Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2012-08-07Prepared: August 1, 2012 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, August 7, 2012 9:00 a.m. - Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes dated July 3, 2012 3. METES & BOUNDS, 552 W. ELKHORN AVENUE Owner: Elkhorn Commercial Properties, LLC (Jim Burstein) Applicant: Picnic in the Park, LLC (Angie Wing nee Huffman) Request: Variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E(2)(b), which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 30-feet from the defined bank of the river; and EVDC Section 7.13.6.2, which requires trash collection be located more than 20 feet from any public street, public sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way. Request to allow a bear -proof dumpster and add a proposed landing and stairs. Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. REPORTS A. 2855 Eaglecliff Drive update 5. ADJOURNMENT 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. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 3, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Chair John Lynch, Members Bob McCreary, Wayne Newsom Jeff Moreau, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Chris Christian Chair Lynch, Members Smith, Lynch, Moreau, Alternate Member Christian Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member McCreery 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 two people In attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the May 1, 2012 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 2121 EAGLE CLIFF ROAD Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Thomas Caldwell, requests a variance to EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards", to allow a side -yard setback of 8-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required in the E-1— Estate zone district. The purpose of the variance request is to allow removal, replacement, and expansion of an existing deck. Planner Shirk stated the property meets the minimum lot size for the zone district, but a hardship was created by the existing dwelling that was built prior to the setbacks being adopted. This request was submitted to all applicable agencies and adjacent property owners. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. The properly owners at 2117 Eagle Cliff Road provided a letter of support. Larimer County Building Department noted there were two outstanding building permits, and `the owner must obtain final inspection approval for the wood stove expired permit." The applicant was made aware of this requirement. Planner Shirk stated the requested variance would not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. The variance request represents the least deviation from the regulations lhat will afford relief. If approved, failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one year of shall automatically render the decision of the Board of Adjustment null and void. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance, conditional to compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. In this case, staff does not require a setback certificate due to the location of the proposed deck. Staff and Member Discussion Member Moreau asked for and received clarification of the expired building permits. Public Comment Mr. Caldwell was in attendance for questions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 12, 2012 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/ Moreau) to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. PORTION OF NORTH 1 OF SECTION 29-5-72,1770 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this was a variance request by Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I, LLC, aka Estes Park Resort (formerly the Lakeshore Lodge). The property owner requests to removal and replacement of an existing off -premise sign, locate a new sign in an access easement, and exceed the maximum size limit in regards to the Larimer County Land Use Code. Planner Shirk explained that while the Estes Park Resort property is inside the town limits, the proposed sign location is outside the town limits but within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) area. He stated the existing sign has been altered without a sign permit or approval from the Board of Adjustment, and is currently in violation of the most recent variance in 2003 and the Larimer County Sign Code. Planner Shirk stated the resort was built prior to the adoption of the EVDC and was annexed into the Town in 2001. The original sign was designed to keep in character and scale of the Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District's (EVRPD) marina sign, and one condition of approval was the sign could not exceed the allowable size limit set by the Larimer County Sign Code. Planner Shirk stated the previous variance approval stated because the sign is on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and managed by the EVRPD, the sign must look similar to the Estes Park Marina sign. The new owner of the resort desires to change the design scheme, and the new director of the EVRPD does not object to this change. Planner Shirk explained the resort has one owner, the proposed sign location is owned by the federal government, and the land under the proposed sign is managed by the EVRPD. When the current property owner purchased the property, the previous variances did not transfer with the property. In short, this was a difficult application to process. The applicant desires to change the design in order to distinguish it from the marina to increase visibility to the entrance of the resort. The proposed sign would have a stone base, aligning with the design of the canopy at the resort. There would be minimal lighting changes, and the proposed sign would be nearer to the pedestrian walkway than the existing sign. lit has been determined that the proposed sign would not be in the site - visibility triangle. The resort does not have direct frontage to the highway, so a hardship exists. Planner Shirk stated the Larimer County Sign Code prohibits signs from being located within access easements. However, this is the only location the BLM would allow the sign. Staff found the relocation outside of the easement would have no discernible impact. Staff supported the idea of an off -premise identification sign designed to help customers know where to turn, but did not support the idea of an off -premise sign designed to advertise the site or attract undue attention. Staff is recommending approval of the sign, with conditions. Staff recommended placing the off -premise sign as close to the resort property as possible. Staff also recommended against approving the proposed sign size of 53 square feet, instead keeping it to 33 square feet, the maximum size allowed by the Larimer County sign code. Member Newsom asked for clarification on how the size is measured. Planner Shirk stated Larimer County building staff calculated the upper oval -shape size at 38 square feet and the lower rectangular shape at 15 square feet. When two signs are on one base, they are calculated as one sign. Planner Shirk stated the Board would be voting on whether or not to allow an off -premise sign, and whether or not to allow a variance to the maximum size of the proposed sign. