HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2012-07-03JJ L_Prepared:June 25,2012
AGENDA
VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,July 3,2012
9:00 a.m.—Board Room Town Hall
1.PUBLIC COMMENT
2.CONSENT
Approval of minutes dated May 1,2012
3.METES &BOUNDS,2121 EAGLE CLIFF ROAD
Owner:Thomas CaIdwell
Applicant:Thomas Caidwell
Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,
requires 25-foot setbacks in the E-l—Estate zone
Request to allow a 17-foot encroachment into the
side setback to expand existing decks constructed
setback regulations.
Staff Contact:Dave Shirk
4.PORTION OF NORTH ½OF SECTION 29-5-72,1700 BIG THOMPSON
AVENUE,
Owner:
Applicant:
Request:
US Department of Interior/Bureau of Reclamation
Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I,LLC (Estes Park Resort)
Variance from EVDC Section SiB,which requires all
signs in unincorporated Larimer County to comply with
the Larimer County Sign Code;and EVDC Appendix D.
lvi,which requires signs to comply with the intersection
and driveway visibility standards.
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 avoiloble at the
time the agenda was prepared.
ESTES
which
district.
25-foot
prior to
Staff Contact:
5.REPORTS
6.ADJOURNMENT
2%
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
May 1,2012,9:00 a.m.
Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall
Board:Chair John Lynch,Members Pete Smith,Bob McCreery,Wayne
Newsom,Jeff Moreau
Attending:Chair Lynch,Smith,McCreery,Newsom,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 five people in attendance.
1.PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2.CONSENT
Approval of minutes of the January 10,2012 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Moreau)to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
3.LOT 3,NORTH PLATTE RESUBDIVISION,2130 UPPER HIGH DRIVE
Planner Shirk reviewed the slaff report.The applicant requests a variance to Section 4.3,
Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development
Code to allow a side yard setback of 9.2 feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required in the
E-l--Estate zone district.The property owner desires to remove,replace,and expand an
existing deck.The lot is undersized for the zone district,and the home and deck were
built prior to the requirements of setback.Planner Shirk explained the nearest structure is
125 feet away,and the intent of setback regulations would still be met.The application
was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No
significant issues or concerns were expressed.Planner Shirk received one phone call
from a neighboring property owner,who supported the variance after receiving additional
information.
Public Comment
Steve Lindberg/applicant stated the property owner desired to expand the deck about two
feet to the south.The variance is requested for the east side,and the deck boundary on
that side will not be changed.
Staff arid Board Discussion
Member Newsom staled he would support the variance request as there would be no
adverse affect on the neighboring properties.
Conditions
1.Compliance with the site plan,as approved by the Estes Valley 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.
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
May 1,2012
C
4.LOT 26,CARRIAGE HILLS 7TH FILING,1930 N SHARON COURT
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report.The applicant requests a variance to Section 4.3,
Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development
Code to allow a rear yard setback of 12-feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required in the
R-Residential zone district.Planner Shirk stated building on this particular lot in Carriage
Hills is difficult.Due to the triangular shape of the lot,the house was built towards the rear
of the lot.There is dedicated open space that adjoins the rear property line,and the
nearest neighbor to the rear is greater than 300 feet away.The application was submitted
to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No significant
issues or concerns were expressed.The two adjoining neighbors provided letters of
support.Planner Shirk stated the property is not included in the municipal sub-district of
the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,which would need to be addressed as
a condition of approval.
Public Comment
Lyle Zimmerman/applicant was in attendance to answer any questions from the Board.
Staff and Board Discussion
None.
Conditions
I.Compliance with the site plan and building design,as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
2.Prior to issuance of a building permit,applicant shall apply for inclusion in the
Municipal sub-district of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
This should be coordinated through the Water Department.
3.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.
It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Smith)to approve the variance request with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously.
5.METES &BOUNDS PARCEL,AKA TRACT 2,HYLAND EXEMPTION,918
CHRISTMAS TREE LANE
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report.The applicant requests a variance to Section 4.3,
Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the EVDC to allow a rear yard
setback of 10-foot in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE—Rural Estate zone
district.The purpose of the variance request is to allow a detached 1,100 square foot
detached garage.The lot is an 18-acre parcel,with the south side being very steep.The
location would have no impact on the neighborhood,and the intent of setback standards
would not be compromised.Planner Shirk explained the south property line is adjacent to
Cheley Camp,and the nearest buildings are at least 1,000 feet away.The application
was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No
significant issues or concerns were expressed.No neighbor concerns were received by
staff.Staff recommended approval with two conditions.
Public Comment
Bill Miller/applicant was in attendance to answer any questions from the Board.
Staff and Board Discussion
Member Moreau would have appreciated more detail on the plans,specifically where the
proposed garage would be positioned on the lot.Mr.Miller stated the face of the garage
would face the vehicle turn-around.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3
May 1,2012
Conditions
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.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom)to approval the variance request with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously.
6.REPORTS
Planner Shirk asked for feedback from the Board about the recent smaller size of site
plans.Member Newsom stated that aerial photos are helpful.Member Lynch stated that
variance signs at the site need to be visible,and staking of the proposed area was also
important.Member Moreau would appreciate more details on the plans,as stated in his
comments on the Christmas Tree Lane application.This would give the Board a better
indication as to where the existing property line is and how the variance would impact the
lot and the neighboring lots.
There being no further business,Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.
John Lynch,Chair
Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary
0
0
0
-*
LAPJMEP.
Caidwell Variance Request (Eagle Cliff Road)
Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division
Room 230,Town Hall,170 MacGregor Avenue
P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,Co 80517
Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 ww.este&org
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE:July 3,2012
REQUEST:Variance from the E-1 Estate 25-foot side yard setback requirement.
LOCATION:2121 Eagle Cliff Rd.
How to get there:Take Spur 66 to
Eagle Cliff Rd.Turn north just
past 2091 Eagle Cliff Road (the
round house on the north side of
the road).Follow the drive to
2121 Eagle Cliff Rd.
APPLICANTIOWNER:Thomas
Caidwell
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to
Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development
Code to allow a side yard setback of 8-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required.
The purpose of the variance request is to allow removal,replacement,and expansion of
an existing deck.
Surveyor:Van Horn Engineering
Parcel Number:3534100025 Development Area:1 acre
Existing Land Use:Single-family residence Proposed Land Use:Same
Zoning Designation:E-l Estate
Adjacent Zoning:
East:E-1 Estate North:N/A
West:E-1 Estate South:E-1 Estate
Adjacent Land Uses:
East:Single-family residence North:Rocky Mountain National Park
West:Single-family residence South:Single-family residence
Services:
Water:Town Sewer:UTSD
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
all applicable 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.
Larimer County Building Department noted there are two outstanding building permits,
arid ‘the owner must obtain final inspection approval for the wood store expired permit.’
Mr.Caldwell has been made aware of this building department requirement.
Neighboring Property Owners.The owners of 2117 Eagle Cliff Road have provided a
letter of support.No other neighbors have contacted staff regarding this request.
FINDINGS:
1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C 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 wfll afford
rehef.
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval conditional to compliance with the site plan
and building design,as approved by the 8oard of Adjustment.
SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL (or disapproval)of the requested variance
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff,
0
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,Jury 3,2012 Page 2 of 2
caidwell Variance Request
r
-
I.I..,
1*4
•000.cI..0.0
2’0z
IC.N-,
‘1
r
at
rf ‘::.1‘r,
iJ.
0
0-ca I.,.-$1
i?*
67425’)cs6817’F330.01.(586)7’E320)
RESARWITHA,——28—PLASIICCAP)‘%/—,N05760l’4>,———..
-.‘
/(/7%,,\PAR \“3534
‘‘
‘‘
IS1OtEST0RY
IW000FR*MEHOUR
(2)21LAdS0.1FFR0P)
I
IXIS!1NODECK6.0’
,,_CXISTINGCOORS
.53.4’-I2
q,/14.4oPROPOSEDDECK,I
1/
Ic41t1
\\
‘/“\
/35
1/—°
RCELNO.
41—00—026-—L‘——-—-o’‘LEGALDESCRIP1 /I
//TAXASSESSOR 20PINE1
-/
‘NOR1I-IwEsrCDI (l6’,,I’INEJ7T5N.R73WOF
I//
‘DISTANCEOF6 //1
OF330FEET //
S0218’WADIS HOUSE“‘
DISTANCEOFI,
I
I/,‘SIDFEET;THEN 56’
THEWUEPOIN )‘.‘/PARCELNO.
____
-f/I“35341—00—025
F--...-II,”I!
L
0000 l/2DL4.REBAP
I LASTICCPNO.
Ij.-590°SCAtE(00.00)LAYINGINGROUND
I
URVETED)III—40 (N8817’4132.0)
ACCeiSTO1/rDIARE8ARWITH
(N68)7’W14.5’)I
PLAStICCAPNO.948 hi
1
0
wa
m
C’,a
m
a
Coe0
03
C)
m
cc
CD
cc
CD
‘C00
0)a
0
>a
C
£41.
3
CD
CC
•<
(I)
F’)C-a
p3
m
-U
Er
()
a
‘P
-‘4
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION
P.O.Box 1190
Fort Collins,Colorado 80522-1190
P[annlng (970)498-7683 BuIlding (070)498-7700
flanning Fax (970)496-7711 Building Fax (970)498-7667
htlp:/twwwIarlmor.org/plannlng
CODE COMPLIANCE SECTION
LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
Date:May 31,2012
From:Chad Gray,Building &Code Compliance Lead Inspector
To:Karen Thompson
Project Name:Caidwell Residence Variance Request
Parcel No:35341-00-025
This is a request for a variance to allow a proposed deck with partial covered roof to
be 8 feet from the west property instead of 25 feet,There are two building permit
issues associated with this property,described below:
cD
•Building Permit 91E8094 was issued on 8/6/1991 for a wood stove that
expired with a correction,The wood stove required a 16 inch hearth
extension.
•Building permit 01-M0916 was Issued on 9/24/2001 for a furnace
replacement,The permit expired without any Inspections.
STAFF COMMENTS:The application appears to be complete.Code Compliance has
no issues with the variance being approved for the deck with partial covered roof,
The owner must obtain final Inspection approval for the wood stove expired permit.
If the furnace was replaced,a new miscellaneous permit must be obtained with
final inspection approval,It is not necessary to delay the timely processing of this
planning application for these building permit issues.
Code Compliance staff are available to assist the owner in obtaining inspections and
permits.Please feel free to call Code Compliance Officer Eric Fried at (970)498-
7706 wIth questions.
Cc:Caldwell,Thomas fri.
