HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2024-06-04BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, June 4, 2024
9:00 a.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s YouTube channel and recorded and posted
to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS
AGENDA APPROVAL
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Board of Adjustment Minutes dated March 5, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address).
ACTION ITEMS:
Planner Washam 1.Variance Request 261 W Riverside Dr.
Reduce the building setback along the south property line.
Applicant Requests this be continued to a date uncertain.
2.Variance Request 2365 Big Thompson
Ave
Planner Hornbeck
Allow original, natural grade to be raised or lowered by up to 25 feet rather than the
maximum of 10 feet and allow retaining wall heights up to 23 feet rather than the
maximum of 6 feet.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.Upcoming meeting items
ADJOURN
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.
May 29, 2024
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 5 2024
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 the Town of
Estes Park on March 5, 2024.
Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Moreau, Vice Chair Newsom, Member Holtzman, Planner I Kara
Washam, Senior Planner Hornbeck, Director Steve Careccia, Town Board Liaison
Barbara MacAlpine, Town Engineer Jeff Bailey, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: None
Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holtzman) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 3-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holtzman) to approve the Consent Agenda. The
motion passed 3-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to keep the structure the same, with
Moreau as Chair and Newsom as Vice Chair. The motion passed 3-0.
VARIANCE REQUEST 540-550 W Elkhorn Avenue Planner Hornbeck
The Applicant seeks to replace existing decks with new, larger decks with a 10’ width
to provide more usable space. The decks could be replaced within the existing
footprint without variances as they are considered legally non-conforming. However,
the following variances are required since the new decks are desired to be larger
and encroach further into required setbacks:
1.A variance from EPDC Sec. 7.6.E(2)(b) requires a 30’ setback from the
annual high-water mark of the river. The proposed decks would be
constructed as close as 13’ from the high water mark of the Fall River
rather than the required 30’.
2.A variance from EPDC Table 4-2 which requires a 10’ rear setback in the
RM zone district. The proposed decks would be constructed as close as
4’ from the rear lot line rather than the required 10’.
3.The new deck proposed with Building B would have a side setback of 13’,
and the existing setback requirement is 10’; however, a concurrent
application requesting to rezone the property to Commercial Outlying
(CO) would increase the side setback requirement to 15’. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance from EPDC Table 4-5, which requires a
15’ side setback in the CO zone district. The proposed decks would be
constructed as close as 13’ from the east lot line rather than the required
15’. However, the variance is only applicable if the current rezoning is
approved.
Staff recommended denial of the variance request.
dra
f
t
Board of Adjustment, March 5, 2024 – Page 2
Joe Coop, VanHorn Engineering, stated that the request is for four feet due to the
current legal nonconforming location. Building A is a smaller request. The condos
were built in 1968 and 1970. The floods of 1982 or 2013 did not impact them.
VanHorn Engineering modeled and adjusted the 100-year Floodplain while working
with Elkhorn Lodge. No retaining wall will be constructed. He stressed that we
couldn’t regulate to the infinite as the building is not in the floodplain. The legal lot to
the North is mostly nonbuildable. There is hope that the two lots can be combined in
the future.
Eric Mankin, 550 W Elkhorn, is one of three permanent residents at these condos.
He shared photos of the property and explained the variance request from the
owner's point of view.
Gerald Mayo, 265 Lookout Street, owns one of the condos. The 56-year-old decks
are unsafe and need to be replaced. In his opinion, Illegal downzoning occurred in
2000, hence the upcoming rezoning request.
Thomas Thurman, owner of Condo B8, says the fundamental issue is the lack of
facts in the comments about what could happen. The hydrologics of a flood are not
specific.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the variance request for a
13’ river setback, 4’ rear setback from the north property line, 13’ side setback from the
east property line, and a side setback from the east lot of 13’ (only applicable if the
rezoning to CO is approved) for the subject property addressed as 540 and 550 West
Elkhorn Avenue, with the conditions of no stairs extending to the north without a lot
consolidation. The motion passed 3-0. ,
There being no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.
Jeff Moreau, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary dra
f
t
Community Development Department Planning Building
970-577-3721planning@estes.org building@estes.org
May 29, 2024
261 W Riverside, Variance Request
The applicant requests this item be continued to a
date uncertain.
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Date: June 4, 2024
Application: Variances from Estes Park Development Code Section 7.2 regarding
retaining wall height and alteration of natural grade.
2365 Big Thompson Avenue
Todd & Rebecca Wright, Owners
Chris & Kendall Combs, 2 Combs Enterprises, Inc., Applicants
Jody Newton, Masterworks, LLC, Applicant’s 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: Existing - Accommodations/Highway Corridor (EV A) (Larimer
County); Proposed – Accommodations (Estes Park)
Site Area: 3.2 Acres
☒ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE ☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO
Objective:
Hold a public hearing to consider two variance requests from the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC) related to proposed construction of a new hotel at 2365 Big
Thompson Avenue.
Background:
The existing accommodations use on the subject parcel, Olympus Lodge, is proposed
to be demolished and replaced with a new hotel on the site. The property is located in
11
2
unincorporated Larimer County and the applicant has submitted a petition to annex the
property into the Town of Estes Park, a Development Plan for the proposed hotel, and
the subject variance requests. Both the Annexation and Development Plan remain
under review, and no formal action is scheduled at this time.
Location and Context:
The 3.2-acre property is located at 2365 Big Thompson Avenue, adjacent to the
intersection with Mall Road (see Vicinity Map). The site is located on a hillside with
average slopes of 14%. The subject property is zoned Accommodations/Highway
Corridor (EV A) in Larimer County. The zoning requested with the pending annexation
application is Accommodations. Adjacent properties are a mix of different zoning and
land uses as outlined in the Zoning and Land Use Summary Table below.
