The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Density Denied 1040 Big Thompson Ave 2022-04-05 Community Development Memo To: Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: April 5, 2022 Application: Variance Request, Increased Accommodation Unit Density 1040 Big Thompson Avenue Castle Peak Holdings, Owner/Applicant Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny the variance request, subject to the findings described in the report. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow an increase in the density of accommodation units beyond the current allowance in the A Zone District. Location Addressed as 1041 Big Thompson Avenue, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Lake View Tracts, Town of Estes Park. Background The subject property contains a lodging/motel use, and is within an A (Accommodations) Zone District. The original owner received approval of a Development Plan in 1985, approving 43 Accommodation Units (rooms). During the course of the following 37 years, an additional three units were added without documentation or record of when they were constructed Community Development has determined the 46 existing units are legally nonconforming, or “grandfathered” as explained below. Given the challenges associated with determining how and when the three additional units were added, staff will not require the applicant to seek approval for those. Page 25 2 | Page The Town of Estes Park Zoning Code in effect in 1985 permitted the construction of 43 rooms and was replaced by the Estes Valley Development Code in 2000. Recently renamed the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), Section 4.4.C. requires 1800 sq. feet per accommodation unit. According to Larimer County Assessor's records, the property is 1.34 acres in size, or 58,370 square feet, which allows for 32 accommodation units. The 46 units are 14 units more than what would be allowable under the current Code, and those 14 units are legally nonconforming. Project Description Overview This is a request to grant a variance to allow 50 Accommodation Units, four more units than the existing 46. The applicable standard of 1800 square feet per Accommodation Unit is “Minimum Land Area per Accommodation or Residential Unit (sq. ft. per unit)”, within the EPDC, Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, Section 4.4, Nonresidential Zoning Districts, Subsection 4.4.C., Density/Dimensional Standards, Table 4-5, Base Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Location and Context Vicinity Map Page 26 3 | Page Zoning Map Land Use Summary Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses Subject Site Accommodations A (Accommodations) Accommodations North Estate: 1 Acre Minimum E-1 (Estate) Residential South Residential: ¼ Acre Minimum R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Residential East Accommodations A (Accommodations) Accommodations West Accommodations A (Accommodations) Accommodations Page 27 4 | Page 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: Staff does not find special circumstances or conditions of the type described, nor practical difficulty. The applicant does indicate difficulty in adding ADA accessible units, but it is unclear what the difficulties are. 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 is beneficial use of the property without the variance. The accommodations/motel use has operated since approximately 1985. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is substantial relative to the current EPDC Accommodation Unit density standard for which the variance is requested. Although it is acknowledged that the existing 46 Accommodation Units are allowed, and the request for four additional is an 8.7% increase, the current Code standard allows 32. The existing 46 Units is 43.8% above the current Code standard of 32. Fifty Accommodation Units is 56.3% above the 32 allowed under the current 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 the character of the neighborhood would be altered, and there would be no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties as a Page 28 5 | Page result of the variance other than a negligible increase in traffic during peak season. 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 Development Code containing the Accommodation Unit density standard has been effective since the year 2000. The current owner purchased the property quite recently, in January 2021. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Typically, economic hardship is not a basis for granting a variance. This is based on best planning and zoning practices and also the EPDC’s Section 3.6, which specifies approval of a variance is to involve “Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) …” These are not financial or economic circumstances or conditions. The method to mitigate the applicant’s need for ADA units is to convert existing rooms to ADA standards. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: There is no alternative process that could allow the four proposed additional Accommodation Units under the EPDC, other than perhaps amending the EPDC to increase the allowable density. 4. 