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 12, 2012 Planner Shirk pointed out several areas of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan that the Board should consider when reviewing this request. He did not normally include this information with variance requests, but due to the proposed sign being off -premise and located at the entrance to the Estes Valley via Highway 34, felt It was important for the Board to be aware of the guidelines. Briefly, the Comprehensive Plan addresses monument signs, the scenic character and visual quality of open space, protection of Lake Estes as an entry to the town, improvements to the overall image and character of developed areas within the Estes Valley, and ensurance that new development minimizes visual and environmental impacts. Planner Shirk stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. Public Engineer Kevin Ash recommended installing a pedestrian crossing sign at the exit of the resort to alert drivers of the pedestrian trail running parallel to the highway. Larimer County staff stated sign and building permits would be required if the variance was approved. Staff and Member Discussion Discussion followed among staff and Board members. General topics included 1) methods used to determine sign size, 2) visibility of sign when entering Estes Valley from Highway 34, and 3) the need to support local business efforts to succeed. Public Comment Rodney Eaton/sign company representative stated this application process began approximately 18 months ago. Because the resort is set back off the road, he stated the property owners must rely on this sign for clear identification of the resort location. The Waterfront Grille sign indicates the Estes Park Resort is a place to stay and a place to eat. Both signs would be internally illuminated, using dark sky initiative regulations. Only the white lettering will be lit, not the entire sign. Concerning the variance for the increased size of the proposed sign, Mr. Eaton stated the actual resort building would not have any signage that would otherwise be permitted by the Town sign code. He thought the lack of signage on the building would justify the request to increase the proposed off -premise sign size. He stated the proposed sign would be placed approximately one sign length back from the existing sign. If the desired size of 53 square feet was not approved by the Board, he stated the sign could be adjusted accordingly. There was discussion among staff and the Board as to whether or not the Waterfront Grille sign was considered an advertising or identification sign, the importance of the pedestrian crossing sign, and how the motion should be presented. Conditions 1. Compliance with approved site and sign plans, except for revisions required below. 3. A Model Uniform Traffic Code Devices 'pedestrian crossing' sign shall be installed at the applicant's expense prior to issuance of a sign permit. 4. A surveyor shall provide a surveyors certificate to document location of sign. 5. Landscaping as shown on plan, or alternative approved by staff, shall be installed immediately upon completion of the sign, and shall be maintained in accordance with Section 7.5.J Maintenance Requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the variance request to allow the off -premise sign with the findings and conditions as presented by staff, removing condition #2, which would then allow the proposed sign size to remain at the desired 53 square feet, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. REPORTS Director Chiicott reported staff has been working on gathering property owner information in the Woodland Heights fire area. Planner Shirk has been working with the Town and County GIS departments to identify and determine the number of structures burned. Director Chiicott stated if burned structures are located within the setbacks of properties, property owners are allowed to rebuild in the same footprint without obtaining a variance, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 July 12, 2012 if they pull a building permit and begin construction within one year of the burn date and complete construction within three years. Director Chilcott reported staff is researching what levels of changes might come through this board as property owners begin to rebuild. Additionally, the EVDC does not allow recreational vehicles to be used as temporary housing. Staff is researching the feasibility of placing a temporary moratorium on this regulation for those directly affected by the fire. Any moratorium would contain limitations on who could live there and for what time period. Director Chilcott reported the decision on the future of the burned trees that remained standing in the fire area will be Ileft to the property owners. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary `Picnic In The Park' 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: August 7, 2012 REQUEST: Variance from the 30-foot river setback to allow an egress landing/stair and walk-in cooler; a variance from the 25-foot arterial setback to allow a trash enclosure; and a variance to allow the trash enclosure in the front yard instead of the rear as required by the development code. LOCATION: 552 W. Elkhorn Avenue APPLICANT: Picnic in the Park, LLC (Angie Wing nee Huffman) PROPERTY OWNER: Elkhorn Commercial Properties, LLC (Jim Burstein) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests variances to the river setback, arterial setback, and Iocational requirement for trash enclosures. The river setback variances are to allow an egress landing/stairway on the west side of the building and a walk-in cooler on the east side of the building. The arterial setback variance and Iocational requirement for the trash enclosure are to allow the proposed bear proof trash enclosure to be located in the front yard setback (Section 7.13.B.2 requires trash enclosures be located in the rear of the property). Engineer/Surveyor/Consultant: BASIS Architecture Parcel Number: 3525200015 Development Area: 1,300 square foot Existing Land Use: Previously coffee shoplroastery Proposed Land Use: Take-out restaurant Zoning Designation: CO Commercial Outlying Adjacent Zoning: East: RM Multi -Family North: A Accommodations West: A Accommodations South: RM Multi -Family Adjacent Land Uses: East: Multi -family residential North: Accommodations West: Accommodations South: Multi -family residential Services: Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: EPSD These variance requests are in conjunction with a change -of -use permit (building permit) for a takeout restaurant specializing in wood -fired pizza, rotisserie chicken, and sandwiches. The concept of the restaurant is to provide pre -packaged picnic meals for guests to pick up and take on picnics (or home or back to their hotel rooms). Please note, this is an allowed use in this zone district, and the conversion is not significant enough to warrant a development plan. Special circumstances exist. These include the size of the lot, which is approximately 1,300 square feet. New commercial subdivisions require a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet (.91 acres) for commercial lots located on arterial streets; the existing lot is .03 acres. This small size is compounded by the triangular shape of the lot. These two factors are further compounded by the arterial street setback and river setback. The proposed egress landing/stairs are required by the building code, and would be located above an existing paved area, for which a variance was granted several years ago. The proposed trash enclosure would replace an existing trash structure, which is also located in the front yard but is not fully enclosed. The new enclosure would be fully enclosed (architectural renderings will be available prior to the meeting), and would include landscaping, and would move the trash dumpster out of the river setback. The proposed walk-in cooler would be a new addition, and would be located within the required 30-foot river setback (Note: the existing structure is located almost entirely within the river setback). The cooler should be painted to match the color of the existing buillding. REVIEW CRITERIA: Iln 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. At the time this report was writing, Staff had received one email inquiry regarding noise/air quality ordinances. The development code does not include air quality regulations, though the Health Department does; the Health Department was not notified of this variance request, though they are involved with the building permit process. It is staff's opinion the request to locate the walk-in cooler in the river setback or to locate the trash enclosure in the front yard setback will not have any effect on noise or air quality. FINDINGS: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 7, 2012 Page 2 of 3 "`Picnic In The Park" Variance Request 1. The requests comply 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 variances are not substantial. 