Vicinity Map
22
3
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Comprehensive Plan
(2022) Zone Uses
Subject
Site
Mixed-Use Centers and
Corridors
Accommodations/Highway Corridor
(EV A) (Larimer County) Accommodations
North
Mixed-Use Centers and
Corridors
Accommodations/Highway Corridor
(EV A) (Larimer County) Residential
Neighborhood Village Residential (EV R) (Larimer
County) Residential
South Mixed-Use Centers and
Corridors
Outlying Commercial (EV CO)
(Larimer County)
Residential &
Entertainment
East Mountains and Foothills Rural Estate (EV RE) (Larimer
County) Undeveloped
West
Mixed-Use Centers and
Corridors
Outlying Commercial (EV CO)
(Larimer County) CDOT Facility
Neighborhood Village Residential (EV R) (Larimer
County)
Residential/
Undeveloped
Future Land Use Map
Neighborhood
Village
Mixed-Use
Centers and
Corridors
Mountains
and Foothills
33
4
Variance Description
The applicant seeks to construct a 115-room hotel that will require significant grading
given the topography of the site. The proposed grading will require retaining wall heights
and changes in the natural grade that are both in excess of the maximums allowed by
EPDC. Given the applicant’s intent for the property to be annexed into the Town of
Estes Park, they are requesting prospective variances for the proposed hotel
development. The applicant has requested a variance from EPDC § 7.2.B.6 to allow
retaining wall heights up to 23 feet in lieu of the maximum of 6 feet. Rather than
allowing retaining walls in excess of 6 feet in height, the EPDC requires a system of
terraced walls, each limited to a maximum of 6 feet in height with a landscaped terrace
with a minimum horizontal width of 5 feet between walls. The applicant investigated
using such a terraced system (Attachment # 3) that would comply with the EPDC
requirements but found it not feasible given the slope and size of the property.
Also requested is a variance from EPDC § 7.2.B.2 to allow the original, natural grade to
be lowered by up to 25 feet rather than the maximum of 10 feet. To create a flat building
site the grade is proposed to be lowered significantly in the northwest portion of the site.
Proposed Site Plan
Refer to Attachment # 3 for full size
44
5
Proposed Grading Plan
Refer to Attachment # 3 for full size
55
6
Tiered Retaining Wall Investigation
Refer to Attachment # 4 for full size
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:
66
7
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. 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: There are special circumstances or conditions unique to this lot,
particularly the steep topography (average grade of 14%).
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 as the
existing use could continue or redevelopment could utilize multiple smaller
buildings which require less grading and retaining walls. The statement of intent
indicates smaller cottage type development is not financially feasible.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: From a numerical perspective the variances are substantial (23’
retaining wall rather than the 6’ maximum and change in natural grade of 25’
rather than the maximum of 10’). From a visual perspective, the variances are
less substantial given the location of the retaining walls and largest grade change
being largely screened from Big Thompson Avenue by the hotel building and
being downhill of the homes to the north.
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 will change with the proposed
development as a single, large structure three stories in height is proposed
compared to numerous smaller buildings currently on the site. However, the
variances proposed will not necessarily substantially alter the essential character
of the neighborhood. The majority of cut into the existing grade will occur on the
northwest corner of the property, which will be screened from view by the hotel
building as seen from Big Thompson Avenue. A retaining wall up to 10 feet in
height is proposed in front of the hotel building and will be visible. However, it is
in the same vicinity as an existing short retaining wall on the site that has a steep
manmade slope above it that together create approximately 10 feet in grade
change (Image # 1). There may be some visual impact to the character of the
neighborhood. To mitigate this, staff recommends that all retaining walls visible
from adjoining properties or from private or public roadways, be faced with wood,
77
8
stone or other earth-colored materials that blend with the surrounding natural
landscape.
Image #1
Existing Retaining Wall and Manmade Slope
Adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the
variance. The two residential properties located to the north are likely to be most
impacted by the variances (Image # 2). However, the visual impact of the
retaining wall from those properties is not likely to be any more detrimental than
terraced retaining walls built in accordance with EPDC requirements. One
consideration is the potential safety hazard of someone falling from the top of the
retaining wall. Staff recommends a condition of approval to require an
architecturally enhanced fence or railing be constructed at the top of the wall to
mitigate this concern.
The variance to the existing natural grade means the building will be situated
lower than without the variance, making for less visual impact. This will better
preserve views for the properties to the north, but it will make the roof more
visible than it otherwise would be from the adjacent properties. As such, staff
recommends a condition of approval to require that all rooftop equipment be fully
screened.
88
9
Image #2
View of Existing Lodge Buildings from the north
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The variances will not impact delivery of public services.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The applicant is in the process of purchasing the property.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: To construct a hotel of the desired size, there does not appear to
be any other method for mitigation.
2. 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.
99
10
Staff Finding: While topography is an issue for many areas of Town, the
average slope on this lot makes it unique.
3. 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.
4. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The requested variances appear to represent the least deviation
from the regulations that will afford relief.
5. 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 zoning district containing the property for which the variance
is sought.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
6. 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’s recommended conditions are listed below.
Review Agency Comments
The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public
Works is not opposed to the variance requests. However, they do recommend
architectural enhancements to the retaining walls given the additional wall expanses
that will be visible to the public.
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, Staff has received no inquiries
regarding the variance request.
● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on May 17, 2024.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on May 17, 2024.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
Advantages
1010
11
These variances would further the applicant’s intent to move forward with plans to
construct a 115-room hotel on the property, subject to action on the Annexation and
Development Plan. There is a need for accommodations units in Town and the Town
will benefit from increased tax revenue.
Disadvantages
Disadvantages of the variances are the potential safety hazard of large retaining walls
as well as the visual impact.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances described in this staff report
subject to the following conditions:
1. An architecturally enhanced fence or railing shall be provided on top of all
retaining walls where determined necessary for public safety, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission;
2. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from the view of
surrounding properties and private or public roadways. Screening methods
shall be consistent with the style, materials, and colors of the primary building.
Such screening details shall be depicted on the Development Plan and
subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission; and
3. All retaining walls visible from adjoining properties or from private or public
roadways shall be faced with wood, stone, or other earth-colored materials
that blend with the surrounding natural landscape and provide an
architecturally enhanced design. Such materials and design shall be depicted
on the Development Plan and subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission.
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Little to no interest received by staff.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the variance requests to allow the original, natural grade to be
lowered by up to 25 feet rather than the maximum of 10 feet and to allow retaining wall
heights up to 23 feet rather than the maximum of 6 feet, with findings as outlined in the
staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1111
12
1. An architecturally enhanced fence or railing shall be provided on top of all
retaining walls where determined necessary for public safety, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission;
2. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from the view of
surrounding properties and private or public roadways. Screening methods
shall be consistent with the style, materials, and colors of the primary building.
Such screening details shall be depicted on the Development Plan and
subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission; and
3. All retaining walls visible from adjoining properties or from private or public
roadways shall be faced with wood, stone, or other earth-colored materials
that blend with the surrounding natural landscape and provide an
architecturally enhanced design. Such materials and design shall be depicted
on the Development Plan and subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission.
I move to deny the requested variance with the following findings [state
reason/findings].
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Development Plan
4. Tiered Wall Investigation
1212
Street Address of Lot:
Lot:
Lot Size
Proposed Land Use
Town Well
Town Well
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service UTSD Septic
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service UTSD Septic
Existing Gas Service None
Are there wetlands on the site?Yes No
Variance Desired:
Name of Primary Contact Person
Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer
Digital copies of plats/plans in PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org
Site Access (if not on public street)
Legal Description:
Existing Land Use
Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 planning@estes.org www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment
Site Information
Attachments
Statement of Intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the EPDC)
Purchase of Develoment Plan sign ($10)
Proposed Water Service
Parcel ID # :
Subdivision:
Zoning
Other (Specify)
Other (Specify)
EPSD
EPSD
Xcel
ESTES PARK
APPLICATION
Submittal Date:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Block:Tract:
Record Owner(s):
General Information
Existing Water Service
Primary Contact Information
Variance
Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517
Application fee: Pre-Construction $1095, Post-Construction $1115
1 copy of the site plan (see EPDC Appendix B.VII.5)
Revised 2024-02-06 ks
UTSD
1313
Cell Phone
Record Owner(s)
Mailing Address
Phone
Contact Information
Phone
Cell Phone
Consultant/Engineer
Phone
Cell Phone
Email
Email
Mailing Address
Email
Applicant
Revised 2024-02-06 ks
1414
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
PLEASE PRINT:
PLEASE PRINT:
Date
Date
I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development Department
($10) 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.
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.
Names:
Record Owner
Applicant
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
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.
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.
OWNER & APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
Revised 2024-02-06 ks
1515
1 | P a g e
STATEMENT OF INTENT
FOR
SPRING HILL SUITES HOTEL
VARIANCE REQUEST
Located at
2365 Big Thompson Avenue
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado
Applicant:
Masterworks, LLC
220 South Wilcox # 249
Castle Rock, CO 80108
Developer:
Chris & Kendall Combs
2 Combs Enterprises, Inc.
6562 E. County Line Road
Rogersville, Missouri 65742
May 24, 2024
1616
2 | P a g e
VARIANCE REQUEST APPLICATION
FOR THE
SPRING HILL SUITES HOTEL
A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE OLYMPUS LODGE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
On behalf of 2 Combs Enterprises, Inc., Masterworks, LLC submits a Variance Request for the
SpringHill Suites Hotel (SHS Hotel), to be processed and entitled concurrently with an
Annexation, Rezoning, and Development Plan Application requests. The Developer proposes to
redevelop the existing Olympus Lodge, which is located at 2365 Big Thompson Avenue in Estes
Park, Colorado, and redevelop the parcel as a new Marriott corporate brand hotel.
The subject development site consists of approximately 3.17 acres and had previously been legally
described as the Mizer Minor Residential Subdivision, Tract A (Assessor’s Parcel Number 25-
2911-0701) and Tract C (Assessor’s Parcel Number 25-2911-0703). Tracts A and C have been re-
plated as a single parcel under the Larimer County Amended Plat approval process. The
Amended Plat was finalized in June of 2023 and has since been recorded with Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder, Reception Number 202336614, and associated Deed, Reception Number
20230037383.
The Mizer Subdivision is currently located within Larimer County jurisdiction and is zoned
Larimer County ‘Accommodation’. The Developer’s intent is to pursue annexation within the
Town of Estes Park jurisdiction and rezone the development parcel to Estes Park Valley
Accommodations. The subject development parcel is situated adjacent to the Town of Estes Park
municipal boundary on the western boundary and satisfies the State of Colorado’s Annexation
1/6th contiguity requirement. The request for annexation is premised on the desire to seek
municipal water service.