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. The attached Statement of Intent contains the applicant’s rationale to demonstrate compliance with the above Standards and Criteria, describing how they have determined their variance request demonstrates compliance with each. Page 29 6 | Page Staff supports the applicant’s renovation efforts for this property, and recognizes each of the points and rationale behind the desire for four additional accommodation units. However, Section 3.6 of the EPDC does not provide staff or the Board of Adjustment the discretion to approve a variance for the reasons provided by the applicant. The applicant’s basis for the variance request appears to be primarily economic, along with the need to provide rooms that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Review Agency Comments The variance application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. The Public Works Department provided comments (attached). The Town of Estes Park Utilities Department has “…no objection to this proposed variance.” No other comments were received. Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with Town and State public 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 March 18, 2022. • Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on March 18, 2022. • Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website as of March 18, 2022. Advantages The applicant would add four additional Accommodation Units as proposed. Disadvantages Approval of the variance may set a precedent where future applicants may cite economic reasons as a basis for approval, which is not consistent with variance standards under Section 3.6 of the EPDC. Action Recommended Staff recommends denial of the proposed variance described in this staff report under “Review Criteria.” Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Low. Page 30 7 | Page Sample Motions I move to approve the requested variance, allowing four (4) additional Accommodation Units, for a total of fifty (50) Accommodation Units on the subject property addressed as 1040 Big Thompson Avenue in the Town of Estes Park. 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. Statement of Intent 2. Application 3. Site plan 4. Public Works Comments d. 2/28/22 Page 31 February 9, 2022 RE: Letter of Intent – Estes Village Inn – Additional Keys Request To Whom it May Concern, Beacon Bay Project Management (“BBPM”), on behalf of Castle Peak Holdings (“CPH”), is submitting an application for future alterations at Estes Village Inn, located at 1040 Big Thompson Ave., Estes Park, CO 80517. We are requesting a variance to current code, specifically section 4.4.C, to add four (4) additional guest units to the property, bringing the total units to fifty (50) from the current forty-six (46). CPH and Denver based Victory Investment Partners (Victory) acquired Estes Village Inn, along with Twin Owls Motor Lodge at 700 N St Vrain Avenue, in January 2021 with the vision to convert the rundown motels into boutique destinations that celebrate the dynamic community of Estes Park and the surrounding Rocky Mountain National Park. Upon acquisition, CPH set out to address a variety of life, safety and code issues that had gone unchecked and unenforced for years under prior ownership. This includes, but isn’t limited to, the voluntary addition of fire sprinklers at Estes Village Inn, a significant investment in the safety of our guests and the surrounding community. In total, CPH is investing over $20 million across the two hotels, generating considerable revenue for the City of Estes Park through development fees and increased sales and occupancy tax. CPH has been excited and encouraged by the strong support for the projects from the local community. During the acquisition process, CPH identified that the highest and best use for the existing breakfast room and a previously unpermitted guest room at Estes Village Inn was to convert the underutilized space into four (4) new guest units, including two (2) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guest rooms. The additional revenue generated from these four (4) rooms – roughly $200,000 annually – is necessary to substantiate CPH’s significant capital spend across the two hotels, and, more specifically, the large investment to bring the buildings up to current code. This revenue cannot be made up anywhere else. Furthermore, Estes Village Inn currently does not have any ADA guest units, and the conversion of any of the preexisting units to meet ADA standards would prove to be economically infeasible due to current conditions, specifically the existing slope of the site. The breakfast room, which is proximate to the lobby space, is also a superior location for any disabled guests as it allows them easy access to the public spaces without having to get in and out of their vehicle. CPH strongly believes that approving this variance request is in the best interest our guests and the local community of Estes Park. In summary: • CPH acquired Estes Village Inn and Twin Owls in January 2021 intending to make a sizeable investment across the two projects. The incremental revenue generated from these four (4) additional rooms is necessary for CPH’s investment to make sense. • CPH intends to make significant upgrades to address preexisting fire, life, safety and code issues on the property. This includes the voluntary addition of sprinklers. Page 32 • Two (2) of the four (4) new units will be ADA compliant rooms. Due to the slope of the site and the current size of existing units, it is economically infeasible to add ADA compliant rooms elsewhere within the project. • CPH is proposing to convert underutilized space within the existing building envelope