4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 6. The variances represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7. These requests have 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval conditional to: 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 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 Walk-in cooler shall be painted to match the color of the building. 4. Trash enclosure shall be fully enclosed with locking doors, and shall be painted to match the existing building. 5. The trash enclosure shall be screened with landscaping, At a minimum, two shrubs shall be planted on the north side of the trash enciosure and one deciduous tree on the east side. The landscaping plan shall be subject to review and approval of staff, and shall comply with landscaping requirements dellineated in Section 7.5 of the Estes Valley 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, August 7, 2012 Page 3 of 3 'Picnic in The Park" Variance Request Dave Shirk From: Dave Shirk Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:36 AM To: 'Thomas Thurman' Subject: RE: questions on Variance Request for Picnic in the Park, LLC COM Alt The development code does not address either noise or air quality. The municipal code does include a noise ordinance, though I do not expect the walk-in cooler to exceed those levels. Almost all walk-in coolers are located outside the building, attached to the rear/side of the building - a good example can be found at Crossroads Ministry on Wildfire Road, where they recently installed a walk-in cooler - that will give you a good idea of how loud (or quite) walk-in coolers are. The development code does require outdoor equipment be screened or painted. The variance request is not to allow the equipment to be located outside, but only to be located in the river setback. This means our review of the request needs to be tied to the impact of the location within the river setback. For example, what would be the additional impact of the cooler being located 20-feet from the river as opposed to 30-feet. Regarding the trash dumpster location, the development code requires them to be located in the rear of the lot, so that part of the variance is to allow the dumpster to be located in the front. My initial opinion is this is beneficial to the apartments across the river, because that will move the odor and noise associated with trash collection further away from the apartments and with the walk-in located in between. Original Message From: Thomas Thurman (ailto:thurgian.t p ] Sent: Thursday, 7uly 19, 2012 6:46 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: thomas thurman; Suzanne Thurman Subject: questions on Variance Request for Picnic in the Park, LLC Dear Mr. Shirk, I note that the referenced request does not include any requests for variance related to the residential impacts of moving equipment outdoors where the noise will be significant. Are there any relevant noise/air quality requirements that the requestor would have to meet? I am unfamiliar with Estes Park codes so before we would post any comments we would want to have the facts from the city. Thank you for the consideration of the request. Tom and Suzanne Thurman Estes Valley Board of Adjustment P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Verd and Cherri Bailey 540 W. Elkhorn Avenue, B3 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 July 31, 2012 RE: Objection to Request for Variances at 552 W. Elkhorn Avenue Dear Sirs: We own condominiums and reside at 540 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado in condominiums located directly across the river from the 552 W. Elkhorn Avenue where there has been a request for a variance for a business development plan. There are 15 condominium units in Buildings A and B which are directly across the river south. The Association also owns the vacant lot across the river west of the project next to the Elkhorn Lodge property. WE OPPOSE THE VARIANCES FOR THE FOLLOWING PERSONAL REASONS 1. Although the current dumpster is located on the west side of the property, it is much Tess offensive and obtrusive to us than it would be if located on the east side of the property. Although it may be less visible to highway traffic, it is extremely close to Elkhorn Avenue and to our condominiums and would be much more offensive to us if the dumpster is allowed to be relocated. It also appears to violate the road set back requirements. 2. Obviously the building is not big enough for the proposed business; otherwise, they would not have to install a walk-in cooler on the outside of the building. The installation appears to be towards the back of the building and we object to a walk-in cooler being placed on the backside of the building and especially to being placed to the rear of the building. The noise created by the cooling units would be excessive and offensive to us as neighbors. 3. We will now be facing and smelling a huge exhaust fan for a pizza oven, rotisserie and other ovens. We had to spend five years across from a highly offensive odorous coffee roasting business which finally moved. We do not need to be next to the exhaust from a pizza oven, a rotisserie oven and other ovens and the noise from a cooling system. This would adversely affect the enjoyment of the property and the value of our property. Also, we would not be able to enjoy our deck, our waterfall and the river. Our condos would no longer be our comfortable riverside residence but would likely turn into rental property, which would be a substantial change in the neighborhood. There are no other restaurants close by so this would be a change in the neighborhood. 4. We believe that the development standards promulgated by the Estes Valley Development Code should be strictly adhered to. Under Section 7.6, 7.9 of the Code, there is a specific requirement that all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least 30 feet horizontally from the annual high-water mark of the river corridor or, if not readily ascertainable from the defined bank of the river. 5. It is a historic legal interpretation, the term "shall" means "it shall be done", not that it may be or may not be done. We respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment follow the development codes and not allow the variance. 6. The new dumpster location does not appear to be set back the required 20 feet from the public street; nor does the front set back appear to be 20 feet if ramp is considered to be part of the building. 7. We would request that the Board of Adjustment not grant the variance for the installation of the walk-in cooler in its present location. The walk-in cooler should be moved to the front of the building or required to be inside the building if allowed at all. It should be placed where it is in compliance with the river and the road setbacks. It appears from the site plan that the walk-in cooler is within 9 feet of the approximate edge of the river bank and well within the 30 foot setback request. The cooler is approximately 7x14 feet or 98 square feet. It would be less offensive if the applicant would be allowed to construct an addition to the building for the cooler, which would totally enclose the unit, than to allow the walk-in cooler to be outside. WHY WE OPPOSE THE VARIANCES FOR LEGAL REASONS Pursuant to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6(c) relative to Standards For Review, all applications for variances, "shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth" by special circumstances or conditions that exist such as exceptional topographic conditions or the shape of the property, etc. It is our position as follows: a. The building on the property has been in place for several years and prior to the amendment of the zoning code. The property has been historically, successfully used as a dentist office, veterinary clinic, retail store ("The Indian Store"), architectural office and a coffee roasting facility. There was never a need to apply for a variance relative to location for dumpsters or installation for steps on the west side of the building and never an application or need to install a walk-in cooler outside the building. We believe there was in the past and still are beneficial uses of the property without the addition of a walk-in cooler outside. The dimensions of the walk-in cooler are approximately 7'xI4'. They appear to be half the width of the building which we find to be highly offensive and the noise generated by the compressor and fans would certainly adversely affect our use of our property and the value of the property. b. Whether the variance is substantial. It is significant that the property involved herein is located in a wetlands and stream corridor protection area under Section 7.6 of the Development Code. Under 7.6(e)2(b), there is an exception for lots developed prior to the adoption of the Code which means a 30 foot setback. This is 20 feet shorter than new buildings to be constructed or developed not in a wetlands and stream corridor. 