HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2025-11-04
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, November 4, 2025
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 January 7, 2025
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address).
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Building Setback 1454 Narcissus Drive Planner Washam
2. Variances Related to Parking Expansion 131 Stanley Avenue
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.
October 24, 2025
1
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 7, 2025
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 January 7, 2025.
Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Moreau, Member Holtzman, Director Steve Careccia, Planner Kara
Washam, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, 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
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Variance to Side Setback 207 Evergreen Lane Planner Washam
The Applicant requests a variance to allow a reduced side setback along the west
property line to eight feet (8') in lieu of the twenty-five feet (25') side setback required in
the E-1 (Estate) Zone District. The Applicant proposes to place a pre-constructed 36-
square-foot sauna adjacent to the back porch in the proposed area. The sauna will be
screened from view by the existing landscaped area along the west side of the home.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed variance.
DISCUSSION: Scott Moulton, applicant, stated that the sauna will be for personal use
only.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request
for an eight-foot (8') side setback along the west property line for the subject
property addressed as 207 Evergreen Lane in the Town of Estes Park, with
findings as outlined in the staff report. The motion passed 2-0.
2. Variance for Attainable/Workforce Housing Deed Restriction
650 Halbach Ln Director Careccia
The Board of Adjustment initially heard this item at its meeting on December 3, 2024. At
that hearing, the Board of Adjustment continued the item so the Applicant and staff
could further discuss the applicability of the required deed restriction.
The first requested variance would increase the maximum housing costs-to-income
requirement from 40% to 50%. The existing requirement states housing costs (typically
consisting of rent/mortgage & utility expenses) should not exceed 40% of that
household's income. The Applicant has indicated that this provision constitutes an
undue burden on his ability to sell the home, given that housing costs have increased
significantly since the Town's attainable housing requirements were initially adopted.
However, increasing the maximum allowance to 50% would open the sale of the home
to a larger pool of qualified buyers based on research provided to the Applicant by local
lenders.
The second requested variance, revised from the original request heard by the Board of
Adjustment in December, would reduce the term of the deed restriction from 50 years to
10 years. The term was initially 20 years when the Mangelsen subdivision was
approved in 2004, but was increased to 50 years in 2017. The Applicant has indicated
that a 50-year term would be an undue burden, as the homes in this subdivision were
draf
t
3
Board of Adjustment, January 7, 2025 – Page 2
only restricted for 20 years, with those restrictions set to expire early this year. Imposing
a 50-year term on this home would make it an outlier within this subdivision and be
inconsistent with the previous 20-year terms applied to the other homes.
As part of this application for variance, the Applicant is also requesting an appeal of
staff interpretations regarding Section 11.4 and the resultant language used within the
Town's standard deed restriction. Staff recommended approval of the requested
variances.
Discussion:
Maurice Scraggs, the owner and applicant, had no knowledge of the deed restrictions
applied to the property when he initiated this endeavor. He responded that he is
satisfied with the conditions made by the staff.
Alix LaSalle, an attorney, stated that there is currently a contract to purchase the house.
She expressed concerns about the time restriction of the deed and asked for the
maximum extent to be removed.
Town Attorney Kramer stated that there is still drafting work to be done, and a maximum
sale price will still be determined relative to the buyer.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance in
accordance with the findings outlined in the staff report. The motion passed 2-0.
REPORTS:
On January 14, an Annexation referral for Springhill Suites will go before the Town Board.
The contract for the Development Code Update will also be heard in that meeting.
With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m.
Jeff Moreau, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary draf
t
4
5
Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau, Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Kara Washam, Planner II
Date: November 4, 2025
Subject: Variance Request for Setbacks
1454 Narcissus Drive, Estes Park
Mountain Life Properties LLC, Owner/Applicant
Jacob Gruver, Van Horn Engineering, Consultant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
Land Use: 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Estate
Zoning District: Estate (E-1)
Site Area: 1.27 Acres (+/- 55,321 SF)
☒ PUBLIC HEARING ☐ ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE
☐ CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO
Objective:
The Applicant requests approval of variances to reduce the rear setback along the north
property line to allow the construction of a detached garage and along the north and
south property lines to bring the existing house and deck into compliance.