to its highest and best use. Adding these units will not add any additional square footage to the site, alter the exterior of the buildings or impact neighboring property in any way. • CPH will meet the parking requirements as laid out in Section 7.11 of the Code requiring one (1) parking space per guestroom and one (1) parking space per three (3) employees. The property will have 53 parking spots, 50 for guestrooms and three (3) for up to nine (9) employees. • CPH believes that the current code inflicts unnecessary hardship by limiting the use of preexisting, underutilized space within the existing square footage of the buildings. It also inflicts practical difficulty due to preexisting conditions that limit the ability to add ADA compliant guest rooms elsewhere on the property. Section 3.6 of the Estes Park Development Code lays out the standards by which a variance will be granted. We address each point below. Specific code from Section 3.6 is in blue text. Standards for Review. All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth below: 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. Estes Village Inn has been legal, non-conforming for over 20 years as it relates to the density calculation in Section 4.4.C. Due to the slope of the site and the size of the existing guestrooms, it is economically unfeasible, nor practical, to add the two (2) ADA complaint rooms elsewhere on property. 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; No better use for the space than adding ADA guest rooms to serve these guests and bring properties up to code, bring an existing non-permitted room up to code that has no other use, and generate additional revenue that will support life safety investment and tax dollars for Estes Park. b. Whether the variance is substantial; The property currently has 46 guest rooms and has been legal, non-conforming for several decades. No additional square footage will be added to the site, and one of the guestrooms is already Page 33 constructed as a unpermitted room with no other uses. CPH believes that the addition of these four (4) rooms do not constitute a substantial variance, however they will have a substantial financial impact. 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 addition of the four (4) guest rooms within the building’s existing envelope will not alter the character of the neighborhood or impact adjoining properties in anyway. Furthermore, if the Board of Adjustments grants the variance, CPH will be required to go through a development plan review with the city. The project will only move forward if deemed favorable to the character of the neighborhood. Finally, CPH has made substantial investments at both Estes Village Inn and Twin Owls to make both properties cornerstones of the community – a significant change from the condition of the properties under prior ownership. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; The planned renovation of the property already requires upgrades to the electrical and water service servicing the property. The investment only helps the services in the area. Estes Park Sanitation and Estes Park Utilities voiced no objections to the addition of these rooms during the pre-application meeting held on January 27th 2022. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; CPH met with the city pre-purchase and on multiple occasions post-sale to discuss both Estes Village Inn and Twin Owls. Please see below dates and persons in attendance to these meetings. This was clearly not just an afterthought but a purposefully planned addition. In all meetings pre and post- purchase, previous Estes Park Community Development Director Randy Hunt expressed favorable likelihood of adding four (4) additional rooms, due to the rooms being within the building’s existing envelope and contingent on CPH providing an updating parking plan with the required number of spaces. It was also discussed that the revenue from these additional rooms was necessary given the significant investment that was needed to address the extensive code and life, safety issues. These discussions gave CPH confidence in the business plan and considerable capital investment being undertaken at both projects. On December 1st, 2021, Estes Park Senior Planner Jeff Woeber presented CPH for the first time with information regarding the concerns around a variance approval. • October 22, 2020 – Attendees – Adam Hazlet (Victory Investment Partners) and Randy Hunt (Prior Estes Park Community Development Director) • November 23, 2020 – Attendees – Adam Hazlet (Victory Investment Partners), Mike Weiss (Castle Peak Holdings - Owner) and Randy Hunt (Prior Estes Park Community Development Director) • December 1, 2020 – Attendees – Adam Hazlet (Victory Investment Partners) and Randy Hunt (Prior Estes Park Community Development Director) Page 34 •July 20, 2021 – Attendees – Adam Hazlet (Victory Investment Partners), Mike Weiss (Castle Peak Holdings - Owner), Electric Bowery (Architect of Record), Gary Ruso (Estes Park Chief Building Official) and Randy Hunt (Prior Estes Park Community Development Director) •August 20, 2021 – Attendees - Adam Hazlet (Victory Investment Partners), Craig Middleton (Beacon Bay Project Management), Gary Ruso (Estes Park Chief Building Official) and Randy Hunt (Prior Estes Park Community Development Director) •September 2, 2021 – Attendees - Craig Middleton (Beacon Bay Project Management), Randy Hunt (Prior Estes