725A Castle Mountain Road
Estes Park,Co 80517
LAR1MER21I
COMMITTED TO EXCEllENCE
0
C,PRINTED ON AFOYCLED PAPER
Dave Shirk
4 ‘om:Stan Griep [sgriepIarimer,org]
mt:Tuesday,May29,2012 9:10 AM
10:Dave Shirk
Subject:Spani:2121 Eagle Cliff Road Variance
Hi Dave,
The oniy comment I have on this deck variance is that they will need a building permit for it.We will
need two sets of plans for the deck drawn to an approved scale,such as:1/4 inch =1 foot.Also the
applicant should note that the center piers to support the deck typically need to be larger than the out
piers due to supporting the beam loads from two directions.The rough plans appeared to show all 10
inch piers which are not usually large enough for the center piers unless sitting on and anchored to
bedrock.
Respectfully submitted,
Stan
Stan V.Griep
Lead &Commercial Plans Examiner
Lai’imer County Building Department
(.Collins,CO 80522-1190
Phone:(970)498-7714
Fax:(970)498-7667
1
Dave Shirk
From:Karen Thompson
Sent:Wednesday,May 30,2012 3:50 PM
To:Dave Shirk
Subject:FW 2121 Eagle Cliff Rd.-Proposed deck
From:Todd Krula [mailto:Toddutsd.orgJ
Sent:Wednesday,May 30,2012 3:15 PM
To:Karen Thompson
Subject:2121 Eagle Cliff Rd.-Proposed deck
Upper Thompson Sanitation District has no issues.
0todd 9(aIa
Lines Superintendent
UPPER
‘$Ngi
Upper Thompson Sanitation District
P.O.Box 568
Estes Park,Co 80517
Phone:(970)215-1294
Fax:(970)586-1049
toddutsd.org
1
Dave Shirk
Todd Steichen
ant:Tuesday,May 29,2012 8:23 AM
To:Karen Thompson;Dave Shirk;Susie Parker;Joe Lockhart
Cc:Reuben Bergsten
Subject:RE:REFERRAL FOR COMMENT Caidwell Residence Variance,2121 Eagle Cliff Rd
The owner has already contacted L&P for service line clearance requirements.
L&P has raised the existing service lines to get the required 10’clearance they need.
Todd.
if u4d J.Steicfteu
Town of Estes Park
Light &Power Dept.
Line Superintendent
615 Elm Rd (Service Center)
P.O.Box 1200 (mailing)
Estes Park,Co.80517
(970)-577-3601 (office)
(970)-586-3762 (fax)
tsteichen@estes.org
‘am:Karen Thompson [mailto:kthomoson@estes.oraj
dent:Saturday,May 26,2012 2:50 PM
To:Todd Steichen
Subject:REFERRAL FOR COMMENT Caidwell Residence Variance,2121 Eagle Cliff Rd
Having trouble viewing this email?Click here
To All Affected Agencies:
This email is to notify you that Planning staff received a development application,
which can be viewed on the Town website’s Current Aoolications page.
Please review the application and other attached documents for:
COMPLETENESS.
Project Address:2121 Eagle Cliff Road
Project Name:Caldwell Residence Variance
•Please use one of the following options in your reply:
1.Application is complete.
2.Application is not complete.
If you find the application does uct meet the minimum submittal
requirements,OR IF THERE ARE AREAS OF CONCERN,please submit a
detailed list of the missing information as soon as possible.
Also,please state whether or not you want the application re-routed for final
nil Caidweti
2121 kagl(’(:1111 Il4)a(I
IsIcs Park.Ct)8O 1
19-Il
HI (Iwel 1.1ni’141)1811 (DI I)
SieS\’8II’BD8r(l (*1 \(IjlISlIIIVIItS
I()11011)ii \Ia (ohteern.
The purpose of this letter is to request a setback variance for 2121 Eagle Cliff
Road.1 believe that this property contains special circumstances that would
make a variance appropriate.The current setback limitation is 25 feet from all
properly lines.The house is situated 8 feet from the west properly line.The
IlarroMmess of the lot and location of the house niake compliance to the setback
regulations difficult.The essential character ol the neighborhood will not he
substantially altered by the addition of a deck to the property.Also,the nearest C
house is over 100 feel away,and the owners of that house are in support of my
plans.
I appreciate your eonsideraiion.
Sincerely,
Thomas Caidwell
-
Record Owner(s):
IStreet Address of Lot:
Legal Description:
Subdivision:
Parcel ID #:
Tract:
Moks I
Lot Size
Existing Land Use
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service Town
Proposed Water Service tTown
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service
Existing Gas Service r Xcel
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site?
Other (Specify)
F Other (Specify)
EPSD -UTSD
EPSD ‘7 UTSD
Other r None
Septic
Septic
7L‘Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):
c.Jh.a 42-c’-.t/,c’-ooacL
I V
E-I’,dt41s
If
Jfl
‘R:Applicant
Town of Estes Pork..P.O.Box 1200 .170 MacGregor Avenue e.Estes Pork,CO 80517
Community Development Deportment Phone:l90)577-3721 .a’Fox:(Cl 586-0249 —ww.estes.org/Con,Dev
Revised I i,zoicr
&—-
.
1
.
Submittal Date:
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
CtIJ!s jI
I2I iL_c&Pr Rd
Lot:
t4 /1\Biock:
-zs2q(000,..s
-hL..n.bL a 1C4
Zoning
CgccL Lt
F-.,
F
F
I
Well
Well
F
F
r
F
I Yes F No
Name of Primary Contact Person ‘tb-cjj-’o_s (nicL,ofif
Complete Mailing Address
Prh’iar:Contact Person is >t Owner
t&4es
F Consultant/Engineer
F Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
F Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Sectionr1copy(folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=20)**
r I reduced copy of the site plan (11”X 17’)
The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Ccde Appendix B.Vll.5 (attached).
The applicant wül 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.
I
3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code)
21:2/Ec:/e (/1//c’d
4
6
IIWIIIIII tii
Record Owner(s)I icnac LM((4c40
Mailing Address
Phone
ItKl Cell Phone
IAOIII1ff Fax
Ij
I
IllD1MI
Email
Applicant //
,,Mailing Address
II
Phone
jj
Cell Phone
I
Fax
Email
ConsultantlEngineer (///L11 liE ‘i ‘t 5t y
1i MailingAddress IC’3 jr/IC.)1 F*c J.A;4.Phone
Cell Phone
I Fax
Email
C’
0
APPLICATION FEES
For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area,both inside and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included in your appucation packet or view the fee schedule online at:
http://wwn.estes.orp/ComOev!$chedules&Fees/PlanninaAoplicationFeeSchedule.pdf
All requests for refunds must be made in writing,All fees are due at the time of submittal,
Revised 11/20/09
.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
0 I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and that in tiling the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
0 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).
0 I 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 procesaing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at:
http://www.eates.ora’ComDev/DevCode
0 I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for tiling 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.
0 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.
0 I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete.
0 The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
0 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 appUcation.
0 I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming null and void.I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
$I understand that I am required to obtain a “Variance Notice’sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where it is cleatly visible from the road.I understand that the corners of
my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked.I understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10)business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
0 I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request,Pailure 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 ot the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.”(Estes
Valley Development Code Section 3.6,D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASEPRINT:“T?,oMu1 (4cc/Le_/i
Applicant PLEASE PRINT:7]i oms C‘Cdit ii
Signatures:
Record Owner _t”fY /4 /Dale
I/22/12ApplicantDate
l?evlsed 11/20/09
S
Zoning Districts 4.3 ResIdential Zoning Dishicts
Tab’e 44
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts...*,*Ilrnrl4t4t.MbimumpádbØawa’rnI__hi tt
‘r—-1-j.1 “kee /ku1 Side Height.,‘-LjM.!rontR)$4 ftear(ft.)(ftjtlO]
RE-i 1/loAc.lOAc.200 50 50 50 30 20RE1/2.5 Ac.2.5 Ac,200 50 50 50 30 20E-i I 1 Ac[3!ioo 25 25 25 30 20.
26-
E 2 ‘/aAc.(3]75 10 15 30 20
streets
25-
R 4 ‘4 Ac.60 arterials,10 15 30 2015-other
sire ats
B-i 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20
Singte4amily 25-=18,000;rtatilR-2 4 60 10 10 30 20Duplex=15-other
21,000 —streets
40,000,
Residential 5,400 sq 60:Uses:ft/unitAMMax=S and [41 18)rord LOtS 25Greater(3rd.Mm =3 25-07 §1)than arterlats;10 [6]10 20 20(7]18-01 Senior ,15-other#14)inebtutional Senior 100,000 streets
Living Uses:InstItutional sq.ft.
Max —24 Living Uses:200
L —
½Ac.
I
INotestoTable44:
(a)See Chapter 4,§4.3.0,whiuh allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area)for single-family residentialsubdivisionsthatarerequiredtosetasideprivateopenareasperChapter4,§4.3.0.1,(b)See Chapter 11,§11.3 whIch allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area)for clustered lots In open spacedeveloornents.
(c)See Chapter ii,§11.41 whIch allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for attainable housing.Cd)See Chapter 7,§7,1,which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area)for development on steep slopes.(3rd.2-02 §1)
See Chapter?,§7.6,for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands.(3rd.2-02 #6;3rd.11-02 §1)
II private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres,See also the regulations set forth in§7.121 ‘Adequate PublIc Facilities,”
Townhome developments shall he aeveloped on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet however,each indMduaito’.’nhocne unIt may be constructed on a minImum 2,000 square loot lot at a msimum density of S dwelling unIts per acre.All development,except development of one single-family dwellIng on a sIngle lot,shall also be subject to a maximum floorarearatIo(FAR)of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%.(3rd.25-07 §1)
Zero sIde yard setbacks (known as “zaro lot line development)are allowed for townhome developments.
MInimum building width requirements shall apply to mobIle homes located in a mobile home park.Single-family snd duplexdeveiopments shall have minimum lot areas oil 6,000 s.f.and 27,000 s.f.,respectively.(3rd 18-01*14)
All structures shall be set back lrom publIc or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-sIte dwellings orlots.The setback shalt be measured from the edge of public or private roads.the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or,recorded easement or the property line,whichever produces a grsater setback.The setback shall be the same as theapplIcableminimumbuildIng/structure setback,(3rd.11-02 §1;3rd.25-07 §1)
See Chapter 1,§1.9.5,which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes.(3rd.18-02 IfS)
(
0
(1)
(2)
[S)
t41
(5]
(6)
(7)
[8)
(1
0
0
H
4’N
4
P1
N
‘
‘I‘
3’
Q
•
Q)
U
tN
‘-
.
‘4
)J
)
1’
.c
.
j
‘)
\i
j
NtvC-
%;
rh
‘4
U
V
‘‘
N
t(
•i
VNU
-sN1.
.3
--
I
’
I)-sI
is
-k
LI
‘1
•
V
Lb
.
c)
1’1
UN
+
‘H
L‘3
i1
N
N
LN
-7
L
V
4‘d
Na)
-“
?•
-
L
‘4
“NL“
••
\
.
