Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2023-05-02 April 26, 2023 1 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, May 2, 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 datedApril 4, 2023 ACTION ITEMS: 1.Variance Request 1895 Fall River RoadSenior Planner Woeber Two variancerequests to increase allowable square footage for employee housing 2.Variance Request 160 S St. Vrain AvePlanner I Washam Request of 16.4 foot and 6.9 foot frontsetbacks in lieu of 25-feetrequired 3.Variance Request 281 W Riverside DrPlanner I Washam Eliminate the Front and Side Setback in lieu of the 8 and 10 feet required REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1.Upcoming meeting items ADJOURN 2 3 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 4, 2023 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in said Town of Estes Park on April 4, 2023. Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman Attending: Chair Moreau, Board Member Holtzman, Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Planner I Kara Washburn, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Newsom) to approve the agenda.) to approve the agenda.) to approve the agenda.The motion passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Newsom/HoltzmaNewsom/Holtzmann) to approve the Consent Agenda.) to approve the Consent Agenda.) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 3-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was decided that Chair Moreau and Vice Chair Newsom would continue ecided that Chair Moreau and Vice Chair Newsom would continue ecided that Chair Moreau and Vice Chair Newsom would continue theirtheirtheir positions for 2023.The vote was unanimous.The vote was unanimous. t VARIANCE REQUEST 510 Moraine Avenue510 Moraine Avenue510 Moraine AvenuePlanner I WashamPlanner I WashamPlanner I Washam Planner Washam reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests approval of a Planner Washam reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests approval of a Planner Washam reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests approval of a f variance to allow a reduced variance to allow a reduced sidesidesetback of eight setback of eight setback of eight feetfeetfeet ( (8’8’) in lieu of the) in lieu of the) in lieu of thetwenty-five foot (25’) setbackrequired in the CO (Commercial Outlying) Zoning District under required in the CO (Commercial Outlying) Zoning District under required in the CO (Commercial Outlying) Zoning District under Section 4.4.C.4. of the Section 4.4.C.4. of the Estes Park Development CodEstes Park Development CodEstes Park Development Codee(EPDC). (EPDC). (EPDC). If approved, the applicant intendsapplicant intendsapplicant intendsto to to construct a partially open pavilion. construct a partially open pavilion. construct a partially open pavilion. Public Comment:ic Comment: a Chuck Scott, owner of Coffee on the Rocks, spoke on the floodplain issue and stated that Chuck Scott, owner of Coffee on the Rocks, spoke on the floodplain issue and stated that Chuck Scott, owner of Coffee on the Rocks, spoke on the floodplain issue and stated that there was no water on the site during the 2013 flood.there was no water on the site during the 2013 flood.there was no water on the site during the 2013 flood.The adjacent property owners to the south and west contacted him and had no problem with the variance. south and west contacted him and had no problem with the variance. south and west contacted him and had no problem with the variance. r Discussion: nonenonenone 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 a reduced side setback of eight feet for the subject property addressed as 510 Moraine side setback of eight feet for the subject property addressed as 510 Moraine side setback of eight feet for the subject property addressed as 510 Moraine Avenue in the Town of Estes Park, with the findings as outlined in the staff report.Avenue in the Town of Estes Park, with the findings as outlined in the staff report.The d motion passed 3-0. VARIANCE REQUEST281 W Riverside Dr. Planner I Washam It was moved and seconded (Moraue/Holtzman) to continue this item to May 2, 2023, Board of Adjustment meeting. There being no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned 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: May 2, 2023 Application:Variances for Total Square Footageand Cumulative Square Footage for Employee Housing 1895 Fall River Road Kinley Built LLC, Owner/Applicant David Bangs, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, Representative Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance requests, subject to the findings described