Park Community Development Director) and Jessica Garner (Current Estes Park Community Development Director) •November 10, 2021 – Mike Weiss (Castle Peak Holdings – Owner), David Rochefort (Castle Peak Holdings – Owner), Craig Middleton (Beacon Bay Project Management), and Jessica Garner (Current Estes Park Community Development Director), Jeff Woeber (Estes Park Senior Planner) •December 14, 2021 – Adam Hazlet (Victory Investment Partners), Mike Weiss (Castle Peak Holdings – Owner), David Rochefort (Castle Peak Holdings – Owner), Craig Middleton (Beacon Bay Project Management), and Jessica Garner (Current Estes Park Community Development Director), Jeff Woeber (Estes Park Senior Planner) f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. No, we cannot mitigate the financial impact of the lost revenue from not developing these four (4) rooms, nor the hardship of developing the required ADA compliant guest rooms elsewhere on the property. CPH is excited to invest in the reinvention of Estes Village Inn into a destination that travelers will embrace as authentically local to Estes Park, while celebrating everything that makes the local community so special. We look forward to further discussing the proposed variance with the members of the Board of Adjustments in the near future. Warm Regards, David Rochefort Castle Peak Holdings Craig Middleton Craig Middleton Beacon Bay Project Management Page 35 Street Address of Lot: Lot: Town Well Town Well EPSD UTSD Septic EPSD UTSD Septic Other None Yes No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards in Section 3.6.C of the EPDC pg.3-10-3-11,see attached) 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn aa scale of 1" = 20') ** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Site Information Attachments Legal Description: Parcel ID # : Subdivision: Zoning Other (Specify) Xcel ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: Block:Tract: Record Owner(s): General Information Primary Contact Information Variance Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org The site plan shall include information in Estes Park Development Code Appendix B.VII.5. The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Other (Specify) Town of Estes Park  P.O. Box 1200  170 MacGregor Avenue  Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721  Fax: (970) 586-0249  www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2020.04.01 ks Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Page 36 Cell Phone Fax Email APPLICATION FEES See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Phone Cell Phone Mailing Address Mailing Address Fax Phone Contact Information Consultant/Engineer Email Mailing Address Record Owner(s) Applicant Revised 2020.04.01 ks Page 37 ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal Under Review" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure 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 Park Board of Adjustment hearing. I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Park Development Code Section 3.6.D) I understand that a resubmittal fee may be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Park 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. Names: Record Owner Applicant Signatures: Record Owner Applicant 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. OWNER & APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC. 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 Park Development Code (EPDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, 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 Park Development Code is available online at: https://www.municode.com/library/CO/estes_valley/codes/development_code As Applicant, 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. As Owner, I certify the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and I am the record owner of the property. Revised 2020.04.01 ks Page 38 A101 2 2 2 2 1 A101 1 A101 A101 1 101 BUILDING SECTION EXTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM TAG DOOR TAG WINDOW TAG Room Name MATERIAL TAG REVISION CLOUD & TAG1 1i WALL TAG KEYNOTEXX SPOT ELEVATION INTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL CALLOUT DETAIL REFERENCEA101 1 1 GRID LINE LEVEL 0' -0" CENTERLINE PROPERTY LINE PT-1 1 1/4"DIMENSION BIG THOMPSON AVE. Scale Drawing No. Drawn By Checked By Project Title Drawing Title Date Project No. North Architect of Record DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. No.Revisions Date By Copyright Note Stamp Electric Bowery Ltd. Retains Design Copyright over Design Drawings & Specifications. Contractor Humphrey Rich Construction 10200 Old Columbia Rd. Columbia, MD. 21406 Tel 301.349.1687 Architect / Designer Electric Bowery, Ltd. 720 Hampton Dr. Venice, CA 90291 Tel 310.439.1771 Engineer Ramirez Johnson + Associates 3295 Blake St. #104 Denver, CO. 80205 Tel 720.598.0774 Client Castle Peak Holdings 228 Park Ave South New York, NY 10003 RE L E A S E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NO T AS NOTED A0.000 COVER SHEET 001082 10.01.21 TL ESTES VILLAGE INN CL/LB ESTES VILLAGE INN GUESTROOM BID SET OCTOBER 01, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE ADDRESS:1040 BIG THOMPSON AVE ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PROJECT TYPE:RENOVATION OF EXISTING MOTEL COMPLEX CONSISTING OF 48 GUEST ROOM. BUILDING (B) WORK TO FOLLOW IN SEPERATE PERMIT. T.O. FIRST LEVEL = EL. 100'-0" = 5280.00 