The hotel is anticipated to employ approximately 45 individuals with an average annual salary of
$35,000 to $45,000. The gross annual sales projections for Year One are estimated to be
$3,661,840 and should rise to $4,287,589 by the end of year five. Sales tax generated by the new
hotel development shall positively offset the request for municipal utility services. In addition,
annexation will allow for the extension and connection to the local fire district and sanitary sewer
mainline connections, which shall benefit the Estes Park surrounding community.
The SpringHill Suites Hotel site plan facilitates the building massing to be centrally located on a
terraced elevation to preserve the views of the adjacent residential parcels. The hotel shall consist
of a 3-story free standing structure consisting of 115 guest rooms and 5 employee dormitory
rooms for employees. The proposed building footprint shall encompass 30,910 square feet on the
main floor with a total building area (all floors) of 81,240 square feet. The Town of Estes Park’s
maximum building height of 30’ is satisfied based on the average grade at finish floor elevation at
foundation minus the height of the rooftop parapets intended to screen mechanical units.
1717
3 | P a g e
Vehicular access to the facility is envisioned to be accommodated by a newly created shared
access drive that straddles the easternmost property lines and is aligned with Big Thompson
Avenue and Mall Road. A Traffic Report is included as part of this application, which addresses
the capacity, geometry, and control requirements associated with the proposed SpringHill Suites
Hotel. The study encompasses the Big Thompson Avenue intersection with Mall Road and
Belleview Drive. A CDOT access permits is anticipated with the development of this site and will
be coordinated by the Developer with CDOT staff.
Surface parking is designed to be contained internally within the site and provides for a total of
122 surface patron parking spaces, which consist of 1 space per rentable room (115 spaces), 1
space per 3 employees (4 spaces), plus 3 additional spaces. Therefore, the Town of Estes Park
Parking Standards have been satisfied and are exceeded by 3 spaces.
The proposed development concept incorporates superior quality architecture, landscaping and
site design standards that complement the adjacent and surrounding land uses that comprise the
Town’s municipal boundary. The proposed hotel site plan and architectural exterior design
elements are specifically designed to satisfy the Town of Estes Park Development Plan standards
including height limitations, building massing, preferred exterior materials combinations, lighting
restrictions, handicap accessibility, landscape standards, open space coverage, and wildfire hazard
requirements.
Utility, Grading and Civil Construction Design Plans provide data to justify that the proposed
hotel development complies with master grading and drainage design criteria set forth by the
Town of Estes Park development standards. A Preliminary Drainage Report is provided for the
Town of Estes Park’s review and approval. In addition, a Phase I Drainage Report and
Geotechnical Soils Report will be included as part of the Development Plan application. Full Civil
Construction Plans are included with this application.
In accordance with the Town of Estes Park’s development utility service requirements, water and
sanitary services will be provided by Estes Park Municipal Water and Upper Thompson Sanitation
District. A will-serve letter is included from the Upper Thompson Sanitation District in support of
the proposed development and services.
The subject parcel contains no environmentally hazardous, sensitive, or natural resource areas.
Any hazardous by-products generated at the SpringHill Suites Hotel facility shall be required to be
contained, stored, and disposed of on a systematic basis by a licensed hazardous and or medical
waste disposal and recycling collection business. An Environment Assessment Report is included
as part of this application.
Fire protection shall be provided by the Estes Valley Protection District. It has been exhibited that
the goal of the design team is to provide adequate fire protection for the hotel and its patrons that
is in conformance to the requirements of the Town of Estes Park, Estes Valley Protection District
(EVFD), and the International Fire Code (IFC). The proposed new development includes 2 new
fire hydrants, which will be connected to a looped system, eliminating the existing dead end
service lines. Two vehicular access points and an internal accessible route have been designed in
accordance with the EVFD requirements. The hotel shall include an internal sprinkler system that
meets IFC specifications.
1818
4 | P a g e
The proposed SpringHill Suites Hotel development shall have minimal impacts upon the Town of
Estes Park’s community services. This proposal provides for adequate roadway and emergency
services, and satisfactorily meets the design criteria set forth in the Accommodation zone
classification.
ESTES PARK LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.6 – VARIANCES
In accordance with Section 3.6, the applicant requests the BOA grant special consideration for the
proposed development on the premise that the Code inflicts unnecessary hardship and practical
difficulties upon the Developer under the following criteria:
• Grading and Site Disturbance Standards – The Estes Park Development Code Section
7.2, specifies 10 feet as the Maximum Change in Natural Grade and a maximum of 6 feet
Retaining Wall Height.
The Development Plan exhibits the Developer’s “across the board” efforts to satisfy
Chapter 7 General Development Standards, particularly relating to slope protection, public
trails and open space, landscape buffers, exterior lighting, operational performance
standards, off-street parking, and building design criteria including a maximum building
height of 30’.
Due to the subject parcel’s inherent existing grades and adjacent developed land uses, a
variance for natural grade maximum changes up to 25’ (from 10’) and retaining wall
height maximum height of 23’ (from 6’) is therefore requested.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
In accordance with Section 3.6, the applicant requests the BOA grant special variance
consideration for the proposed development as demonstrated with the standards and criteria
presented for Review Standards, 1 through 7 as stated 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.
RESPONSE: In accordance with the Town of Estes Park’s request to Annex, Zone and
Develop within the municipal boundaries, the Developer has agreed to proceed as
requested. Based on the physical location of the parcel, the Town’s development
requirements and challenging topographic conditions, the developer has made a concerted
effort to satisfy Town Code standards as best possible. However, the strict compliance
with the Code standards in totality makes it practically impossible to satisfy grade and
retaining wall heights specifications. Special circumstances due to on-site existing grades
are not intensified by the request for additional density.