in the report. Land Use: 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Designation: (Future Land Use): Mixed-Use Centers and Corridors Zoning District: CO (Commercial Outlying) Site Area: 2.3 Acres PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENTRESOLUTIONOTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a decision on a request from the Applicant for two variances. The first variance request would allow employee housing units to exceed the maximum allowable 800 square feet per unit. The second request would allow the total cumulative square feet of employee housing to exceed that of the total square footage of the commercial use. 1 6 Background The 2.3-acre subject property is in a CO (Outlying Commercial) Zone Districtand contains an existing structure, previously used for office and retail space. The current owner intends to continue the commercial/office use, add additional commercial/office area, and eight new employee housing units. Employee housing units are allowable as an Accessory Use under Section 5.2.C.2 of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). The Applicant submitted a Development Plan for the project, which relies on the requested variances in order to proceed. Variance Description: The Employee Housing use is subject to certain limitations under the standards within the EPDC. The applicant is requesting variances to the following two development standards: 1. EPDC Section 5.2.C.2.a.1.b., Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses in Nonresidential Zoning Districts – Employee Housing, to allow individual dwelling units used for employee housing to exceed 800 square feet of gross floor area. Eight, two-bedroom employee housing apartment units are proposed, each 1200 square feet in size. 2. EPDC Section 5.2.C.2.a.2.b., Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses in Nonresidential Zoning Districts – Employee Housing, to permit total cumulative square footage of the employee housing units to exceed that of the principal use. Existing and proposed commercial/office square footage would total 8470 square feet. The total, cumulative square feet of the proposed employee housing is 9680 square feet, 1210 square feet more than allowed. Location and Context: The subject property islegally described as All of Binns Addition to the Town of Estes Park and is located on Fall River Road, approximately ¾ mile west of the intersection of Fall River Road and West Elkhorn Avenue. This area has a variety of zoning and established uses, including single-family and multi-family residential, accommodations and commercial. This area is a mixture of Town and unincorporated Larimer County, which includes properties adjacent to the subject property to the north, east and west. The unincorporated property to the west (on the north side of Fall River Road) contains an accommodations/lodge use. The unincorporated parcel to the east contains two single-family residences. Properties to the south across Fall River Road are within Town boundaries and contain single family residences and accommodations/cabins. 7 Vicinity Map Zoning Map 8 Zoning and Land Use SummaryTable Comprehensive PlanZone Uses SubjectMixed Use Centers & RM(Residential) Commercial/Office Site Corridors Mountains and Foothills Unincorporated Larimer North Undeveloped (County)County SouthSuburban EstateE-1 (Estate)Residential Unincorporated Larimer East Neighborhood Village Residential County Mountains and Foothills Unincorporated Larimer West Lodging (County)County 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 circumstances exist, although not with the physical condition of the property. Employers in Estes Park and the Estes Valley have long facedserious challenges in hiring and retaining employees due to the lack of housing in the Estes Park area. The eight proposed employee housing units can alleviate these circumstancessomewhat. The requested variance will not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the employee housing 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 to exceed the 800 square foot maximum to 1200 square feet is 50 percent more than allowed. The variance to allow the employee housing to exceed the commercial square footageby 1210 square feet is somewhat substantial, 14 percent greater than what is allowed. The two- bedroom, two-bathroom apartments are more desirable and provide more flexibility than what is possible with the 800 square foot limitation, according to the applicant. 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 substantially altered.There would be minor impacts to this area with the employee housing units being larger than allowable. However, adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment if the variance is approved. Parking is adequate for the proposed uses. 