Present Situation:
The subject property is in the Park Entrance Estates Subdivision and contains one
single-family residence constructed in 2013. The Applicant, Mountain Life Properties
LLC, purchased the property in 2019. The lot is 1.27 acres and is conforming to
6
2
dimensional standards and use. The unusual shape and topography have limited the
buildable area of the lot. Existing access to the property is by a gravel driveway from
Narcissus Drive. The Applicant previously applied for a variance in 2023, requesting a
reduced rear setback in order to construct a detached garage. The Board of Adjustment
approved the request at the public hearing on October 3, 2023 (Attachment 3).
However, the approval lapsed, as the applicant was not able to apply for a building
permit within the one (1) year time period.
Variance Description:
The Applicant requests approval of a variance to reduce the rear setback along the
north property line to eleven feet (11'). The Applicant also requests approval of
variances to bring the existing single-family residential home and deck into compliance.
These reduced setbacks are 16.5’ along the north property line, 19.7’ along the south
property line for the home, and 6.9’ along the south property line for the deck. E-1
(Estate) Zone District under Section 4.3.C.4. (Table 4-2) of the Estes Park Development
Code (EPDC) requires twenty-five feet (25') setbacks for the front, rear, and side
property lines. The Applicant proposes to construct a 24'x24' detached garage with
access in line with the existing gravel driveway (Attachment 4).
Proposed Site Plan, enlarged
7
3
Location and Context:
The 1.27-acre lot is located at 1454 Narcissus Drive, approximately 1,800' north of
Moraine Ave. The subject property and all adjacent properties are zoned E -1 (Estate)
except the parcel to the south, which is zoned EV E Estate in unincorporated Larimer
County. All adjacent parcels are residential in use and low density.
Vicinity Map
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Comprehensive Plan
(2022) Zone Uses
Subject
Site Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential
North Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential
South Suburban Estate Unincorporated Larimer
County Residential
East Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential
West Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential
8
4
Zoning Map
Project Analysis:
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are
not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. 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.
9
5
Staff Finding: Special conditions exist due to the unique shape of the property,
zoning setbacks, topography, and easements. The parcel is shallow in the center
where garage placement is feasible. In addition, substantial rock outcroppings
limit buildability in other areas of the lot.
2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following
factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the
variance;
Staff Finding: The property can be beneficial without the variance and a garage,
but that feature is common in the neighborhood and desired in winter weather
conditions.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
10
6
Staff Finding: The variance requests as described are moderately 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 this proposed garage in proximity to the existing house.
It is not in a view line of others, nor in a significant environmental area where
there would be an impact.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The placement of the garage will impact the existing sewer line,
as addressed later in more detail. The owners are willing to relocate the sewer
line at their expense. Other public services are not affected by this variance
request.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The current owners purchased the property knowing that placing
a garage might be challenging. As they have used the property, they desire a
garage, which drives the need for a variance, utility relocation, and easement
changes.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The Applicant could consider proposing an attached garage.
However, that approach would radically impact the entrance of the house. If the
garage were smaller, a variance may not be needed. The proposed 24'x24' is
reasonable in size for use but still requires some form of variance to avoid the
steeper portions of the lot and work with the current access for the parcel with
minimal additional disturbance.
11
7
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.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing
or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots
beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to
the applicable zone district regulations.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The proposed variance would be the least deviation from the
Development Code.
6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of
this Code for the zoning district containing the property for which the variance
is sought.
Staff Finding: The Applicant requests a setback variance to construct a
detached garage. This is an accessory use permitted by right in the E-1 (Estate)
zoning district per Table 5-1 of the EPDC.
7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its
independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff Finding: Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring relocation of
the existing sewer main, as acceptable by Upper Thompson Sanitation District
(UTSD), prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage.
Review Agency Comments:
12
8
The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public
Works states that “If construction of the new garage proceeds, the applicant is
responsible for ensuring that drainage from the existing 15” culvert under Heinz Pkwy
flows within the 10’ wide drainage easement and reaches the drainage path at
Narcissus Dr.” Public Works will evaluate the effects on drainage when a building
permit application is received. Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) received and
approved the sewer main reroute construction plans needed for the new structure and
an easement is in-place and filed with Larimer County (Attachment 4). Relocation of the
existing sewer main, as acceptable by Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD),
must be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage. The
Applicant understands that all costs of a sewer main relocation are the sole
responsibility of the property owner/developer.