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION 310.3 RESIDENTIAL GROUP R-1: MOTELS (TRANSIENT) 311.3 STORAGE GROUP S-2: LOW HAZARD STORAGE ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREA LIMITATIONS CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V B. 20,557 SF RESIDENTIAL GROUP R-1 WITH ACCESSORY OCCUPANCIES ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR: R-1 (SPRINKLERED): 7,000 (NS) ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES: R-1 (SPRINKLERED) 40 FEET 2 STORIES MAXIMUM EXISTING:32'-7" FEET 3 STORIES BUILDING AREA 506.1.3 BASEMENTS.BASEMENTSNEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA OF A BUILDING PROVIDED THE TOTAL AREA OD SUCH BASEMENTS DOES NOT EXCEEED THE AREA PERMITTED FOR A ONE-STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE BUILDING. FRONTAGE INCREASE FACTOR (EQUATION 5-5) PERIMETER OF BUILDING HAVING A MINIMUM FRONTAGE DISTANCE OF 30'-0". [852'-0" / 934'-6" -0.25] x 30 / 30 = 0.66 ALLOWABLE AREA (EQUATION 5-3) MIXED OCCUPANCY, MULTISTORY BUILDINGS (R-2):[ 7,000 + (7,000 x 0.66)] = 11,620 SF LOWER LEVEL 8,732 SF / 11,620 SF =0.75 < 1.0 (2015 IBC 508.4.2) MAIN LEVEL 8,916 SF / 11,620 SF + 2076 SF / 9,960 SF =0.97 < 1.0 (2015 IBC 508.4.2) UPPER LEVEL 833 SF / 11, 620 SF =0.07 < 1.0 (2015 IBC 508.4.2) ZONING SYMBOLS PLOT PLAN SCALE = NTS. A.C.AIR CONDITIONING ADJ.ADJACENT ADDT'L ADDITIONAL A.F.F.ABOVE FINISH FLOOR A.H.AIR HANDLER ALT.ALTERNATING ALUM.ALUMINUM BD.BOARD BLD'G BUILDING BLK'G BLOCKING CALCS.CALCULATIONS CL.CENTERLINE CLG.CEILING CONC.CONCRETE CONT.CONTINUOUS CORR.CORRUGATED CNTR.CENTER DET.DETAIL DIA.DIAMETER DIM.DIMENSION DWGS.DRAWINGS (E)EXISTING EA.EACH ELEC.ELECTRICAL EQ.EQUAL EXIST.EXISTING EXPAND.EXPANDED EXT.EXTERIOR F.C.FINISH CEILING F.F.FINISH FLOOR FLR.FLOOR F.S.FINISH SURFACE GA.GAUGE GALV.GALVANIZED G.L.GRID LINE GYP. BD.GYPSUM BOARD HT.HEIGHT H.V.A.C.HEATING / VENTILATION / AIR CONDITIONING INT.INTERIOR MAX.MAXIMUM M.B.MACHINE BOLT MECH.MECHANICAL MIN.MINIMUM MTL.METAL (N)NEW N/A NOT APPLICABLE N.I.C.NOT IN CONTRACT N.T.S NOT TO SCALE. O.C.ON CENTER PNT.PAINT P.T.PRESSURE TREATED REF.REFERENCE REQ'D REQUIRED RM.ROOM S.S.STAINLESS STEEL SIM.SIMILAR STL.STEAL STLS.STAINLESS STRUCT.STRUCTURE(AL) STOR.STORAGE SUSP.SUSPENDED T.B.D.TO BE DETERMINED THK.THICK T.O.W.TOP OF WALL TYP.TYPICAL U.N.O.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE V.I.F.VERIFY IN FIELD V.S.VENT SHAFT W/WITH W.C.WATER CLOSET WD.WOOD W.H.WATER HEATER W.P.WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE ABBREVIATIONS APPLICABLE CODES 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE 2017 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE 2015 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE ESTES PARK LOCAL AMENDMENTS GOVERNING AUTHORITY: CITY OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ESTES VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE / TITLE 17: ZONING LOT AREA:58,085 SF / 1.33 ACRES BUILDING FOOTPRINT:11,295 SF ZONING:A /ACCOMODATIONS / HIGHWAY CORRIDOR MINIMUM LAND AREA PERR ACCOMMODATION (48 UNITS x 1,800 SF): 86,400 SF MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 40,000 SF MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 50% FRONT SETBACK (ATERIAL): 25 FEET SIDE SETBACK: 15 FEET REAR SETBACK: 10 FEET LOT LINES ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL: 25 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 30 FEET PROPOSED BLDG USE: HIGH INTENSITY ACCOMMODATIONS / HOTEL (NO CHANGE) PROPOSED BUILDING AREA:LOWER LEVEL = 8,942 GFA (NO CHANGE) MAIN LEVEL = 10,991 GFA UPPER LEVEL = 833 GFA TOTAL = 20,766 GFA NUMBER OF GUEST ROOMS:46 PARKING REQUIRED:1 SPACE PER ROOM < 750 SF = 46 SPACES 1 SPACE PER 3 EMPLOYEES = 1 SPACE PARKING PROVIDED: 48 SPACES INCLUDING 2 ACCESSIBLE SPACES PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: 9'-0" x 19'-6" DRIVE AISLE WIDTH:24'-0" TWO-WAY BIKE PARKING REQUIRED: 1 PER 20 PARKING SPACES BIKE PARKING PROVIDED: 5 SPACES VICINITY MAP Page 39 (E) BUILDING A; 14 KEYS (E) BUILDING C; 3 KEYS (E) BUILDING D; 8 KEYS (E) BUILDING E; 12 KEYS (E) PARKING 11 SPACES (E) PARKING 24 SPACES 1 ADA (N) PARKING 7 SPACES 1 ADA (E) PARKING 11 SPACES 1 ADA (E) BUILDING B; 8 KEYS (E) 3 KEYS (N) (E) BIKE PATH (E) POOL PROPERTY LINE (E) PLANTER (E) TOTEM POLE TO BE REMOVED (N) SIGN LOCATION (N) DISCOVERY (N) DISCOVERY PER SEPERATE FUTURE PERMIT BIG THOMPSON AVENUE Scale Drawing No. Drawn By Checked By Project Title Drawing Title Date Project No. North Architect of Record DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. No.Revisions Date By Copyright Note Stamp Electric Bowery Ltd. Retains Design Copyright over Design Drawings & Specifications. Contractor Humphrey Rich Construction 10200 Old Columbia Rd. Columbia, MD. 21406 Tel 301.349.1687 Architect / Designer Electric Bowery, Ltd. 720 Hampton Dr. Venice, CA 90291 Tel 310.439.1771 Engineer Ramirez Johnson + Associates 3295 Blake St. #104 Denver, CO. 80205 Tel 720.598.0774 Client Castle Peak Holdings 228 Park Ave South New York, NY 10003 RE L E A S E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NO T 1" = 20'-0" A1.000 SITE PLAN 001082 10.01.21 TL ESTES VILLAGE INN CL/LB 1" = 20'-0" SITE PLAN1 BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING D BUILDING E Page 40 DN UP UP UP UP DN DN DN A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 DE-A DE-B A-A A-B A-C C-B C-1 C-2 C-A C-C C-D C-E B-B B-C B-D B-E E-1 E-2 D-1 D-2 DBL. RM.DBL. RM.DBL. RM.DBL. RM.DBL. RM.DBL. RM.DBL. RM.BUNK