)
?
‘C4
[9
c
VNUp
‘3
’
—
SI
3
a
14
)
‘4vN
.“
)‘
—4
-‘
3
S
N
U
)
.,
%%
-
‘
‘3
F’
r
W
‘4
.
V
C—
tNt
U
1,N
V
L‘
4”
•N
V
N
çç
\
N
“‘‘ftUNDACCESS10EAGLE/2’BIt REBAR WITHCLIFFROAD
4
PLASTIC CAP NO.9483
‘‘
ii
/1
‘-/
/11
,II ,////
‘%
I’
/j0,
DRAWN DATE VAN HORN ENGINEERING SCALE PROJ.NO.
1043 Fish Creek Rood —Estes Park,CO 80517
CML 05—22—2012 Phone:(970)586—9388 —Fax:(970)586—8101 1”40’2012—05—08
THE NE 1/4 OF SECbON 34-5-73 CL:UWELL VARIANCE EXM3IT
(Nor SURVEYED TO)
(S 0218’W)
ND.15160 ““‘N
\
0.Fo’•
I’
PARCEL NO.
3534 1—00—026
PAGE 1 OF 2
C
PARCEL NO.
3534 1—00—056
D!CE
232012
l..UMMUI4);y UtVtLOPMENT
PARCEL NO.
35347—00—053
C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TAKEN FORM THE LARIMER COUNTY
TAX ASSESSOR INFORMATION):BEGINNING AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 34,
T5N,R73W OF THE 6TH P.M.;THENCE S0216’W A
DISTANCE OF 674.25 FEET;THENCE S88fl7’E A DISTANCE
OF 330 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE
S021 8W A DISTANCE OF 330 FEET;THENCE N8W I 7’E A
DISTANCE OF 132 FEEL THENCE N02’1BE A DISTANCE OF
330 FEET;THENCE NSW 17W A DISTANCE OF 132 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
//
//F /
/
/
L
/
I’.
•2
r0
0
r0
x0
z
0
I /
I //
I j /
I //F
F‘.“/‘PARCEL NO./
/3534 1—00—025
JL!&11’W ‘32.0’)
FCL.C I/2 D’A.RE3
WTH LAS’.C CA’ND.4-SCALE
(N 8817’W 114.5’)
LEGEND
UTILITY POLE
•WATER VALVE
SEWER CLEANOUT
—ONU —OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
o FCLND
00.00 MEASURED’CR CALCULATED DRIENSIONS
(00.00)PLATTE)CR OEEDED DIMENS:0NS
BOUNDARY SURVEY.
FOR THE ROBERTSON PROPERTY BY ESTES PARK
NDTES
1.THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USEO AS A
2.BOUNDARY AND EASEMENT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE BOUNDARY SURVEY
SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS,INC.,DATED AUGUST 21,2002.
LDWELL VICINITY MW
(To ACCOMPANY VARIANCE EXHIBIT)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
NATIONAL PARK
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
1.PARCEL BASEMAP TAKEN FROM THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK
0
.3
42
.
‘ci’
COMMuy DEVELOPMENT
‘-U
o
a
—_____-.-(-
*.I\,,,f.
U4
Cj‘-b S
C:a ‘3
1
‘0
I,-.-j
0
Ca
i
d
w
e
l
l
Re
’
ce
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
I
Ow
n
e
r
Ow
n
e
r
II
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Ci
t
y
ST
Zi
p
RM
N
P
10
0
0
Hw
y
36
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Do
n
a
l
d
&
Ar
t
i
e
Ge
i
k
18
6
3
Hw
y
66
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Ri
c
h
a
r
d
&
Li
s
a
Sh
i
l
h
a
n
20
3
3
Ea
g
l
e
Cl
i
f
f
Rd
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a
Fr
i
e
d
h
o
l
m
81
0
2
Gr
a
y
Ct
#3
7
3
Ar
v
a
d
a
CO
80
0
0
3
Du
w
a
r
d
Hu
n
t
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
Lt
d
53
1
8
In
w
o
o
d
Dr
Ho
u
s
t
o
n
TX
77
0
5
6
Sc
o
t
t
&
Ni
n
a
Ku
n
z
e
41
4
E
Oa
k
St
Ft
Co
l
l
i
n
s
CO
80
5
2
4
Je
f
f
r
e
y
Wa
t
e
r
s
&
An
g
e
l
a
Za
d
r
o
63
6
2
De
p
e
w
St
Ar
v
a
d
a
CO
80
0
0
3
Jo
h
n
Ly
l
e
s
P0
Bo
x
44
2
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Pa
t
r
i
c
i
a
St
o
c
k
t
o
n
21
1
2
Ea
g
l
e
Cl
i
f
f
Rd
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Ea
g
l
e
Cl
i
f
f
s
LL
C
11
3
0
38
t
h
Av
e
1
Su
i
t
e
B
Gr
e
e
l
e
y
CO
80
6
3
4
Te
r
e
s
a
Th
a
x
t
o
n
&
An
n
e
Mo
r
r
i
s
P0
Bo
x
42
7
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Da
v
i
d
&
Sa
r
a
h
Wa
s
s
o
n
26
1
3
Yo
r
k
s
h
i
r
e
St
Ft
Co
l
l
i
n
s
CO
80
5
2
6
Ca
i
d
w
e
l
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
0
0
Estes Park Resort Off-Premise Sign Variance (Big Thompson
LARIMER Avenue4=£IIIL_—Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division
Room 230 Town Hal!170 MacGregor Avenue
P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,Co 80517
Phone 9705773721 Fax 9705860249 w.vwestesorg
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE:July 3,2012
REQUEST:Variances from Larimer County sign code standards regarding off-
premise signs,sign location)and sign size.
LOCATION:1770 Big Thompson Avenue
APPLICANT:Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I,LLC
OWNER:
Sign:Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I,LLC;
Land is owned by the US Department of Interior;
Land is managed by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:This is a request by the Estes Park
Resort to remove and replace an existing off-premise sign.Specifically,the application
includes the following variance requests to the Larimer County Land Use Cod:
1)Off-premise sign (Section 10.5.E);
2)Sign in access easement (10.2.6);and,
3)Maximum size (10,11.6,2).
The purpose of the variance request is to allow removal and replacement of an existing
off-premise sign.
Surveyor:Van Horn Engineering
Parcel Number:2529200920 Development Area:18,6 acre (Lodge property)
Existing Land Use:Lake Estes Marina and Proposed Land Use:Same
access drive to Estes Park Resort
Zoning Designation:CO Commercial
Outlying
Adjacent Zoning:
East:CO Commercial Outlying North:CO Commercial Outlying
West:CO Commercial Outlying South:N/A
Adjacent Land Uses:
East:Lake Estes Marina North:Commercial
West:Restaurant/Office South:Lake Estes
[Services:
Water:N/A Sewer:N/A I 0
DISCUSSION:
History.The Estes Park Resort,formerly Lakeshore Lodge,was built in 1999,and
annexed into the Town of Estes Park in July 2001.
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (BOA)approved a variance for the existing sign
in April 2000.Minutes from the meeting are attached.
From the minutes:The sign was designed to keep in character and scale to the
EVRPDs marina sign.”A condition was that the sign could not exceed the allowable
limit set by the Larimer County Sign Code.
A second variance was approved in February 2003;this second approval was to allow
the addition of the “Silverado Restaurant”sign.
Minutes from the meeting are attached;note that the variance was twice continued
because the sign had minor non-conformities (once for an “AM”sign,and once for
having a string of lights).The existing sign is currently non-conforming because it has
been altered without a sign permit or approval from the BOA.The restaurant name has
been changed and a new sign installed,which is in violation of the 2003 variance.
elements of the marina sign,as was
and the BOA.The new owner of the
The new design would include log support posts mounted on stone pedestals,design
elements found with the lodge structure.The new sign would also include landscape
elements around the pedestal base,and would be internally illuminated.
Estes valley Board of Adjustment,July 3,2012
Estes Park Resort Sign Variance Request
Design.The existing
required by the Estes
lodge desires to chang
sign incorporates design
Valley Recreation District
e the design scheme.
Page 2 of 5
The sign will also include more open area than the existing ‘monolith’sign.These
openings will help increase visibibty between trail users and vehicles exiting the marina
and lodge.
The new design will also differentiate the lodge sign from the marina sign,which will
increase the visibility and identify the site for customers.
Sight Visibility.The sign will not be in the sight visibility triangle.This means the
variance request,as advertised,is moot.
Easement.The Larimer County sign code prohibits signs from being located within
access easements.However,this is the only location the Bureau of Reclamation will
allow the sign.Relocation outside of the easement would have no discernible impact.
Off-Premise.Staff suggests that because the sign would be located at the entrance to
the property,the sign is not ‘off-premise.’However)the sign code specifies that signs
must be located on the same lot as the business.Because the sign would be located on
the adjacent property,the sign is considered off-premise by the sign code.
Staff supports the idea of an off-premise identification sign designed to help customers
know where to turn,but does not support the idea of an off-premise sign designed to
advertise the site or attract undue attention.
Size,The applicant requests a variance to allow a sign that is 53 square feet where the
sign code arlows 33 square feet.It is staff’s opinion there is no justification to grant a
variance to the maximum size,and this aspect of the variance request should be denied
because it does not provide the least amount of variation that would allow relief.A
suggested condition of approval is to reduce the sign size to 33 square feet,which
would comply with standards in the county sign code.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:Chapter Six of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
includes several community wide policies,including policies addressing Community
Design and Scenic and Environmental Qualities.Examples include:
2.9 Monument signs,constructed of stone or wood and incorporated into the
landscaping,are preferred over freestanding pole mounted signs.
6.2 Protect the scenic character and visual quality of the open space and gateway
experience to the Valley and Rocky Mountain National Park.
6.3 Protect and enhance Lake Estes as an entry to the Town of Estes Park.
6.5 Improve the overall image and character of developed areas within the Valley
that detract from the visual quality of the Valley.
6.6 Ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental
quality within the Valley.
a Estes valley Board of Adjustment,July 3,2012 Page 3 of 5
Estes Park Resort Sign Variance Request
Because of the prominent location and request to place a sign that is typically not
allowed at a size not typically allowed,the Board should consider these community-wide
policies in evaluation of this sign variance.
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,and staff has provided comments in the Findings section below.
REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES:This request has been submitted to
all applicable 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.
Estes Park Public Works Department provided review of this proposal even though it is
located outside Town limits.The Public Works Department recommended that if the
sign is located within the site visibility triangle,a Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD)approved pedestrian crossing’signs should be installed.
Larimer County Building Department noted a sign permit and building permit will be
required.
FINDINGS:Q
1.Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with Code standards.The affected property does not have direct
highway frontage.
