The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2023-01-03 December 28, 2022 The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT–TOWN OF ESTES PARK 170 MacGregor Avenue –Town Hall Board Room Tuesday, January 3, 2023 9:00 a.m. Estes Park, CO 80517 The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and recorded and posted to YouTubeand www.estes.org/videoswithin 48 hours. AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Board of Adjustment Minutes datedNovember 1, 2022 ACTION ITEMS: 1.Habitat for HumanityTBD Raven Avenue Senior Planner Woeber Applicant requests a ten-foot variance to allow a lot width of 50feet in place of the required 60-foot lot width. 2.El Mex Cal160 South St VrainPlanner I Washam The applicant requests a variance to allow a reduced front setback of eight and three- tenths feet (8.3’) and a reduced arterial road setback of twenty-two feet six inches (22’- 6”) in lieu of the fifteen feet (15’) and twenty-five feet (25’) respective setbacks. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1.Upcoming meeting items ADJOURN 2 3 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 1, 2022 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting was held virtually in said Town of Estes Park 1 day of November2022. Committee:ChairJeff Moreau,Vice-ChairWayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman Attending:ChairMoreau, Vice-ChairNewsom, Board Member Holtzman, Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Senior Planner Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town Board Liasion Barbara MacAlpine Absent:none Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Newsom) to approve the ) to approve the ) to approve the agenda.agenda. The motion passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Newsom/HoltzmanNewsom/Holtzman) to approve the Consent Agenda) to approve the Consent Agenda) to approve the Consent Agendawith the addition of Senior Planner Jeff Woeber in attendancethe addition of Senior Planner Jeff Woeber in attendancethe addition of Senior Planner Jeff Woeber in attendance. . . The motion passedThe motion passedThe motion passed 3- 3- 3-0. Public Comment: none t VARIANCE REQUEST 2 223 Cleave Street 23 Cleave Street 23 Cleave Street Senior Planner WoeberSenior Planner WoeberSenior Planner Woeber Planner Woeber reviewed the request to approve a variance to allow a zeroPlanner Woeber reviewed the request to approve a variance to allow a zeroPlanner Woeber reviewed the request to approve a variance to allow a zero-foot (0’) front setback for theupper-level decks and roof eaves and six feet (6’) for the structure at street level decks and roof eaves and six feet (6’) for the structure at street level decks and roof eaves and six feet (6’) for the structure at street f levelfor the planned BAT Buildingfor the planned BAT Building. . The third story of the proposedThe third story of the proposedThe third story of the proposed project will include a step back of no less than eight feet (8’) from the buildingstep back of no less than eight feet (8’) from the buildingstep back of no less than eight feet (8’) from the building façade as required.façade as required.façade as required. Applicants for the project were on hand to answer questions: Joe Calvin, Architect; Davicants for the project were on hand to answer questions: Joe Calvin, Architect; Davicants for the project were on hand to answer questions: Joe Calvin, Architect; David Bangs, Engineer; Nick Smith, owner. Calvin stated that the building would be within feet Bangs, Engineer; Nick Smith, owner. Calvin stated that the building would be within feet Bangs, Engineer; Nick Smith, owner. Calvin stated that the building would be within feet a of the rock wall but not built into the wall.of the rock wall but not built into the wall.of the rock wall but not built into the wall. It was moved and seconded was moved and seconded was moved and seconded(Moreau/Holtzman) to (Moreau/Holtzman) to (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request for r reduced front setbareduced front setbareduced front setbackcks for the subjes for the subjes for the subject property addressed ct property addressed ct property addressed at 223 Cleave Street, with findings outlined in the staff reportfindings outlined in the staff reportfindings outlined in the staff reportand the requirement of setback certification when the and the requirement of setback certification when the and the requirement of setback certification when the project is complete. project is complete. project is complete. TheTheThemotion passed motion passed motion passed 3-0. REPORTS The Comprehensive PPlan is lan is nearlyfinalizedand will be brought to thePlanning d Commission onNovember 15 and November 15 and the Town Board on December6. There being no further business, Chair Moreauadjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m. Jeff Moreau, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 4 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Chair Jeff Moreau Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: January 3, 2023 Application: Setback Variance for Lot Width TBD Raven Avenue Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley, Inc., Owner/Applicant Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, Representative Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, subject to the findings described in the report. Land Use: 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Designation: (Future Land Use): Mixed Residential Neighborhood Zoning District: RM Multi-Family Residential (RM) Site Area: 0.82 Acre PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to reconsider and make a decision on a previously-approved request from the Applicant for a ten-foot variance to allow a lot width of 50-feet in place of the required 60-foot lot width. Location: The property is legally described as Lot 2A, Ward Minor Subdivision. It is located approximately 300 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Lone Pine Drive and Raven Drive. 