2. Based on the copy of the site plan we have, we do not believe, as stated in the application, that the walk-in cooler to the east side of the property next to the building is approximately 19 feet from the riverbank. We believe that distance is much, much shorter, being approximately 9 feet from the river bank. We believe this, in and of its self, is a substantial variance. We not only believe that a 21 foot variance to relocate the dumpster is a substantial variance, the addition of the second public access (stairs) and landing to the west of the building combined with the addition of the walk-in cooler, approximately 9 feet from the riverbank, is a substantial variance. The fact that they have asked for three variances so they can attempt to make this project work on a property that is too small for their project in and of itself is a substantial variance. The property is not large enough for this project and the variance should be denied. We also believe this a substantial variance because we are fairly certain that our property east of the Building A, the property owned by Elkhorn and the property located west of Building B is a wetlands and not just a river corridor. It is further our position that the applicants, by installing a grease separator and by the placement of a walk-in cooler outside the building, have disturbed and altered the area, especially the vegetation between the eastside of the building and the road. Relative to the walk-in cooler, the walk-in cooler is approximately nine feet from the approximate edge of the river bank. It would seem that a 21 foot variance from a 30 foot requirement that close to the river would be substantial variance. This walk-in cooler could Ieak coolant or other fluid which would pollute the river or catch on fire and the fire could easily catch trees on fire on the property and climb up and crown over to the trees on the Elkhorn property and catch the condominium units on fire. c. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. We are somewhat perplexed as to why the Town would approve the installation of the grease trap without a variance. It is our understanding that the present sewer line runs directly under the building. If the Town is extremely concerned about obstacles being built over the current sewer system, why would installing a walk-in cooler and a bear -proof dumpster make any sense or be a way to alleviate that problem; doesn't it only exacerbate the problem? We have no idea what the grease trap is, how it would affect the sewer lines or what the potential of clogging the sewer lines could be if not properly maintained. d. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement, we would assume the applicant, for the variances, if they purchased the property from the prior owner, would have done his due diligence and would have been advised of the zoning restrictions and the need for the variety of variances prior to the purchase. Also, we would think they were aware of the many complying uses the building had previously been used for. Even if they are renting the building, they should have known or had constructive notice of the regulations in the water corridor/wetlands. Hopefully they were advised by the Planning and Zoning Department of these potential problems. e. The next criterion is whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than the variance. It would seem that the interior design of the 3 building could be reconfigured to allow adequate cooler space to be placed inside the structure. What the applicant is doing is attempting to add at least 98 square feet of space outside of the building which he would not be allowed to do if he wanted to remodel and expand the building by 98 square feet. Surely the interior of the building could be re- configured, especially regarding the area where they have an office or where they have a customer "bar -top counter" to provide for them a cooling space. If the interior floor plan could not be created to include the cooler inside, then the building is not of sufficient size and should not be used for this business. The building should be used for a compliant purpose as it has been in the past as a dentist office, veterinary clinic, business office, retail store or other professional offices. f. Did the applicant create the hardship? The need for the cooler outside was a creation by the applicant and to allow the cooler outside would be in violation of the policy relative to the Board of Adjustment and definitions in the Code, it would also be, in effect, allowing the owner to add another 98 square feet to his building. If the Board of Adjustment allows the cooler to be placed outside, then Board has an obligation to minimize the damage it is doing to the neighborhood and minimize the effect it would have on the property it is located on. That cooler, if allowed, should be fully enclosed and located in front of the building outside the ear shot of neighbors. Pursuant to the definition in the development code for variance, "to mean a grant by the Board of Adjustment permitting to an owner to use a lot not holding accordance with the provisions of this code, because the BOA finds that certain conformance would be an unusual hardship not created by the owner but depriving him or her of a reasonable use of the lot. Such grant specifies a minimum deviation or deviation from the regulations intended to cure the hardship but not create detrimental conditions affecting abutting property owners or the public at large." It is our position that the hardship, that requires the variance, is a hardship the owner or lessee created themselves and therefore, the variance, especially the request relative to the 7'x14' welk- in cooler is a hardship they created and they should not be allowed a variance The Colorado Supreme Court in Levy v The Board of Adjustment of Arapahoe County 149 Colo 493, 502 (1962), "Without deciding whether "self-inflicted hardship" is in and of itself an absolute bar to the granting of a variance, it is at the very least a highly significant fact which, according to the Ardolina case, is a material element bearing on the issue "and weighs heavily against the owner seeking the variance." Where, as here, the Board of Adjustment has determined that such fact is sufficient reason to deny the request for a variance, such determination should be upheld on review as a reasonable exercise of a discretionary power." The applicant created the hardship by buying or renting a building that was too small for their needs and now wants to add an outside walk-in cooler to help correct that problem. In Murry v Board of Adjustment. Larimer County. Colorado. Court of Appeals 94, p 2d, 596 (1979) at 598 states, "Rezoning procedures entail detailed notice requirements and study by staff and the planning commission. Variances should not be used as a way to avoid the normal processes of amending zoning resolutions. (Cases sited). The hardship or practical