Public Notice:
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, Staff received one phone call inquiry
from an adjacent property owner. No objections were received.
• Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on October 16, 2023.
• Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on October 17, 2023.
• Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
Advantages:
This variance would allow the Applicant to construct a detached garage and bring the
existing residence into compliance.
Disadvantages:
There are no known disadvantages of approving the variances to reduce the rear
setback along the north property line to allow the construction of a detached garage and
along the north and south property lines to bring the existing house and deck into
compliance.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance s described in this staff report, with
setbacks consistent with the Site Plan (Attachment 3).
13
9
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motions:
• I move to approve the variance requests for a reduced rear setback of eleven
feet (11’) along the north property line, a reduced rear setback of 16.5’ along the
north property line for the existing home, a reduced front setback of 19.7” along
the south property line for the existing home, and a reduced front setback of 6.9’
along the south property line for the existing deck for the subject property
addressed as 1454 Narcissus Drive in Estes Park.
• I move to approve the variance requests for a reduced rear setback of eleven
feet (11’) along the north property line, a reduced rear setback of 16.5’ along the
north property line for the existing home, a reduced front setback of 19.7” along
the south property line for the existing home, and a reduced front setback of 6.9’
along the south property line for the existing deck for the subject property
addressed as 1454 Narcissus Drive in Estes Park, with conditions [state
conditions] and with findings as outlined in the staff report.
• I move to deny the variance requests with the following findings [state
reason/findings].
• I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance requests to the next
regularly scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Site Plan
4. Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) Letter, October 7, 2025
14
ATTACHMENT 1
15
ATTACHMENT 116
ATTACHMENT 117
STATEMENT OF INTENT for the
SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION of
LOT 2, BLOCK 2 OF PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES
ALSO KNOWN AS 1454 NARCISSUS DRIVE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517
August 25, 2023
Resubmitted August 1, 2025
PROJECT LOCATION:
The proposed development is within the Town of Estes Park, in Section 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West
of the 6th P.M. The property is located adjacent to and north of Narcissus Drive which is in the High Drive
area (NW Estes Park area). The property address is 1454 Narcissus Drive.
OWNER:
The owner of this land is Mountain Life Properties, LLC with a contact of Melody Stone (record owner), who
owns both adjacent lots shown on the attached site plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project is proposed as a detached 24’x24’ garage with 2’ eaves on the subject property. The proposed
location of the garage is approximately 8.4’ west of the west edge of the existing house. This property is zoned
E-1 (Estate), which dictates 25’ building setbacks on all sides. The existing lot is approximately 1.27 acres;
however, due to the unique shape of the property, zoning setbacks, existing topography, and existing easements
the buildable area is minimal. Therefore, the intent of this application is to achieve a setback variance to allow
building of the proposed garage in a suitable location on the lot. We are proposing a variance to allow the
garage to be 11’ from the north property line and complying with the existing 25’ setback on the south property
line.
The proposed garage location is in an existing utility easement and overtop of an existing sanitary sewer line.
Therefore, a new sewer main and 2 new manholes are proposed along with a new 20’ utility easement. The
existing sewer easement will be vacated and a portion of the existing sanitary sewer line will be abandoned.
This utility modification will happen if the variance is approved and likely won’t happen otherwise.
The existing historic house/deck are being included in this resubmittal, to bring them into compliance, with the
following setbacks being requested: The setback from the house to the northern property line (Heinz Parkway)
is 25’. An existing setback of 16.5’ is being requested. The deck is not over this setback line. The setback for
the house/deck from the southern property line is 25’. Existing setbacks of 19.7’ for the house and 6.9’ for the
deck are being requested. While this 6.9’ setback could be substantial, the owners also own the vacant parcel to
the immediate south.
No new access is proposed as a part of this application. The existing gravel driveway currently extends to the
location of the proposed garage.
Regarding “Practical Difficulty” justifying this variance, the following items are offered:
a. There can be beneficial use of the property without the variance and without a garage, but that feature is
common in the neighborhood and welcomed with our winter weather conditions.
b. The variance could be considered to be substantial when we are asking for 11’ (for the proposed garage)
and 25’ is the standard; however, the 11’ requested is in keeping with easement dimensions around the
parcel and provides for use of the existing stairs to the house deck.