2.The variance is substantial because of the request to allow a sign that exceeds the
maximum allowed size.
3.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered.
4.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services.
5.The variance does not represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.Specifically,the sign could be designed to comply with maximum size
limits.
6.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment.ODOT noted that if the sign presents sight visibility
problems they may require relocation or removal of the sign.
7.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property (regarding the
off-premise sign request)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.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,July 3,2012 Page4of5
Estes Park Resort Sign Variance Request
8.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property (regarding the
increase to sign size request)are 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,with the following conditions:
1)Compliance with approved site and sign plans,except for revisions required below.
2)Sign shall not exceed 33 square feet in size.
3)A MUTCD 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.
SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL (or disapproval)of the requested variance
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,July 3,2012 Page 5 of 5
Estes Park Resort Sign Variance Request
0
•
0
z
SS
]
W
]
I
N1
1
S
1
X
3
HD
1
V
V
Ci
dV
O
•t
4DI
S
3
I
pt
I
l
l
b
t
n
O
a
I
I
a
tI
L
T
bI
L
L
I
S
M
T
01
5
1
1
0
01
l
n
t
0
lt
d
30
.
0
It
v
W
1
1
t
T
no
lt
I
l
l
l
n
S
l
n
Ml
‘I
I
M
T
I
O
Si
l
l
-
LL
O
A
II
S
I
M
I
J
J
H
I
O
QZ
)
80
J
13
.
L
V
I
8
W
S
A
1
1
I
H3
.J
I
T
h
O
D
H
I1
V
O
IU
f
l
31
3
‘4
0
1
P
m
,
el
i
l
-L
a
—
n2
o
T
h
L
f
l
I
—-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
O3
O
W
3
38
01
1
NO
I
S
SN
I
I
S
I
X
]
01
00
91
1
01
9
1
1
9
N
0
33
9
3
0
3
$
19
3
1
2
8
1
1
-
--
11
9
9
0
1
0
VI
l
i
l
i
95
3
9
19
1
0
1
•
3
cO
t
)0
1
9
89
1
0
@0
9
1
9
0
9
0
3
-
Ii
90
0
1
1
9
1
0
9
98
9
0
8
9
3
01
N
I
8
4
0
3
9N
l
1
1
i
I
’
O
I
3
d
99
1
$
99
1
1
9
1
1
1
10
0
4
9
3
0
09
3
0
31
0
0
9
3
0
18
9
1
5
9
1
r
lO
U
I
S
99
1
1
9
1
0
1
39
0
4
5
0
0
69
9
11
0
9
)
3
0
9M
1
9
V
1
1
1
0
3
91
3
0
0
9
9
al
s
-
13
3
1
9
03
1
1
3
39
9
1
0
IN
I
@
1
3
3
31
9
9
1
9
a
1
1
5
&4
:a
t
i
j
t
t
a
0
00
1
rl
h
I
l
I
l
i
I
0
s
II
M
I
H
01
0
1
19
3
80
1
p
3
;
8
w
S
96
0
0
3
0
0
3
SI
I
M
O
93
0
4
4
0
5
30
9
9
4
5
1
1
5
3
.
01
1
9
1
9
10
1
1
0
$
HA
l
19
0
1
$
WO
H
I
90
3
CO
I
l
90
1
1
9
1
0
3
HD
J
VI
I
01
o3
3
0
9
.1
3
0
1
1
1
00
1
0
3
19
0
:
1
tS
I
J
P
P
V
09
1
1
93
3
1
4
4
3
1
1
•
31
3
0
3
9
3
3
95
9
3
1
9
4
-
IV
W
I
I
V
V
I
49
3
99
0
1
9
19
1
$
83
9
1
8
10
4
9
4
0
0
99
1
9
4
•
-
jI
37
3
$
.
.
30
0
1
3
0
9
1
0
$
14
3
0
1
.]
-
11
3
1
$
-
19
3
3
0
3
1
9
3
9
3I
f
l
i
3
f
l
N
3
S
03
0
9
0
9
0
9
9
0
3
0
9
0
-
91
9
1
$
99
0
1
09
0
0
9
11
0
.
7
1
33
1
9
3
Q
00
0
9
3
9
.0
9
0
19
1
9
3
1
V
9
15
0
4
3
jo
r
01
1
0
-
11
0
3
0
(
4
10
0
3
10
4
1
3
5
1
3
0
0
0
1
4
SO
j
i
j
i
l
o
l
l
I’
!
0
03
0
0
0
0
9
99
$
S
5
o
00
0
9
0
3
0
13
0
1
9
4
04
0
3
01
1
0
3
0
3
0
30
9
f
l
6
1
Y
3
0
1
9
I
0
19
9
3
1
9
9
01
1
2
1
3
fl
il
O
i
S
f
l
3
13
1
1
9
9
00
3
16
3
3
9
3
9
0
r
1
4
93
0
3
1
3
0
9
3
1
-
13
0
0
1
32
3
0
0
9
0
50
3
9
0
bo
O
n
e
:
13
3
3
9
4
44
0
3
0
3
1
0
0
9
99
0
N
I
I
O
0
1
0
-
O
‘V
3
0
1
l
V
0
lO
0
4
o
a
t
3
.4
SN
I
I
S
I
X
3
3S
O
d
S
l
O
aN
y
]A
O
k
9
J
d
11
Y
I
S
N
I
CN
V
3U
A
I
D
V
J
C
N
V
V
I
I
1
4J
3
j
9
9
3
1
0
DL
—
21
0
fl
f
l
3
Ni
S
1N
3
1
/
1
f
l
N
O
V
l
Ji
a
0l
]
I
V
N
I
W
f
l
1
1
I
A1
W
N
H
3
L
N
I
M]
N
r
TY
,
l
d
1
n
l
1
1
L
1
I
4
11
1
4
1
1
1
li
n
d
a
&L
L
L
•
l;
9
c
w
d
n
T
01
3
1
10
1
0
li
l
Y
0.
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
9
0
1
1
0
1
0
.
11
0
0
0
1n
3
0
l
IC
1*
1
1
9
’
11
1
0
1
1
01
:
0
1
1
LI
I
LI
I
I
00
1
1
1
1
3
0
00
:
ao
o
l
:
z
0
0
0
0
11
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
1
tl
L
I1
3
l
J
0
;
l
1
V.
1
1
0
.
1
lI
l
t
01
1
s
9
0
3
0
9
a
o
o
o
N
,
9
1
5
-
51
1
0
d
4
0
5
1
1
0
0
1
3
1
1
9
1
6
I
09
3
1
9
‘M
S
91
4
1
9
13
0
0
4
9
3
11
I
0
V
4
-
11
03
1
1
1
om
v
a
-
39
0
1
37
9
3
0
0
Ol
I
C
o
19
3
1
0
0
13
1
0
1
4
93
.
9
0
09
0
0
3
0
$
-
31
0
3
3
,
9
:
0
0
33
3
0
9
Ii
93
17
70
-
-
1i
o
o
i
i
ü
93
9
9
07
0
3
93
0
0
3
00
0
6
0
33
4
0
0
06
0
6
0
ll
,
CO
O
93
1
0
9
:0
3
1
3
5
1
A3
)
I
NO
l
D
O
0-
I
C
-4
:s
3
s
o
N
1
v
H
3
N
3
J
--
I
-
31
9
3
9
9
3
1
1
9
3
3
9
IN
O
U
m
I
I
V
M
I
-
o-
.
9
l3
3
3
0
v
3
19
0
9
3
9
3
99
1
4
93
1
5
3
3
-
0-
i
L
u
*
Estes Park Rsorts
2W’BLM BRASS CAP
A 1 PIPE
NO STAMP
Vai4ne
LAKESHORE LODGE
AND THE SHORES
RESTAURANT SIGN
EXISTING ND
PROPOSED LOCATION
TO BE 10 FROM
RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE
U,U’
(N (N
fl
co LI)00‘co00
Cd CI
NOTE:ThE TWO SETS OF SITE VISIBILITY
APPENDIX D.IV.1
TRIANGLES SHOWN INDICATE TWO WAYS OF INTERPRETING
SIGN
DO NOT
ENTER•
DO NOT
ENTER
DEPT OF NTERIOR
US FOREST SERVICE
P0 BOX 1366
COLLINS,CO 80522
SCALE:1”=40’
Dave Shirk
From:Stan Griep [griepsvco.Iarimer.cousJ
Sent:Monday,June 04,2012 7:41 AM
To:Dave Shirk
Subject:1770 Big Thompson Ave Sign Variance
Hi Dave,
If the entire sign structure is to be replaced,we will require a sign permit with Engineered sign
foundation plans and sign structure plans.If the faces of an existing sign are to be changed out and no
new sign structure or foundation and the sign size is to remain the same,we do not need a permit on
it.I did not send any comments on to the applicant,so please include our comments in your variance
report.
Project Address:1770 Big Thompson Avenue,PID 2529200920
(area of Estes Park Resort Off-Premise Sign)
Project Name:Estes Park Resort Variance Request
Thank you,
Stan
Stan V Griep 0
Lead &Commercial Plans Examiner
Larirrzer County Building Department
Ft.Collins,CO 80522-1190
Phone:(970)498-7714
Fax:(970)498-7667
*0
1.
LARIMER
COMMuTED TO EXCELlENCE
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION
P0.Box 1100
Fort Collins,Colorado 80522-1180
Planning (970)498-7683 8uliding (970)498-7700
Planning Fax (970)498.7711 BuIlding Fsx (970)498-7667
-http://www.iarimar.orglplannlng
CODE COMPLTANCE SECTION
LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING &BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION
Date:June 4,2012
STAFF REPORT
From:
To:
Chad Gray,Building &Code Compliance Lead Inspector
Karen Thompson
Project Name:US Department of Interior/Bureau of Reclamation Variance
Request.
Applicant:Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I,LLC
Parcel No:2529 2-00-920
This Is a request for a variance to allow an off-premise sign replacement.
STAFF COMMENTS:The application appears to be complete.Code Compliance has
no issues with the variance being approved for the replacement of the off-premise
sign for the hotel.If the variance is approved the owner must obtain a sign permit
through the Larimer County Building Department.
Code Compliance staff are available to assist the owner with any questions.Please
feel free to call Code Compliance Officer Eric Fried at (970)498-7706 with
questions.
F’RINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Dave Shirk
From:Bilobran,Timothy [Timothy.SiIobranDOT,STATE.CO.US]
Sent:Tuesday,June 19,2012 6:36 AM
To:Hice-Idler,GIora;Dave Shirk
Karen Thompson
RE:REFERRAL FOR COMMENT 1770 Big Thompson Avenue,EstesParkResort,Variance
Request
Dave,
The sight distance triangle is a slightly sticky issue.“Sight Distance Issues”is one of the
very few issues for on-premise signs which COOT has some sort of jurisdiction over.