difficulty upon which the need for a variance is premised should not be self-created. Levy v Board of Adjustment 149 Colo 493, 369 P. 2d 991 (1962), and it must be a type peculiar to this property 4 owner and not shared by others. The court continued, "the power to grant a variance in the application of established zoning regulations should be exercised charily.,. The obvious reason is that unless great caution is used and variations are granted only in proper, cases, the whole fabric of ... zoning will be worn through in spots and raveled at the edges until its purpose in protecting property, values and securing an orderly development of the community is completely thwarted." If we want our zoning to be effective then variances should not be granted when the need for them is self-inflicted. They also should not be granted when objected to by neighbors who are adversely affected by the granting of the variance. OTHER CONCERN We are concerned about the parking. Is there adequate number of parking spaces and whether the parking lot is set back is sufficient distance from the annual high water mark. There are sand bags on the right of the river running on the west side of the property and occasionally water does flood that parking lot. Isn't there a requirement that the parking lot be set back thirty or fifty feet from the river? We are concerned about the preservation of vegetation. All existing vegetation within the stream/river corridor or wetland buffer/set back area shall be preserved and when necessary to provide adequate screening or repair damages of riparian areas supplemented with additional native planting and landscaping. Installation of the grease trap, and other utilities on the east side of the building, destroyed all of the vegetation that was there. We are concerned that the provisions of 7.13, Outdoor Storage and Mechanical Equipment, are being strictly followed and enforced: 1. Loading and unloading. 2. Twenty -foot clearance setback from streets for trash collection. 3. Outdoor equipment (walk-in cooler) views of these areas to be screened from visibility from all properties. 4. Conduits, meters, vents and other equipment attached to or protruding from roof will be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impact. Yours very truly, Verd R. Bailey kadel Cherri Bailey August 2, 2012 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Picnic in the Park Variance Dear Sirs: We own a condominium at 540 W. Elkhorn Avenue Unit B-1, Estes Park, Colorado in condominiums located directly across the river from the 552 W. Elkhorn Avenue where there has been a request for a variance for a business development plan. There are 15 condominium units in Buildings A and B which is directly across the river south. The Association also owns the vacant lot across the river west of the project next to the Elkhorn Lodge property. We oppose the variances for the following personal reasons: 1. Although the current dumpster is located on the west side of the property, it is much less offensive and obtrusive to the residents of the Elkhorn Plaza Condominium Association than it would be if located on the east side of the property. Although it may be less visible to highway traffic, it is extremely close to Elkhorn Avenue and to our condominiums and would be much more offensive to us. It also appears to violate the road set back requirements. 2. Obviously the building is not big enough for the proposed business; otherwise. they would not have to install a walk-in cooler on the outside of the building. The installation appears to be towards the back of the building and we object to a walk-in cooler being placed on the backside of the building and especially to being placed to the rear of the building. The noise created by the cooling units would be excessive to us as neighbors. We will now be facing and smelling a huge exhaust fan for a pizza oven, rotisserie and other ovens. We had to spend five years across from a highly offensive odorous coffee roasting business which finally moved. We do not need to be next to the exhaust from a pizza oven, a rotisserie oven and other ovens and the noise from a cooling system. This would adversely affect the enjoyment of the property and the value of our property. Also, we would not be able to enjoy our deck, our waterfall and the river. Our condos would no longer be our comfortable riverside residence but would likely tum into rental property, which would be a substantial change in the neighborhood. There are no other restaurants close by so this would be a change in the neighborhood. 3. We believe that the development standards promulgated by the Estes Valley Development Code should be strictly adhered to. Under Section 7.6, 7.9 of the Code, there is a specific requirement that says all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least 30 feet horizontally from the annual high-water mark of the river corridor or, if not readily ascertainable from the defined bank of the river. It is under historic legal interpretation, the term "shall' means "it shall be done", not that it may be or may not be done. We respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment follow the development codes and not allow the variance. t 4. The new dumpster location does not appear to be set back the required 20 feet from the public street; nor does the front set back appear to be 20 feet if ramp is considered to be part of the building. 5. We would request that the Board of Adjustment not grant the variance for the installation of the walk-in cooler in its present location.. The walk-in cooler should be moved to the front of the building or required to be inside the building if allowed at all. It should be placed where it is in compliance with the river and the road setbacks. It appears from the site plan that the walk-in cooler is 9 feet of the approximate edge of the river bank and well within, the 30 foot setback request. The cooler is approximately 7x14 feet or 98 square feet. It would be less offensive if the applicant would be allowed to construct an addition to the building for the cooler, which would totally enclose the unit, than to allow the walk-in cooler to be outside. WHY WE APPOSE FOR LEGAL REASQNS Pursuant to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6(c) relative to Standards For Review, all applications for variances, "shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth" by special circumstances or conditions that exist such as exceptional topographic conditions or the shape of the property, etc. It is our position as follows: a. The building on the property has been in place for several years and prior to the amendment of the zoning code. The property has been historically, successfully used as a dentist office, veterinary clinic, retail store ("The Indian Store"), architectural office and a coffee roasting facility. There was never a need to apply for a variance relative to location for dumpsters or installation for steps on the west side of the building and never an application or need to install a walk-in cooler outside the building. We believe there was in the past and still are beneficial uses of the property without the addition of a walk-in cooler outside. The dimensions of the walk-in cooler are approximately 7'x14'. They appear to be half the width of the building which we find to be highly offensive and the noise generated by the compressor and fans would certainly adversely affect our use of our property and the value of the property. b. Whether the variance is substantial. It is significant that the property involved herein is located in a wetlands and stream corridor protection area under Section 7.6 of the Development Code. Under 7.6(e)2(b), there is an exception for lots developed prior to the adoption of the Code which means a 30 foot setback. This is 20 feet shorter than new buildings to be constructed or developed not in a wetlands and stream corridor. Based on the copy of the site plan we have, we do not believe, as stated in the application, that the refrigeration to the east side of the property