fall River. The proposed performing arts center would be built where the Park Theatre Mall was located prior to its destruction by fire in October, 2009. The proposed theater would also extend into the existing Riverside Parking Lot, eliminating approximately twenty existing parking spaces. Planner Shirk stated this application for the height and river setback variance was the first step in obtaining necessary land use approvals to build the center. The Board of Adjustment was responsible only for the height and river setback variance requests. The Planning Commission and Town Board would review the overall development plan as a Special Review. The proposed use is classified as an 'Entertainment Event, Major (Indoor Facility)'. Planner Shirk stated this use was an allowed use as a Special Reivew in the CD —Commercial Downtown district. Due to traffic generated by a theater, staff would require a traffic study be submitted for review with the development application. Planner Shirk stated because there would be additional review processes, if the Board of Adjustment approve the requested variances, staff recommends changes to the building design not be brought back to the Board of Adjustment, unless they result in additional variances. Planner Shirk stated the applicant requested a variance from the 30-foot height limit required in all zone districts to allow the proposed theater to be approximately 63 feet high (adjusted for slope). This variance would allow adequate height for the 'fly area' above the stage, the balcony, and the adjacent atrium. The fly area above the stage is the area where stage backdrops are raised above the stage when not in use and for quick changes or stage scenery between acts. Stage lighting is also located in the fly area. Planner Shirk stated the applicant also requested a variance to waive the required 20-foot river setback to allow the proposed atrium to span the Fall River. Floodplain development would require a floodplaln permit, issued by the Town's floodplain manager (Chief Building Official Will Birchfield). This permit would be coordinated with required Federal approvals such as a 'Letter of Map Revision' from FEMA and a '404 Permit' from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Planner Shirk stated the site plan presented to the Board showed a proposed acquisition of some town owned property, which was not heard at this meeting. The project would also include some changes to the streetscape on Elkhorn Avenue, also not a part of the variance request. Planner Shirk stated the proposed stage fly area was the main reason for the variance request. The theatre would be located south of the river, the middle section would be over the river, and a proposed restaurant and shops would front Elkhorn Avenue. The proposed height facing Elkhorn Avenue would be two stories, not exceeding the 30-foot height limit. The variance request is for the portion of the proposed building spanning the river and further south, facing Rockwell Street. The middle section would include a terraced seating area with steps down to the river, while the auditorium would include a basement. The atrium would be open from floor to ceiling with a glass roof. Planner Shirk discussed the review process, stating the Board of Adjustment was the first approval necessary for this project. If approved, the applicant would apply for a special review that would be heard by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, who would make a recommendation to the Town Board. He stated there had been a meeting with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 4 applicant about all the requirements necessary for the reviews (traffic impact analysis, water, utilities, etc). Planner Shirk reviewed the use classification, stating that the typical Board of Adjustment decision requires applicants to construct the deck, patio, etc exactly as shown on the site plan. In this case, the design may change, and staff suggested the Board show some leniency with the restrictions. There was discussion among staff and the Board about the Board of Adjustment being the first point of review, and the challenge of having to make a decision on such a complex project without other boards having already seen the plans. Discussion occurred about the one-year time limit on approved variances. Planner Shirk stated it was the applicant's decision to first go before the Board of Adjustment for the height variance. The applicants would also need to work with FEMA in spanning the river. Planner Shirk stated the variance request was for building height, where the south side of the property would be a proposed height of 63-feet, when adjusted for slope. Planner Shirk explained the review criteria; special circumstances associated with the project. Typically, a standard setback request looks at shape of the lot, slope of the lot, etc. In this case, the special circumstance is the use of the structure. A theater is an allowed use in the CD zone district. Planner Shirk received public concern that the approval of a height variance would set a precedent to allow height variances in other areas of town. Town Attorney White assured the public that each variance was treated as a separate application and approval was granted or denied based on the facts of the application and findings. There was nothing in the code that would set a precedent for height variances. Planner Shirk stated staff found the river setback was a special circumstance. In the CD zone district, the river setback is typically 20 feet from the high water mark. However, to encourage development along the riverwalk, if a primary entrance into a structure is designed on the riverwalk, the river setback can be reduced to 10 feet from the high water mark. Because of the intent of the reduced setback, staff found the dedication of an access easement along the river, as well as ensuring the proposed atrium area is open to the public as part of the riverwalk, created a special circumstance. Planner Shirk slated staff reviewed whether the proposed building would have an impact on the character of the neighborhood, either by substantially altering the neighborhood or creating a detriment to adjacent properties. Staff found the proposed theater was a common element in downtown areas, and could actually be an asset to the area. It would definitely alter the skyline of the area, and the Board would need to decide it the change to the skyline was detrimental to the neighborhood. Planner Shirk stated the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was the framework for the creation and adoption of the regulations in the Estes Valley Development Code. He referred to Chapter 6 of that plan, which outlines several community -wide policies the Board should consider in relation to the requested variance. Some policies that would apply to this proposed use include: • Encourage existing and future community commercial uses to locate within a compact, well defined downtown business district; • Encourage the concentration of cultural uses and activities in the downtown business district. • Provide a pedestrian -friendly downtown environment which provides for pedestrian movement, areas for relaxing, gathering and window shopping. • Encourage outdoor public spaces, including places for outdoor gathering, dining, nature and people watching. • Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs. • Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate • The natural colors of wood and stone are most desirable for building exteriors • Facades should be broken up with windows, doors, or other architectural teatures to provide visual relief. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 5 Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No public comments from citizens were received prior to the staff report being written. All were received after Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012. No utility providers expressed significant concerns regarding this application. There are numerous utility service lines in the area that would need to be relocated at the applicant's expense. Planner Shirk stated the current property owner donated the land with the intent of building a performing arts center. Staff found the proposed auditorium and atrium could not be built without the requested variances. Staff found the required Special Review would supersede formulation of a general regulation regarding theaters. Planner Shirk stated the Board should use their best judgment as to whether the variance requests represent the least deviation that would afford relief. Staff found the proposed uses are allowed, and included possible conditions of approval, listed below. Planner Shirk stated there was no additional public outreach for this project other than the standard legal notice and notices to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. The information was also posted on the Town web site. One citizen was concerned about spring runoff (the existing slab over the river channel contains the 100-year flood), and a downtown business owner was opposed to the project due to the view corridor obstruction and solar access on the north side of Elkhorn. Other concerns addressed the impact to the area and precedent. Staff found the request complied with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code. Staff recommended the Board of Adjustment find that amendments to the site and building design that result from the Special Review process not require additional Board of Adjustment review. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment, unless building design is modified during the Special Review process. 2. Height Certificates shall be required at the foundation and framing inspections (standard for buildings over 25-feet tall; must be prepared by a registered land surveyor, and requires a survey control point be established prior to site work). 