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 employee housing size requirements when the property was purchased. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant could add employee housing that is smaller, and meets the square footage requirements of the EPDC. There is no method other than the variance to establish the employee housing at the size that is proposed. 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. 10 Staff Finding: The conditions affecting the Applicant’s 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. Staff Finding: N/A 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: Theproposed 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 as an Accessory Usein the CO 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 Upper Thompson Sanitation District “…has no concerns with the Variance Request pertaining to square footage.” Public Works “…supports approval of the variances to facilitate the construction of new workforce/employee housing.” Town of Estes Park Utilities “…has no objections.” Staff notes there may be additional agency comments regarding the Development Plan application for the project. Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. Written notice was mailed to adjacent property owners on April 12, 2023. 11 Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on April 14, 2023. The application wasposted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage on February 20, 2023. Advantages: Approval of the variance will allow development of more and larger employee housing units, which is needed in the Estes Park area. Disadvantages: There may be a slight increase in traffic on Fall River Road when the employee housing is fully occupied. 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 requests, in accordance with the findings as presented. I move that the Board of Adjustment deny the variances, finding that \[state findings for denial\]. I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variances 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. Proposed Architectural Plans 12 13 14 15 16 17 104'-0" DW F 104'-0" W/DDN UP W/D DN A1 DNDN 103'-6" UP UPUP 40'-0" Sheet No: F 103'-6" DW 103'-0" DW F D-Plan 103'-0" /UPPER Architecturals DN W/D SF Sheet Title: UP EA UNIT680 SF/MAIN530 1210 SF TOTAL W/D DN DNDN 102'-6" UPUPUP F 102'-0" DW 5,190 SFCOMMERCIAL 530 SF/ UNIT4,240SF TOTAL 680 SF/UNIT5,440SF TOTAL 160'-8" DW Develpmt Plan2/15/2023 101'-6" F Issue:Date: DN W/D 101'-6" UP W/D DN DN UPUP Apartment Upper Level 3/32" = 1'-0"Apartment Main Level 3/32" = 1'-0"Ground Floor 3/32" = 1'-0" F 101'-0" DW 101'-0" 2'-0" DW 100'-6" F DN W/D 100'-6" UP W/D DN DN UPUP 115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115 '-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0 "115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0"115'-0" F 100'-0" DW 100'-0" 36'-0" Kinley BuiltMixed Use/Workforce Housing 8 12 8 12 FIELDSTONE BALCONIESBLACK METAL RAILINGS 8 12 8 12 ASPHALT SHINGLESWEATHERED WOOD ASPHALT SHINGLESWEATHERED WOOD FIBER CEMENTBOARD + BATTENDARK BRONZE Estes Park, Colorado 80517 A R C H I T E C T U R E P. C. 1692 Big Thompson Ave, Ste 100 RAILING FIELDSTONE BALCONIESBLACK METAL RAILINGS FIBER CEMENT LAPSIDING, DARK BROWN ASPHALT SHINGLESWEATHERED WOODFIBER CEMENT VERTICAL CHANNELSIDING, DARK BROWN 12 12 FIBER CEMENT LAPSIDING, DARK BROWN METAL ROOF, VERTICALWEATHERED WOODAT UNIT ENTRIES North Elevation 3/32" = 1'-0" FIBER CEMENT LAPSIDING, DARK BROWN South Elevation 3/32" = 1'-0" 12 8 ALUMINUMSTOREFRONT AT COMMERCIAL SPACES BASIS 12 8 © BAS1S.com West Elevation 3/32" = 1'-0" 970.586.9140 Architecture, P.C. 12 4 APPROX LINE DARK SKY LIGHTFIXTURE, TYPOF EXISTING GRADE FIBER CEMENT VERTICAL CHANNELSIDING, DARK BROWN 29'-6" FIBER CEMENT VERTICAL CHANNELSIDING, DARK BROWN DARK SKY LIGHTFIXTURE, TYP Ridge + 115'-0" + 140'-6"T.O. Wall+ 134'-0"+ 100'-6" Upper GradeLower Grade 12 8 12 8 19 20 21 22 Community Development Memo To:Chair Jeff Moreau Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through:Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From:Kara Washam,Planner I Date:May 2, 2023 Application:Setback Variances for Front and Arterial Road st 160 1Street, Estes Park EPCO Properties LLC(Mark & Jean Rissmiller), Owner/Applicant Jacob Gruver,Van Horn Engineering, Representative Recommendation:Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approvethe 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:0.99Acre PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCELAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENTRESOLUTIONOTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The