1919
5 | P a g e
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,
RESPONSE: The property currently contains an existing lodging facility, which
assumes Accommodations to be the greatest and highest land use. The cost of
development based on the site challenges makes a small-cottage lodges cost
prohibitive.
b) Whether the variance is substantial;
RESPONSE: The variance request is comparable to existing hotel developments
within the Estes Park Valley community.
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;
RESPONSE: The subject parcel currently contains an accommodations facility and no
changes to the surround character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered.
Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance
requests.
d) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer;
RESPONSE: The variance requests will improve the delivery of public services, thus
allowing for water, sewer, and fire protection services accessible easement and
vehicular routes that are accessible for servicing the surrounding land uses.
e) Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
RESPONSE: The applicant’s initial development intention was to pursue a
Development Application through Larimer County, in which the proposed site plan
adhered to density and grading code restrictions. The developer did not anticipate
annexation to the Town and thus the Estes Park Code requirements. The applicant has
made significant adjustments to the development plans across the board to satisfy
Town Code requirements as best as possible, but it has become a hardship to satisfy
grading and density standards without minimal variance requests.
f) Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than
a variance.
RESPONSE: The applicant has exhausted design options where a variance would no
longer be needed to satisfy maximum building height requirements. Special
circumstances and conditions exist that are not common to other areas or buildings
similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this
Code's standards. 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.
2020
6 | P a g e
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.
RESPONSE: The Town of Estes Park Code Standards were established and based on
development circumstances pertaining to the Town’s center core, which does not have the
topographic challenges as experienced with expansion of the Town’s Municipal District
boundaries. The requested variances are not unique to the SpringHill Suites Hotel
development and will not set a precedence if the requests are granted by the Board of
Adjustments.
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.
RESPONSE: The proposed variance requests 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.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief.
RESPONSE: The requested variances represent the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief.
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.
RESPONSE: The SpringHill Suites Hotel is a permitted land use within the
Accommodations 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.
RESPONSE: It is the Developers intent to secure substantially the objectives of the
standard so varied or modified.
2121
7 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
2 Combs Enterprises. Inc is committed to a development that upholds high quality and innovative
site designs compatible with the surrounding business community. The proposed hotel facility is a
permitted Accommodations Land Use within Larimer County as well as the Town of Estes Park
Accommodation zoning classification. The Site Plan is consistent with the Town of Estes Park’s
Development Standards. No development requirements and or code modifications have been
proposed.
This proposal supports contiguous and orderly growth, and presents no burdens on roadway
infrastructure, town services or the environment. 2 Combs Enterprises, Inc. hereby requests that
the Town of Estes Park approve the Variance Request, as well as the accompanying
Annexation/Zoning, and Development Plan. The lodging land use is consistent with the Town of
Estes Park Master Plan support and supports logical land use development.
Thank you to the Board of Adjustments for your consideration!
2222
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TRACT "B" MIZER MRD
PARCEL NO.:
2529110702
OWNER(S): BRETT,
QUINN/GLEN/JANICE
LOT 33 OLYMPUS
HEIGHTS
PARCEL NO.:
2529105033
OWNER(S):
PERRY, DIANE V
PA
R
C
E
L
N
O
.
:
25
2
9
1
1
0
7
0
2
OW
N
E
R
(
S
)
:
A
P
C
CR
O
C
K
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
L
L
C
LOT 37 AMND PLAT LOTS
35-41 OLYMPUS
HEIGHTS SUB
PARCEL NO.: 2529107902
OWNER(S):
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
STATE OF COLORADO
LOT 30A AMND PLAT OF LOTS
30, 31, & 32 & S1
2 OF LOT 26
OLYMPUS HEIGHTS AND A
PORTION OF THE SW CORNER
OF VISTA PARK
PARCEL NO.: 2529113030
OWNER(S): CASS,
LYMAN/HELEN LIVING TRUST
PARCEL 2, EXHIBIT
A, RECEPTION NO
20030130209
SEE SURVEYOR'S
NOTE 12
%I*7+
2
M
P
6
2
N
A
9
E
MA
L
L
R
'
PR2P26E'%8IL'IN*
N89°28'59"E
101.74'
S34°55'18"E
105.43'
S
2
2
°
1
1
'
1
8
"
E
4
9
.
9
2
'
N71°17
'
4
4
"
E
266.05
'
N00°12'56"E
415.76'
S89°30'31"W
60.09'
S0
0
°
1
3
'
1
0
"
W
11
6
.
3
2
'
S89°32'00"W
170.50'
N01°13'15"W
16.05'
S89°29'22"W
186.57'
S00°33'46"E
66.12'
S89°43'29"W
15.02'
S00°38'44"E
144.76'
+/- 81,240 SF
(TOTAL ALL FLOORS)
8
11 11
4
13
9
9
7
15
11
10
11
11
5
.
4
8
'
43.98'
19.6
5
'
25' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
3
2
2
2
33
7
7
7
7
7
8
9
9
9 6
6
4
4
5
5
2
9 8
10
20'
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6 6
6
6
7.5'
17
.
5
'
26
'
17
.
5
'
18.14'
2
5
'
1
7
.
5
'
2
4
'
1
7
.
5
'
7'
1
7
.
5
'
2
4
'
9'
9'
9'
9'
9'
9'
9'
9'9'
9'9'
9'
37
.
4
9
'
7'
15.07'
5
25' SETBACK
25' SETBACK
25' SETBACK
40' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
7
2
2
AMENITY AREA
STAIRS W/ HANDRAIL
EX. FENCE
20' U.E.