3. Recording of a public access easement for the riverwalk, with the location to be determined with the Special Review. Chair Lynch called for a five-minute recess. Public Comment Roger Thorp/applicant showed a video of the proposed project, which is available at www rock:vmountainne rlorrnuRoans. oro Mr. Thorp stated the height and river setback variances were being presented to determine whether or not the development team could move forward with the design of the project. He stated that soils investigations allow the basement to be about 8 feet under grade before hitting ground water. He stated there were important business reasons to keep the number of seats at 750. The flat roof could be used for solar panels, which they would like to maintain. The designers would prefer to have the fly area five feet higher, but would be able to make it work at the requested height. The height is needed to perform high -quality performances. It was designed such that local plays and performers of smaller audiences would fit on the main level and the balcony could be darkened. The project designers need flexibility to make the project viable. Mr. Thorp stated the proposed project could take more than one year to commence construction, and they may have to come back to the Board of Adjustment again. He hoped that the Board's interest in the project would be such that they would approve the variance, and then make it a point to attend the other hearings presented to the Planning Commission and Town Board. Mr. Thorp explained the importance of having a three-story atrium, mainly for the mechanical design element for air movement in all seasons. Bill Darden/Town resident supported the height variance for the stage fly area, but not other areas of the building. He was concerned about a "human perception precedent". RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 Greg Rosener/Town supported the requests and recommended giving the designers the ability to move forward with the project. Jerry Miller/Town agreed with Mr. Rosener. Charley Dickey/Estes Valley Partners for Commerce representative supported the project. He stated a survey was sent out to their members, and reported 97°.o supported the project. He presented a letter from the group, to be placed in the file. He was very supportive of the variance requests. Greig Steiner/Town resident strongly supported the requests. He stated the downfall of many municipal theaters was the height limitations and inadequate fly systems. He stated the height variance was critical to the project. Johanna Darden/Town resident did not support the variances or the project. Theresa Maria Widawski/Town resident encouraged the Board to move the project forward by approving the variances. She was pleased to see someone thinking bigger and "outside the box." She supported the variances requests. Ron Wilcox/local Elkhorn Avenue business owner strongly supported the variance requests. Robert Berger/Glen Haven resident stated the proposed location was advantageous, but questioned the feasibility. He was concerned about traffic, and also urged the architect to design a more aesthetically pleasing design, possibly post and beam. Joan Allen/County resident was supportive of the project. Greig Steiner/Town resident clarified the history behind the 30-foot height limit was due to the highest point the fire department could access a building with a ladder. Planner Shirk commented an automatic fire -sprinkler system would be utilized throughout the proposed structure. Jenne MacGregor/property donor representative strongly supported the project and the variance requests. Due to the seasonal economy, she is unable to live in Estes Park year- round. She was hoping this project may allow that. Greg Rosener/Town resident responded to Ms. Darden's comments. Stan Black/EPIC trustee stated it was never mentioned that this project would be the redevelopment of a 48-foot tall structure that once spanned the river. The previous riverwalk stopped at that building. When this project is completed, the riverwalk would be a thoroughfare walkway, open to the public 24-7. The building would have restrooms available for public use with no charge to the town. Kathleen Baker/Town resident would like to see a drawing of a shadow study. Mr. Thorp stated if the project gets to the Special Review phase, there would be shadow studies for every hour and every season to determine what would be shaded. He stated the designers have strived to keep the scale on Elkhorn to two levels. Public comment closed. Staff and Board Member Discussion Member Newsom stated there were still numerous requirements to be met before construction could begin. He thought it would be a disservice to the citizens of Estes Park if the Board did not approve the variance requests. Member McCreery stated he still had concerns about the review process, but would support the variance requests. He did not support the fact that there had not been enough involvement with other decision -making boards prior to the Board of Adjustment decision. Chair Lynch stated today's application was only for the height and river setback variances, and the applicant still had a long way to go to get through the process. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 7 Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment, unless building design is modified during the Special Review review process. 2. Height certificates shall be required at the foundation and framing inspections (standard for buildings over 25-feet tall; must be prepared by a registered land surveyor, and requires survey control point be established prior to site work). 3. Recording of a public access easement for the riverwalk, with the location to be determined with the Special Review. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the variance requests as presented with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Lynch called for a five-minute recess. 6. LOTS 1 & 2, WITT SUBDIVISION, 900 W. ELKHORN AVENUE Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicants, Robert and Carol Fixter, are requesting a variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E.1.2(b) which requires building and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the annual high water mark of river corridors, and a variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E.2 which requires accessory structures be setback at least 50 feet from the edge of wetland. If approved, this would allow a gravel path and two flagstone patios to remain in the locations shown on the site plan. The patio is within 16 feet +/- of the river, and the path encroaches into the wetlands. Director Ghilcott stated this was the first in a series of land use approvals needed in order to bring the property into compliance with the EVDC. Director Chilcott stated the property is located at the west end of Elkhorn Avenue, zoned A-1 Accommodations, with single family homes adjacent to the property. The lots across Elkhorn Avenue are zoned RM—Residentlal Multi -Family, and A —Accommodations (Religious Assembly). The parcels to the south, across the river, are zoned E—Estate, single-family residential. Director Chilcott stated there was A —Accommodations zoning farther west on Fall River Road. Director Chilcott stated a worn fisherman's path was replaced with a flagstone and gravel path, and two patios, as well as a foot bridge, were constructed in the wetland/river setbacks. Director Chilcott stated the application was reviewed in accordance with EVDC Section 3.6.C. Affected agencies and adjacent property owners were notified, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper. Director Chilcott stated the Board needs to determine if special circumstances or conditions exist that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the EVDC standards. She stated the Statement of Intent noted "a worn fisherman's trail previously followed the majority of the constructed path." Staff found the flagstone patios could have been constructed in compliance with the minimum required setbacks. The Board of adjustment should determine whether or not approval of the requested variances would nullify the purpose and intent of the wetlands and river setback requirements. She stated the purpose of wetlands and river setbacks are to promote, preserve, and enhance the important hydrologic, biologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river corridors, association riparian areas and wetlands provide (EVDC 7.6 Purpose and Intent). The statement of intent noted that the current property owners have improved the wetlands area by cleaning up the area. Director Chilcott stated the EVDC allows for recreation, education or scientific activities in the buffer/setback area, provided a management plan establishes long-term protection. Public trails have been constructed in setbacks in accordance with this code provision. To date, staff has not interpreted this so broadly as to allow removal of wetlands or construction of patios for wedding use. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 In determining practical difficulty, Director Chilcott stated the Board shall consider whether there could be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Staff found the small hotel could continue to operate without the variance. She stated the Board should use their best judgment to determine if the variance was substantial. She stated the gravel path and patios encroach into river and wetlands setbacks and have impacted wildlife habitat. The applicant's statement of intent noted they improved wildlife habitat on the property by removing trash and fencing. Director Chilcott stated the Board shall consider whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Staff found that if the patios were used for weddings or gatherings with music and at night, it may have a substantial impact on the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Adjacent property owners have expressed concerns about neighborhood impacts and detriment. Director Chilcott stated the minimum required river and wetlands setbacks were in place at the time the property owners purchased the property in 2011. The applicant proceeded with construction of the gravel path and patios without the required land use approvals. Staff determined the applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance; the applicant could remove the portions of the path and patios that do not comply with the EVDC and construct a code compliance patio and gravel path. Given that the patios and gravel path have been constructed, the requested variance represents the least deviation. Prior to construction, other options were available. Director Chilcott stated if the Board chooses to approve the requested variance, staff would recommend conditions of approval, listed below. Director Chilcott reminded the Board the variance is specific to the paths and patios in the setbacks. A trail easement was not dedicated on the plat, and this specific trail would not be open to public use. In this case, the trail use for recreational activity would apply, but for wedding use, the trail use would not comply with the EVDC. Staff reviewed the impact on the wildlife habitat and the use of the patios, which directly related to the substantial impact of the neighborhood. Director Chilcott stated a large portion of the paths and patios were constructed within the floodplain, which would require a floodplain permit. There was discussion among staff and the Board as to whether or not the applicants would have known they were not in compliance with the EVDC at the time of construction. Director Chilcott stated she advised the applicants in the spring of 2012 that they needed approval to construct in the area, and they continued to proceed with their project without the necessary approvals. She stated if the applicants would have approached staff prior to construction, chances are they would have allowed the paths, and possibly the patios, but with a more limited scope and without approval of the patios as a wedding site. She clarified that the current A-1 zoning did not allow wedding use on the patios. There was more discussion among staff and the Board as to where the wetlands were located on the property. Public Comment des Reetz/applicant representative stated most of the complaints were concerning the wedding use. The applicants have decided not to pursue the property as a wedding venue. He stated the path and patio area was intended to be used as a public bike trail system when the property was subdivided. He stated the current paths control the pedestrian traffic and try to limit it to the trail. Mr. Reetz stated there are no permanent structures within the setbacks, and the bridge was the most permanent structure. He commented that Chief Building Official Birchfield had concerns that the bridge could be washed out during a flood. The applicant intends to obtain the appropriate permits from the building department. There was discussion between Mr. Reetz and the Board about the trail easement. Discussion concluded with Director Chilcott stating the official trail path for this property was on Elkhorn Avenue, not along the river. Bob Fixter/applicant stated they were not becoming a wedding center. He stated he would be applying to rezone the property to A —Accommodations in order to use the property as a day use area for guests not staying overnight. He stated 2013 was booked every day with zero weddings. Mr. Fixter stated Terry McKee, with the Army Corps of Engineers, issued a permit to allow the disturbed area to remain. He stated he was told they could RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 9 not put any buildings in the setbacks. He stated he did not dump any trees into the river, although two trees were moved. The property has been open as a lodge since April, 2012, attracting high caliber guests. Quiet hour begins at 10:00 p.m., and guests are discouraged from visiting the river at night. The applicants are requesting the Board to allow the gravel paths and flagstone patios to remain in order to keep the amenities of the lodge. Kay Wynstra/adjacent property owner stated the applicants built the patios and bridge after she and her husband contacted the Planning Department. She read part of a letter from John Gilfillan opposing the variance requests, and agreed with his statement. His letter was included in the public comment section on the Town web site. She believes the property owners did not follow the EVDC regulations pertaining to wetlands and river setbacks. She was disturbed by the noise coming from the applicant's property when guests are by the river. Ken Wynstra/adjacent property owner stated that during the bulldozing, the applicants indicated they were building a wedding site. He disputed the applicant's statement saying they were unaware that permits were required. Member McCreery stated the neighbor concerns seemed to be centered on the use of the property. Chair Lynch asked that the meeting stay focused on only the variance issues. Ward Nelson/Town resident spoke as a character reference for the applicants. He was familiar with the property from the Duck Race river cleanup, and commended the applicants for cleaning up the river adjacent to their property. He stated the applicants are an honest couple that he did not believe they would do anything they thought may be illegal. Kathleen Baker/Town resident recently sold a nearby property. She stated the land in question was in a designated floodplain, and the patios did not need to be built in that location. If a survey of the property had been done, the property owners would have known they could not develop the area close to the river. John Edy/adjacent property owner stated he noticed the wetland destruction on a weekend in early April and was concerned about the bulldozer encroaching onto his property. Mr. Edy was upset that they ignored the permit process and continued to develop the property without a permit. It negatively affects him because his property is between the applicant's property and the river. Staff and Board discussed property rights and the Board of Adjustment's role. It was stated that retroactive approvals were not uncommon to this Board. Jackie Love/adjacent property owner stated building a focal point near the river was not a way to keep people away from the wetlands. She stated the previous path was a game trail, not a fisherman's path. She staled she was "protesting the fact that they ignored the rules". Planner Shirk stated Lot 1 had platted limits of disturbance, and recommended the applicants remove the flagstone from Lot 1 to help bring the property into compliance with the EVDC. Mr. Fixter stated he was greatly disappointed this has caused a rift with the neighbors. Public comment closed. Staff and Board Discussion Member McCreery stated the Board of Adjustment dealt with change, and had to balance property rights of owners, neighbors, and the community. Every piece of progress changes things, and it was human nature to be reluctant to change. Director Chilcott stated there were a few options for the applicants. 1) They cold plant additional landscaping for additional screening of the patios and create wildlife habitat; 2) they could remove one or both of the patios and/or move them back to increase the distance from the wetlands/river area. She stated denial of the variance requests would require the applicants to remove all paths and patios in the wetlands and setback areas. She stated RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 10 the EVDC states no development is allowed in wetlands areas, and the Army Corps of Engineers allowance did not supersede the more strict regulations of the EVDC. Director Chi!cott stated the findings in the staff report could be amended. After concern was expressed by Member McCreery, she stated the deadline dates cold be removed from the recommendation and replaced with a statement allowing staff to work with the applicant for a reasonable date. After Board discussion about the use of the property, Town Attorney White stated the Board of Adjustment could send a letter to the Planning Commission with the concern about the use of the property. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the memo from the Division of Building Safety dated September 27, 2012, which includes the requirement to obtain floodplain and grading permits for completed work. Permits shall be submitted no later than October 19, 2012, and any required work shall be completed no later than November 2, 2012. 2. The applicant shall submit a management plan that establishes Tong -term protection of the buffer/setback area no later than November 2, 2012. It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Smith) to approve the variance requests as presented with the findings and recommendations by staff, with the exception to Condition 1 and 2, to allow the completion dates to be determined at staff level and agreed to by staff and the applicants, and the motion passed 4-1, with Member Moreau voting against. Mr. Wynstra stated he was disappointed in the vote to approve the variance requests. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 1:20 p.m. John Lynch, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary •i 0-Reilly Auto Parts 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: November 6, 2012 REQUEST: Variance from the "CO" Commercial Outlying 15-foot side yard setback requirement. The Statement of Intent references two other requests: front door location and number of parking spaces; these requests will be addressed with the development plan review, and are not under the purview of the Board of Adjustment. The site design will also require the Planning Commission grant a modification to the loading area location to allow the truck to block required parking spaces (proposed location would block required parking spaces — deliveries are made when store is closed). The truck turning templates verify the delivery truck can enter and exit the property without backing into public right-of-way. LOCATION: 540 S. St. Vrain Ave, within the Town of Estes Park APPLICANT: O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc PROPERTY OWNER: Gregg Peterson PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-5 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard setback of 8-feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required. The site design will be subject to development plan review and approval by the planning commission, and the requested setback encroachment exceeds the minor modification allowance provided to the Planning Commission. The purpose of the variance request is to facilitate redevelopment of the lot with a 6,000 square foot auto parts store (retail use classification). This variance is connected to the front door location, which is proposed to face the side street instead of the arterial street, as required by the development code. The development code requires commercial front doors to be oriented toward arterial streets where frontage exists. Due to the narrow frontage, location of side street, and topography, the applicant proposes to orient the store toward the side street (development code prohibits direct access onto S. St Vrain in this location). 'nl In order to accommodate parking in front of the store entry, the applicant seeks relief to the north yard setback to allow a setback of 8-feet instead of the 15-feet typically required. This portion of the lot is adjacent to an existing car wash. EngineerlSurveyor!Consultant: O'Reilly Autoparts. Parcel Number: 2530407001 Development Area: Existing Land Use: Vacant structure (former Proposed Land Use: Retail (auto parts store) restaurant) .. Zoning Designation: CO Commercial Outlirrg Adjacent WingZoning : East: CO Commercial Outlying North: CO Commercial Outlying West: CO Commercial Outlying South: 0 Office Adjacent Land Uses: East: Office IWest: Retail Services: Water: Town of Estes Park i_ North- Service station (gas, car wash) South: Office Sewer EPSD 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. These standards are included in the Board notebooks. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Site Design. The proposed site plan will need to be redesigned to account for relocation of trash enclosure and reconfiguration of parking lot landscaping. The trash enclosure will need to be located further to the south to allow for landscape screening. A landscape island will need to be relocated to allow for truck turning movements. These issues will be addressed during the development plan review. Neighboring Property Owners. No comments received. FINDINGS: 1. This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3. The variance is not substantial. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, November 6, 2012 O'Reilly Automotive Side Yard Setback Variance Request Page 2 of 3 wl 4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 6. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 7. The applicant is notified that a stormwater management plan will be required with development plan approval, and will be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. 8. Electric connections will need to meet NEC/NESC clearance requirements or be placed below ground, at the applicant's expense. 9. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 10. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 11. Failure 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 shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval conditional to: 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment, with modifications as necessary during review process (parking, landscaping, trash enclosure, etc). 2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. 3. Trash enclosure shall be relocated to maintain at least an 8-foot side yard setback, and shall be screened as required by the development code. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL (or disapproval) of the requested variance(s) with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, November 6, 2012 O'Reilly Automotive Side Yard Setback Varlance Request Page 3 of 3 1111o4.,H.1111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,11 IIIIIII111IIIIIIIIIQ„uii,g1111 \,1I1jlllV,I "I1;u' dd , d'r I° I�iF;�L4v j:II IlNluuuuuuii.1,1,11 ,' HH'Iuu n� I "ham uW6'��dluIliaH�� 1 inirlagef .„, II a Idlllul;ii°i1 °IIU, IIIIvUI"Illlu„u9uVuu 111I11I1 1Il�iI i ry�uuuuuuuumlllll'I 1li�ff�f�Nf0fNf1lN�II yry�9 111000,00,1,10,1, ^p�llll to11111111111uuii�a 'n ..1111H llulllll milli How, �p1u iui hill 111111111 III 11I „,UiO��b II "' Zit H Rf E d _ a a) 0, a, E cu co Qo MEM 1111111111111111111 IN��I�ti��fu(1��1��11��.1,10�Ilhi��, y��1 11 �l��lll0,��1��1 11,1��„�� UTILITIES & PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS RE: Final/Public Review for Lot 1, DeVille Sub., 540 S. St. Vrain, O'Reilly Automotive Variance DATE: October 29, 2012 DEPARTMENT: Town of Estes Park Water STAFF CONTACT: Water Superintendent, Jeff Boles, ' oI s, este970-577-3608 COMMENT: Application is complete for Water Department review. DEPARTMENT: Town of Estes Park Light & Power STAFF CONTACT: Line Supervisor, Todd Steichen, tstichn rg„ 970-577-3601 COMMENT: L&P has no comments or concerns with this variance request. DEPARTMENT: Town of Estes Park Public Works STAFF CONTACT: Civil Engineer, Kevin Ash, PE, leash r° 970-577-3586 COMMENT: There are three variances being requested at this time: 1. Building Setback: The submittal from O'Reilly does not include a drainage analysis. Encroachment into the north setback potentially impacts the existing drainage channel and eliminates the possibility of any on -site drainage to be routed in this location. The applicant should be aware that future submittals will require a drainage evaluation. 2. Parking Space Requirement: No comments. 3. Location of Front Door: No comments. DEPARTMENT: Town of Estes Park Building Department STAFF CONTACT: COMMENT: j REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: Lot 1, DeVille Subdivision, 540 S. St. Vrain, O'Reilly Automotive Variance Todd Stelchen <tsteichen©estes.org> To: Karen Thompson <kompson@estes.org> Cc: Dare Shirk <dshirk@estes.org>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jockhart@estes.org>, Alison Chilcott <achilcott@estes.org>, Will Birchfield <wbirchfield@estes.org> Upon further review I do see 1 thing that could be an issue. Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM 1. With this variance request If they cannot meet the NEC/NESC code requirements for clearance from the existing high voltage O.H. powerlines to their new building then they would be required to relocate or U.G. the powerline at their expense to comply with the codes. I Just want them to be aware of this possible issue but am still ok with this variance request. Todd. Todd J. Steichenn Ton of Estes Park Light & Po er DNisiion (Line Superintendent 970-577-3601 isteichen@estes.org (Quoted text haddenj RE: O'Reilly Auto Parts James <jldepsd@gwestoffice.net> To: "Shirk, DEW cdshirk@estes.org> Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM As per the variance requests (parking and north setback) the District has no problems with these requests. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these plans -- James Dueli James Duell, District Manager Estes Park Sanitation District (970) 586-2866 PROPOSED O'REILLY AUTO PARTS, ESTES PARK, CO IC01 tir PROJECT NARRATIVE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property is located on at 540 South Saint Vrain Street, Larimer County, Estes Park, Colorado (Tax Parcel Number: 2530407001). This site has an existing old wood frame restaurant building that is vacant. We will demolish this building and will develop it with a 101'-4" x 61'-4" O'Reilly Auto Parts store. I Proposed Development (see attached Site Plan) The proposed development will consist of O'Reilly's prototypical 6,533 s.f. masonry building, with thirty (30) parking spaces, a dumpster pad, a monument sign, and landscaping. Zoning This site is zoned CO Commercial Outlying, which allows for use as a retail auto parts business. The adjoining properties are also zoned CO Commercial Outlying. The property is bounded on the west by South Saint Vrain Avenue/ Highway 7 and on the south by Graves Avenue. Variance — building setback requirements, parking space requirements, and location of front door. The ordinances of the City of Estes Park require a 15' building setback at the rear of the property. O'Reilly is asking for a 7' building setback variance at the rear of the property. The building layout as shown on the enclosed plan will allow O'Reilly to provide safe drive aisles and access, and meet the other building setback requirements. The ordinances of the City of Estes Park require 34 parking spots. O'Reilly is asking for a parking space variance of 4 stalls. This will allow O'Reilly to meet the landscaping islands that are required between stalls as well as provide our team members, customers, and delivery trucks a safe and visually pleasing parking area. The ordinance of the City of Estes Park requires the location of the front door of the building to be facing the main road, South St. Vrain Avenue. O'Reilly requests a variance to relocate the front door to the south side as illustrated on the enclosed site plan. If O'Reilly is required to place its front door facing South St. Vrain Avenue, this would result in a less than optimal development of this irregular, narrow parcel. The parking area, drive aisles and access to our delivery area are located in the most logical and convenient location of the property, on the south side. Standards for Review of Variance 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 building similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the 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, the Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Yes, with the dimensions of the property at 241' x 146' x 309' x l32', the narrowness of said property makes it difficult for O'Reilly to adequately develop the building with drive aisles and parking spaces while meeting all of the building setback and other requirements. 