6 Background The 0.82-acre subject property is in an RM (Multi-Family Residential) Zone District. It is undeveloped and was created through the Ward Minor Subdivision, approved and recorded in January 2021. The Minor Subdivision was done in anticipation of further subdividing the property, which will enable Habitat for Humanity to develop single family residences on five proposed lots. A somewhat similar variance was processed and approved by the BOA on October 5, 2021. That variance was also for 50-foot lot width, but for four lots. The current plans are reconfigured into five lots, plus a separate Ðoutlot.Ñ The EPDC, under Section 3.6.D., requires an applicant to ÐÈapply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one year of receiving approval of the varianceÈÑ Failure to do so renders the BOA approval null and void. With that being the case the variance has expired. The applicant has also reconfigured the proposed subdivision from what was initially proposed. Variance Description: The Applicant seeks a 10-foot variance to the minimum lot width standard for the RM Zone District. If approved, the property will be subdivided into five lots, each 50 feet in width. There will also be an outlot for a detention pond. Developing this property presents significant challenges related to drainage and the location of a sewer main, which would otherwise need to be relocated. Location and Context: The subject property is located approximately 400 feet from Big Thompson Avenue (Highway 34), and is zoned RM (Multi-Family Residential). Property across Raven Avenue to the north is also zoned RM and contains a multi-family residential use. RM zoned property to the west contains condominiums. Property to the east is zoned E (Estate), and contains a single-family residence. A, (Accommodations) zoned property is located south of the subject site and contains the Rocky Mountain Hotel and Conference Center. 7 Vicinity Map Zoning Map 8 Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Subject Mixed Residential RM (Residential) Residential Site Neighborhood Mixed Residential RM (Multi-Family North Residential Nei ghborhood Residential) Mixed-Use Accommodations, South A (Accommodations) Centers & Corridors Motel East Suburban Estate E (Estate) Residential Mixed-Use RM (Multi-Family Residential, West Centers & Corridors Residential) Condominiums Project Analysis Review Criteria: The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows: 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this CodeÓs standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Special conditions exist. Development of the property with five lots would not be possible without the outlot, which would contain drainage improvements and an existing sewer line. The requested variance will not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the lot width standards, the EPDC, or the Comprehensive Plan. 2.In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: There may be beneficial use of the property without the variance. 9 b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial, with the 10-foot reduction in lot width being a 16.7 percent decrease from the required 60 feet. c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The character of the neighborhood would not be altered with a lot width of 50 feet. There are numerous condominiums in this area, which include fairly high density, attached structures. There would be little or no detrimental impact to adjoining properties. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Public services such as water and sewer will not be adversely affected by the variance. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Applicant was aware of the required minimum lot width, but may not have realized the difficulty of relocating existing sewer lines and providing effective drainage improvements f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant could plat and develop fewer lots without a variance. 3.No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding: The conditions affecting the ApplicantÓs property are not general or recurrent. 4.No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 10 Staff Finding: If the variance is granted, other applicable RM Zone District regulations would not preclude the applicant from creating five single family lots. 5.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The proposed variance would be the least deviation from the EPDC regulations. 6.Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The proposed variance is for a use permitted in the RM Zone District. 7.In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff does not recommend conditions. Reviewing Agency Comments: This request has been referred to all applicable review agencies staff for review and comment. There was no objection to the proposed variance. The Public Works Department noted the need for a sidewalk along Raven Avenue, which was a condition of approval for the Ward Minor Subdivision which created the subject lot. Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. Written notice was mailed to adjacent property owners on November 23, 2022. Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on November 25, 2022. The application was posted on the TownÓs ÐCurrent ApplicationsÑ webpage on October 26, 2022. Advantages: Approval of the variance will allow development of an additional Habitat for Humanity housing unit. Disadvantages: No disadvantages have been identified by staff. 