Unfortunately it is a sticky issue because its tough to comment on whether or not the sign
will be a sight issue from the paperwork.Is it possible that the sign will be an issue?Most
definitely.I can’t say with 100%iron-clad certainty that it will be though.
For the sight-distance issue,CDOT’s official comments would be that the sign be located
within the easement in such a location to maximize the sight distance of the road.Once
erected,if COOT deems that the sign is a sight distance issue we will write the sign owner
and request that the sign be modified/relocated so that it is no longer a sight distance
issue.If Estes Park wishes to require the sign be erected in such a way or location so that
the sight distance is a moot issue as part of this variance request that is your prerogative.
Thanks,
Tim Bilobran
COOT Region IV Outdoor Advertising Inspector
970-350-2163
From:Hice-Idler,Gloria
Sent:Monday,June 18,2012 3:01 PM
To:Bilobran,Timothy
Subject:FW:REFERRAL FOR COMMENT 1770 Big Thompson Avenue,Estes ParkResort,Variance
Request
Did you respond about the sight triangle?
Gloria Hice-Idler
Region 4 Permit Manager
1420 2nd Street
Greeley,CO 80631
(970)350-2148
From:Dave Shirk [mai1to:dshirkestes.org]
Sent:Friday)June 08,2012 7:59 AM
To:Karen Thompsom Hice-Idler,Gloria
Subject:RE:REFERRAL FOR COMMENT 1770 Big Thompson Avenue,Estes ParkResort,Variance
Request
Hi Gloria-
Tim provided comments yesterday afternoon.
Do you have concern about the sign being in the site distance triangle?(I presented this
question to Tim).
1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS3SpecialMeetingoftheEstesValleyBoardofAdjustment
February 5,2003,8:00 a.m.
Board Room,Estes Park Municipal Building
Board Char Jeff Barker Members J0&Ball Judy Lamy Wayne Newsom
and Al Sager
Attending:Chair Barker,Members Ball,Lamy,Newsom and Sager
Also Attending:Town Attorney White,Planner Shirk,Planner Chilcott and
Recording Secretary Williamson
Absent:Director Joseph
Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m.The following minutes reflect the
order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1,U.S.BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROPERTY OFF HIGHWAY 34 AND
ADJACENT TO LOT 1.LAKE ESTES 2ND ADDITION (LAKE ESTES MARINA),1770
BIG THOMPSON AVENUE,APPLICANT:STANGER FAMILY,LLC —VARIANCE
REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.66.060(13)OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report.The Stanger Family,LLC received a
variance from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on April 11,2000 for the Lake
Shore Lodge off-premise sign located at 1770 Big Thompson Avenue on land owned by
US Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation.The Bureau of Reclamation has
contracted with the Estee Valley Recreation and Park District to provide public park and
recreation services on this land.The Lake Shore Lodge does not have frontage on a
public road.The existing off-premise sign is in an access easement granted to Lake
Shore Lodge.This is unusual for a business.This is a minor addition to the existing off-
premise sign to advertise the Silverado restaurant which is within the Lake Shore
Lodge.The sign currently advertises only the lodge and conference center.This
request does not exceed the maximum permitted sign area on a single lot or building.
Ray Marez was present to represent the Lake Shore Lodge.He stated that the
tourists that come to Estes Park miss the sign for Lake Shore Lodge and turnaround
illegally on Highway 34.He feels that adding the name of the restaurant will help
the general public find the restaurant.He believes this isa safety issue for the
general public.
Public Comment:
Cory Blackman,1260 Big Thompson Avenue,is the general manager of Best
Western Silver Saddle.He spoke in opposition when the off-premise sign was first
passed by the Board of Adjustment in April 2000.He feels the owners of Lake
Shore Lodge created this hardship for themselves when they chose to build on a
site without highway frontage.
Board Member Newsom stated that due to the building being located away from the
highway,a sign identifying the property should be allowed.Board Member Ball
agreed with Newsom’s statement.
It was moved and seconded (Newsorn/Ball)to approve the variance request for the
additional wording of “Silverado Restaurant”on the existing Lake Shore Lodge
off-premise sign located at 1770 BIg Thompson Avenue and the motion passed,
with the following conditions.Those voting ‘yes”Ball,Newsom,Sager and
Lamy.Those voting “no”Barker.All variances granted by the Board of
Adjustment shall become null and void if a Sign Permit has not been issued and
paid for,and the work commenced within twelve (12)months from the date the
variance is granted.
1.Limit the wording on the sign to the Lake Shore Lodge.Conference Center,and
Silverado Restaurant name,and address.
2.Allow sign to be calculated as the rectangular area within the stzuçture (47.25
square feet).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 5,2003 Page 2
3.Sign design and materials shall be as presented with this request,reviewed by
the Board of Adjustment on January 7,2003.
4.Maintain an eight foot setback from the highway ROW.
5.Lighting shall be directed to prevent any ofisite glare and shielded so as not to
be visible from adjacent property or the highway.
6.Total exterior signage on the property shall not exceed the allowable limit set by
the Municipal Code including this off-site sign,
7.Place dimensions on the approved sile plan that verify sign locations setbacks
and sight visibility at the highway intersection.
2.IJNPLATTED PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION OF KIOWA DRIVE AND MARY’S
LAKE ROAD,APPLICANT:MARY’S LAKE LODGE -VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
SECTION 17.66.060(13)OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report.The petitioner requests a variance to Section
17.66,060(13)of the Estes Park Municipal Code,which prohibits off-site signs from
being permitted,erected or maintained in the Town.This variance will allow Mary’s
Lake Lodge to erect a twenty-four square foot (eight foot by three foot)off-site sign on
the eastern corner of an unplatted parcel of land shown on the Kiowa Ridge Subdivision
p1st.The sign will be approximately fourfeet high.The applicant has proposed that the
sign be temporary,i.e.that it be removed once Kiowa Drive is completed behind Mary’s
Lake Lodge.However,temporary is an unknown number of years.Road construction
will not be triggered until Lot 4 and or LotS of Mary’s Lake Subdivision is developed.
When development will happen is unpredictable.On-site signs have been erected
which are visible from the right-of-way,including the paved sections of the right-of-way.
However,the existing on-site signs are not easily visible from Mary’s Lake Road or
Highway?.In staffs opinion the variance would not be in harmony with the purposes
of Chapter 17.66 Signs.The sign design blends with the historic character of the lodge.
This request exceeds the maximum permitted sign area on a single lot or buUding in
the “B”zoning district.
Board Member Sager questioned why the sign will not be needed after the completion
of Kiowa Drive.Planner Chilcott staled that the applicant’s Letter of Intent states the
sign would help direct traffic during the construction of Kiowa Drive,forwhich the timing
of construction has not been determined.People looking for Kiowa Subdivision or the
Rocky Mountain Church drive into the Lodge because Kiowa Drive currently dead ends
at the lodge.Planner Chilcott does not feel a sign at the intersection of Mart’s Lake
Road and Kiowa Drive will lessen the confusion.
Frank Theis,general manager and one of the owners,was present to represent the
lodge.He stated that he feels there are legitimate special circumstances for the off-
premise sign.Mr.Theis advised that once Kiowa Drive is completed it will create a
public road that will loop around the property.Currently there is no traffic driving by on
Mary’s Lake Road that can see the lodge’s sign.He stated that there was no provision
made for the sign during annexation because there was an understanding that all
parties would work on cooperative signage.Mr.Theis stated the lodge would be happy
to place a timeframe for which the off-premise sign could exist.He feels that the sign is
in harmony with the sign code and the neighborhood.
Public Comment:
Jim Tawney,1820 Fall River Road,spoke in favor of the proposed variance request.It
has always been his understanding that there would be signage on this piece of
unplatted property,which was created when Kiowa Drive was constructed,
Bob Koehler,2106 Ute Court,is the developer of the Kiowa Subdivision.He spoke in
favor of the proposed variance request.He stated that the original Mary’s Lake Lodge
sign stood on what is now referred to as an unplatted parcel.It was agreed by the
property owners that there would always be a Mary’s Lake Lodge sign at this location.
Mr.Koehler stated that provisions were made with Ed Dragon,former Line
Superintendent,for underground electricity and that a meter needs to be installed,
od occ
•flAOFOflOPUSLSHHJOCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSpMnczl ‘n ‘va.r?
EJ Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
April 11,2000,800 am
Board Room (Room 130),Estes Park Municipal Building
Board Chair Jeff Barker Members Joe Ball,Judy Lamy,Wayne
Newsom and Al Sager
Attending All
Also Attending:Director Stamey,Senior Planner Joseph,and Recording
Secretary Wheatley
Absent:None
Following a presentation by Mayor Dekker in appreciation of the Board of
Adjustment volunteers,Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 805 am
—INTRODUCTION
Director Stamey welcomed new Board members and gave a brief history of the
creation of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Procedures and standards for
review of variance requests were also noted
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Ball)that Jeff Barker be nominated for
Chair and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (NewsomlBall)that Al Sager be nominated for
Vice Chair and it passed unanimously.
A representative of the Community Development Office was appointed as Recording
Secretary.
SHORE LODsECTlON 29,T5N.R72W,1700 BIG THOMPSON
AVENUE,APPLICANT:R.L.STANGER -SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
SECTION 8J.3.f.OF THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE.
Senior Planner Joseph reviewed the Staff Report.Staff recommends the sign be
moved a minimum of 8 feet back from the highway ROW.Sr.Planner Joseph
responded to questions from the Board and advised that if the Board granted the
variance,they could also limit the amount of square footage allowed.Sign area is
determined to be the face of the sign plus 50%of the sign structure.Roger Thorp
representing the applicant reviewed their request.The applicant’s calculation of
signage was approximately 47.5 square feet.The sign was designed to keep in
character and scale to the EVRPD’s marina sign.The applicant would like the sign
to be at its designated location to avoid being hidden by the marina sign.Total
signage for the property is 60 square feet,and other exterior signage on the property
would be limited to the remaining allowable square footage.Current signs noting
construction site information will be removed.Since the Town ordinance allows 8
foot setbacks from other property lines and future annexation of this property is being
planned,the property line setbacks should conform.Lighting will be designed by the
sign vendor but the intention is that the lighting will be directed solely at the sign.
This sign is two-sided with the same design and text on each side.This property is
not adjacent to the highway and its only access is from Highway 34.The sign is
proposed to be placed within the Lodge’s access easement.To avoid having to put
.
•noroRo•ULjsH’NGCQ.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ‘t
Board of Adjustment
April 11.2000 Page 2
a larger,more noticeable sign on the Lodge property,the offsite variance isrequested.
Public Comments:
Cory Blackman,1260 Big Thompson Avenue —spoke in opposition to the request.
Wally Burke,1258 Big Thompson Avenue —spoke in opposition to the request.
Stan Gengler,EVRPD —referred to his written comments included in the Board
members’packets.
