HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2024-07-02
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, July 2, 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 June 4, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address).
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Variance to River Setback 2842 Fall River Rd Senior Planner Hornbeck
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.
June 24, 2024
1
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 4, 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 June 4, 2024.
Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Moreau, Member Holtzman, Planner I Kara Washam, Senior Planner
Hornbeck, Director Steve Careccia, Town Board Liaison Bill Brown, Recording Secretary
Karin Swanlund
Absent: Newsom
Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Moreau) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 2-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Moreau) to approve the Consent
Agenda. The motion passed 2-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
.
VARIANCE REQUEST 261 W Riverside Dr. Planner Washam
It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Moreau) to continue this item to a date
uncertain at the applicant's request. The motion passed 2-0.
VARIANCE REQUEST 2365 Big Thompson Ave Senior Planner Hornbeck
Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. 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 that would comply with the EPDC
requirements but found it not feasible given the slope and size of the property.
Also requested was 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. The grade is
proposed to be lowered significantly in the northwest portion of the site to create a flat
building site. Staff recommended approval of the variance.
Discussion:
Chair Moreau questioned why such an extreme variance (approximately 250% and
400%) was being recommended for approval. A 14-foot grade is normal for Estes Park.
Projects are regularly built on grade, not on flat land. Developers work with the local
topography, and this request does not match the Estes Park environment. He asked if
tiering the building could be an option. It was confirmed that the excavated dirt would not
be taken to the Water Division property on Fish Creek.
Jodi Newton, hotel representative for the applicant, 2 Combs Enterprise, reviewed the
history behind acquiring the property. The retaining walls are tucked into the slope to
avoid site-line issues with the neighbors to the north. Numerous layouts were attempted
to fit the 30-foot building height, resulting in this proposal.
Jim Nugent, Thomas Construction, confirmed a 17-foot cut from the existing grade in the
back of the parking lot. ADA requirements would comply with slopes in the parking lot.
The north and south parking lots will be at different elevations (approximately 8-foot drop).
The wall closest to Big Thompson Ave will be a maximum of 10 feet. Due to the building
design, there is no ability to terrace.
dra
f
t
3
Board of Adjustment, June 4, 2024 – Page 2
Public Comment:
Diane Perry, 2384 Bellvue Dr, does not want a retaining wall abutting her property.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to continue the variance to a date
uncertain. The motion passed 2-0.
REPORTS:
The Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Development Code Rewrite will be published
soon.
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
4
5
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Date: July 2, 2024
Application: Variance Request for River Setback
2842 Fall River Road
Marae LLC, Greg & Angela Walter Owner/ Applicant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
Future Land Use Designation (Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan):
Neighborhood Village
Zoning District: E (Estate)
Site Area: 0.96 Acres (+/- 41,818 SF)
☒ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE ☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO
Objective:
Hold a public hearing to consider a variance request from the Estes Park
Development Code (EPDC) related to the construction of a new house and deck at
2842 Fall River Road.
Background:
The subject property is 0.96 acres in size and is zoned E Estate. The zoning, land use,
and future land use designation of surrounding properties is summarized in the table
below. The lot is undeveloped except for an unnamed private drive which bisects the
property. The private drive provides access from Fall River Road to approximately 10
residential lots to the west. The property is addressed off Fall River Road although there
is not direct access to or from Fall River Road. The property slopes significantly,
dropping approximately 100 feet from the north to the Fall River to the south, with an
6
2
average slope of around 27%. The steepest portion of the property is north of the
private drive.
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Future Land Use
Designation (Comp Plan) Zone Uses
Subject
Site Neighborhood Village E (Estate) Undeveloped
North Accommodations A (Accommodations
Highway Corridor) Accommodations
South Neighborhood Village A-1 (Accommodations Low-
Intensity) Accommodations
East Neighborhood Village E (Estate) Single-Family
Residential
West Neighborhood Village
A (Accommodations
Highway Corridor)/ E
(Estate)
Single-Family
Residential
Vicinity Map
7
3
Zoning Map
Variance Description
The applicant desires to construct a two story (walk out) single-family home with a
footprint of approximately 1,750 square feet and total square footage of approximately
3,000 square feet. The proposed building complies with all applicable setbacks;
however, the proposed south deck would encroach 5’ into the 50’ river setback.
The applicant requests a variance from Estes Park Development Code Sec. 7.6.E(2)(a)
which requires a 50’ setback from the annual high-water mark of the river. The
proposed deck would be constructed as close as 45’ from the highwater mark of the Fall
River rather than the required 50’.
A
E
A-1
A-1
Subject
Parcel
8
4
Site Images
9
5
Topographic Map
10
6
Proposed Site Plan
11
7
Proposed Floor Plans
Project Analysis
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are
not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. 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: The private drive bisecting the property is not common to most
lots and could be considered a special circumstance. A rock outcropping and
12
8
steep topography north of the private drive are additional special circumstances.
However, a smaller home and deck could be constructed on the property in
conformance with all setbacks.
The requested variances will have a mixed effect of nullifying or impairing the
intent and purposes of Section 7.6 of the Development Code – Wetlands and
Stream Corridor Protection. The purpose and intent of that section is described
as:
The following requirements and standards are intended to promote,
preserve and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological,
aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river
corridors, associated riparian areas and wetlands provide.