applicant requests approval of a revised variance to allow areducedfront st setback (1Street) and areduced arterial road setback(S. Saint Vrain Street) in order toconstruct a deck for outdoor seating at the El Mex-Kal Family Restaurant. Background: The subject property islocated atthe northern end of a strip mall owned by EPCO Properties LLC. The commercial centershares a large parking lot northeast of the building with on-street parking along CO-7 to the west, two spaces along the southside of the building, and four spaces alongthe northwest side of the restaurant. The proposed deck would eliminate the fourparking spaces along the northwest side of the buildingandwould accommodate up to thirty-two people or eight tables with four chairs. 23 The applicant requested a similar variance for reduced setbacks in 2022 and received approval from the Board of Adjustment on January 3, 2023 with conditions to remove all four parking spaces and install bollards (Attachment 4). The applicant is requesting the st setbacks be further reduced by one and four-Street and six and one-S. Saint Vrain Streetin order to expand the proposed deck footprint closer to the sight visibility triangle, as depicted on the Site Plan (Attachment 3). Variance Description This is a requestto approveavariance to allow a front setback of six and nine-tenths narterial road setback of sixteen and four- the eight and three--two f-variance approved by the Board of Adjustment on January 3, 2023.The prior variance request is in lieu of - required in the CO (Commercial Outlying) Zoning District under Section 4.4.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code(EPDC). The table below is provided for clarity, andTable 1lists the requested setbacks(from the property line to the edge of the proposed deck)and the amount that the required minimum setbackswould be reduced if the variance request is approved. TABLE 1: SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST Previously Amount NewAdditional Total Min. Approved Setback Subject Amount Setback Setback Setback Reduced Setback Setback Reduction per Variance By (from Variance Reduced (from EPDC RequestEPDC):RequestBy:EPDC): Front Setback Arterial Road 2 24 Location and Context: st The 0.99-acre lot is located at 160 1Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection st of 1Street 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. 3 25 Vicinity Map Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Comprehensive Plan(2022)ZoneUses SubjectCO(Commercial Mixed-Use Centers & CorridorsCommercial SiteOutlying) CO (Commercial NorthMixed-Use Centers & CorridorsGov/Organization Outlying) R-2 (Two-Family SouthMixed-Use Centers & CorridorsResidential Residential) CO (Commercial EastMixed-Use Centers & CorridorsCommercial Outlying) WestMixed-Use Centers & CorridorsA (Accommodations)Hospitality 4 26 Zoning Map 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 ndards, 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 1Street.The requested variance will not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the setback standards, the EPDC, or the Comprehensive Plan. 5 27 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 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 issubstantial due to the proposed setback being just overhalf of what is required bycode. Thearterial 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 bealtered, 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.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding:There is no aside from a complete redesign of the Project. 3.No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances 6 28 make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding:Not applicable. 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, temporary encroachment in the sight visibility triangle is prevented through design features. The applicant suggested a landscaping element and provided a sketch of a planter in the subject area (Attachment 2). Planning staff and Public Works staff find this proposal to be acceptable. 7 29 Proposed Planter Review Agency Comments The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public Works requested additional information pertaining to how intersection visibility would be maintained. The resubmitted documents provided clarity and subsequent submittals were not required. No other agencies had concerns or comments. Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDCnoticing 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 onApril 12, 2023 Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette onApril 14, 2023 April 12, 2023 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 withoutdoor seating.Theproposed construction of the deck would eliminate the four parking spaces on the northwest side of the building. These spaces have posed a safety concern due to st vehicles backing up directly onto 1Street. The proposed deck willnot encroach on the sightvisibilitytriangle; design shows approximately 0.8Designfeatures will be in place to prevent temporary encroachment. 8 30 Disadvantages The proposed variance and deck construction would eliminate four parking spacesfrom the property.Aninformal traffic study provided by Van Horn Engineering suggests that . Action Recommended Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with setbacks consistent with the El Mex-KalProject plansprovided in Attachment 3. Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motions I move to approvethe variancerequestfor reduced front setbackand reduced arterial road setback for the subject property addressedas 160 1st Street in the Town of Estes Park, with findings as outlined in the staff report. I move to denythe requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). I move that the Board of Adjustment continuethe variance to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that \[state reasons for continuance\]. Attachments 1.Application 2.Statement of Intent 3.SitePlan for El Mex-Kal Setback Variance 4.Variance BOA Approval Letter (1-3-2023) 9 31 32 33 34 35 36 39 40 Community Development Memo To:Chair Jeff Moreau Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through:Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From:Kara Washam, Planner I Date:May 2, 2023 Application:Variance Requestfor Front and SideSetbacks 281 W. Riverside Drive (Formerly 281 Moraine Ave), Estes Park Terry Bogener, Owner/Applicant Brian Brinkman,LAT40,Consultant Recommendation:Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, subject to the findings described in thereport. Land Use: 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Designation: (Future Land Use): Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors Zoning District:Commercial Downtown (CD) Site Area:0.07 Acres (+/-3,201 SF) PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCELAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENTRESOLUTIONOTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The applicant requests approval of a variance to eliminate the front setback (Moraine Avenue) and side setbackalong the north property linein lieu of the eight-foot andten-foot Zone District under Section 4.4.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code(EPDC). Background: The subject property is inthe Riverside Subdivision and was previously a residence. The small house on the property was demolished after the lot was purchased by the Applicant in 2022. On the west side of the property (Moraine Ave),there is a retaining -The Applicant intends to open a bar with food service utilizingprefabricated shipping containers with mezzanine access off 41 Moraine Avenue(Attachment 4). The conceptual site plan shows a patio with access off W. Riverside Dr. and an accessible restroom adjacent to the bar(Attachment 3). Subject Property Prior to Demolition Variance Description The Applicant requestsa variance to allow a zero-footront setback (Moraine Avenue) and zero-footside setbackalong the north property linein lieu of the eight-footten-foot Downtown) Zone District. The EPDC requires setbacks to be measured from the platted lot lines. The deeded property lines of this parcel differfrom the platted lot lines (Lot 14).The Applicant re platted lotto the north (Lot 13), as described in the Legal Description: S 4 FT OFLOT 13 & ALL OF LOT 14, RIVERSIDE, ESTES PK Table 4-5 under Section 4.4 of the Estes Park Development Code(EPDC)states that the ten fooasingle- familyresidential property whose use at the time of the subject application is residential. The property to the south of the subject property (286 Moraine Ave) is used as a short-term vacation rental and is considered a commercial use. Therefore, the zero-footside setback along the south property line is permitted by the EPDC and is not subject to this variance request.The property to the north of the subject property (271 W. Riverside Dr) currently has a pending Vacation Home License application under re 2 42 ProposedSite Plan Location and Context: The 0.07-acre lot is located at 281 W. Riverside Dr. with double frontage along Moraine Ave.on the west side of the property and is located diagonally from Baldwin Park to the east. The subject property and all adjacent properties are zoned CD (Commercial Downtown). The property to the