Roger Thorp responded to the comments and answered questions from the Board.
Setback could be accommodated.The new sign design distributed at the meeting issmallerthanthatinthepacket.By reducing the log size to 10 inches,the width of
the signage would be reduced by an additional toot.
It was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom)to approve the variance request
with the following conditions,and the motion passed.Those voting “yes”:
Sager,Newsom and Ball.Those voting “no”:Barker and Lamy.
1.Limit the wording on the sign to the Lake Shore Lodge and Conference Center
name,and address.
2.Allow sign to be calculated as the rectangular area within the structure (47.25
square feet).
3.Sign design and materials shall be as presented with this request.
4.Maintain an 8-toot setback from the highway ROW.
5.Lighting shall be directed to prevent any offsite glare and shielded so as not to
be visible from adjacent property or the highway.
6.Total exterior signage on the property shall not exceed the allowable limit set
by the Larimer County Code (60 sq.ft.)including this off site sign.
7.Place dimensions on the approved site plan that verify sign location setbacks
and sight visibility at the highway intersection.
MARY’S LAKE LODGE,LOT 1,TRACT 2,MARY’S LAKE LODGE ADDITION,
APPLICANT:FRANK THEIS —REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM EVDC
SECTION 4.4.C.1 WHICH ALLOWS FOR AN F.A.R.OF .25 AND MAXIMUM
BUILDING HEIGHT OF 30 FEET.REQUEST IS FOR AN F.A.R.OF .25 AND
BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET.
Director Stamey gave the Staff Report.Applicant is requesting two variances as
follows:
1.The maximum allowed building height is 30 feet.Applicant is
requesting a building height of 50 feet.
2.Maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR)is 0.25.Applicant is
requesting an FAR of 0.29.
Staff recommendation was denial of these variances.Height variance applies to the
south wing only.The north wing is involved in the calculation of the FAR.The
applicant,Frank Theis,gave a slide presentation ot the history of the lodge.The
applicant desires to restore and maintain the historic architecture and design of the
building.Dormers in the attic level would be constructed.
Public Comments:0DickBrown,871 East Lane,President of EPAHM (but not representing the Board)—
he personally supports the applicant’s effort in replicating the lodge.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
January 7,2003,8:00 am.
Board Room,Estes Park Municipal Building
Board:Chair Joe Ball,Members Jeff Barker,Judy Lamy,Wayne Newsom
and Al Sager
Attending:Chair Ball.Members Sager,Barker and Lamy
Also Attending:Director Joseph,Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary
Williamson
Absent:Member Newsom and Planner Chilcott
Chair Ball called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.The following minutes reflect theorderoftheagendaandnotnecessarilythechronologicalsequence.
1.CONSENT AGENDA
a.The minutes of the December 3,2002 meeting were accepted as presented.
2.ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was moved and seconded (Sager)Lamy)that Jeff Barker be nominated forChairandItpassedunanimouslywithoneabsentandBarkerabstaining.
It was moved and seconded (Barker/Ball)that Judy Lamy be nominated forVice-Chair and it passed unanimously with one absent and Lamy abstaining.
It was moved and seconded (Lamy/Sager)that the Community DevelopmentSecretarybeappointedasRecordingSecretaryanditpassedunanimously
with one absent.
The newly elected Chair took over the meeting at 8:06 am.
3.LOT 12,ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES,330 FALL RIVER LANE,APPLICANT:
KATHERINE GRACE —VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3,TABLE 4-2,SECTION 7.6.E.1 AND APPENDIX D.lII.3 OF THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Planner Shirk gave a brief review of the staff report and the conditions of approval.
Kathy Grace,applicant,was present and stated that she would like to keep the off-street parking in front of the house and utilize the current driveway to access the newgarage;therefore eliminating the need fora second curb cut.Planner Shirk stated thattheapplicantsrequestwouldbeacceptableaslongasthewidthofthecurrentdrivewayremainsunchanged.Commissioner Sager stated that he was concerned thatthegradeofthedrivewaymaybetoosteep.Director Joseph advised that the downhillsideofthegaragewouldbeon4feetoffillmakingthefinishfloorgradeofthegaragepracticalforthedriveway.
Public Comment:
Keith Keenan,2501 Big Thompson.commented that the river setbacks have alreadybeenreducedfrom50feetto30feetandstatedhewasnotinfavorofthisproposal.
It was moved and seconded (Sager/Ball)to deny a second curb cut and themotionpassedwithoneabsent.Those voting “yes1’Barker,Sager and Bait.Those voting “no”Lamy.
It was moved and seconded (Bail/Sager)based on the rock outcropping and siteconditionstoapprovethevariancerequestofsevenfeetsixinches(7’6”)fromtherequiredfifteenfoot(15)front yard setback to build a garage seven feet sixinches(76”)from the property line and a river setback variance of eight feet (8)from the required thIrty foot (30)river setback to build a garage twenty-two feet(22)from the rivers edge and the motion passed unanimously,one absent,with
*S
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment -
january 7,2003 Page 2
the following conditions.All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall
become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for,and
the work commenced within twelve (12)months from the date the variance is
granted.
1.Silt and construction barrier fencing shall be installed prior to any excavation
work,and shall be kept in working condition until all construction is
completed.
2.Prior to pouring foundation,submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a
registered and surveyor.
3.Compliance with the submitted site plan,which shall be revised to show only
the existing driveway.
4.IJNPLATEO PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION OF KIOWA DRIVE AND
MARY’S LAKE ROAD,APPLICANT:MARY’S LAKE LODGE —VARIANCE
REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.66.060(1 3)OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
Applicant requests a continuance to the February 4,2003 meeting.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy)to continue this request to the February
4,2003 meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one absent
5.U.S.BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROPERTY OFF HIGHWAY 34 AND
ADJACENT OT LOT 1.LAKE ESTES 2 ADDITION (LAKE ESTES MARINA),1700
BIG THOMPSON AVENUE,APPLICANT:STANGER FAMILY,LLC—VARIANCE
REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.66.060(13)OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
Chair Barker requests this item be continued because the sign is currently illegal.
There is an additional AAA sign attached to the side of the off premise sign that was
not approved with the previous variance.Board Member Sager stated that he
agreed with Chair Barker’s comments and sited Section 17.66.340(3)of the
Municipal Code.He stated that the Board of Adjustment has no right or reason to
hear this item until the violation is rectified.
Director Joseph stated that if the AA.A sign is removed the variance will be heard at
next month’s meeting.
Public Comment:
None.
Based on the current off premise sign being in violation of the previously approve
variance,it was moved and seconded (Sager/Lamy)to continue this request to the
February 4,2003 meeting to give the applicant time to remove the AAA sign and
the motion passed unanimously with one absent.
6.LOT 44,BLOCK 1,FALL RIVER ESTATES,SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FALL
RIVER COURT AND FALL RIVER ROAD INTERSECTION,APPLICANT:FALL
RIVER ESTATES,INC.—VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 7.6.E.2.b,
SECTION 7.6.E.1,a(2)AND SECTION 4.3,TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report.This is a request to build a single-family
residence on a legally platted lot in Fall River Estates.The lot has an unusual shape,
contains extensive wetlands that cover roughly 90 percent of the site,is split in two by
the Fall River and is heavily vegetated.The river and wetland setbacks,with the front
yard setback,combine to create regulatory constraints that would render this lot
unbuildable without the requested variances.This proposal includes building within
existing wetlands.The removed wetlands will be less than .10 acres,and will be
subject to all applicable Corps of Engineering requirements for removal of wetlands.
The proposed location would have the least amount of impact on the Fall River riparian
.
flAoro..ususrnNsca.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 4,2003,8:00 a.m.
Board Room,Estes Park Municipal Building
Board:Chair Jeff Barker,Members Joe Ball,Judy Larny,Wayne Newsom
and Al Sager
Attending:Chair Barker.Members Sager,Newsom and Lamy
Also Attending:Planner Shirk,Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary
‘illiamson
Absent:Director Joseph,Member Ball
Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.The following minutes reflect the
order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1.CONSENTAGENDA
a.The minutes of the January 7,2003 meeting were accepted as presented.
b Lot,Block 1,FaIl River Estates,Southwest corner of Fall River Court
and Fall River Road Intersection —Staff requests moving item to a Special
Meeting on February 5 2003
2 LOT 7,RECLAMATION SUBDIVISION 340 S SAINT VRAIN APPLICANT
ABUNDANT LIFE CHRISTIAN CENTER —VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION
4,TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Q Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report.This variance request is to enclose an
existing patiofentranceway.The exishng patio is roofed and has a concrete slab
floor.The church was built in the 1960’s and is nonconforming as to the front yard
setback.The entryway already exists;however it doesn’t have walls on two sides,
The enclosed entryway will not extend further into the setback than the unenclosed
entryway The enclosed entryway a only 176 square feet approximately and a
portion of the structure already exists Therefore the request is not substantial The
proposed addition may not substantially alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Jim Cornefl was present to represent the Abundant Life Christian Center.He stated
that currently the members have to walk outside to go around the sanctuary.
Enclosing the walkway will aid in the flow of traffic and enable people to walk around
the edge of the sanctuary without going outside.
Public Comment:
None.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lamy)to approve the variance request of
seven feet sIx inches (7’G”)from the twenty-five (25)foot front yard setback to
enclose a patio(entranceway and the motion passed unanimously,one absent,
with the following conditions.All variances granted by the Board of Adjustmqnt
shall become null and void If a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for,
and the work commenced within twelve (12)months from the date the variance is
granted.
1,A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide
a stamped and signed setback certificate.
2.Compliance with the submitted site plan showing that the addition will not extend
further than the existing entranceway concrete slab.
3.UNPLA’rI’ED PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION OF KIOWA DRIVE AND MARY’S
LAKE ROAD,APPLICANT:MARY’S LAKE LODGE —VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
SECTION 17.66.060(13)OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
Board Member Sager stated there are current off premise signs for Mary’s Lake
a.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
February 4,2003 Page 2
Lodge on the adjacent properties that have not been permitted by the Town,He
sited Section 17.66.340(3)of the Municipal Code which states the Board of
Adjustment has no right or reason to hear an item currently in violation.Jeff Sigler,
Code Enforcement Officer,stated that he agreed with the interpretation of the code.
He advised that he contacted Mr.Theis yesterday afternoon to inform him of the
violations.
Frank Theis,general manager and one of the owners of Mary’s Lake Lodge,stéted that
staff notified him Thursday of the non complying signs that needed to be removed
before the Board of Adjustment meeting.He removed the signs except for the
directional signs.He felt he had reached an understanding 6 months ago with Mr.