The hydraulic function of the river corridor should not be negatively impacted by
the variance. The hydraulics of a river refer to the depth, velocity, and direction
of flow. The proposed deck piers would not impact the hydraulics of the river in
normal conditions. The location of the deck piers makes it unlikely they would
impact the hydraulic function of the river in a flood. The deck piers would be
located approximately 30’ from, and elevated 4’ above, the 500-year floodplain
(i.e. 0.2% chance event).
There could be some impact on the biological and ecological functions or
aesthetic, recreational and educational functions of the river corridor. Among
other purposes, the setback is intended to protect riparian areas from
development. However, an encroachment into the setback will reduce the
riparian corridor along the Fall River, potentially resulting in reduced biological
and ecological functioning of the corridor.
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. A
house with a smaller deck could be constructed in the proposed location or a
house with a larger deck could be constructed north of the private drive. Given
the lot is currently undeveloped, the opportunity is available to redesign the plans
to comply with the current setback requirement.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial.
13
9
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 essential character of the neighborhood will not be
substantially altered with the variance and adjoining properties will not suffer a
substantial determent. The houses immediately east and west of the subject
property are located north of the private drive; (i.e. setback 100’ to 200’ from the
river) however, there are four houses west of the subject property which are
setback approximately 15’ from the river.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The site plan depicts the deck encroaching into a recorded water
line easement. Such encroachment is not permitted and would negatively impact
delivery of public services. Should the Board decide to approve the variance,
staff recommends a condition of approval that no encroachment over the
recorded easement shall be permitted. Other public services should not be
impacted by the variance.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The applicant appears to have purchased the property in 2023.
The current requirements were in place at that time but it is unknown if the
applicant had knowledge of the river setback requirement. However, proper due
diligence would have identified the setback requirements for this property.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The Applicant could decrease the size of the deck or locate the
house north of the private drive. The lot is undeveloped, and as such, the
applicant is not constrained by existing development or structures. Redesigning
the home and/or deck is a viable alternative at this time.
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.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
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
14
10
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: Alternative designs could potentially provide a usable deck with
a lesser encroachment.
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 recommends conditions as listed below.
Review Agency Comments
The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public
Works is opposed to the variance request (comments attached). No concerns or
opposition were received from other agencies.
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 June 12, 2024.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on June 14, 2024.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
● Signs posted on the property by the applicant
15
11
16
12
Action Recommended
Staff recommends denial of the proposed variance.
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Little or none.
Sample Motions
I move to deny the variance requests with the with findings as outlined in the staff
report.
I move to approve the variance [state reason/findings in support of approval] subject to
the following conditions:
1. No encroachment over the recorded easement shall be permitted; and
17
13
2. The attached Public Works comments shall be addressed with the building permit
submittal.
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. Site Plan & Floor Plans
4. Public Works Comment Letter
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PUBLIC WORKS
Page 1 | 2842 Fall River Rd – River setback variance
PUBLIC WORKS
2842 Fall River Rd
Application to Board of Adjustment for Setback Variances
Public Works Comments
May 30, 2024
SUMMARY
The following documents were submitted in support of the application:
Site Plan by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying (3/4/24)
Statement of Intent (3/1/24)
Architectural sheets D-1 and D-2 by Designer’s Ink (2/1/24)
Project Description:
This undeveloped parcel includes a previously established buildable envelope and waterline easement. The applicant
wishes to construct a new single-family dwelling with a deck that encroaches in the easement and the river setback.
The parcel includes frontage along the Fall River although the proposed structure would not encroach in the Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
Public Works Review Criteria:
o Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), Chapter 7 – General Development Standards
o Appendix D. Street Design and Construction Standards
Public Works does not recommend approval of a river setback variance to accommodate construction of a
deck that encroaches in the setback for the Fall River. All structures shall be set back at least 50 feet on this
previously undeveloped lot.
ANALYSIS
Chapter 7.6 – Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection, Section E. 1. a. (2)(a). All buildings and accessory
structures shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river
corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. The “edge of Fall River as observed on 19
May 2023” is not approved as part of this variance application. Regardless of the outcome of this variance
application, the building permit process will be used to establish an acceptable high-water mark or defined bank of
the river.
Purpose of setback areas. The purposes of the River Corridor setback are (1) to help protect the riparian areas
from development, and (2) to help protect people and structures from the flood hazard risk in the river corridor.
Building a new deck closer to the Fall River compromises both of these purposes.
25
PUBLIC WORKS
Page 2 | 2842 Fall River Rd – River setback variance
PUBLIC WORKS
Site Plan. The Site Plan does not include an engineer’s stamp.
The Revised Preliminary SFHA established by the CHAMP is the regulatory floodplain per Title 18.04.040
of the Estes Park Municipal Code. The effective floodplain shown on the Site Plan is not the most
restrictive floodplain boundary.
The Fall River is not located outside of the SFHA; therefore, the floodplain is not located on the “opposite
side of river” as indicated on the Application form.
For the building permit process, the correct SFHA must be shown on the Site Plan.
26
27
NOTICE
On Tuesday, July 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., a meeting will be held by the Estes Park
Board of Adjustment at Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, to consider a variance
application for the properties and purposes described below.
Location: 2842 Fall River Road, Estes Park
River Setback: A variance is requested from Estes Park Development Code Section 7.6
to reduce the building setback from the high-water mark of the Fall River to 45 feet
rather than the required 50.
Owner/Applicant: Angela Walter
For more information, please visit www.estes.org/currentapplications or contact the
Community Development Department at planning@estes.org or 970-577-3721.
28