north is single-family residential with a pending vacation home license and the property to the south is a short-term vacation rentalwith an active license (Attachment 5 and 6).Directly across from the property to the east is a small parking lot on Town-owned land. 3 43 Vicinity Map Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Comprehensive Plan (2022)ZoneUses SubjectCommercial DowntownCD (Commercial Downtown) Site(Proposed) Residential NorthDowntownCD (Commercial Downtown) (Pending VHL) Short-Term SouthDowntownCD (Commercial Downtown) Vacation Rental EastDowntownCD (Commercial Downtown)Parking WestDowntownCD (Commercial Downtown)Parking 4 44 Zoning Map 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 stri 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 topography on the west side of the property (Moraine Ave).There is a- elevation. By allowing a zero-foot front setback, the proposed shipping container bar can be positioned near the retaining wall so that the mezzanine can be directly accessed from the sidewalk at Moraine Ave. 5 45 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. However, the Apsite plan would need to beredesignedand would decreaseuseable concrete patio spacefor outdoor seating. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The variance request for eliminated front and side setbacksis moderately substantial. Side setbacks of zero feet are typical in the CD (Commercial Downtown) zoning district and are permitted by right, with exception to properties that abut a single-family residential use. 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 Commercial Downtown character of the immediate neighborhood would not be altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Theproposed use of a bar with food service is permitted in the neighborhood and exists in the subject vicinity. Zero-footwith other businessesin the neighborhood (i.e.,Snowy Peaks Winery at 292 Moraine Ave.). d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding:Public Services of water, sewer, electric, and communications are all readily available at the site location and will not be affected by the variance. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding:It is unknown whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of setback requirements. f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: aside from a complete redesign of the Project. 6 46 3.No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding:Not applicable. 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 variance would be the least deviation 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 containingthe property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding:The applicant requests a setback variance in order to construct a bar with food service and outdoor seating. These uses are permittedby right in the CD(Commercial Downtown) zoning district per Table 4-4 of the EPDC. 7.Ingranting 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:If the variance request is granted, Staff would like to condition the owner to provide a privacy fence between both properties to the north and south for noise and security screening, and a condition to screen allgarbage receptacles. Review Agency Comments The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. No comments or concerns were received. Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, three (3)written commentshave been received for the variance request(Attachment 7). Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on February 15, 2023. 7 47 Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on April 14, 2023. 2023. Advantages This variance would allow the Applicantto open a bar with food serviceand outdoor seating. This businesswould be beneficial to the community and contribute to the vitality of the Commercial Downtown area. Disadvantages There are no known disadvantages of the variance to allow zero-front (Moraine Ave) and zero-side (north) setbacks for the subject property. Action Recommended Staff recommends approval with conditions of the proposed variance described in this (Attachment 3). Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Medium. Sample Motions I move to approvethe variance request for zero-footfront setback along Moraine Ave and zero-footside setbackalong the north property line for the subject property addressed as 281 W. Riverside Dr. in the Town of Estes Park, with conditions aforementioned above and with findings as outlined in the staff report. I move to approvethe variance request for zero- Ave and zero- addressed as 281 W. Riverside Dr. in the Town of Estes Park, with alternative conditions\[state conditions\]and with findings as outlined in the staff report. I move to approvethe variance request for zero- Ave and zero- addressed as 281 W. Riverside Dr. in the Town of Estes Park, withoutconditionsand with findings as outlined in the staff report. I move to denythe requested variance with the following findings \[state reason/findings\]. I move that the Board of Adjustment continuethe variance to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that \[state reasons for continuance\]. Attachments 1.Application 8 48 2.Statement of Intent 3. 