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; If the zoning requirements were strictly adhered to, O'Reilly would be unsuccessful in our development without further reducing the overall size of our building, drive aisles and parking spaces that would be provided to our customers and team members. b. Whether the variance is substantial; No, if the variance is approved, it would be the minimal variance needed in order to adequately provide sufficient parking access and building area to complete the development. 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. No, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment, as the adjoining properties are zoned CO Commercial Outlying, which is consistent with the parcel we intend to develop. if granted, the building set back variance would in no way negatively affect adjoining properties. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; No, granting the building setback, parking and front door relocation variance will in no way adversely affect the delivery of public water and sewer, as demonstrated by the attached site plan. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and "the property was purchased with the knowledge of the required building setback and parking space requirement, but Applicant did not discover the impact of the building setback on O'Reilly's expected development until further into our development process. Additionally, O'Reilly was riot aware of the front door requirement until the pre -application meeting. f. Whether the applicant predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. lithe zoning ordinance requirements were strictly adhered to. it would present the applicant with challenging development circumstances, as O'Reilly would not be able to meet the requirements without further reducing the size of the building on this property. lithe variances are approved, they would be the minimal variance needed, and would allow O'Reilly to construct a new building that would provide adequate parking and safe drive aisles and access for its customers and team members. Closing O'Reilly Auto Parts has sought to develop this property in the most advantageous way for the City, surrounding property owners and O'Reilly. We are looking forward to becoming a part of this area of the Estes Park community and thank you for your consideration of the requested variance for our site development. We will be pleased to provide additional information as required for this variance. EfocuSIgn envelope ID: FBBB42FA-8161-4CA7- Submitta Date: d General Irnformatior� B3F629457E ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION hrCNN Record Owner(s): Equity Trust Co. w Custodian FRO Gre A. Peterson. Roth IRA Street Address of Lot: A th. Saint Vrain Legal Description: Lot: t 5 36 Block: Tract: Subdivision: .plyille Subdivision r Man€orl Addition, White Meddow View Parcel ID # : 253040 ' 01 i ' ' it ion Lot Size 36,151 sq . feet or 0.830 acre Zoning CO Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service r Town Proposed Water Service f Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service FK Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Vacant w/old wood restaurant buildin ✓ Well r Other (Specify) ✓ Well r Other (Specify) • EPSD r UTSD TX EPSD r UTSD ✓ Other r None Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): If?rfnll rnt.,bi f • ImmforrnEll inn r Septic r Septic Name of Primary Contact Person Mark Wool'. Complete Mailing Address 6610 W. Broadway Ave. Brooklyn Park,' MN , 55428 Prima Contact Person is r Owner r A qr leant Ir Consultant/En ii neer Application fee (see attached fee schedule) r/ Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) r>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") " The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Pork .. P.O. Box 1200.. 170 MacGregor Avenue .a Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 . Pox: t970] 586-0249 www.esles.org/ComDev RAv Ar'r 11 /7nIn0 DocuSign Envelope ID: F8B1342FA-8161-4CA7-81 ' • Contact InfDFinationT,!i yr ww B3FS29457E Record Owner(s) Gregg A. Peterson Mailing Address 710 W. Koenig St. Phone - Nib Cell Phone 308-379-4176 Fax 866-237-8145 Email ,apoms@gmail.com Applicant O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. c/o Holly Jones Mailing Address 233 S. Patterson, Springfield, MO 65802 Phone 417-862-2674 ext. 7411 Cell Phone Fax 417-829-5726 Email ha_lones@oreillyauto.com ConsultantfEngineer Mark Wold Mailing Address 6610 W. Broadway Ave., Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Phone 763-852-1503 Cell Phone 612-750-0646 Fax 763-852-1506 Email APPLICATION FEES $500 For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included In your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: http:Qwww.estes.oro/Com Qev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninciAbolicalionFeeachedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revived 1Il7Wf19 I7ocuSign Pnvelope ID: F8BB42FA-8161-4CA7-8r B3F629457E 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, t 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 tiling 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: htfo://www.estes.orolComDev/DevCode ► I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► 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 resubmlttal 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 vold. ► 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 comers must be field staked. t 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 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Gregg A. Peterson Applicant PLEaSEPRINT:• Holly Jones Signatures: Record Owner Applicant ,-DocuSigned by. ,ce.09 1� Date 9/25/2012 A Date ile.2.5-7�`!J/ Reviser) 1 11'Xlln9 Zoning Districts.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Land Area per Accommodation or Zoning Residential Unit District (sq. ft per unit) Accommodation Unit =1,800 [1]; Residential Units: SF = 9,000; 2-Family = 6,750; MF = 5,400 A A-1 CD 10,890 Accommodation Units Only = 1,800; SF & 2-Family (stand-alone) = 9,000; Dwelling Units (1st Floor l 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) CO n/a Minimum Lot Size [7] Minimum Building/ Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Area (sq ft) Width (ft) 100 [3] Front (ft.) Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 Side (ft-) 15 [6] Rear (f.) 10 [6] 40,000 [2] 15„000 [2] 50 [3] Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 15 10 Accommo- dation uses = 20,000 All other uses = n/a SF & 2-Famfty (stand- alone) = 25; MF (stand- alone) = 100; Ali other uses = n/a Mini- mum = 8 Maxi- mum = 16 If lot abuts a residential property = 10; Ali other cases = 0 If lot abuts a residential property 10; All other cases = 0 Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commercial Recreation/ Entertain- ment = 40„000 [2] A'rl other lots 15,000 [2] Fronting arterials = 200; All other lots = 50 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets =15 15 [6] 15 [6] Max. Max. Lot Bldg Cover - Height Max. age (ft)19] FAR (%) 30 N/A 50 30 30 .20 2.0 30 n/a 30 .25 65 5upp. 5 4-'21i Zoning Districts Zoning District Minimum Land Area per Accommo- Minimum Lot Size [7] dation or Residential Unit , Area Width (sq. fL per unit) (sgft) ., (ft.) Residential Units (2nd Floor) 1 unit 2,250 sq. ft. GFA of principal use. 15,000 [2] Fronting Arterials = 200; All other lots = 50 nla 6,000 [2] 50 Fronting Arterial Arterials = = 25 [5]; 200; All other All other streets lots = 50 1 = 15 nla 15,000 [2] (Ord. 2-02 #6; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 15-03 #3) Max FAR Max. Lot Coverage (%) Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks (41(8) Front �.,..,O,,....... Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 fi § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts Side Rear (ft.) (ft.) 15 [6] 15 [6] 15 0 [6] 0 [6] 10 [6] Max. Building Height (ft-) [9] 10 [6] 30 NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1] For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that have.fu][ 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] For lots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shall be 200 feet. [4] See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord, 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shah 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 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 height of buildings on slopes. (0rd. 18-02 #3) [5] [6] [7l 5. Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel. a. Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted. One (1) or more principal uses shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that in the A zoning district, only one (1) principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel. b. Permitted Mix of Uses. Where more than one (1) principal use is permitted per lot or development parcel, mixed -use development is encouraged, subject to the following standards: (1) More than one (1) principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code and all other applicable ordinances are met. Supp. 5 4-2'2 U'Keilly Automotive Variance n 00 n ri n n n n n n n J71 n N n n N n n n N n .-I ai ri a♦ 4-1 00 .- 1 tNLpJ r-1 r.I e-1 r-I a -I .