20' U.E.
AMENITY
AREA
22
.
1
9
'
41
.
7
2
'
8
7'
37.13'
40
.
5
8
'
32'
95
.
9
8
'
65.55'
20'
25' SETBACK
56.5'
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
FIRE TRUCK TURN AROUND
4
STAIRS W/ HANDRAIL
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
BIKE RACKS
RE: ARCHITECTURE PLANS
LIGHT POLE (TYP)
LIGHTED BOLLARD (TYP)
7.5'
34' FL-FL
1
2
5' ATTACHED SIDEWALK
2
2
1
4
12
12
5' ATTACHED
SIDEWALK
2
2
2
12
6
34' A.U.E.
34' A.U
.
E
.
DOUBLE YELLOW STRIPING
R3
1
'
R3
9
.
5
'
R29.5'
R5'
R3.5'
R
2
0
'
R25'
R
2
8
'
R20
'
R
2
0
'
R59'
R28
'
R4.5'
R25'
R20
'
R25'
R4.5'
R2
5
'
R83'
R2
0
'
34'
A
.
U
.
E
.
120' LE
F
T
T
U
R
N
L
A
N
E
WHITE CHANNELIZING LANE STRIPING
216' LA
N
E
T
A
P
E
R
12'
16'
R25'
R25'
R1
5
'
R4.5'
R4.5'
R17'
RIPRAP (TYP)
11
STAIRS W/ HANDRAIL
2
4
3' CROSS PAN
S
13
13
13
13
13
(DOUBLE)
(DOUBLE)
(RIGHT)
(RIGHT)
(DOUBLE)
NO PARKING SIGN
(R8-3A)
NO PARKING STRIPING
10' REGIONAL TRAIL
(CDOT CLASS 6 ROAD BASE
1" = ' (HORIZONTAL)
''
30
60300
3
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
SP1
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
0
8
/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
A
T
1
0
:
4
1
A
M
FI
L
E
P
A
T
H
:
E
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
2
0
1
7
8
-
S
P
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
U
I
T
E
S
-
E
S
T
E
S
P
A
R
K
,
C
O
\
0
3
-
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
\
1
2
-
C
D
S
\
2
2
0
1
7
8
-
1
2
_
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
PROJ NO:
DATE :
ENG :
OF
SHEET NUMBER
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
RE
V
.
N
O
.
THIS DESIGN AND THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF
CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS WORK MAY BE
REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM
CAGE ENGINEERING, INC.
17
TH
E
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
S
O
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
H
I
P
,
L
.
L
.
C
23
6
5
B
I
G
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
ES
T
E
S
P
A
R
K
,
C
O
220178
IJL / DDK
2023.10.25
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
U
I
T
E
S
PRELIMINARY
THIS DRAWING HAS NOT
BEEN APPROVED BY
GOVERNING AGENCIES
AND IS SUBJECT TO
CHANGE
'E9EL2PMEN7PLAN
6PRIN*+ILL68I7E6
APAR&EL2)LAN'6I78A7E'IN7+E:E672)7+EN2R7+EA672)
6E&7I2N 72:N6+IPN2R7+RAN*E:E672)7+E6I;7+
PRIN&IPALMERI'IAN&28N7Y2)LARIMER67A7E2)&2L2RA'2
TO
W
N
O
F
E
S
T
E
S
P
A
R
K
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
03
/
X
X
/
2
0
2
4
1
#
6I7EPLANN27E6
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE FLOWLINE TO FLOWLINE OR
BUILDING FOUNDATION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
2. ALL DRIVES AND PARKING INTERNAL TO THE SITE ARE
PRIVATE.
3. ALL FL RADII ARE 3' UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
1-800-922-1987
UTILITY NOTIFICATION
CENTER OF COLORADO
UNCC
CALL BEFORE
YOU DIG
811
OR
U.E. = UTILITY EASEMENT
6I7EPLAN.EYN27E6
1
2
6" VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER (2' PAN)
5' SIDEWALK
7' ATTACHED SIDEWALK
2' VALLEY GUTTER
ADA RAMP
RETAINING WALL (DESIGNED BY OTHERS)
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN (R7-8) WITH "VAN
ACCESSIBLE" PLAQUE (R7-8P) ON SIGN. SIGN POST IS 12
GAUGE GALVANIZED SQUARE TUBE INSIDE A 4" DIAMETER
CONCRETE BOLLARD ENCASED IN PAINTED STEEL.
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STRIPING 45° (4" YELLOW STRIPING
AT 2' O.C.)
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL PER MUTCD FIGURE 3B.22
DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND MAINTENANCE STORAGE
AREA (RE:ARCHITECTURE PLANS)
2' TRICKLE CHANNEL
6' CROSSPAN
STOP SIGN (R1-1)
3
4
11
5
6
8
9
7
10
12
S
LE*EN'
PARKING COUNT
HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT (HOT MIX ASPHALT)
LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENT (HOT MIX ASPHALT)
HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT (PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCRETE)
SIDEWALK CONCRETE
CATCH CURB AND GUTTER
SPILL CURB AND GUTTER
LIGHT POLE
LIGHTED BOLLARD
HANDRAIL
A.U.E. = ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT
2323
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
G
G
G
G
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TRACT "B" MIZER MRD
PARCEL NO.:
2529110702
OWNER(S): BRETT,
QUINN/GLEN/JANICE
LOT 33 OLYMPUS
HEIGHTS
PARCEL NO.:
2529105033
OWNER(S):
PERRY, DIANE V
PA
R
C
E
L
N
O
.