RM.BUNK RM.BUNK RM. SNGL. RM. SNGL. RM. SNGL. RM. DBL. RM. DBL. RM. SNGL. RM. SNGL. RM. DBL. RM. DBL. RM. DBL. RM. DBL. RM. DBL. RM. DBL. RM. DBL. RM. 04 PER SEPERATE FUTURE PERMIT STRG. 04 04 04 0202 07 07 07 02 02 26 ' - 1 0 " 15 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 1 0 " 19 ' - 1 0 " 42 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 4' - 10" 26' - 9 1/2" 31' - 7 1/2" 50' - 3"37' - 9"7' - 9"34' - 10"39' - 8" 38' - 0" 24' - 3" 37' - 6" 37' - 9" 0" 0" -6' - 8" -11' - 6" -6' - 8" 0" LEGEND UNDER FUTURE SEPERATE PERMIT (N) WALL (E) WALL DEMO WALL DEMO FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. REMOVE ALL EXISTING PLUMBING FIXTURES & FINISHES. ROUGH-INS TO REMIAN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL FRAMING TO REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. REMOVE ALL EXISTING WALL, FLOOR & CEILING FINISHES. 4. ALL EXISTING ELECTRICAL OUTLETS TO REMAIN PENDING GC SURVEY WITH SUPPLEMENT OF BEDSIDE MOCKETTS AS SHOWN. 5. REMOVE ALL EXISTING INTERIOR DOORS, FRAMES, HARDWARE & MISCELLANEOUS APPURTENANCES. 6. EXISTING PTAC UNITS TO REMAIN. Scale Drawing No. Drawn By Checked By Project Title Drawing Title Date Project No. North Architect of Record DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. No.Revisions Date By Copyright Note Stamp Electric Bowery Ltd. Retains Design Copyright over Design Drawings & Specifications. Contractor Humphrey Rich Construction 10200 Old Columbia Rd. Columbia, MD. 21406 Tel 301.349.1687 Architect / Designer Electric Bowery, Ltd. 720 Hampton Dr. Venice, CA 90291 Tel 310.439.1771 Engineer Ramirez Johnson + Associates 3295 Blake St. #104 Denver, CO. 80205 Tel 720.598.0774 Client Castle Peak Holdings 228 Park Ave South New York, NY 10003 RE L E A S E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NO T AS NOTED A1.002 DEMOLITION PLAN - LEVEL 1 001082 10.01.21 TL ESTES VILLAGE INN CL/LB 3/32" = 1'-0" OVERALL DEMO PLAN - LEVEL 11 KEYNOTES (DEMO PLANS) 01 - REMOVE EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW 02 - REMOVE EXISITNG DOOR OPENING, INFILL WITH RATED CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH SURROUNDING ASSEMBLY 03 - CREATE NEW OPENING IN EXISTING WALL 04 - REMOVE EXISTING PARTITION AS SHOWN 05 - EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED 06 - EXISTING LAUNDRY TO BE RELOCATED TO BASEMENT STORAGE @ BUILDING D 07 - REMOVE EXISTING EXTERIOR DOOR FOR (N) PRIVATE TERRACE Page 41 UP UP UP UP DN DN DN B-1 B-2 B-C B-D OPEN TO BELOW B-300 B-301 PER SEPERATE FUTURE PERMIT A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 DE-A DE-B A-A A-B A-C C-B C-1 C-2 C-A C-C C-D C-E B-B B-C B-D B-E E-1 E-2 D-1 D-2 A1.105 3 A1.104 1 A1.102 1 DBL. RM. A-210 DBL. RM. A-211 DBL. RM. A-212 DBL. RM. A-213 DBL. RM. A-214 DBL. RM. A-215 DBL. RM. A-216 BUNK RM. B-203 BUNK RM. B-202 BUNK RM. B-201 SNGL. RM. B-204 ADA RM. B-205 ADA RM. B-206 SNGL. RM. C-220 SNGL. RM. C-221 SNGL. RM. C-222 DBL. RM. DBL. RM. E-234 SNGL. RM. E-233 SNGL. RM. E-232 DBL. RM. E-231 DBL. RM. E-230 A1.106 2 DBL. RM. E-235 DBL. RM. D-244 DBL. RM. D-243 DBL. RM. D-242 DBL. RM. D-241 DBL. RM. D-240 A1.101 2 PER SEPERATE FUTURE PERMIT 5' - 2 " 26 ' - 1 0 " 15 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 1 0 " 19 ' - 1 0 " 42 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 4' - 10" 26' - 9 1/2" 31' - 7 1/2" 50' - 3"37' - 9"7' - 9"34' - 10"39' - 8" 38' - 0" 24' - 3" 37' - 6" 37' - 9" 05 06 06 06 05 0404 04 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 STRG. 0" 0" -6' - 8" -11' - 6" -6' - 8" 0" FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. NEW FIXTURES & FINISHES THROUGHOUT AS SHOWN. 2. EXISTING DRYWALL TO RECEIVE LEVEL 5 SKIM COAT & PREP FOR NEW PAINT. 3. NEW INTERIOR BATHROOM DOORS, FRAMES & HARDWARE THROUGHOUT. 4. EXTERIOR WORK AS PART OF SEPERATE PERMIT, SCOPE & WORK ORDER. 5. NO ADDITIONAL PLUMBING ROUGH AT GUESTROOM INTERIORS, EXCEPTING NEW GUESTROOMS. LEGEND UNDER FUTURE SEPERATE PERMIT (N) WALL (E) WALL DEMO WALL Scale Drawing No. Drawn By Checked By Project Title Drawing Title Date Project No. North Architect of Record DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. No.Revisions Date By Copyright Note Stamp Electric Bowery Ltd. Retains Design Copyright over Design Drawings & Specifications. Contractor Humphrey Rich Construction 10200 Old Columbia Rd. Columbia, MD. 21406 Tel 301.349.1687 Architect / Designer Electric Bowery, Ltd. 720 Hampton Dr. Venice, CA 90291 Tel 310.439.1771 Engineer Ramirez Johnson + Associates 3295 Blake St. #104 Denver, CO. 80205 Tel 720.598.0774 Client Castle Peak Holdings 228 Park Ave South New York, NY 10003 RE L E A S E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NO T AS NOTED A1.011 PROPOSED OVERALL FLOOR PLANS - LEVEL 1 & 2 001082 10.01.21 TL ESTES VILLAGE INN CL/LB 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 21 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 12 KEYNOTES (OVERALL PLANS) 01 - PRESERVE ACCESS TO EXISTING UTILITY SPACE 02 - NEW GUESTROOM IN PREVIOUS LAUNDRY ROOM 03 - EXISTING BALCONIES, PAINT SCOPE UNDER SEPERATE REVIEW / PERMIT / WORK ORDER 04 - FRAME OUT NEW BUNK LANDING ABOVE BATHROOM CEILING 05 - NEW WOOD GATE AT CORRIDOR 06 - NEW GUEST BALCONY PARTITIONS AS PART OF EXTERIOR SCOPE Page 42 DN UP DN K K K KK K KEY PLAN B D E C BA LEGEND UNDER FUTURE SEPERATE PERMIT (N) WALL (E) WALL DEMO WALL A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 A-A A-B A-C B-B B-C B-D B-E ADA RM. B-206 ADA RM. B-205 SNGL. RM. B-204 BUNK RM. B-201 BUNK RM. B-202 BUNK RM. B-203 CU T L I N E SE E S H E E T A . 