-I 4-1 CV M si i 1 rl ri ei e-i I .-1 M .--1 N 00000000000 O O O O O O O O O O C C C O 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00 CO CO 00 1—0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N UUUUUUUUUUUUU U U U U U U U U V U V V V . . .Y . Y .]C c . Y -C Y -1C .X .X N • Y Y Y . Y Y -C f0 f0 J0 f0 r0 C ' • 2 10 r0 10 fO 10 f0 CO .0 CO RI iO Ri al M 1O (0 O` O. 0-4 aIti CI- O 0. CL S a a 0. 0. = d O. d d CL 0` d d V) V) N IA VI • V1 3 V1 in VI V) V) V) in Let col toVI IA VI V) VI ,` Y +0) Y Y Y ? y —I al a) a.) 0) 0) a/ al V j a) aJ a) a) a.) a) aJ al V W W vs i1J W r W U. • LLJ W W W W W kiJ L° W W W W UJ W W 4J 3( Nathan & Karen Dick Gerald & Patricia Palmer Trust 1( Bank of Colorado 1375 Cedar Ln 501 St. Vrain Ln, Unit 203 PO Box 897 2070 S. Sharon Ct. VI u _ IV V a) a) r4 ( Le iO ° Ioxxa 4, • C •a) • 0 O 10 c 7t 0) a) vCOo° (1) c aJ O J V c c e 0 f0 v m 1191 Graves Ave 3161 Fish Creek Rd Andria Amen 217 W Horsetooth Rd PO Box 2076 PO Box 4233 1450 Deer Path Ct PO Box 2736 St. Vrain Complex, LLC PO Box 279 PO Box 2781 Scott & Kim Miller 537 S. St. Vrain Ave Garth Lewis PO Box 2807 Glen Haven PO Box 162 131 Old Man Mountain Ln Moss Brook, LLC , W1',fV'A,C, , ,,,,',1,,N, ':XpW,,,, - '.„ Stanley Park Fairgrounds Variance Requests 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: November 6, 2012 REQUEST: Variance from the maximum allowed height to allow construction of a multi -use stall barn and a multi -purpose event center to be located in the western portion of the Stanley Park Fairgrounds. LOCATION: Stanley Park Fairgrounds (see aerial photo for general location) APPLICANT: Elena Scott, Norris Design (Frisco, CO) PROPERTY OWNER: Town of Estes Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant request variances to Table 4-5 "Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts" Maximum Height of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow two new public facilities to exceed the maximum allowed height of 30-feet: 1. A multi -use stall barn, would comply with the height limit except for three possible cupolas, which would be 30" 11" tall (from grade). 2, A multi -purpose event center, would include a clerestory (`light well') that would be 37' 6" tall from grade; the primary roof would comply with the 30-foot height limit. Please refer to the attached Statement of Intent for a more thorough outline of the project, including written and graphic descriptions, as well as an outline of the Stanley Park Master Plan (2006). Englneer/Surveyor/Consultant: Norris Design Planning and Landscape Architecture Parcel Number: 2530106901 Development Area: 42-acre tract, development area approximately one -acre in western portion Existing Land Use: Public fairgrounds Proposed Land Use: Same Zoning Designation: CO Commercial Outlying Adjacent Zoning: East: CO Commercia! Outlying North: CO Commercial Outlying West: R Residential South: CO Commercial Outlying XIIN daf113AI1VN O3DNVHN3 'NZ. f�f • 22222 PPU 00000 88 .. f EF mFF 000000 888 8 8 8 000000 z O Q DN3031 aNV 31l43HOS 1NVid 3ONVN3INIVW MULTI -USE STALL BARNS AT STNIEYPNOC FAIRGROUNDS _ P FP 8 6 Orlyipt 1141 €ol:1 I oil di 3; M • 0 00 00 0 0 gin ;HE; aqui lig Nip! .11;iiit 12F 11211 Irk g C 1 0 0 © 98 140111 !Id ESTES VALLEY LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES UVd Salgl NADI CO )11Nd 9133 SeilOMIJIVA AZINVIS SNIAVEI TRW 3sn-i1inw NECKED BY N � BARNS i {y AT STANLET PARK FAIRGROUNDS r.Iryor r� MULTI —USE STALL 1 • cc 1 s)RINird 5.1153 i() t\TAGT, d3 NO JO M f — fo, N. NO ol I a' SZ 21 c° cm 4 a a 4 e- F. 0 Id an SNW8 11V1S 3sn-a1nvu -6E0 0 )11 / 1 , / 1 I '''''''ti•e. /,,, /, // / ••-•:\ 1 z z 730 T2 t oNNA.ANNEAN A New EfULTI VENEENE EVENT canon f • kenney raceanetimtat 9,90-909 (0Z0)(..... RA! N,2()1. 1131.1433 1161A3 0soaana wuni.ati 09520100 • pusiO901 -stiaLoonaqa-t: ,..°1.;•?:,,.,":',-...`.1,,S;15.1`i-71.T.16;-.7,..ir 14:i 1.= 1,4,-"1.--zaz..;i:t1.,:'.i.'17:^-4-71-":1;T:F •17.7.412.1:7 41 jif pi .1. Ogi :7177 j ; LE: SOUTH ELEVATION rg° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bo A Maw MULTI PU EMMA PLAI AA km ® _^• kenney associates r „ 9990-999 (090)( 9949100S912 A eutuoi j. =r1s9,6 .1 j >WO 91.44,611 _ 6r. 11,N,A\()1 .rft, APCUll 3$0.1111.61111,1111,...1 V (;) F 1 o - oPyJet00 • Pueo•Aal 1A1.1"41YN V419 VOW '119 6 0 L4 CD E N CD 03 D FT O z • r Oki I MULTI -USE STALL BARNS AT SMMEY PARK FAIRGROUNDS ESTES PAPo(CO TOWN OF ISrF1S PARK 11 e ��1 ,Ay.�� o�5�evIr [l J��I.�� a�.niUT. mwati�wvawna.�amsiv SNaV9 llv1S 3Sn-I1InIN Z • -1131.1 az ai O2!} g8 g gW I o-- — - -{- 2 t n 1 h 2 �� 2 o-- __ u o---.--- 1 ---+ I j - i-1--i -- I —Ia a -+E--R I ---- a a -a— —_—_ .o --a 2 a a Ia a a_ I t—_a a a 2 _#. I �3 1 ---- I , , -- .4 I -- k [ M MI a MI 2 Ell 2 A 1 n 2 a 'J A II 1 Y9 d 0----.x_ —_--•1 — _aJ _• II p- F—:- t _a 4 a • •• A `--- 1 a a I a A 2 2 2 • aI I. •1 • 1 1 1 1 1iJY'Ok'711�'+'h � I :'�99FL pp cni.�6 i 11,C1�1I 1 II 4 I I I co .1"11 461 MULTI -USE STALL BARNS AT SMILEY PARK FARGROUNDS EMS PAPA CO TOWN OF BITS PARK -NIMI SUS -Do WW1 sorpinnn iwe�xasir SNZIV8 llV1S 3sn-Illnw w 1 a Adjacent Land Uses: East: Fairgrounds North: Fairgrounds/State Highway/Lake West Fairgrounds parking/Single-family residential - South.: Fairgrounds parking/lumber yard Services: Water: Town of Estes Pa rk Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District 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. These standards are included in the Board notebooks. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighboring Property Owners. Staff received a phone call from one nearby property owner who wanted to verify the meeting time and place. FINDINGS: 1. This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code, 2. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 6. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 8. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 9. Failure 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 shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. The Statement of Intent includes a request for a 5-year approval period, though the Board cannot approve such request. 1Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, November 6, 2012 161. Stanley Park Fairgrounds Variance Request Page 2 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval conditional to: 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment, with modifications as necessary during review process. 2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL (or disapproval) of the requested variances with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. The Board may opt to act on the height variances as two separate motions. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, November 6, 2012 Stanley Park Fairgrounds Variance Request Page 3 of 3 111111111111L100111111111111111 IIumou uoi WI m ouuumIW 0 m1�lll�l �I l0Oololi� �I�'I I@Illooln" u u N N m I' oo n I iii„IIY' ��' i f ° 'u um IA u uV II � m u g V I I i U I�u VI I ih � I IIIII�IIII III ulll i II ^II� o I d moullll I o��IIIV '>IIW'w VIII N� Vupl ulu,mIV°Uu uuml ! Vp,,, '��nu��hh�uuumi�INN'��iN null oolgoo .I.. IIIeV�Y��IYllluuVlu6�ei.n'lI��IWu�ll imWlm i��Vll.dlwm�nu.lNun��V Vu ..��.�uJum�.i.N�^p;�mWpumlHi'IIIII 'Iil O , ce % % / / %/ / ice u �lu,i � u�° il l I„ I � ' 11�IIIIlll lII�lIlluIIIIiuIIIIII I IIII4I1IIMN� �uuuau1ol�lN uVl41u �lm��ulNld,li„l ,uuo,00m' 4ouI��H'IN�llllllli ' IVlpl III IiNolll lilllllll d! Igiglll 1111 111111111111111111111 I11111VVI NA1111I1111I 11111111111 IIIIIII I,II IIl , 1' li1i" a II '!, 4I1l1iYuuqI �I leiiii WuuuuulUlllllip 11 ii Id��l��Ill�ooull�m�1aum Ililliiii li 1lll Ili;i°ii i Hp '1dl q lljiij l l �0!qu,L IOC i�� 111 1� �hpi 1�VYBIdh11111 dll I�',, a l� vuuuruulllllllllllllOhVlllll fIllu mmuu iuulmtlllllVul ��! IffuuuuuulliUUllllllVl,oulupluluu�uip;wllpuuuliUlllllllll � � ,I ,Illiiiliuliol!uul, j UTILITIES & PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS RE: Final/Public Review for Multi -Use Stall Barns and MPEC Height Variance Req. DATE: October 29, 2012 DEPARTMENT: Town of Estes Park Water STAFF CONTACT: Water Superintendent, Jeff Boles, thole 970-577-3608 COMMENT: The Water Department has no Final/Public Review comments for the above application. DEPARTMENT: Town of Estes Park Light & Power STAFF CONTACT: Line Supervisor, Todd Steichen, t i h� n�� g t i 970-577-3601 COMMENT: L&P has no comments or concerns with the requested height variance request. DEPARTMENT: Town of Estes Park Public Works STAFF CONTACT: Civil Engineer, Kevin Ash, PE, 970-577-3586 COMMENT: Not applicable — this is a Public Works project. DEPARTMENT: Town of Estes Park Building Department STAFF CONTACT: COMMENT: ial! Barns variance N. N. NN rrl LL11 m 1-4 N. r-1 r1 rn4 .n-1 rn-I N. . i m rn" L r^'I .-i-1 -ii rr4 M r^i 0 rr4 r44 i-I rr4 N ^ rr4 ri o uNi Ori m o 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO N lD m 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO 00 CO 00 00 CO F O X W J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O to tJ Z LL U U V U U V V V U U U V U U Q U U U U V U U U U U U U - i V -V . 3L . . Y -V a _ a a a a 0. an Ct. a. LCB Ls vi 0 coo E 10 w 0VI an VL col vl j VI Qf (0 W 0) N 2 OJ Ol 07 0 c 0 U W o 6 2 WJ W LLJJ W VI W U.L.W W 0 W 0 0 0 aJ 5 g Westminster . . -L .AC .-C - .at .�C - Y y .AC .Y L L L L L L 0J L L L L L L CO. ro Lo CO (0 CO c tv 1v 15 m S CO IT 0- in H CL >0. 0 in 0. O. 0 0 0 VP � 0 Y � Y � � � 4.1 � � V5 T VL V1 VI V1 LU VI V1 V1 VI 0 yS in Vl W J W W W W 0 W LL W W W W LL W W d O ut W M 4. �+ l7 LL) +' N O c N 00 Lin t r> Lll o to L u VI n r I N n -a v N v " t u./ �i fm.I N m ri O Z LOn 0 0 lO N 4f�1 a0 < Lin 0 0 0 L 0 N Ill m m °0 m m lb CO CD -- O d O cr'o Ln O O O m 1.00 N rtO O O a o. .-I m a N N r4 a N a N a m m m N ri M a a a el U c its VI 'L i 1.) 0) J c L c 13 c c } 0 ¢ ¢ c U 0 ,�0 '�+ Lv >. 