:
25
2
9
1
1
0
7
0
2
OW
N
E
R
(
S
)
:
A
P
C
CR
O
C
K
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
L
L
C
LOT 37 AMND PLAT LOTS
35-41 OLYMPUS
HEIGHTS SUB
PARCEL NO.: 2529107902
OWNER(S):
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
STATE OF COLORADO
LOT 30A AMND PLAT OF LOTS
30, 31, & 32 & S1
2 OF LOT 26
OLYMPUS HEIGHTS AND A
PORTION OF THE SW CORNER
OF VISTA PARK
PARCEL NO.: 2529113030
OWNER(S): CASS,
LYMAN/HELEN LIVING TRUST
PARCEL 2, EXHIBIT
A, RECEPTION NO
20030130209
SEE SURVEYOR'S
NOTE 12
7450
7455
7460
7465
7470
7475
7
4
4
5
7470
7
4
7
0
747074757480
7485
74
9
0
3.
5
%
3.
2
%
4
.
4
%
2.2
%
6
.
2
%
4.
1
%
8.
2
%
3.
9
%
3.
7
%
5
.
1
%
8
.
4
%
5
:
1
10.5%
5.1%
6.3%8.8%
4.
5
%
14
.
3
%
9.
9
%
1
.
6
%
7)
7458.90 LP7458.92 LP7458.96 LP7459.05 LP
7458.10 LP
7469.13 LP
7465.96 LP
7454.71 LP
7468.48 LP
7469.79 LP
7458.17 LP
7459.82 HP 7459.78 HP 7459.74 HP
7459.70 HP
7497.26 HP
0.5%
2.
0
%
7.
4
%
1
0
.
0
%
2.2%
2.2%
2.0%2.1%2.0%2.1%2.0%2.1%2.0%2.0%
4.
0
%
7447.14 HP
%I*7+
2
M
P
6
2
N
A
9
E
MA
L
L
R
'
PR2P26E'%8IL'IN*
7446.08 LP
6.4
%
10
.
3
%
8.
0
%
4.
2
%
1
2
.
4
%
1
5
.
1
%
7
.
2
%
1
.
5
%
4
.
3
%
7435
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
SWALE
SWALE
SWALE
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT= 17')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=15')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT: 11')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=4')
SWALE
WINDOW WELLS
UNDERGROUND DETENTION
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=25')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=15')
VALLEY GUTTER
WINDOW WELLS
VALLEY GUTTER
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=19')
7465
74
7
0
7475
74
7
57475
7
4
9
5
7490
7495
7
4
8
5
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=5')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=5')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=3')
3
:
1
4:1
8.
1
%
7.
6
%
7.1
%
SWALE
74
6
0
7480.64 HP
7448.42 HP
1" = ' (HORIZONTAL)
''
30
60300
4
GR
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
GR1
PL
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
0
9
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
A
T
1
:
0
6
P
M
FI
L
E
P
A
T
H
:
E
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
2
0
1
7
8
-
S
P
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
U
I
T
E
S
-
E
S
T
E
S
P
A
R
K
,
C
O
\
0
3
-
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
\
1
2
-
C
D
S
\
2
2
0
1
7
8
-
1
2
_
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
PRELIMINARY
THIS DRAWING HAS NOT
BEEN APPROVED BY
GOVERNING AGENCIES
AND IS SUBJECT TO
CHANGE
PROJ NO:
DATE :
ENG :
OF
SHEET NUMBER
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
RE
V
.
N
O
.
THIS DESIGN AND THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF
CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS WORK MAY BE
REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM
CAGE ENGINEERING, INC.
17
TH
E
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
S
O
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
H
I
P
,
L
.
L
.
C
23
6
5
B
I
G
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
ES
T
E
S
P
A
R
K
,
C
O
220178
IJL / DDK
2023.10.25
SP
R
I
N
G
H
I
L
L
S
U
I
T
E
S
PRELIMINARY
THIS DRAWING HAS NOT
BEEN APPROVED BY
GOVERNING AGENCIES
AND IS SUBJECT TO
CHANGE
'E9EL2PMEN7PLAN
6PRIN*+ILL68I7E6
APAR&EL2)LAN'6I78A7E'IN7+E:E672)7+EN2R7+EA672)
6E&7I2N 72:N6+IPN2R7+RAN*E:E672)7+E6I;7+
PRIN&IPALMERI'IAN&28N7Y2)LARIMER67A7E2)&2L2RA'2
TO
W
N
O
F
E
S
T
E
S
P
A
R
K
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
03
/
X
X
/
2
0
2
4
1
LE*EN'
SPOT ELEVATION
100
100 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
100.00
*RA'IN*A%%RE9IA7I2N6
HP HIGH POINT
LP LOW POINT
%EN&+MAR.
SITE BENCHMARK NO. 1 WAS USED AS THE PRIMARY
ELEVATION BENCHMARK AND HAS A NAVD88 ELEVATION OF
7455.95" WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY GPS RTK
OBSERVATIONS.
PROPOSED SWALE
*RA'IN*PLANN27E6
1. ACCORDING TO FIRM PANEL 08069C1113F, DATED
DECEMBER 19, 2006 NO 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
EXISTS ON SITE.
2. RETAINING WALL DESIGN BY OTHERS. NEEDS TO BE
VERIFIED & DESIGNED BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
3. STAIRWAYS HAVING 4 OR MORE RISERS OR RISING
MORE THAN 30", WHICHEVER IS LESS, SHALL BE
EQUIPPED WITH AT LEAST 1 HANDRAIL; AND 1
STAIRRAIL SYSTEM ALONG EACH UNPROTECTED SIDE
OR EDGE.