next to the building is approximately 19 feet from the riverbank. We believe that distance is much, much shorter, being approximately 9 feet from the river bank. We believe this, in and of its self, is a substantial variance. We not only believe that a 21 foot variance to relocate the dumpster is a substantial variance, the addition of the second public access (stairs) and landing to the west of the building combined with the addition of the walk-in cooler, approximately 9 feet from the river bank, is a substantial variance. The fact that they have asked for three variances so they can attempt to make this project work on a property that is too small for their project in and of itself is a substantial variance. We also believe this a substantial variance because we believe that we are fairly certain that our property east of the Building A, the property owned by Elkhorn and the property located west of Building B is a wetlands. It is further our position that the applicants, by installing a grease separator and by the placement of a walk-in cooler outside the building, have disturbed and altered the area, especially the vegetation between the eastside of the building and the road. Relative to the walk-in cooler, the walk-in cooler is approximately nine feet from the approximate edge of the river bank. It would seem that a 21 foot variance from a 30 foot requirement that close to the river would be substantial variance. This walk-in cooler could leak coolant or other fluid which would pollute the river or catch on fire and the fire could easily catch trees on fire on the property and climb up and crown over to the trees on the Elkhorn property and catch the condominium units on fire. c. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. We are somewhat perplexed as to why the Town would approve the installation of the grease trap without a variance. It is our understanding that the present sewer line runs directly under the building. We do not understand if the Town is extremely concerned about obstacles being built over the current sewer system, why would installing a walk-in cooler and a bear -proof dumpster make any sense or be a way to alleviate that problem. We have no idea what the grease trap is, how it would affect the sewer lines or what the potential of clogging the sewer lines could be if not properly maintained. d. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement, we would assume the applicant, for the variances, if they purchased the property from the prior owner, would have done his due diligence and would have been advised of the zoning restrictions and the need for the variety of variances prior to the purchase. Also, we would think they were aware of the many complying uses the building had previously been used for. Even if they are renting the building, they should have known or had constructive notice of the regulations in the water corridor or wetlands. Hopefully they were advised by the Planning and Zoning Department. e. The next criterion is whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than the variance. It would seem that the interior design of the building could be reconfigured to allow adequate cooler space to be placed inside the structure. What the applicant is doing is attempting to add at least 98 square feet of space outside of the building which he would not be allowed to do if he wanted to remodel and expand the building by 98 square feet. Surely the interior of the building could be re- configured, especially regarding the area where they have an office or where they have a customer "bar -top counter" to provide for them a cooling space. If the interior floor plan could not be created to include the cooler inside, then the building is not of sufficient size and should not be used for this business. The building should be used for a compliant purpose as it has been in the past as a dentist office, veterinary clinic, business office, retail store or other professional offices. f. The need for the cooler outside was a creation by the applicant and to allow the cooler outside would be in violation of the policy relative to the Board of Adjustment and definitions in the Code, but would also be, in effect, allowing the owner to add another 98 square feet to his building. If the Board of Adjustment allows the cooler to be placed outside, then Board has an obligation to minimize the damage it is doing to the neighborhood and minimize the effect it would have on the property it is located on. That cooler, if allowed, should be fully enclosed and located in front of the building outside the ear shot of neighbors. d. Pursuant to the definition in the development code for variance, "to mean a grant by the Board of Adjustment permitting to an owner to use a lot not holding accordance with the provisions of this code, because the BOA finds that certain conformance would be an unusual hardship not created by the owner but depriving him or her of a reasonable use of the lot. Such grant specifies 'a minimum deviation or deviation from the regulations intended to cure the hardship but not create detrimental conditions affecting abutting property owners or the public at large., OTHER CONCERNS We are concerned about the parking. Is there adequate number of parking spaces and whether the parking lot is set back is sufficient distance from the annual high water mark. There are sand bags on the right of the river running on the west side of the property and occasionally water does flood that parking lot. Isn't there a requirement that the parking lot be set back fifty feet from the river? We are concerned about the preservation of vegetation. All existing vegetation within the stream/river corridor or wetland buffer/set back area shall be preserved and when necessary to provide adequate screening or repair damages of riparian areas supplemented with additional native planting and landscaping. Installation the grease trap, and other utilities on the east side of the building, destroyed all of the vegetation that was there. We are concerned that the provisions of 7.13, Outdoor Storage and Mechanical Equipment, are not complied with: 1. Loading and unloading. 2. Twenty -foot clearance setback from streets for trash collection. 3. Outdoor equipment (walk-in cooler) views of these areas to be screened from visibility from all properties. 4. Conduits, meters, vents and other equipment attached to or protruding from roof will be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impact. Sincerely, Rob & Pam Hicks 4 MOB OPVJoloo',fad sem 00L spins 'enuany uasdwoy1ism Z891 '3 d 311f1103111011V S ' SVH Z } Lu g co „O-�L tu XLw u_ oCD ai 0 w LINE OF METAL 11.909 opeiolo3 'Naed so;s3 wo1p113 IseM Z99 *led eq; U1 31U31d „o�,s -- SIDE ELEVATION 11 DRAFT #1, 08/03/2012 August 3, 2012 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Estes Valley Community Development Department P O Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Variance Request-552 West Elkhorn Avenue I have been forwarded a copy of a letter dated July 31, 2012, from Verd and Cherri Bailey concerning the request for variance at 552 West Elkhorn Avenue. Community Development Director Chilcott has requested that I respond to this letter regarding any relevant legal issues raised in the letter. My response to the legal issues in pages 2 — 5 of the letter are as follows: a. Whether there can be anv bengficial use of the Property with9ut the variance? This is just one of the criteria to be used by the Board of Adjustment to determine "practical difficulty". The proposed use of the property is a use by right in the Commercial Outlying CO District in the Estes Valley Development Code. b. Whether the variance is substantial? This is a determination to be made by the Board of Adjustment based upon the requested variance, the information presented at the hearing, and the Board of Adjustment's determination whether or not the requested variance(s) are substantial. c. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer? It is the responsibility of the sewer district to provide information to the Board of Adjustment on any sewer related issues. DRAFT #1, 08/03/2012 d. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the reauirement for the variances Z This issue needs to be addressed by the applicant at the hearing. e. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than the variance? This issue needs to be addressed by the applicant at the hearing. f. Did the applicant create the hardship? This specific question is not found in the standards for review for variances. The "self-inflicted hardship" question is relevant to the determination of whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirements. The applicant cites Colorado court cases with regard to "self-inflicted hardship". In the Murry v Board of Adiustment, the Larimer County Board of Adjustment made no findings or conclusions related to the use of the proposed building for which a setback variance was granted. The case was remanded back to the trial court to require the Board of Adjustment to determine the use of the proposed building. Due to the fact that the Board of Adjustment did not make any findings on the use, there was no way for the reviewing court to determine whether or not the requested variance could be used as a way to avoid the normal process of amending zoning resolutions. There was no findings by the Supreme Court that "self-inflicted hardship" would support a denial of the variance. In Levy v Board of Adiustment, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the finding by the Arapaho County Board of Adjustment that a finding of "self-inflicted hardship" under the facts of the case was a significant fact and a sufficient reason for the Board of Adjustment to deny a request for a variance. The court did not hold that "self-inflicted hardship was, in and of itself, an absolute bar to the granting of a variance." As with all of the standards for review, the Board of Adjustment is not required to deny a variance if it finds that any of the listed factors with regard to practical difficulties set forth in Section 36 (c) (2) (a-f) are present. The Board of Adjustment's responsibility is to determine based on the six questions, whether "practical difficulty" may result from strict compliance with EVDC standards. The July 31, 2012 letter raises issues with regard to whether or not the dimensions of the requested variance(s) are accurate. it is up to the applicant and the Staff to provide the Board of Adjustment with accurate information as to what are the dimensions of the variance(s) are req uested. GAW/Idr Very Truly Yours, Gregory A. White DRAFT #1, 08/03/2012 Angie Huffman Picnic In The Park, LLC 552 W. Elkhorn Ave 970-586-PARK (7275) July 9, 2012 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Statement of Intent for a variance request for 552 W. Elkhorn for a business development plan for Picnic In The Park. Variance Request to: 1. Relocate the current dumpster that is approximately 2' from the river bank on the west side of the property parking lot to the east side of the property which will be approximately 29' from the river bank and to within approximately 12' of the front set -back. 2. Add landing and stairs for 2nd public access door on the west side of the property into approximately 25' of the river set -back or 5' from the river bank. 3. Add refrigeration to the east side of the property next to the building and located behind the dumpster to approximately 19' from the river bank and 11' into the river set -back. The reasons for the request include: • Special circumstances and conditions which create no other viable location. • Least deviation to the property to overcome practical difficulty created by lot development prior to code for river set -backs. Building sits within the river set -back. • Requirements for building code related to life safety for 2od public access/exit. • Least request viable to maintain parking and ADA compliance. • No significant affect, alteration, or detriment to the character of the neighborhood as a result of the variance. I have worked with Steve Lane at Basis Architecture to create Picnic In The Park with public health and the environment in mind. One of the first issues we need to address with the property is the open garbage dumpster which sits on the edge of the parking lot on the east side of the property, along and within approximately 2' of the river bank. This dumpster is within broad view of people traveling Elkhorn Avenue and has public access and public dumping; in addition to several resident bears which create a terrific problem for this particular location and open design. Garbage dumping and the bears have resulted in a lot of mess/smell and litter in and along the road and within the river. I have architectural plans and intent to relocate the dumpster to a concrete pad behind an existing privacy fence Board of Adjustment July 9, 2012 Page 2 and treed area on the east side of the building. The dumpster will not only be less obtrusive to the traffic views and significantly further from the river bank, but it will also be restricted from public dumping and bear -proofed to eliminate litter caused by both. The second issue I worked on addressing was the limited space for refrigeration within the building. The building has been designed with updates and maximized space but it does not contain sufficient space for refrigeration/freezer storage based upon current health department standards. The existing east side privacy fencing and foliage will be maintained to continue to provide a natural view and cover along with additional landscaping. Lastly, the third issue I will address is the west side door which is not usable or safe as a 2id exit for the public due to the lack of landing and steps. This door was previously used by Kind Coffee as a loading door. The architectural plans and my intent are to make this a fully functioning 2nd public access/exit door with a wooden landing and stairs covering the existing concrete pad and door drop-off. As a nature enthusiast and a full-time resident I firmly believe my request for these variances not only improves the property esthetically, but it also increases the property's use, its responsibility to the environment, the wildlife, and to other surrounding and Estes Park properties. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration of my request and I hope that you will support getting Picnic In The Park open with a Board of Adjustment approval. Sincerely, 94-41— xgrc, Angie Huffman Owner �N ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: a 4)• Legal Description: Lot: Block: Tract: Subdivision: 02 5'D 037 3. 5'.2 5. 7 S /7 Parcel ID#: a5- • ♦p - I3/5 Lot Size /,frd Zoning Existing Land Use aom nc.dere. ro Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service tuTown r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service Fc Town r Well 'r- Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD r UTSD U— Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service #,� EPSD r UTSD I— Septic Existing Gas Service - XcelIll- Other f None Site Access (if not on public street) W. E116hor.. Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): 10oib:lOy 1,.30I011;1r'I Ilhu r.irioml(ICrr°�� Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is �dV /klAXcaa';lugfl i�..arlro r" Owner " Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) fl 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.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. 9 0 - 7,z Z. A'.licant i"° Consultant/En aneer Town of Estes Pork •a N.O. Box 1200 - 170 MacGregor Avenue .n Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 .a Fax: (970) 58h-0249 -w www.estes.org/ComDev Revised-PIM/09• i / tl e Aa°f E9111.1,A oa lGr��1 Fax -.