ATTACHMENT 218
c. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered with this proposed garage in
proximity to the existing house. It is not in a view line of others, nor in a significant environmental area
where there would be impact.
d. The placement of the garage will impact the existing sewer line; however, the owners are willing to
relocate the sewer line at their expense. This is an indication of the limited area on site for a garage and
their desire to have a garage for indoor parking and storage.
e. The current owners did purchase the property with knowledge that placing a garage might be a
challenge. As they have used the property, they desire a garage, which drives the need for a variance, a
utility relocation and an easement change.
f. Other ways to obtain a garage without a variance would be to attach the garage. That approach would
impact the entrance of the house. If the garage were smaller, a variance may not be needed. The
proposed 24’ x 24’ is not an oversized garage and reasonable in size for the use, but still requires some
form of a variance to avoid the steeper portions of the lot and work with the current access for the parcel
with minimal additional disturbance.
Note: This variance was submitted and originally approved at the regular October, 2023 meeting of the Town of
Estes Park Board of Adjustment. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this variance is being resubmitted to allow
construction of the detached garage. While some minor details of the sewer main realignment have changed, no
changes to the requested setbacks for the garage were made between the original submission and this resubmitted
package. The historic house & deck were not previously included in this request, but are now being included
given the desire of the owners to bring the property into full compliance. The owners were not aware of the
house/deck non-conformity prior to acquiring the property.
Subject Property Legal Description (Taken from Deed at Reception No. 20190065289):
Parcel I: Lot 2, Block 2, Park Entrance Estates (Subject Parcel)
Parcel II: Lot 16, Division 8, High Drive Heights, County of Larimer, State of Colorado
Also Known As: 1454 Narcissus Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
ATTACHMENT 219
ATTACHMENT 3
20
P.O. Box 568 | Estes Park, CO 80517
970-586-4544 | utsd.colorado.gov
October 7, 2025
RE: 1454 Narcissus Drive Setback Variance, Lot 2, Block 2, Park Entrance Estates
1454 Narcissus Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
Greetings Kara Washam, Planner I:
The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits these general comments (in addition to those
submitted July 5, 2023, and September 9, 2023) for the above referenced property:
1. Upper Thompson Sanitation District does not have any concerns regarding the setback
variance for the proposed structure.
2. Upper Thompson Sanitation District received and approved the sewer main reroute
construction plans needed for the new structure.
3. The new sanitary sewer easement is in-place and filed with Larimer County.
4. Sanitary sewer mains shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Appendix C –
Wastewater Collection System Specifications of the District’s Rules and Regulations.
Upon construction, the new sewer main extension shall enter a 2-year warranty period
with the excavator. Acceptance of the new sewer main extension is contingent upon
acceptance by the UTSD Board of Directors.
5. All costs of a sewer main relocation, including easement acquisitions, engineered design,
and construction of mains and manholes are the sole responsibility of the property
owner/developer.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at nromig@utsd.org
or 970.692.4237.
Respectfully,
Nathanael Romig
Collection Superintendent
ATTACHMENT 4
21
22
Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau & Board of Adjustment
Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Department: Community Development
Date: November 4, 2025
Subject: Variance Requests Regarding Parking Lot Expansion at 131 Stanley
Avenue
Objective:
Hold a public hearing to consider a variance request from the Estes Park Development
Code (EPDC) related to the expansion of an existing parking lot at 131 Stanley Avenue.
Present Situation:
The subject property is approximately 0.75 acres aces in size and is zoned ‘O’ Office.
County records indicate the building was constructed in 1977 and contains four
commercial condominium units. As condominiums, each unit is individually owned;
however, all land area is owned in common by the unit owners. There are two parking
lots on the property. The south parking lot appears to primarily serve Units A, B, and C,
which are located on the upper level of the building. The north parking lot serves Unit D
on the lower level of the building and is the subject of this variance request.
The north parking lot does not comply with current EPDC dimensional requirements for
parking stall length (16.5 feet rather than 19.5 feet) or drive aisle width (20.5 feet rather
than 24 feet). The applicant has indicated these substandard dimensions cause a
hardship requiring vehicles to make multiple point turns to turn around and exit the lot.