11 Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Level of Public Interest: Low. To date, no public comments have been received for the variance application. Sample Motion: I move that the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, in accordance with the findings as presented. I move that the Board of Adjustment deny the variance, finding that \[state findings for denial\]. I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that \[state reasons for continuance\]. Attachments: 1.Application Form 2.Statement of Intent 3.Proposed Site Plan 4.BOA Minutes, d. 10/5/2021 12 13 Contact Information Habitat for Humanity of the St Vrain Valley, Inc., Dave Emerson, Contact Record Owner(s) PO Box 333, Longmont, CO 80502 Mailing Address 303-682-2485 Phone 303-946-5190 Cell Phone Fax demerson@stvrainhabitat.org Email Same as owner Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Van Horn Engineering, Lonnie Sheldon, Contact Consultant/Engineer 1043 Fish Creek Rd, Estes Park, CO 80517 Mailing Address 970-586-9388 Phone 970-443-3271 Cell Phone Fax lonnie@vanhornengineering.com Email APPLICATION FEES See the fee schedule included in your application packetor view the fee schedule online at: www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds mustbe made in writing. Allfees are dueat the time of submittal. Revised 20 14 15 STATEMENT OF INTENT HABITAT FOR HUMANITY VARIANCE REQUEST October 18, 2022 his is a Variance Request for Lot 2A, Ward Minor Subdivision, parcel T #2520316002, Located in the Southwest ¼ of Section 20, Township 5 North, Range 72 th West of the 6 P.M., Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. A similar variance was approved in October of 2021; however, it has expired. We are requesting a 10’ variance to the 60’ minimum lot width on Table 4-2 in the RM zoning for this parcel with the ultimate goal to provide sorely needed Workforce Housing in Estes Park. The existing topography and utilities on the property constrain the developability of this parcel and make it rather costly to optimize the number of units Habitat for Humanity can build. The original plan for this property was to develop 5 lots at 60’ wide. The property is 300 feet long, so 5 lots would fit on the property and meet the code. In order to fit these 5 lots we would have to move the sewer main and the drainage channel to the east end of the property. It turned out, the complications of the drainage was very difficult to design due to grades along the south and east side. In addition, the future drainage detention requirements add more complicationsand becomes rather costly to do so in the small amount of area along the south line. We planned to do the drainage detention along the southern 20’ of the entire property, however, directing the drainage along the south side then along the east side were not conducive to this plan. The sewer main is possible to move but would be rather costly for Habitat for Humanity to move. After further analysis, it is easier to make the drainage work by creating (5) 50’ wide lots. East of the easternmost lot will be a 50’ wide out-lot for the property for the future drainage detention area. With this design, we would not need to move the sewer main and keep the existing drainage path. We have provided a potential footprint to show that the building plans can fit within the setbacks of a 50’ wide lot. These plans are from past Habitat housing projects, however they may vary slightly when the building design is finalized for this project. T he existing Lot 2A can easily be served by all major utilities. A sewer main runs in Raven Ave as well as across the east portion of the property. Water service exists in Raven Ave. Power service also exists on Raven Ave. Access to the five proposed lots would come off Raven Ave. There isan existing storm drainage across the south portion that we plan to pass through. With the additional drainage area on the east portion of the property, we can create our own detention pond for this development. A wetland study was done by Van Horn Engineering in 2009 and has determined that there are no wetlandspresent on the property. Dense vegetation exists in the southeast of the property due to the concentration of storm drainage across this section of the property, however 16 they don’t contain all the qualities of a wetland. The property does not lie within a Mapped Estes Valley hazard area. In determining Practical Difficulty, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the following factors: A.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;There can be beneficial use of the property by spending the money to move the sewer and the drainage, however this variance would provide more beneficial use to the community in this time of needed workforce housing by providing more units at a cheaper cost. B.Whether the variance is substantial; The variance amounts to a 16.7% variance which is not substantial. C.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; The variance would not change the number of units we could develop on this property, so we don’t believe it would affect the character of the neighborhood. There is a hotel to the south, condominium units to the west and duplex housing to the north. It is an appropriate density for this area. D.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; The Variance would not affect the delivery of utilities. In fact it would simplify the delivery because we would not have to move the sewer main. E.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; The applicant did purchase the property with the knowledge of the difficulties, but thought they were easier to overcome. It turns out the grades are not very conducive to providing effective drainage and the costs of replacing sewer mains are rather prohibitive to Habitat for Humanity or to anyone looking to serve income levels at 40-60% Area Median Income with homeownership opportunities. F.