� Email A 3 ► GED / C4 71& Applicant Mailing Address Phone $:` .,. Cell Phone f Fax Email :c 9t/G Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town Limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: httn://www.estes.ora/Compev/Schedules$Fees/PlanninaADDlicatior,FeeSchedule. odf Ad requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Rev -sued "r{20/09 -52 W. Elkhorn Avenue . icnic In The Park Board of Adjustment Application BEG AT PT FROM WH NW COR 25-5-73 BEARS N 38 26' W 498.1FT, S 86 5' W 189 FT, 5 0 11' E 345.2 FT M/L TO CEN FALL RIV, TH SERLY ALG CEN OF RIV 182 FT, N 375 FT TPOB; EX POR LY N & E OF SRLY LN HWY 34 rp foo General Development Standa Figure 7-10 § 7.6 Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection (2) River Corridors (except in the CD district). (3) (a) General Rule. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. (b) Exception for Lots Developed Prior to the Adoption of this Code. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. See Figure 7-10. (Ord. 2-02 #5) Stream and River Corridors in the CD Zoning District. In the CD district, all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stream or river corridor, the setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with the approval of the Decision -Making Body. (Ord. 2-02 #5) Supp. 3 7-29 General Development Standa �F § 7.12 Adequate Public Facilities 4. Minimum Approval Requirements. At a minimum, the Decision -Making Body shall require that at the time of final plat or development plan approval all necessary transportation facilities and services to meet the applicable level of service standard are: a. Currently in place and available to serve the new development; or b. Guaranteed by an enforceable development or improvement agreement that ensures that the public facilities will be in place at the time that the impacts of the proposed development will occur. I. Electricity. 1. Level of Service. All development shall provide adequate and functional electric service to each lot pursuant to this subsection. (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2. Criteria for New Development. The development shall be served by the Town and shall meet current standards established by the Town. (Ord. 8-05 #1) 3. Minimum Approval Requirements. Adequate electric services to support the proposed development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such development. In this regard, the Decision -Making Body shall require that, prior to issuance of the first building permit, all necessary electric services are in place and available to serve the new development or subdivision in accordance with the approved utility plan for the development, i.e., all electric service shall be installed up to and including mains and distribution boxes such as transformers and secondary pedestals. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (Ord. 18-02 #1, 12/10/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) § 7.13 OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, ACTIVITIES AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT A. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all new development subject to this Code. B. Standards. 1. Areas for truck parking and loading shall be screened by a combination of structures and evergreen landscaping to minimize visibility from adjacent streets and property lines. ansua41 2. Areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading or other such uses shall be located in the rear of the lot. If that is not feasible, then the side yard can be used, but in no case shall areas be located within twenty (20) feet of any public street, public sidewalk or internal pedestrian way. 3. Outdoor storage, HVAC equipment, trash collection, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping plan. Views of these areas shall be screened from visibility from all property lines and separated from pedestrian areas. 4 Conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impacts. 5. Nonenciosed areas for the storage and sale of seasonal inventory shall be permanently defined and screened with walls or fences. Materials, colors and design of screening walls or fences shall conform to those used as predominant materials and Supp. 6 7-6Gt Jul 06 12 02.26p Angie Huffrra pis APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I rthay certify n thattthe Information with the tknowledgettted are tom end correct to the best of a d co,Sant the owners the propertyknowledge and that to nlvrp the ePlx ► In submitting the application mats dais ane signing this application agreement. 1 acknowledge and agree that the appticstion Is subject to the apr4cabl= processing and public hearing requirements sat loth in the Estes Valley Development Coda (EVDC)„ ► F acknowledge that t have obtained or have axes to the EVDC, end that, prior to filing this application. 1 have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and declttloe on the appiiaation. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: rite ismmr.eates.ofpCtenDev/DerCode ► 1 understand diet etcceptanoe of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of ins application lee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVOC. ► I understand that this variance request may be delsryed in processing by a month or more it the intimation provided is Incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted afierihs deadline date. ► 1 understand that a resutmtitlal fee we be charged If my applica@On le Incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicam in writing of the date on which the applicat:'on is determined to be complete, ► t grant permission 4ot Tcrwrt of Estes Park Employees and Members (Atha Bawd of Adjustment wkh proper Identification access to rhy property during the review of this application. ► 'i acknowledge that i have received ire 5stes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure In meat the doadlinaa shown on said schedule shall' result in ny application or the approval of my application oecorrfng null and void. I understand trial full tees will be charged for the resubrnittsl of an application that has treoorne null and void. ► I urrders:and that i wn reouired to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this son must be posted on my property where It la clearly visible from the road. F understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners rnuat is IIetdstakod. 1 understand that the sign read be pasted and the staking completed nn later than ten (lb) bus reins days prior to the E8036 Valley Board of Adit:eimenl F7aaring. ► I t;nde s:ano the °f the Board of Ad!ustment approves my regtreSt, "Fahure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval w !thin one (1) year of receiving approval of tits variance may automatlaally randy, the decision of the BOA null and void.' (Estes \+al%ey Owral.oFmer:e Code Section SAD) Name$. Record Owner PLE srmeoNT: A.pllcaet1 PLERSEP1fm1T. Signatures: Ae:crd Grrner Applloaa Reviled 1f2:IO4 • d 08I6 -LI9 LZL WdOStb ZIOd 90 IBC Picnic in the Park APO Elkhorn Comm Prope to 011 n n n n r N NNNNONNNNN n .-I o m m ID N L/l m .'a .1 im�pp .--I �-i �--lLAI M �--( �--I m 0 �--I ,--I m e-1 N N N 0 .- s^-1 N n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N 0 0 LD CO LD 00 CO CO CO 00 00 CO CO CO 0o n Lin no 0o 0o 0o 0o 0o CO ID In CO 00 u, 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> Q o 0 0 0 0 0 o z a o 0 va c V YL. Y L Y1- Y Y ` C ? RI a CO Q a a as c a CO C aJ ►�+ aJ m en a v ❑ 0 W LLJ w w w W W 0 W w PO Box 49241 0 22W 400 McCarron Rd PO Box 1003 an 3 L C 00 C on '> 1.0 0al F, Ln E F- a L E >. c O N es L o a 7- 2 06 U a) c 0043) C c L 7 + Oco (.0U'a a Y Jeff & Julie Boles Marjorie Thompson 4118W8thSt PO Box 1910 540 W Elkhorn Ave, Unit B3 553 W Elkhorn Ave Bootsie Brodzinski 4225 Fawn TrI 625 W Elkhorn Ave William & Vivianne Watson PO Box 2744 0 O cc San Antonio 3603 Hunters Pt tn Y Y X C Y 0. Y a (0 c a a a E CO L 3 °C -0 a c13 y 4, 4,, 0O av^� c 0 o ,a, C 4J uJ W 6 W❑ Q 03 U ICU L W PO Box 2792 Elkhorn Plaza Association Ronald & Edwina Hinkle 300 Far View Dr, Unit 8 128 Old Creek Dr 550 W Elkhorn Ave, Unit A7 Kieran Rowser 7830 Fairview Ave Gilbert Hawkins Trust 366 Date St 4409 Anchor Mills Dr 1736 2nd Ave SE c O co Q. Q E O s i le co LL a E c (00)-, iv a u, a a L .0 E ra U 7130 S Quintero St Thomas &Judith Morroni PO Box 4216 Manuela Rivas -Marquez Elkhorn Comm Properties - Picnic in the Park APO