4.Conceptual Shipping Container Plans 5.Vacation Home License for 286 Moraine Ave. 6.Certificate of Occupancy for 286 Moraine Ave. 7.Public Comment Letters . 9 49 50 51 52 TWBECK Architects QP!Cpy!68!Ftuft!Qbsl!DP!91628 Architecture Qipof;!:81.697.4:24 Planning & Interiors Fnbjm;!uipnbtAuxcfdlbsdijufdut/dpn Upxo!pg!Ftuft!Qbsl-!QmboojohEfqbsunfou!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QP!Cpy!2311 Ftuft!Qbsl-!DP!91628!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Efd/!33-3133 Sf;!Gspou!boe!Tjef!\[fsp!Tfucbdl!Wbsjbodft Cphfzt!Cbs 392!Npsbjof!Bwf/ Ftuft!Qbsl-!Dp/!91628 Pxofs;4795!Ijlf!MMD/ UpCpbsepg!Bekvtunfout Tubufnfou!pg!Joufou; Uif!pxofst!pg!uif!qbsdfm!joufoe!up!pqfo!b!Cbs!xjui!gppe!tfswjdf!cz!vujmj{joh!uxp! dpowfsufe!tijqqjoh!dpoubjofst!xjui!b!dpodsfuf!qbujpbekbdfou!up!uif!cbs!po!uif!mpxfs! mfwfm-!ps!uif!Xftu!Sjwfstjef!bddftt/!Po!upq!pg!uif!cbs!uifsf!xjmm!cf!b!nf{{bojof! xjui!ejsfdu!bddftt!pgg!pg!Npsbjof!bwf/ FQED!Tuboebset!gps!sfwjfx!4/7/D Uif!sfrvftufe!{fsp!tfucbdl!bmpoh!Npsbjofbwf/!ibt!tqfdjbm!djsdvntubodft!pg! fyjtujoh!upqphsbqiz/!Kvtu!bekbdfou!up!uif!fyjtujoh!tjefxbmlbmpoh!Npsbjof!bwf/ uifsf!jt!bo!fyjtujoh!sfubjojoh!xbmmxjui!b!21!up!23!gffu!espq!pgg/Fmjnjobujoh!uif! gspou!tfucbdl!bmmpxt!gps!uif!qvcmjd!tjefxbml!up!ibwf!bdpoujovpvtdpoofdujpo!up!uif! ofx!Cbs!bmpoh!uijt!gspoubhf/!Uif!pxofs!ibt!dpoubdufe!DEPU!boe!uifz!ibwf!op! pckfdujpo!up!uijt!tfucbdl!wbsjbodf/Tff!buubdife!mfuufs!gspn!DEPU/!Uif!tfucbdl! wbsjbodft!bsf!dpotjtufou!xjui!puifs!cvtjoftt!bmpoh!Npsbjof!bwf-! Tjef!tfucbdlt!pg!{fsp!gffu!bsf!uzqjdbm!jo!uif!DEDpnnfsdjbm!Epxoupxo!{pof! ejtusjdu/!Hsboujoh!uif!tfucbdl!wbsjbodftepft!opu!tvctuboujbmmz!bmufs!uif!dibsbdufs!pg! uif!ofjhicpsippe/!Uif!vtf!bt!b!cbs!boe!gppe!tfswjdfjt!jo!bddpsebodf!xjui!uif!FQ! Epxoupxo!qmbo/!Qvcmjd!Tfswjdft!pg!xbufs-!tfxfs-!fmfdusjd!boe!dpnnvojdbujpot!bsf! bmm!sfbejmz!bwbjmbcmf!jo!Npsbjof!bwf/!boe!Xftu!Sjwfstjef!Esjwf/B!Cbs!jt!b! qfsnjuufe!vtf!jo!uif!DEejtusjdu/ Qbhf!}!2 Estes Park, CO 80517 281 Moraine Ave. Bogey's Bar EVIRD EDISREVIR TSEW MORAINE AVENUE . the f mits o li n rms w te to e th with $350.00 ated within c lo ccordance mes Town Clerk’s Office a FEE: ho in or f icense L ome siness 3134 6058 H Bu tes 2023 #: the HLADICK s a 31, Es operating. 286 Moraine Ave n i serve Permission is hereby given to: will onger l eration This no PARK op if vacation he 7 ome t h herefore. STES t of E F expires vacation nacted -577-477 O e in 0 uthority 97 A ngage dinance e 72 toor ByTOWN Call 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 NOTICE On Tuesday, May 2, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., a meeting will be held by the Estes Park Board of Adjustment, 170 MacGregor Avenue, to consider variance applicationsfor the propertiesand purposes described below. Legal Description:S 4 FT OF LOT 13 & ALL OF LOT 14, ESTES PK Type and Intensity of Use: A Variance is proposed to eliminate the front setback (Moraine Ave) and side setback (north lot line) in lieu of the 8 feet and 10 feet respective setbacks required in the CD (Commercial Downtown) Zone District. This property is located at 281 W. Riverside Drive and was readdressed from 281 Moraine Avenue on October 6, 2022. Owner/Applicant:Terry Bogener Legal Description: LOTS 8 THRU 12, BLK 2, RECLAMATION, ESTES PK Type and Intensity of Use: A Variance is proposed to allow a front setback (to Highway 7/S. Saint Vrain Avenue) of 16.4 feetin lieu of the 25 feet required and a front setback st (to 1 Street) of 6.9 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: All of BinnsAddition to the Town of Estes Park Type and Intensity of Use: Two variances are proposed. One variance would allow employee housing units to exceed the maximum allowable 800 square feet per unit. The second would allow the total cumulative square feet of employee housing to exceed that of the total square footage of the commercial use. The property is within a CO (Outlying Commercial) Zone District located at 1895 Fall River Road, Estes Park. Owner: Kinley Built LLC For more information, please visit www.estes.org/currentapplications or contact the Community Development Department at planning@estes.org or 970-577-3721.