HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2024-08-06
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
3:00 p.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 July 2, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address).
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Variance to Lot Coverage 1602-1618 and 1720-1728 Continental Peaks Circle
Request to Withdraw Senior Planner Hornbeck
2. Variance to River Setback 2842 Fall River Road
Senior Planner Hornbeck (continued from July 2 meeting)
3. Variance to Grading and Site Disturbance Standards 2365 Big Thompson Avenue
Senior Planner Hornbeck (continued from June 4 meeting)
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.
July 29, 2024
1
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 2, 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 July 2, 2024.
Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Moreau, Member Holtzman, Senior Planner Hornbeck, Director Steve
Careccia, Flood Plain Administrator Jennifer Waters, 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 (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 2-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the Consent
Agenda. The motion passed 2-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
.
VARIANCE REQUEST 2842 Fall River Rd Senior Planner Hornbeck
The applicant desires to construct a two-story (walk-out) single-family home with a
footprint of approximately 1,750 square feet and a 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 high-water mark of the
Fall River rather than the required 50’.
Staff recommended denying the request, stating that the applicant could decrease the
deck size or locate the house north of the private drive. The lot is undeveloped, so the
applicant is not constrained by existing development or structures. Redesigning the
home and/or deck is a viable alternative at this time.
DISCUSSION:
Jennifer Waters, Town of Estes Park Civil Engineer and Floodplain Administrator, noted
that the building permit will be used to establish the annual high-water mark regardless
of the outcome of this request. The property has not been surveyed; therefore, the high-
water mark has not been established. The floodplain on the site plan is not correct and
encouraged the applicant to use the current, correct, CHAMP floodplain per Title 18 of
the municipal code.
Angela Walter, applicant, stated that the deck has a large pitch, and only the deck posts
would overhang. The posts will not be in the water easement. A smaller deck would not
be functional. Due diligence has been in process since purchasing the property. The
road cannot be moved.
Greg Scott, the builder, stated that cantilevering the deck is a design option, thus
removing all of the structure from the easement.
.
Chair Moreau suggested continuation until a high-water mark can be established and
the average elevation of the deck be determined.
dra
f
t
3
Board of Adjustment, July 2, 2024 – Page 2
It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Moreau) to continue the variance request
to a future meeting, requesting further information is obtained. The motion
passed 2-0.
REPORTS:
The Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Development Code Rewrite has been posted,
and submittals are due on July 15.
With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
Jeff Moreau, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
dra
f
t
4
5
Community Development Department Planning Building
970-577-3721planning@estes.org building@estes.org
July 30, 2024
The Planning Division requests the withdrawal of Action Item 1, Continental Peaks
Circle Variance to Lot Coverage.
A motion and vote are necessary for this to happen.
Sample motion:
I move to withdraw Action Item 1, Continental Peaks Circle Variance to Lot
Coverage, as requested by the Planning Division.
6
7
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Date: August 6, 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:
A variance for the property was first considered by the Board of Adjustment on July 2,
2024. The Board voted to continue the request to a future meeting date. Based on
feedback from the Board at the July meeting, the applicant has revised the application
to define the annual high-water mark of the river in accordance with EPDC
requirements. This Memo and Project Analysis reflect the revised application and
request for an encroachment of 6.8 feet rather than the previous request of five feet into
the 50 foot river setback.
8
2
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
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
9
3
Vicinity Map
10
4
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 43.2’ from the highwater mark of the
Fall River rather than the required 50’.
A
E
A-1
A-1
Subject
Parcel
11
5
Site Images
12
6
Topographic Map
13
7
Proposed Site Plan
14
8
River Cross Section
Proposed Floor Plans
15
9
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
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 will 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 and small portion of the house 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 lowest portion of the structure would be located approximately 30’ from,
and elevated seven to eight feet 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.
16
10
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 and footprint could be constructed in the proposed
location or a house with a larger footprint and 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.
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. The Water Division has indicated the proposed encroachment is
acceptable and thus will not negatively impact delivery of public services. 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.
17
11
Staff Finding: The Applicant could decrease the size of the deck and building
footprint 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
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 and
house 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 indicates the revised application sufficiently justifies the identified high-water
mark. Public Works is not opposed to the variance request. No concerns or opposition
were received from other agencies.
18
12
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 July 18, 2024.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 19, 2024.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
● Signs posted on the property by the applicant
19
13
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:
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
20
14
Attachments
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Site Plan
4. Public Works Comments
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
Community Development Department Planning Division
970‐577‐3721 planning@estes.org
PROJECT ROUTING REFERRAL FORM
AGENCY Public Works
REVIEWER Jennifer Waters
SIGNATURE
DATE 07/30/24
☐ No Comments
☐ Resubmittal Required
☐ Comments Provided via Comment Letter (attached)
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
2842 Fall River Rd – Application to Board of Adjustment for Setback Variance
Letter (7/19/24) and Site Plan (7/15/24) by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying appear
to sufficiently justify the location of the annual high-water mark on the applicant’s parcel.
Public Works finds that approval of the requested variance, based on the proposed
building envelope and its elevation, would not significantly compromise the purposes of
the River Corridor setback listed in previous Public Works Comments (5/30/24). It is
acknowledged that no construction would be proposed in the Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) of the Fall River.