Sigler that those signs could be posted during construction.Jeff Sigler agreed that he
had a conversation with Mr.Theis regarding the directional signs.Mr.Sigler believed
the signs would be placed on Mary’s Lake Lodge property and not off premise.He also
stated that Mr.Theis did not feel he could operate his business during the construction
without the directional signage.It was agreed that Mr.Theis could have directional
signage less than one square foot.
Public Comment:
Jim Tawney,owner of Ponderosa Lodge,stated he was the original owner of the land
for which Mary’s Lake Lodge is requesting an off premise sign.Once Kiowa Drive was
completed,he deeded the land to Bob Koehler.He stated that there have been
numerous signs placed on his property with his full knowledge and approval.The signs
were placed with the understanding that they were temporary.He feels the Board
should hear the variance request.
Mr.Theis stated that he will take down the signs.He thought there was an
understanding with staff that he could put up small directional signs.He feels he has
shown good faith in removing the signs staff had requested be removed.
Based on the presence of existing off premise signage for Mary’s Lake Lodge
that has not been permitted,it was moved and seconded (Sager/Barker)to
continue this request to the February 5,2003 meeting to give the applicant time to
remove the additional off premise signage and the motion passed unanimously
with one absent.
4.U.S.BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROPERTY OFF HIGHWAY 34 AND
ADJACENT OT LOT 1,LAKE ESTES 2N0 ADDITION (LAKE ESTES MARINA),1770
BIG THOMPSON AVENUE,APPLICANT:STANGER FAMILY,LLC —VARIANCE
REQUEST FROM SECTION 17.66.060(1 3)OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
Board Member Sager requests this item be continued because the sign is currently
illegal.The sign has rope lights wrapped around the poles of the sign which the sign
code prohibits.Jeff Sigler,Code Enforcement Officer,stated that he agreed with
Board Member Sager’s interpretation of the sign code regarding lighting.He stated
that he contacted the applicant late yesterday afternoon to inform them of the
violation.
Ray Marez was present to represent the Lake Shore Lodge.He stated that the,
lights were put up in the spirit of Christmas.He wUll make sure that the lights come
down today.
Public Comment:
None.
Based on the current off premise sign being in violation due to the addition of
rope lights wrapped around the post,it was moved and seconded
(Newsom/Sager)to continue this request to the February 5,2003 meeting to give
the applicant time to remove the rope lights and the motion passed unanimously
with one absent.
a--
•
JUN 082012
Statement of Intent ICO1iDEVELOPMEJVarianceRequesttotheEstesValleyBoardofAdjustment
for an off-site sign and request for more lenient sign dimensional standards.
County of Larimer,State of Colorado
Applicant:Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties I,LLC (Lakeshore Lodge),Lot 1,Lake Estes Second
Addition,1700 Big Thompson Ave.,Estes Park,CD 80517
Property Owner:Bureau of Reclamation/Department of the Interior (BoR)
Zoning:CO —Commercial Outlying
Code Section of Appeal:
1.EVDC -Section 8.1.8 -AU signs in unincorporated Larimer County shall comply with the
Larimer County Sign Code
2.EVDC -Appendix D.IV.1 -Sight visibility triangle formed by an imaginary line starting at
the point of intersection of property lines and extending thirty (30)feet from their point
of intersection
3.LCLUC -Section 10.2.B -Signs may not be placed in road or access easements.We are
requesting that the sign be placed in the access casement that Lakeshore Lodge has
across BoR land.
4.LCLUC -Section 10.S.E —Prohibited Signs -off-premises signs.We are requesting the
sign be placed on BoR land adjacent to U.S.Highway 34.
5.LCLUC -Section 10.11.8.2 —Setback and Maximum Size.We are requesting that the sign
be allowed to be 54 square feet and 10’from the property line.Both measurements
meet the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code.
The applicant,Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties,LLC,is requesting an off-site sign for an existing hotel
called the Estes Park Resort (F.K.A.Lakeshore Lodge)that will be on BoR property.They have changed
the name of the hotel to The Estes Park Resort and the restaurant inside is now called The Waterfront,
thus the need for a new sign.The property is a landlocked parcel of land that was created when the B0R
built Lake Estes.In 1947 the lot became landlocked when the owners at the time granted a sliver of land
from the Lakeshore Lodge property to the B0R but simultaneously kept an access easement across BoR
property to get to US 34.This sliver is part of what became the Lake Estes Marina.The access easement
across BoR property has become the historical access for the Lakeshore Lodge property and there has
been signage in this access easement since the construction of Lakeshore Lodge,The location of the
sign,driveway,access easement and Lakeshore Lodge with respect to US 34 can be seen on the
attached ALTA survey.
Prior to the Lakeshore Lodge,the property was the Lake Estes Drive-in Theatre which utilized the same
access to get to US 34.The drive-in theatre first established the driveway around 1952 and opened for
business in May of 1953.The hotel was built in 1999-2001 at which time they applied for a sign permit
Page 1.of 4
..
through the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment and were granted the variance for the off-site sign.We
are applying again because the old variance was very specific in nature.Just changing the name
required a new variance.We would like to put in a new,internally lit sign,with larger lettering because
the current sign is unrecognizable compared to all the neighboring signs and the property needs better
recognition for hotel guests and diners.
The off-site sign is requested because the property needs adequate signage along US 34 as any business
accessed off of US 34 would need.A sign at the driveway entrance is the logical place since it can be
readily seen from US 34.Any signage on the lodge property would not be easily seen from US 34 and
would put the business at a competitive disadvantage with the other businesses on US 34.That is the
main reason for the off-site sign.The sign also needs to be in the access easement because that is the
property they have the ability to use through a Special use Permit and access easement with the BoR.
Because the sign needs to be within the access easement,the site visibility triangle makes a big
difference with the setback.The sign needs to be 30 feet from the property line,according to the figure
in Appendix D.lV.1 but we would like to be up to 10 feet from the property line.The figure in Appendix
D.lV.1 can be interpreted two ways,as 30 from the property line or the street line.The site triangle
where people actually stop at traffic is roughly 30 feet closer,at the intersection with US 34.This makes
our sign about 38 feet from the stopping point.In addition,we are moving it 2 feet further back from
where the current sign is.This distance from the stopping point,near the street line actually exceeds the
required distance.This stopping point is the area that the site triangle really needs to be applied,and
there will be nothing blocking the visibility in this area.We are blocking the site triangle if it’s
interpreted as being from the property line,but we are making the situation better.The current sign
was allowed in this area 11 years ago,as well as the Marina sign on the other side of the entrance.This
is probably because at that time,the site visibility triangles were interpreted to be from the street
intersection.
The main aspect of the proposed sign is that it needs to be more recognizable.The letters have been
made larger and the sign has been internally lit so it will be more legible for drivers passing by and more
noticeable at night.Unfortunately,the current sign blends in to the surroundings and is too small in
comparison to other signs along this hotel corridor of US 34.Many customers call from the road
because they can’t find the entry.Attached is a letter from the owner explaining this difficulty they
have.This also creates a traffic hazard since many people are driving slow and calling on their phones
trying to find the property entrance.Anything we can do to make the property more recognizable and
convenient for the public will help.We have requested approval from the BoR and the EVRPD for the
new sign since we need permission and permits from these agencies as well.That application is still in
process,though we have been given verbal approval of our proposed sign design and location.It just
takes a while to formally complete a permit with the BoR.
Attached is the proposed design.It is smaller than the other signs along this highway corridor,however
it is larger than the Larimer County Sign Code requirements,therefore we are asking for a variance from
Section 10.11.B.2,Setback and Maximum Size.The Town Municipal Code’s sign regulations are different
than Larimer County’s.One difference is the county has a varying setback based on size.The town’s is
Page 2 of 4
..
simply eight feet from any lot line.In order to be consistent and stay competitive with the rest of the
hotels we need to put the sign in roughly the same sight line,10 feet from the lot line,and roughly the
same size as the other hotels.We are proposing a sign that is smaller in height and size than what the
Town Municipal Code allows.This design is 10 feet tall and roughly 54 square feet with a 10’setback.
The Town Municipal Code regulations are 25 feet tall and 200 square feet with artS’setback.For a 10’
setback,the county requires the sign be no larger than 10’tall and 33 square feet.We are asking for
the sign to be larger than the county code allows so it can be competitive in size and location with
neighboring signs.It is significantly smaller than the town code allows and what the other properties on
Highway 34 have.It is also smaller than the previous variance approval of 60 square feet and roughly
the same dimensions as the existing sign.
The existing sign has been in place for several years now and though no documented study has proven
that the current sign is inadequate,there have been comments from many people that they do not
notice the sign as they pass by on US 34.Attached is a picture looking west that shows how small the
current sign is compared to the neighboring resorts.The current sign is the second sign from the left.It
shows how it is blocked by the Lake Estes Marina sign (the first sign from the left)as vehicular traffic
approaches the driveway.The new design would raise it above the Lake Estes Marina sign so it will not
be blocked and would be more noticeable compared to adjacent resorts.The size of the current sign is
unrecognizable as a resort establishment sign.There is also a picture looking east.It shows how the
new sign,located in the same place,would not block the Lake Estes Marina sign.It also shows how
difficult it is to read compared to the size of the letters on the neighboring signs.This is what makes
locating the resort property very difficult for guests as mentioned in the owner’s letter.
In summary and addressing the Review Criteria:
Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.The property can be used
without the variance however this property has no street frontage and currently has a driveway crossing
a neighbor’s property.To put the sign on the owner’s property would limit visibility and advertising for
the property,thereby putting them at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the hotel owners.
Considering this property is commercial property and an access was provided over 60 years ago and has
been used since 1953,it only makes sense to have a sign along the driveway entrance.
Whether the variance is substantiaL The variance request is to simply have a sign that looks like all the
other signs along the US 34 corridor.It would not be any different than what everyone else along US 34
inside the town limits is already allowed.
Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether
adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.The proposed sign
design is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.It would not be a detriment at all.In fact
it would improve what is already there and be a safer option to what already exists.
Page 3 of 4
Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer.No
it would not affect any public utilities.
Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement.The applicant
assumed that since there was a sign,then it was okay to continue to have a sign.The applicant did not
know the process necessary to upgrade the sign.
Whether the applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.
The applicant does have some other choices however they aren’t cost effective.The owner could buy
property directly to the north of the Lakeshore Lodge and build a new driveway and sign,however,that
is very costly.It would be too much of an investment just to install a more visible sign and then build a
new driveway.Another option is to just have a sign on the Lakeshore Lodge property but that would
prove to be more ineffective than what already exists.To put the sign on the owner’s property would
limit visibility and advertising for the property,thereby putting them at a competitive disadvantage with
the rest of the hotel and restaurant owners as mentioned earlier.A third option would be too share a
driveway with another commercial property,but that would be similar to the first option which would
be very costly to purchase access rights and rebuild the driveway to serve the Lodge’s property.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
0
Joseph W.Coop,Van Horn Engineering,for Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties 1,LLC
0
Page 4 of 4
Lk;’d
Estes Park,Colorado COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT
To Whom It May Concern:
As you may know,we took over the operation of the Lakeshore Lodge in E5tes Park,Colorado on May17thof2011andarelookingforwardtothechallengingtaskofmakingthishistoricallyunsuccessfulhotel
property profitable.Having spent 30 years in the hospitality industry,I don’t believe I have ever seen a
property in more dire need of signage than this one.