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated throughsome method other than a variance.The predicament can be solved, but not without excessive costs that can not be passed on to potential homeowners or the loss of a unit. Habitat would like to provide as many units as possible given the extreme need in the area. Thank you for your consideration of this variance request, Sincerely, David Emerson on behalf of Habitat for Humanity Lonnie Sheldon on behalf of Van Horn Engineering 17 18 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 5, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually in said Town of Estes Park on this 2 day of March 2021. Committee: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Board Member Joe Holtzman Attending:Chair Newsom, Vice-Chair Moreau, Board Member Holtzman, Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town Board Liasion Barbara MacAlpine Absent:none Chair Newsomcalled the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. New Director Jessica Garner was introduced. PUBLIC COMMENT. None APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holzman) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 3-0. VARIANCE REQUEST, Ward Minor Subdivision,Planner II Alex Bergeron Planner Bergeron reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Habitat for Humanity,is seeking a 10’ variance to the minimum lot width standard for the RM (Residential- Multifamily) zone district to permit the subdivision of the Property into five lots, four of which are 50’ wide and one which is 100’ wide and features a 50’ drainage easement. The request is rooted in site challenges related to drainage and the existing sewer main location; the costs of remedying would be very burdensome to the non-profit entity. Staff recommended approval of the variance request. DISCUSSION: Joe Coop, VanHorn Engineering, explained that parking would be within the setbacks, exceeding the requirements. David Emerson, Habitat for Humanity, thanked the Board for their time and consideration of this project. Units will be income-restricted. Public Works Engineer Jennifer Waters noted that Public Works is in support of this variance. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request as written with the condition of setback certificates. The motion passed 3-0. 19 Board of Adjustment, October 5, 2021 – Page 2 REPORTS Director Garner discussed the Comprehensive Plan update process. The committee meets every two weeks, and things are progressing as planned. All documents, meetings and handouts are available at engageestes.org. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 20 21 Community Development Memo To:Chair Jeff Moreau Estes Park Board of Adjustment T hrough: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From:Kara Washam, Planner I Date:January 3, 2023 Application:Setback Variances for Front and Arterial Road st Street, Estes Park 160 1 EPCO Properties LLC (Mark & Jean Rissmiller), Owner/Applicant Jacob Gruver, Van Horn Engineering, Representative Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, subject to the findings described in the report. Land Use: 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Designation: (Future Land Use): Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors Zoning District: Commercial Outlying(CO) Site Area: 0.99 Acre PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a reduced frontsetback of eight and three-tenths feet (8.3’) and a reduced arterial road setback of twenty-two feet sixinches (22’-6”) in lieu of the fifteen feet (15’) and twenty-five feet (25’) respective setbacks required in the CO (Commercial Outlying) Zoning District under Section 4.4.C.4.of the Estes Park Development Code(EPDC).The applicant is proposing to eliminate three parking spaces in the subject area to construct a deck foroutdoor seatingat the ElMex-Kal Family Restaurant. Background: The subject property islocated on the northern end of a strip mall owned by the applicant, EPCO Properties LLC. The commercial strip shares a large parking lot northeast of the building with on-street parking along CO-7 to the west, two spaces 22 along the southside of the building, and four spaces along the northwest side of the restaurant. The proposed deck would eliminate three out of the four parking spaces along the northwest side of the buildingandwould accommodate up to thirty-two people or eight tables with four chairs. Variance Description This is a requestto approvea varianceto allow a reduced front setback of eight and three-tenths feet (8.3’) and a reduced arterial road setback of twenty-two feet six inches (22’-6”) in lieu of the fifteen feet (15’) and twenty-five feet (25’) respective setbacks, as shown below and depicted on the attached drawings. Location and Context: st The 0.99-acre lot is located at 160 1 Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection st of 1 Street and S. Saint Vrain Street in Estes Park. The subject property and adjacent properties to the north, east, and south are zoned CO (Commercial Outlying). The property to the west, known as the Estes Park Convention Center, is zoned A (Accommodations). This area has a mixture of uses, including restaurants, retail, office, hospitality, and other services. 2 23 Vicinity Map Zoning Map 3 24 Zoning and Land Use SummaryTable Comprehensive Plan (2022)Zone Uses SubjectCO (Commercial Mixed-Use Centers & CorridorsCommercial Site Outlying) CO (Commercial North Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors Gov/Organization Outlying) R-2 (Two-Family South Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors Residential Residential) CO (Commercial East Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors Commercial Outlying) West Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors A (Accommodations) Hospitality Project Analysis Review Criteria: The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows: 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Special conditions exist, due to the location of the existing four parking spaces along the northwest side of the building. Eliminating these parking spaces could provide a safety benefit to the community as vehicles st currently have to back up onto 1 Street. The requested variance will not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the setback standards, the EPDC, or the Comprehensive Plan. 2.In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; 4 25 Staff Finding: There may bebeneficial use of the property without the varianceif the area remains as existing, with four parking spaces. However, the design and utility of the proposed deck would be constrainedwithout the variance. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance of the front setback issomewhat substantial due to the proposed setback being nearly half of what is required by code. However, the arterial road proposed setback variance is minor when compared to the existing setback between the arterial road and the face of the building, which is substantially less than the twenty-five feet required by code. c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: Staff does not find that the mixed-use character of the immediate neighborhood would be altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Public services such as water and sewer will not be affected by the variance. The proposed deck will not obstruct the manholes used to access the grease interceptor. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Applicant purchased the property years ago and prior plans to request a variance for constructing a deck are unknown. f.W hether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: There is no alternative to mitigate the Applicant’s predicament aside from a complete redesign of the Project. 3.No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5 26 4.No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The proposed variances would be the least deviations from the Development Code. 6.Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district contained the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The applicant requests a setback variance in order to construct a deck for outdoor seating. Outdoor seating or food service is permitted by right in the CO (Commercial Outlying) zoning district per Table 4-4 of the EPDC. 7.In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff recommends that if the variance is approved and the deck constructed, all four parking spaces on the northwest side of the property be removed. The Applicant suggested that only three of the four parking spaces would need to be removed. However, leaving one parking space would not be practical and could presentsafety issues forcustomers using the deck for outdoor dining. Review Agency Comments The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public Works supports approval subject to the removal of all four parking spaces rather than just the three spaces indicated in the Statement of Intent. Keeping a space adjacent to the new deck is not approved per EPDC Chapter 7.11 K.1. Public Works acknowledges the bollards shown on the proposed sketch plan are a safety amenity. In addition, if the variance is approved and the deck constructed, Public Works will verify that there is no encroachment in the sight triangle. No other agencies had concerns or comments. Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been received for the variance request. Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on December 14, 2022. 6 27 Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on December 16, 2022. Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website onDecember 15, 2022. Advantages This variance would allow El Mex-Kal to construct a deck that would be beneficial to the community of Estes Park by creating expanded business opportunities through the use of outdoor seating. In addition, the proposed construction of the deck would eliminate the four parking spaces on the northwest side of the building. These spaces have posed st a safety concern due to vehicles backing up directly onto 1 Street. The proposed deck should not encroach on the sight triangle; design shows approximately 0.5’ of clearance. Disadvantages The proposed variance and deck construction would eliminate four parking spaces from the property. However, an informal traffic study provided by Van Horn Engineering suggests that existing parking remains sufficient for the property’s needs after the proposed increased square footage of customer service area and the eliminated parking spaces. Action Recommended Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with setbacks consistent with the El Mex-Kal Project plans provided in Attachment 3. Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motions I move to approve the variancerequestfor reduced front setbackand reduced arterial road setback for the subject property addressed as 160 1st Street in the Town of Estes Park, with findings as outlined in the staff report. I move to deny the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that \[state reasons for continuance\]. Attachments 1.Application 2.Statement of Intent 3.Sketch Plan for El Mex-Kal Setback Variance 7 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 NOTICE On Tuesday, January 3, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., a meeting will be held by the Estes Park Board of Adjustment to consider variance applications for the properties and purposes described below. Legal Description: Lots 8 - 12, Block 2,Reclamation Subdivision, Estes Park Type and Intensity of Use: A Variance is proposed to allow a front setback (to Highway 7/S. Saint Vrain Avenue) of 22.5 feetin lieu of the 25 feet required and a front setback st (to 1 Street) of 8.3 feet in lieu of the 15 feet required in the CO (Commercial Outlying) Zone District.The property is located at 160 S. Saint Vrain Avenue, Estes Park. Owner/Applicant:EPCO Properties LLC, Mark Rissmiller Legal Description: Lot 2A, Ward Minor Subdivision, Estes Park Type and Intensity of Use: A Variance is proposed to allow five lots to have lot widths of 50 feet in lieu of the 60 feet required in the RM (Multi-Family Residential) Zone District. The property is located on the south side of Raven Avenue, approximately 350 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Raven Avenue and Lone Pine Drive in Estes Park. Owner/Applicant:Habitat for Humanity of the Saint Vrain Valley, Inc., c/o David Emerson For more information, please visit www.estes.org/currentapplications or contact the Community Development Department at planning@estes.org or 970-577-3721.