28
29
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Date: August 6, 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:
Variances for the property were first considered by the Board of Adjustment on June 4,
2024. The Board voted to continue the request to a future meeting date. Based on
30
2
feedback from the Board at the June meeting, the applicant has revised the application
to lower the maximum retaining wall height to 12’ rather than the previously requested
height of 23’. The change was made possible by collaborating with the Fire District to
reduce the size of the emergency vehicle turnaround to allow for two shorter retaining
walls with a terrace between them. This Memo and Project Analysis reflect the revised
application and request for 12’ retaining walls.
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
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
31
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
32
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 variances from EPDC § 7.2.B.6 to allow retaining wall
heights up to 12 feet rather than the maximum of 6 feet and to allow a retaining wall
terrace with a width as narrow as approximately 1’-10” rather than the minimum of 5
feet. Retaining wall terrace refers to a flat area between retaining walls that is used to
break up the appearance of larger walls and allow for landscaping. The majority of the
proposed terrace meets the minimum width of 5’ except for two locations that are forced
to narrow to approximately 1’-10” to accommodate an emergency vehicle turnaround.
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
33
5
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: 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: The variances are fairly substantial (12’ 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
34
6
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,
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
four six-foot-tall 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
35
7
recommends a condition of approval to require that all rooftop equipment be fully
screened.
Image #2
View of Existing Lodge Buildings and Adjacent House 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.
36
8
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 follows:
● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on July 18, 2024.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 19, 2024.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
One public comment (Attachment 4) has been received from the property owner
immediately north of the subject property requesting the wall be as low as possible.
37
9
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances described in this staff report
subject conditions listed in the sample motion below.
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Little 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, to allow retaining wall
heights up to 12 feet rather than the maximum of 6 feet, and to allow retaining wall
terrace less than 5 feet in width with findings as outlined in the staff report and 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.
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
38
10
3. Site Plan
4. Public Comment
39
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
40
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
41
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
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
42
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
June 28, 2024
43
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.
44
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.
45
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 12’ (from 6’) is therefore requested. In cases where the change
in grade exceeds 12’ in height, a terraced wall system will be applied.
The requested variance for grade changes is necessary to assure the SpringHill Suites
Hotel satisfies the maximum building height of 30 feet maximum. Due to the inherent
existing slopes of the development parcel, the proposed hotel will be “tucked under”
existing finish grade at the midpoint of the parcel. This will allow for the distance views
of the surrounding existing homesite to the north to not be impeded by the hotel structure.
As determined by the Grading Plan, the retaining wall system on the western most side of
the parcel is proposed to include two (2) walls to be terrace with a planting strip between
the walls to soften the wall faces as specified in the Estes Park Development Code. An
open railed security fence shall be installed on the uppermost tier of all retaining walls for
security purposes to assure a safe environment for pedestrians and wildlife alike.
The requirement for retaining walls on the western side of the parcel is directly related to
the need to provide a turnaround route for fire service access. The Developer’s team has
worked together with the Estes Valley Fire District to verify the accessible route satisfies
the district’s “life safety” access requirements for servicing the SpringHill Suites Hotel.
46
5 | P a g e
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.
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.
47
6 | P a g e
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.
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.
48
7 | P a g e
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.
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!
49
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MA
L
L
R
D
BIG T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
34' FL-FL
26
'
20' FL-FL
2
4
'
2
4
'
PROPOSED BUILDING
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W W W
PR. HYDRANT
PR. HYDRANT
PR. HYDRANT
Westminster A
e
r
i
a
l
F
i
r
e
T
r
u
c
k
RAIL FENCE ON TOP OF WALL (TYP.)TIERED RETAINING WALLS
TIERED RETAINING WALLS
TIERED RETAINING WALLS
RAIL FENCE ON TOP
OF WALL (TYP.)
42.479
7.771 19.875 4.5
22.125
Westminster Aerial Fire Truck
Overall Length 42.479ft
Overall Width 9.243ft
Overall Body Height 7.689ft
Min Body Ground Clearance 0.939ft
Max Track Width 9.243ft
Lock-to-lock time 5.00s
Wall to Wall Turning Radius 45.167ft
PATHING - WHEELS
PATHING - BODY
BODY OF TRUCK
LEGEND
PATHING - WHEELS
PATHING - BODY
BODY OF TRUCK
LEGEND
1" = ' (HORIZONTAL)
''
30
60300
SHEET OF
SPRING HILL SUITES
TIERED RETAINING WALLS CONCEPT AND FIRE ACCESS EXHIBIT
06/28/2024
1 1
NOTE:
1. THE LAYOUT OF THE RETAINING WALLS ARE FOR CONCEPTUAL
PURPOSES ONLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT A FINAL ENGINEERED DESIGN.
50
Paul Hornbeck <phornbeck@estes.org>
Retaining wall height
beth hunemiller <bethhune@gmail.com>Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:44 AM
To: Paul Hornbeck <phornbeck@estes.org>
This is Beth Kline Hunemiller writing in reference to the variance to retaining wall height
at 2365 Big Thompson Ave. The applicants are Todd & Rebecca Wright/Jody Newton,
Masterworks LLC.
I own the cabin at 2350 Bellevue Drive, just behind the said property. I am asking that
the structure (variance wall) to be the lowest possible profile. Our cabin has been there
the past 100 years. We do not want to obstruct our view any more than it already has
or will be done.
Making the retaining wall as low as possible would benefit all homeowners behind the
proposed retaining wall.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Beth Kline Hunemiller
My contact information is as follows.
Beth Kline Hunemiller
1579 Ellendale Ave.
Logan, Utah 84321
cell phone: 1-435-232-8875
email: bethhune@gmail.com
51
52