0 .0 in E us a �_ 0 13.0 N) m t Ltl c C 00 U0 O fi2u c m L- O T z 'u ,15 0 0. . O Eo L = 2 0. (0 Li Lo ca Lo 0 }„' 0 CO C a V A c = ++ �. ›- E 0) 7 fD >- E VI L6 c ro w 0 ro L Lo E 0 0 M 4 a -M O7 = Y ++ E U w Q +� E -0 x (0 = a Q ` 0 vl °?S aJ aJ 0 4-' m 3 c O O Li in ' m~ �, 1- C 0 s °1 r ' ro °Zi -' cc E E v Y "0 m 1�.1 t0 u_ aL V "� L L7 °y v�i O O f0 aL' U LL > CA V G7 G Q -JJ u to LL VI r- IL-' VI u CC IE 3735 S Willow Cir Helen VanAntwerp PO Box 3005 6209 Saddleback Ave 1601 Brodie Ave PO Box 1467 240 North Ct t0 c .0 cu Too Ln c Z L9 N y J t7 0 o ro 0 0 c O o� u c cu ro 0) um C a 2 0 PO Box 3100 Rocky Mountain Nature Association Mira Steinbacher 1050 N St. Vrain Ave, Unit A FAIRGROUND Statement of intent HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 Background / Purpose The Town of Estes Park is in the process of obtaining approvals for two new multi -purpose stall barns to be located at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds. The new barns are a result of the community's desire to begin replacement of old and outdated stalls that are in use today and that new construction should be versatile and serve multiple purposes. Through the master planning and schematic design phases there have been three work session meetings with the Town Board, in addition to several stakeholder meetings. The Town Board has directed staff and the consulting team pursue building both the Multi -Purpose Stall Barn and the Multi -Purpose Event Center (MPEC) Barn concurrently. The proposed Multi -Use Stall Bam and MPEC at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds will provide the Town with many opportunities for marketing and hosting new events,, conferences or trade shows, in addition to improved facilities for equestrian events. During the stakeholder interview process the team heard from several groups about the need to attract more visitors to the Town of Estes Park during all times of the year, especially during the slow winter months. There is a need for multi -use space in the community to attract additional events, and these buildings will provide a location for user groups to rent. Additionally, the location of the multi -use facilities complements existing infrastructure, such as the parking lots that the Town has already built, and the barns will provide much needed restroom facilities in the North West quadrant of the Fairgrounds. In addition to providing space for new events, the upgraded Stall Barns can potentially attract a higher echelon of equestrian events. The current facilities are not adequate for some of the equestrian groups that have looked Into renting the Fairgrounds for a show in Estes Park. The new facilities will add to the uniqueness and sense of place that the Fairgrounds already have, certainly making it a premier venue for additional equestrian shows and events. The Fairgrounds currently have around 400 permanent stalls located throughout the site, including Barns A-S in the southeast comer and Bams T, U, V and W to the west of the Grandstand. The goal for the Fairgrounds at build out is to have 500 total permanent stalls, and to replace all of the existing stalls over time. The first stall barns to be replaced will be Barns A-S due to their age and condition. Over time, the Fairgrounds site build -out will include new buildings and barns to fulfill the build out goal of 500 total permanent stalls. Table 1: Pro . osed Barns Under Review with this Submittal Barn Phase 1 Multi -Use Stall Barn # Stalls Square Footage 99 26,230 Phase 2 MPEC 140 35,327 Total 234 61,551 9NV ➢ ��1IIIIIIyI i' �� 1(I��"IfFi'N My}1(/Wi G�f 11'M�bX� �ddPw �rvb V�� IIiV ✓k" �B ,��Ii�� III �Fo FAIRGROUND HEIQHT VARIANCE REQUEST SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 The Stanley Park Fairgrounds has an underlying zone district of Commercial Outlying and also follows "Architectural Design Criteria for New and Remodeled Structures at the Stanley Park Fairgrounds". The existing Grandstand was the first structure to follow the established design criteria for the Fairgrounds, and it includes architectural features such as cupolas, synthetic stone wainscoting and wood timber detailing. The color palette and materials reflect a 'refined Rocky Mountain rustic" theme and will greatly enhance the appearance and character of the Fairgrounds as buildings are remodeled and built over time. The Grandstand roof height is primarily at 29' and includes 5' cupolas that bring the height to 34'. The project received a variance in order to build the cupolas and comply with the Architectural Design Criteria. The Stanley Park Fairgrounds includes a collection of several existing stall barn buildings, maintenance barns, the Grandstand and other service related buildings. Since the original dedication from F.O. Stanley in 1937, the site has been used for Fairgrounds and community events. The site will continue to serve the community and play a role in hosting events for the Town, such as Rooftop Rodeo and Irish/Scottish Festival, and the new Multi -Purpose Stall Barn and MPEC will provide additional space for hosting such events and shows, as well as provide stalls for equestrian events. There have been several Master Plans developed for the site over the past 40 years, and all of them have contemplated additional stall barn buildings, potential Indoor Arenas, Multi -Purpose Event Centers and additional improvements that would potentially require height variances due to the size of the buildings, roof slope requirements and architectural features encouraged in the design guidelines. The purpose of this request is for a height variance, as both proposed barns may exceed the 30' height limit as required by the Estes Valley Development Code and described below. The approval of this Height Variance will be valid for a period of five (5) years. Design Criteria The proposed Multi -Use Stall Barn and MPEC are designed to complement one another, create an enhanced appearance at the Fairgrounds that is suitable for a variety of event types, and meet the required Architectural Design Criteria through colors, materials and architectural features. To meet occupancy code requirements, both buildings are sprinkled and will include restrooms. The MPEC building is designed to be the primary feature of the North West quadrant of the Fairgrounds. While it functions as a stall barn, its enhanced design and program elements will allow the facility to host a wide variety of events, conferences, tournaments and much more. Because of the facility's intent to be a multi -purpose event center, special attention was paid to architectural detailing, user experience and environmental sustainability. The building includes a clerestory roof structure, which will allow for natural light and ventilation to occur. The primary roof structure sits below the 30' height requirement, and the clerestory portion of the roof is 34'-1" to the top of the wall monitor and has a roof pitch height of 37-6". The proposed finished floor elevation for the MPEC is 7512.70'. The existing grade ranges from 7518' at the south side to 7511' on the north side, with an average of 7514.5'. it FAIRGROUND HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST 1 SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 Gs°r !'LEvAruON The Multi -Purpose Stall Barn is designed to complement the MPEC and provide a functional stall bam building that is also capable of hosting events for a variety of user groups. Through a series of meetings with the Town Board, it was determined that cupolas for the Multi -Purpose Stall Barn would be included as an "add alternate" during the construction bidding process. The cupolas are a decorative element encouraged in the design guidelines, such as the cupolas included variance approved for the Grandstand. Including the cupolas as an "add alternate" means that if contractors have a competitive price to install the cupolas, the Town may decide to include them. If an acceptable price isn't presented, the Town may opt to not include the cupolas. For this reason, a height variance is being requested for the cupolas in case that the Town decides to include them in the construction contract. The height of the metal roof without the cupolas is 27'-2 3/4 . The cupolas, which are 3' - 8'/4' tall, would take the building height to 30' —11�, The existing grade ranges from 7510' on the north side sloping to 7508' on the south side for an average of 7509'. The proposed finished floor elevation for the Stall Barn is 7512.00. 10101001n t i110101111111 111111101111101111L 11 11101140101111 11014000 0 The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan describes the Stanley Park Fairgrounds as part of the Fish Creek / Little Prospect Land Use Area. The Plan's special considerations discuss the potential for redevelopment at the Fairgrounds and the enhanced visual impact that will occur with redevelopment at the site. The proposed improvements to the Stanley Park Fairgrounds meet the established architectural design guidelines, the updated Fairgrounds Master Plan and the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Multi -Use Stall Bam and MPEC will enhance the appearance of the Fairgrounds and improve the visual character of the area. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: 9-26-12 ro011;'II :wk gr';�c;aw 010yVi",;9tl'11 Street Address of Lot: NA - Fairgrounds Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Parcel ID # : 2530106901 is uurd, rr;e,eCc,sd' SEp Lot Size 42 acres Zoning Commercial Outl in W, / Public Lands Existing Land Use Fairgrounds Proposed Land Use Fairgrounds Existing Water Service le Town III Well i""""" Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service Town Well III- Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD i1 UTSD V Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD • UTSD r. Septic Existing Gas Service !