1 0 1 CUT LINE SEE SHEET A.104 0" 0" 0" TL-1 TL-02A TL-1 WF-01 WF-01 TL-1 TL-02A TL-1 WF-01 TL-02A TL-1 WD-02 10' - 2"13' - 2"15' - 1" 19 ' - 4 " 14 ' - 1 " 4' - 1 0 " 01 02 03 04 05 04 05 05 03 03 02 010107 07 Scale Drawing No. Drawn By Checked By Project Title Drawing Title Date Project No. North Architect of Record DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. No.Revisions Date By Copyright Note Stamp Electric Bowery Ltd. Retains Design Copyright over Design Drawings & Specifications. Contractor Humphrey Rich Construction 10200 Old Columbia Rd. Columbia, MD. 21406 Tel 301.349.1687 Architect / Designer Electric Bowery, Ltd. 720 Hampton Dr. Venice, CA 90291 Tel 310.439.1771 Engineer Ramirez Johnson + Associates 3295 Blake St. #104 Denver, CO. 80205 Tel 720.598.0774 Client Castle Peak Holdings 228 Park Ave South New York, NY 10003 RE L E A S E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NO T AS NOTED A1.102 GUESTROOM PLANS - BUILDING B 001082 10.01.21 TL ESTES VILLAGE INN CL/LB 3/16" = 1'-0" GUESTROOM PLANS - LEVEL 1 - BUILDING B1 KEYNOTES (GUESTROOM PLANS - BUILDING B) 01 - (N) PARTITIONS AS SHOWN 02 - REVISED PLUMBING ROUGH-INS 03 - FIXED LADDER UP TO NEW BUNK AREA 04 - EXISTING CIRCULATION STAIR TO REMAIN 05 - EXISTING RATED DEMISING WALLS TO REMAIN 06 - (N) PLUMBING ROUGH-INS 07 - INFILL RATED CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH SURROUNDING ASSEMBLY 08 - (N) RATED DEMISING WALL 09 - (N) ALUMINIUM WINDOW IN NEW OPENING TO MATCH EXISTING 10 - (N) RATED ENTRY DOOR, FRAME & HARDWARE 11 - LOCATION ICE MACHINE Page 43 Scale Drawing No. Drawn By Checked By Project Title Drawing Title Date Project No. North Landscape Architect DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. No.Revisions Date By Copyright Note Stamp Electric Bowery Ltd. Retains Design Copyright over Design Drawings & Specifications. Contractor Humphrey Rich Construction 10200 Old Columbia Rd. Columbia, MD. 21406 Tel 301.349.1687 Architect / Designer Electric Bowery, Ltd. 720 Hampton Dr. Venice, CA 90291 Tel 310.439.1771 Engineer Ramirez Johnson + Associates 3295 Blake St. #104 Denver, CO. 80205 Tel 720.598.0774 Client Castle Peak Holdings 228 Park Ave South New York, NY 10003 RE L E A S E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NO T AS NOTED Landscape Architecture & Planning 3000 Lawrence Street, #9 Denver, Colorado 80205 303.900.5820 www.studio-campo.com Site Layout Plan 001081 ESTES VILLAGE INN L4-01 1.25.2022 AJ CP 0 SCALE: 1"=20' 2010 40 7 5 5 0 7555 755 5 7 5 5 5 7560 7560 75 6 0 7560 7 5 6 0 7565 7565 756 5 75 6 5 7570 7570 757 0 75 7 5 757 5 7575 7575 7580 7580 7580 7580 7585 7585 7585 7585 7585 7565 757 0 75 6 0 7560 7560 7565 7570 7565 7565 7565 45 46 4 7 49 48 53 52 50 51 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ADA ROOM ENTRY 11 ADA 17161514 10 ADA VAN LOBBY ENTRY LEVEL 01 FFE 7578' LEVEL 01 FFE 7578' LEVEL 01 FFE 7578' 18 19 STAFF PARKING 12 DAYTIME LOADING 13 DAYTIME LOADING Screen Type 2, 16 LF Handrail = 37 LF Concrete Planting Curbcut Total in plan=5 Estimated DG Type 2 (Shard) in curbcut planters = 200 SF FIRE TRUCK ACCESS ROUTE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS ROUTE BUILDING B BUILDING C (OVERHEAD) BUILDING A BUILDING D BUILDING E BUILDING D (OVERHEAD) PROPERTY BOUNDARY DISCOVERY AREA 6'-0"6'-0"6'-0" 5' - 0 " 4' - 6 " 9' - 4 " 8' - 1 0 7 / 8 " 24'-6 1/2" 9 ' - 6 " 7'-5 5/8" 3' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 11'-0"6'-0"9'-0" 27'-2"6'-0"6'-2" 11 ' - 1 " 12'-7"7'-0" 12 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 6' - 3 " 39'-9 1/2" 8'-0" 8' - 0 " 20'- 0 " 19 ' - 6 " 18 ' - 0 " 24'-6" 11 ' - 5 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " 19 ' - 6 " 9'-0" 20 ' - 0 " 9' - 8 " 34 ' - 0 " 37'-6" 6'-0 " 29 ' - 4 " 19 ' - 6 " 9'-0" 5'-0" 27 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 9'-0" 5' - 0 " 51'-11 7/8" 38'-11 3/8" 29 ' - 1 " 19'-6" 9' - 0 " Ø 12'-0" 24'-0" 21'-0"15'-0" 20'-0 " 3 ' - 0 " 23'-9 1/4" 2 0 ' - 0 " 9'-0" 88'-3" R 28'-0" R 28'-0" R 28'-0" R 28'-0" R 28'-0" 42'-0" 14'-3 1/8" 9' - 7 " AREA 103.553 sq ft AREA 51.149 sq ft AREA 91.561 sq ft AREA 335.333 sq ft AREA 54.896 sq ft AREA 302.845 sq ft AREA 30.75 sq ft AREA 183.506 sq ft AREA 118.602 sq ft AREA 287.929 sq ft AREA 56.744 sq ft AREA 25.416 sq ft AREA 0 sq ft AREA 0 sq ft AREA 13.964 sq ft AREA 592.688 sq ft AREA 2428.71 sq ft AREA 131.369 sq ft AREA 480.959 sq ft AREA 247.906 sq ft AREA 33.213 sq ft AREA 65.934 sq ft AREA 50.82 sq ft AREA 105.951 sq ft AREA 132.238 sq ft AREA 126.385 sq ft AREA 178.74 sq ft AREA 154.035 sq ft AREA 169.58 sq ft AREA 115.776 sq ft AREA 347.327 sq ft AREA 135.23 sq ft AREA 1078.761 sq ft AREA 113.097 sq ft AREA 23.758 sq ft AREA 23.584 sq ft AREA 279.864 sq ft AREA 825.943 sq ft AREA 435.098 sq ft AREA 1171.267 sq ft AREA 177.791 sq ft AREA 15.316 sq ft AREA 104.447 sq ft AREA 62.092 sq ft AREA 31.012 sq ft AREA 34.84 sq ft AREA 41.976 sq ft AREA 2774.41 sq ft AREA 128.201 sq ft Concrete Planter Curb Total Estimated=1000 LF Timber Curb Stops Total in plan= 40 Existing Columns=7 Wrap existing bases with metal base cap. Landscape Boulders Total in Plan=35 AREA 30.298 sq ft 3' Trellis Modules Total 5 Modules in Plan 8'-0" 21 ' - 2 " 1. Layout and dimensions provided on Drawings are based on Architecture Building Grid and existing site features. 