4. OFFSITE GRADING WILL REQUIRE A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
SPILL CURB AND GUTTER
1-800-922-1987
UTILITY NOTIFICATION
CENTER OF COLORADO
UNCC
CALL BEFORE
YOU DIG
811
OR
24
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
T
T
T
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
G
G
G
G
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TRACT "B" MIZER MRD
PARCEL NO.:
2529110702
OWNER(S): BRETT,
QUINN/GLEN/JANICE
LOT 33 OLYMPUS
HEIGHTS
PARCEL NO.:
2529105033
OWNER(S):
PERRY, DIANE V
PA
R
C
E
L
N
O
.
:
25
2
9
1
1
0
7
0
2
OW
N
E
R
(
S
)
:
A
P
C
CR
O
C
K
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
L
L
C
LOT 37 AMND PLAT LOTS
35-41 OLYMPUS
HEIGHTS SUB
PARCEL NO.: 2529107902
OWNER(S):
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
STATE OF COLORADO
LOT 30A AMND PLAT OF LOTS
30, 31, & 32 & S1
2 OF LOT 26
OLYMPUS HEIGHTS AND A
PORTION OF THE SW CORNER
OF VISTA PARK
PARCEL NO.: 2529113030
OWNER(S): CASS,
LYMAN/HELEN LIVING TRUST
PARCEL 2, EXHIBIT
A, RECEPTION NO
20030130209
SEE SURVEYOR'S
NOTE 12
3.
5
%
3.
2
%
4
.
4
%
2.2
%
6
.
2
%
4.
1
%
8.
2
%
3.
9
%
3.
7
%
5
.
1
%
8
.
4
%
5
:
1
10.5%
5.1%
6.3%8.8%
4.
5
%
14
.
3
%
9.
9
%
2
.
5
%
TF=7460.14
7458.90 LP7458.92 LP7458.96 LP7459.05 LP
7458.10 LP
7469.13 LP
7465.96 LP
7454.71 LP
7468.48 LP
7469.79 LP
7458.17 LP
7459.82 HP
7459.78 HP 7459.74 HP
7459.70 HP
7497.26 HP
0.5%
7.
4
%
1
0
.
0
%
2.2%
2.2%
2.0%2.1%2.0%2.1%2.0%2.1%2.0%2.0%
4.
0
%
7447.14 HP
BIG TH
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
MA
L
L
R
D
PROPOSED BUILDING
7446.08 LP
6.4
%
10
.
3
%
8.
0
%
4.
2
%
1
2
.
4
%
1
5
.
1
%
7
.
2
%
1
.
5
%
4
.
3
%
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
SWALE
SWALE
SWALE
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT= 17')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=15')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT: 11')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=4')
SWALE
WINDOW WELLS
UNDERGROUND DETENTION
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=25')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=15')
VALLEY GUTTER
WINDOW WELLS
VALLEY GUTTER
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=19')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=5')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=5')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=10')
RETAINING WALL
(MAX HEIGHT=3')
3
:
1
4:1
8.
1
%
7.
6
%
7.1%
SWALE
7480.64 HP
7448.42 HP
0+00 0+87
0+00 1+001+05
0+
0
0
0+
6
5
0
+
0
0
0
+
6
2
0
+
0
0
0
+
6
7
A
B C
D
E
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALLS
(6' HEIGHT & 6' SPACING)
2.
0
%
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALLS
(6' HEIGHT & 6' SPACING)
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALL
(6' HEIGHT & 6' SPACING)
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALL
(6' HEIGHT & 6' SPACING)
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALL
(6' HEIGHT & 6' SPACING)
7455
7460
7465
7470
7475
7480
7485
7490
7495
7455
7460
7465
7470
7475
7480
7485
7490
7495
0+00 0+87
6'
1'
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
15'
15%
15%
1'
6' (TYP.)
CURRENT RETAINING WALL
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALL (TYP)
PROPOSED
BUILDING
7465
7470
7475
7480
7485
7490
7495
7500
7505
7465
7470
7475
7480
7485
7490
7495
7500
7505
0+00 1+00 1+05
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND 15%
15%CURRENT RETAINING WALL
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALL (TYP)
15%
6' (TYP.)
22'
1'6'
1'
6'
1'
6'
1'
7450
7455
7460
7465
7470
7475
7480
7485
7490
7450
7455
7460
7465
7470
7475
7480
7485
7490
0+00 0+65
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
CURRENT RETAINING WALL
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALL (TYP)
8'
1'
6'
1'15%
6'
7435
7440
7445
7450
7455
7460
7465
7470
7435
7440
7445
7450
7455
7460
7465
7470
0+00 0+62
PROPOSED
BUILDING
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
CURRENT RETAINING WALL
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALL (TYP)
8'
1'
6'
1'6'
15%
7440
7445
7450
7455
7460
7465
7440
7445
7450
7455
7460
7465
0+00 0+67
8'
1'
1'
6'
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
CURRENT RETAINING WALL
POTENTIAL TIERED
RETAINING WALL (TYP)
15%
1" = ' (HORIZONTAL)
''
30
60300
SPRING HILL SUITES - ESTES PARK
TIERED RETAINING WALL INVESTIGATION
2024.04.11
1 OF 1
SECTION A
(SCALE: 1" = 10')
SECTION B
(SCALE: 1" = 10')
SECTION C
(SCALE: 1" = 10')
SECTION D
(SCALE: 1" = 10')
SECTION E
(SCALE: 1" = 10')
LEGEND
CURRENT RETAINING WALL
POTENTIAL RETAINING WALL
2425