• Xcel Other r,.. None Site Access (if not on public street) Community, Manford Are there wetlands on the site? III Yes l• No �� Section #): Building height (height Variance D 'sired (Development Code 1'iYmu 1);:i "1Y lr 1 :i Cl„ I 1 b"' IT)! :1,k�r�"ypa Name of Primary Contact Person Elena Scott.......... Complete Mauling Address PO Box 2320 Frisco, CO 80443 Prima Contact Person is D'"` Owner i— A',. ! scant fa Consultant/E riineer Application fee (see attached fee schedule) - Not applicable - Town Project If Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) IF 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') •" • 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VIL5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park -a P„O. Box 1200.0% 70 MacGregor Avenue .s. Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Devekopment Deportment Phone: (9701577-372i .a Fax (970) 584S.0249 .e` www.estes.org/ComDev Revised 11/20/09 Olt '1.(14!' ,„„o, #410,10 1,011\011111' Record Owner(s) Town of Estes Park Mailing Address 170 MacGregor Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone 970-577-3582 - Scott Zum Cell Phone Fax Email szum@estes.org Applicant Elena Scott Mailing Address POB 2320 Frisco, CO 80443 Phone 970-368-7068 Cell Phone 970-485-4478 Fax 303-892-1186 Email escott@norris-design.com ConsultantlEnglneer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both Inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised I 1/20/09 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. P. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► 1 acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: hap://wwwAttmortcornOeitp„oicAR P. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► 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. P. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. P. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. O. 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 appllication. P. 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. 1 understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittall of an application that has become null and void. ► II 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. II 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. P. I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.' (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT° Applicant PLEASE PRINT 04 T` mEc, Signatures: Record Owner Date Applicant Date Revised 11/20/09 Zoning Districts Zoning District § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts BuiIdIngIt Minimum Lot Size [7] Up Structure Setbacks [4] [8] 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 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 (Oni. 15-03 43) Area (sq ft) 40,000 [2] 15,000 [2] Accommo- dation uses = 20,000 All other uses = n/a Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commercial CO n/a Recreation/ Entertain- ment 40,000 [2] All other tots = 15,000 [2] Width (ft) 100 [3] 50 [3] SF & 2-Family (stand- alone) = 25; MF (stand- alone) = 100; AD other uses = n/a Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 Mint - mum = 8 Maxi- mum = 16 Fronting Arterial arterials = = 25 [5]; 200; All other Ali other streets lots = 50 =15 Max. Mqx. Lot Bldg Cover - Height Max. age (ft.) [9] FAR (%) _ _,...._ Side Rear (ft.) 15 [6] 10 [6] If lot abuts a residential property = 10; At other cases = 0 If lot abuts a residential property = 10; All other cases = 0 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 65 Supp. 5 4 21 • Zoning Districts § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts Zoning District 0 Minimum Land �w_.. .. � . ..., �. _m....�..._..®®_ �...... d Minimum Area per Building!Structure Accomrno- Minimum Lot Size [71 dation or a� Residential Unit Area (sq. ft. per unit) (sq'ft) Residential Units (2n4 Floor) 1 unit 2,250 sq. ft. GFA of principal use. Setbacks [a] [S] Max. Building Width Front Side Rear Height Max. (ft-) (ft•) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) [9] FAR 15,000 [2] Fronting Arterials = 200; All other Tots = 50 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 streets =15 Max. Lot Coverage (%) 50 CH 1-1 n/a 6,000 [2] nla 15,000 [2] 50 Fronting Arterials = 200; All other Tots = 50 (Ord. 2-02 #6; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 15-03 #3) 15 0 [6] 0 [6] 30 .50 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 10 [6] 10 [6] 30 .30 80 80 NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1] For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that haveAA 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] For Tots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shall be 200 feet. [4] See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 1 [5] 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. [6] 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 slopes. (Ord. 2-02 #6) [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 height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) 5. Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel. a. Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted. One (1) or more principal uses shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that in the A zoning district, only one (1) principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel. b. Permitted Mix of Uses. Where more than one (1) principal use is permitted per lot or development parcel, mixed -use development is encouraged, subject to the following standards: (1) More than one (1) principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code and all other applicable ordinances are met. Supp. 5 4-22 of the Couatr. Urinal . Clad State of Colostdo, swat Dart. Cad of the Torn of Sates Park, Colorado, a munioipal corporation Cauatr of, Lorimer • tad Stan of Coloaadq of the nand Pert: WITNa6a6THr'That tho said pasty ' oL the ar1t,'paa, tar Cad la coa!td!rsttoo of thi lam at to the call Cart y oe ell. arse part m hood One and poi`? 00 n ' receipt • *barest le hereby coaf.sed and a Paid by -the said Dart y of the mood part; the' Cad ehaarlada� ba a • and b 9ame its a do s a a b�. salt, coal and ash, unto the gold sold and ooael the st loud. a n' i end singe fermi, ell the following deaortbad lot y • as the 177ai and of Camrsdo,to+wit: bang the County of or goal Lorimar' and theta • All the part of tilt Werth 4• of 8eation 80, Tovttehip 5 North if. Range 72 'diet of the 6th Principal Meridian, being bounded as follows e'to-wit i • . 0t{ the South lay the 'oath line of said North it of said Sanction 801 an the • Meat by the Seat line of said Sect -ties 20= on the Garth by the center line of higicreykslowu as Colorado State• ?tighvay No. 16 (ail at this time located and in part determined by deed heretofore exsaauted to George B. Storar)t and on the Neat by the venter line of Colorado State Highway No. ? as the tans it nav located: Said tract contains ..11 acres more or leas. This conveyance is milder subject to rights -of -way for roads and subject to Stanley restrictions hereinafter mentioned. There is also herewith conveyed anyani °'1 meter rights appertaining to aaiJd land. ° • The above deacribed land is hereby conveyed°to the said Top. Of fetes Park for,usa by said Town ao.ely sa a public park end raareation grounds* The Torts shall, have full control Arid use of &aid premises for such purposes and may improve and beautify said lands to carry out aura purposes. The Town may construct such improvements thereon as said Topts may deem neoeseery and proper for the carrying >'ytt of the parposea herein specified.- The Town they permit auah linda to be wed for public. entertainment upon auch tartar and Conditions and for aim* 'rpiital as it 'toy dated proper; but the Town shall not sell or other'wisa dispute"o' _said property and ahoyld the said Town attempt to sell laid property orw"diepose of the dame or should aaid property be used for arty other purposes than those herein specified. thenand in that event acid property ghaLl, revert to -the grantor; his heirs, executors, peraonal •repreaentatires. or assigns. It is' further stipulated that aajd lands shall be designated and known as Stanley Park. ' TOGETHER .grill alb tan. '4 4 filar the eredlhmeata . meace; via( apDsitelatag, Lad. the reiersfoa Cad Totr'glcae, r add aD'retaanos'g'memptlu 's and.p flti' e* •ot: and ill the estate, hat, tale: ioteree arotod a tn4•remalad. a ratite, naps• and.Drofti "titers. t� staial and 4otaa0Q wbitso.'ar of "the .eild past Y • of a5. first Dirt. .;a1a4r ta'iax or gquler, of. in•and to the SbQre bargatesd pr.mlay, wttb.ths bersd TO 4!ts ',AND • Efsm.or#� a>}d ►pdnataasa, , .. TO . I b u cos Oar6 3i, silt totality< ` abari' bergsltts1 and doscrIbi i nato•ahe'gild• party ' of the ° E tees8� d }rDt rtsdarf �•ot ma &ft Darn for . him gel f �� °aatcaa for'etsr �� '�{� % sea n iret •bar is add ` ° hi"t/Wm;'o oton,sands ltm.alstra as agree tb Cad with the 'geld party itf.e� oars•• asetine,.that at °the !loys•.ef the•'aassa11m and, deliv ry of thus prsa tte! sm S •••• �`ilrifel add. the •Prinatio above coniisrid, so of °good. •sure a *•• °' w ire of • !a �4 y "=s±�. absolute' sad ° •�daf.eesble utata of inheeltaace, is haw, Casts "il ltulsr sand form ea *coif oeuat AVM tin!l-power and' laetfidentlier 'tti inter bets le, tilt Fad eontsy xhi air r d• and,°that th.•saute erex " iAd 1946g a is an t*i enta pad .1Y►entisiraltcen of briar -kt 4 or netioil boararr. '� -other Ma,. a F, .• Lad tba abors barghted pf�ee is the'nuldt sa3`p ialable:Dtiii how hf beesa,ld •pi?t y V iacoad part,ita tlilaae, Cad aaakco; at stoatAl.:tad a•aL.Ftb. "shim tee rtAt or is A err droop or Dinem lawfuDy' lalmlog or •to Dart theraaf, the raid party, AND PO VIDR DETEND, • . oZ..ths.IIrst.�art:tji. •swan•Fill :p/A • to 4R.r P ese.W iriailS ;'•fiee''safe iiIrti ° tip tYe Eric iii.tAi II', - bsriuhto !s'! "• •° bud end is e ." d'::+ FdrV And roar drat Chars written. • 81gaeE 'Sulks aad••°D4li.ilhit•Pressace of Attachment B: Stanley Deed 16