2. Verify utility locates, plant protection and stormwater pollution protection plan (SWPPP) measures are in place prior to commencing construction. Do not proceed with construction if not in compliance and maintained throughout. 3. Layout and verify dimensions prior to construction. Field stake all proposed improvements for review and approval by Landscape Architect unless indicated otherwise. Bring discrepancies to the attention of the Landscape Architect for final direction. Landscape Architect reserves right to make field adjustments and layout decisions in field as necessary at no additional cost to owner. 4. Request inspection of field staking by Landscape Architect a minimum of 24 hours in advance of performing any work unless indicated otherwise. 5. For dimensions of buildings, garages, trash enclosures, patios and related work, refer to the architectural drawings. 6. Written dimensions take precedence over scale. Bring discrepancies to the attention of the Landscape Architect for final direction. 7. Where dimensions are called as "equal," space referenced items equally, measured to their center lines. 8 Measurements are to face of building, wall or the fixed site improvement. Dimensions to center lines is indicated. 9. Provide expansion joints where concrete flatwork meets vertical structures such as walls, curbs, steps and building elements. Typical Specific Measurement Guidelines: 10. All walkways shall be located X'-X” from finished face of buildings unless indicated otherwise. 11. All concrete walkways shall be X'-X" wide unless indicated otherwise. 12. Parking areas are dimensioned from face of curb unless indicated otherwise. (Note: This should typically be per Civil Engineer. Recommend deleting unless DW responsible for parking lot). 13. All lighting standards shall be set back 2'-6" clear from face of curb and (X'-X” on-center) (X'-X” from each other) (in locations as indicated) (define other parameter) unless indicated otherwise. (Note: Only provide if DW responsible for site lighting. If Lighting Designer, Electrical Engineer or Other providing design, layout, details, etc. coordinate with that consultant to ensure inclusion in their documentation). 14 Expansion joints in walkways shall be located at (30'-0") on center maximum unless indicated otherwise. 15. All radii of walkway intersections shall be X'-X" unless indicated otherwise. 16. All steps shall have 14” treads unless indicated otherwise. 17. All stairway perimeter handrails and accessible ramp handrails shall extend 12” beyond top riser, 12” beyond bottom riser, and be set 1.5” clear from edge of wall) unless indicated otherwise. Intermediate handrails shall be as indicated. 18. All accessible ramps shall be 3'-0” wide unless designated otherwise. 19. All perimeter fencing shall be installed 2' inside property line unless designated otherwise. LAYOUT NOTES LEGEND Existing Concrete (To Be Repaired) Concrete Curb Paver (On Slab) Asphalt Patch Existing Asphalt Paver (Pedestal Overlay) Gravel/Rock Shard (Inflamable -Defensible Surface) Pine Needle Path Seeded Planting Perennial Planting (Wood Mulch) ( Perennial Planting (Decomposed Granite Mulch) Concrete Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 NOTICE On Tuesday, April 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., a virtual meeting will be held by the Estes Park Board of Adjustment to consider an application for a variance for the properties and purposes described below. Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, Lake View Tracts, Estes Park Type and Intensity of Use: Applicant requests approval of a variance to the standard within the Estes Park Development Code, Section 4.4.C., for density of Accommodation Units allowed. Applicant requests 50 total Accommodation Units, an increase of four above the existing 46 units. The property is located at 1040 Big Thompson Avenue and is in an A (Accommodations) Zoning District. Owner: Castle Peak Holdings Legal Description: COM AT PT 556 FT N, 1000 FT W OF SE COR 23-5-73, S 128 FT, W 155 FT, N 128 FT, E 155 FT TPOB; ALSO COM AT PT 556 FT N, 1000 FT W OF SE COR, N 22.93 FT, N 89 49' W 40 FT, S 63 1' W 50.5 FT, N 89 49' E TPOB Type and Intensity of Use: Applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a reduced setback for an undersized lot located in the E-1 (Estate/1-Acre Min.) zone district and addressed 460 Valley Road. The purpose of the request is to support construction of an accessory structure. Owner/Applicant: Stan & Mary Peterson/Van Horn Engineering. For more information, please visit www.estes.org/currentapplications or contact the Community Development Department at planning@estes.org or 970-577-3721. Page 48 Community Development Department Planning Division 970-577-3727 planning@estes.org 170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG April 8, 2022 Craig Middleton Vice President of Project Management Beacon Bay Project Management Golden, Colorado Sent via email: craig@bbpm.com RE: Estes Park Board of Adjustment Hearing, Density Variance Dear Mr. Davis: Please be advised that the Estes Park Board of Adjustment, at its public hearing held on April 5, 2022, voted to deny the variance request allow an increase in the allowed number of Accommodation Units, for a property addressed as 1040 Big Thompson Avenue in Estes Park. The property is within an A (Accommodations) Zone District. Email or call with questions or comments. Regards, Jeffrey Woeber Senior Planner