We are always cognizant of being responsible members of each community where we operate hotels
and strive to be good stewards of both our assets and the environments where they occur.This facility
is located in an idyllic environment that is highly attractive to our customer base.Expanding this base is
easily accommodated by the existing facility and would result in increased employment needed to serve
our customers as well as positively impacting the local economy in general.
A major impediment to responsibly growing the use of the Estes Park Resort is in being able to make our
prospective customers aware that we exist.In my professional opinion,one of the main reasons the
property has repeatedly failed in the past (under the leadership of numerous owners and management
companies)is directly related to the inability to establish an identity or gain much needed brand
recognition in Estes Park.The hotel is located adjacent to but not visible from Highway 34,which is
required to access it.Travelers in the area cannot see the hotel (at all)from the highway and many,
perhaps most,locals do not even know this hotel,equipped with eating,meeting and other facilities
they too would find attractive,and is open to the public.
We are so secluded that only past customers that have already stayed here are helping us market the
facility by word of mouth and even they are challenged when asked to pinpoint our location for first
time visitors.We need to upgrade our visibility in the community to better inform travelers passing by
and locals in the community of our existence.Installation of tasteful and informative signage on our
easement from the Bureau of Reclamation to be readily visible from Highway 34 is critical and
synergistic with other marketing efforts to better attract the public to the high quality products and
services we have to provide them in this highly accessible but attractively secluded environment.
It is imperative that the Lake Shore Lodge obtain signage in order to succeed.The erection of new
environmentally friendly signage would allow us to establish an identity for the hotel that is critical to
growing our business,adding new jobs,increasing the quality of tourism experience for area visitors and
serving the local community.This would also place our facility on equal footing with all of the other
hotels located up and down our street that are equipped with adequate highway signage.
Thank you respectfullyl
Sincerely,
Kevin A.Bier!,Owner
Lake Shore Lodge
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
AM)’ca,t7j
Lao Ak Ne/el
7%nr/7C5 73 LL a
Record Owner(s):LI S.Pi.çnr bn p,vfaP tnbr/R,noaet o*&cb..ia h’ntJreetMdressoft-ct /7L)7toampcea.t Ave
Legal Description:Lot Blode___________Trad
______
StbdiW*fl!’rJterrt o1 14 .4-Z9-sr-lt
ParoejIDN:2fl2-oO—9to,
ttsize /ZJ Ait
Existing I.and Use
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service R’rown
Proposed Water Service ‘lown
Existing Sanitary Sewer SeMee
Proposed Sanitaty Sewer SerVice
Existing Gas Service 15cXcel
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands onthe site?
Well r Other(Specify)
Well r OthW(Specify)r EPSO jg-UTSGrEPSDrYUTSDrOtherrNone
r SeØcrSeptic
Imant?0oc#-FL 6&Vn/4..,1 Z’v i%,k[i+z .&4fltL14 ‘,
Name of Pr iary Contact Person
Complete Mailkig Address
Prknazy Contact Person is
to’l 3 Ca k .h.,t-k cé orzr
r Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
Statement of Witent (mustcomplywith standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code)
1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at ascale of 10 =
1 reduced copy of the siteplan (11 •X 17’)
The site plan shall lndude informaon in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.V1L5 (attached).The applicant wUl be requfred to provide additional copies ofthe site plan after staff revieweetheattachedBoardofAcOustmentvaflanceapplicationschedule).CoØes must be folded.
Town ci Esles Pat 4’P.O.Box 12004.170 MacGcegor Avenue-Estes Palc CO 80517
Coinmunhly Development Deportmenl Phone:(970)577.372)Fox:(970)586-0249 w.estes.or9/ComOev
.I
0
Zoning CC)
r
r
afl’,k/OD*IJ
Arrepha.t,p //6awennpqanP Thc;/dSsc
‘I-S.
I
17-ic’
F’Yes
‘tn.urlflCt at--rN Al/MD
C--Jet.J Vapi itjern..vo q
r owner r Acpicant ConsultanVEngineer
I
Revised 11/20/09
.
0a)>a,
.
04.
’Eo
at
a’
.9
c
ZS
2
t
otE
a
,
(t
o
o
)
0)
O
W
0&
c
.9
a)
4.
’
—
oc
.0
a)
W
a
“I
—
C
Ma
4
0.
)
C
C
1<
>
.9
CA
’
in
.9
wt
D
—
t
0
0C
CI.
z
0
®0
.2
n
—
0Ct
0
0)
aat
.c
C
Ct
II
atE.00•4
-020at0tat0C)40CCa)tatSa)
.00DS0CDI
U
.
—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 apphcable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC).
P I 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:
http:I/www.estes,orp/ComDevfDevCode
P Lunderstand 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 (he.
EVDC.
P 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.
P I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
identification access to my property during the review of this application.
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.I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
P 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 cleady visible from the road.I understand that the corners of
my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked.I understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10)business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
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:jky/4’-irI4 ;EV/fP ttkr
Applicant PLEASE PRINT:1 t,ë.A/oaa,%yn s4(’t4n’tt,,tlt44t.J _z;
Signatures:
Record Owner ../Zg_
A d/e4 C..Applicant Date r-?-Y —,.,a...
Revised 11/20/09
..
(CHAPTER 8.SIGNS
§8.1 COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN AND COUNTY SIGN CODES
A,Signs in the Town of Estes Park.All signs in the Town of Estes Park shaH comply with
the Estes Park Sign Code,set forth in Chapter 17.66 of the Town of Estes Park Municipal
Code,as amended from time to time.
B.Signs in Larimer County.All signs in unincorporated Larimer County shall comply with
the Larimer County Sign Code,set forth in Chapter 10 of the Larimer County Land Use
Code,as amended from time to time.(Ord.27-10 §1,12/14/10)
•
H
/
LI “
—
8-2
..
in a straight line,parallel to the edge of traveled way.No
jagged edges shall be left on the match line.(Ord.8-05#1)
n.An access that has a gate across it shall be designed so that
using the access can completely clear the traveled way when
(Ord.8-05#1)
(Ord.8-05#1,6/14/05;Ord.25-07 §1,11/27/07)
IV.INTERSECTION AND DRIVEWAY VISIBILITY (Ord.8-05 #1)
irregular angles or
the longest vehicle
the gate is closed.
Intersections.No fence,wall,hedge,landscaping,sign or other material or structure
that will obstruct vision between a height of three (3)feet and eleven (11)feet shall be
erected,placed or maintained within the sight visibility triangle formed by an imaginary
line starting at the point of intersection of property lines and extending thirty (30)feet
from their point of intersection,as shown on the following illustration:(Ord.8-05 #1)
Sight Visibility Triangle at Intersection (Ord.8-05 #1)
Visibility triangle requirements may be increased when deemed necessary for
traffic safety.(Ord.18-01 #34;Ord.8-05#1)
2,Driveways.(Ord.8-05 #1)
0
Figure D.1
0
Visitilky rrsai VWbIItyTdengle
sna
301a
op
Lnc
r
S
r
4
0
-hA,
al
F
r
4
I-:.
I—
I
-iqi I,
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
rt
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
Ow
n
e
r
Co
l
o
r
a
d
o
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
&
Ba
t
h
of
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
Gl
e
n
n
Sm
i
t
h
Tr
u
s
t
Bi
g
Th
o
m
p
s
o
n
,
LL
C
io
n
&
Di
a
n
e
Ne
d
e
r
v
e
l
d
Le
o
n
&
Be
t
t
y
Va
n
S
t
e
e
n
b
u
r
g
h
Su
s
a
n
La
n
g
d
o
n
PT
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
LL
C
DD
Sh
a
n
k
s
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
Ol
i
n
e
Pa
t
r
i
c
i
a
We
l
k
e
r
Ro
c
k
y
Mt
n
.
Ho
t
e
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
I,
LL
C
Ca
p
i
t
a
)
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
LL
C
Sm
i
t
h
Li
v
i
n
g
Tr
u
s
t
Tr
o
t
m
a
n
Ho
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
LL
C
Ch
e
s
t
e
r
&
Li
l
l
i
a
n
Ci
e
z
e
z
a
k
Ya
k
u
t
a
t
la
n
d
Co
r
p
Do
n
a
l
d
&
Sa
r
a
h
Wa
l
k
De
p
t
.
of
th
e
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
PC
Bo
x
20
10
7
9
Fa
l
l
Ri
v
e
r
Ct
12
2
0
Bi
g
Th
o
m
p
s
o
n
Av
e
18
2
0
Ra
v
e
n
Av
e
18
2
5
No
r
t
h
La
k
e
Av
e
18
4
0
Ra
v
e
n
Av
e
16
9
2
Bi
g
Th
o
m
p
s
o
n
Av
e
P0
Bo
x
63
5
18
1
0
Ra
v
e
n
Av
e
18
5
0
Ra
v
e
n
Av
e
75
0
2
Pi
n
n
a
c
l
e
Pe
a
k
Rd
,
Un
i
t
6
11
8
16
9
2
Bi
g
Th
o
m
p
o
s
n
Ay
e
,
Su
i
t
e
10
0
16
8
5
Rh
o
d
e
Is
l
a
n
d
St
91
0
Ro
c
k
w
o
o
d
Ln
17
0
1
No
r
t
h
La
k
e
Av
e
91
1
Ki
m
b
a
r
k
St
PC
Bo
x
25
6
4
P0
Bo
x
13
6
6
Ow
n
e
r
II
Th
e
r
e
s
e
Sm
i
t
h
Tr
u
s
t
Va
n
S
t
e
e
n
b
u
r
g
h
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
La
b
St
e
v
e
n
Ho
f
f
m
a
n
Su
s
a
n
Gr
e
e
n
s
p
o
o
n
Ch
r
i
s
t
i
n
a
Ko
l
a
t
Ci
t
y
ST
Zi
p
Lu
c
e
r
n
e
CC
80
6
4
6
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CC
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CC
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CC
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CC
80
5
1
7
Sc
o
t
t
s
d
a
l
e
AZ
85
2
5
5
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Lo
v
e
l
a
n
d
CC
80
5
3
8
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CC
80
5
1
7
Lo
n
g
m
o
n
t
CC
80
5
0
1
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
CO
80
5
1
7
Ft
Co
l
l
i
n
s
CO
80
5
2
2
.
Es
t
e
s
Pa
r
k
Re
s
o
r
t
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
0
0