Further, they state this is compounded by drivers who mistakenly turn onto Stanley
Avenue using this parking area as a turnaround.
Proposal:
23
2
The applicant proposes extending the parking lot eight feet to the north to accommodate
a drive aisle width of 24 feet and parking stall length of 19.5 feet, both of which comply
with EPDC minimums. This will entail installing a concrete block retaining wall, with a
maximum height of 3.75 feet, as well as removal of numerous existing trees. New
shrubs are proposed.
Removal of significant trees, defined as those greater than 8-inch diameter breast
height, within 25’ of a property line at the street is prohibited by EPDC § 7.5 D. 2. B.
(2)). The applicant requests a variance to allow removal of two significant trees. Three
trees less than eight inches are also proposed for removal.
The applicant also requests a variance to EPDC § 7.5.G.2.b(1), which requires all
parking areas be separated from property lines at the street by a planting area at least
25 feet wide on arterial streets and by a planting area at least fifteen 15 feet wide on
other street property lines. Extending the parking lot will result in the closest edge being
within 5.7 feet of the north property line, an arterial street, and 12.1 feet from the west
property line, a non-arterial street.
EPDC § 7.5.G.2.b(4) requires parking lot perimeter landscaping provide a semi-opaque
screen during winter season. The proposed potentilla shrubs have an average height of
two to four feet. Planting is proposed at the base of the retaining wall which has a
maximum height of 3.75 feet, resulting in little to no screening of the parking area.
Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval that alternative species of shrubs,
with a minimum height feet, are used to provide greater screening.
Retaining walls visible from an arterial street are required to be screened by vegetation
or faced with wood, stone, or other earth-colored material per EPDC § 7.1.B.6. To
ensure compliance with this requirement, staff recommends a condition of approval that
the retaining wall be faced with wood, stone, or brick.
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., applications for variances shall demonstrate
compliance with the standards and criteria listed below, which are followed by staff
findings:
24
3
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 substandard parking lot is a special circumstance not
common to other properties that results in a practical difficulty for maneuvering in
the parking lot. The code’s intent of maintaining significant trees near the street
frontages is met by retaining three significant trees. The code’s intent of providing
a setback between streets and parking lots is met due to the unusually large
amount of space that exists in the right-of-way between the edge of the roadway
and property line. In this case, the closest point of the new parking lot will be
approximately 40 feet from the edge of the roadway.
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 variances.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variances are not substantial relative to the existing
conditions.
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 variances and adjoining properties will not suffer a
substantial determent, due to the trees which will be maintained, distance of the
parking lot to the road, and planting of new shrubs with adequate mature height.
25
4
Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public
services.
d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The applicant indicates he was not aware of the parking lot
dimensions when purchasing the property.
e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: There is no viable alternative to expanding the parking lot without
the variances.
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: The circumstances are not common.
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 design represents the least deviation in order to meet
minimum parking dimensions.
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
26
5
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.
Advantages:
The requested variances meet the standards for review outlined above and will increase
safety in the parking lot.
Disadvantages:
The loss of existing vegetation will make the parking lot and retaining wall more visible.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the BOA approve the variance requests, subject to the following
conditions of approval:
1. Prior to construction, the applicant shall demonstrate authorization to
proceed with the work from all other property owners or from the owner’s
association.
2. Shrubs shall have a minimum height of five feet upon maturity and be
maintained at such height into perpetuity. Shrubs shall be installed no later
than June 1, 2026.
3. The retaining wall shall be faced with wood, stone, or brick.
Level of Public Interest:
As of this writing, no public comments have been received. Public notice of the
application occurred in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements:
● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on October 17, 2025.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on October 17, 2025.
● Signs posted on property by applicant.
27
6
Sample Motion:
I move to approve the variances in accordance with the findings outlined in the staff
report.
I move to deny the variances with the following findings [state reasons/findings].
Attachments:
1. Statement of Intent
2. Site Plan
28
1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-9388 E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
October 8, 2025
Statement of Intent for the Setback (Parking Lot Buffer) Variance at
131 Stanley Ave, Estes Park CO 80517
Addressing 1st Review Comments (Permit #25-EP-PL025)
This letter describes the intent of the applicant, Mr. Don Darling, to pursue a setback/parking lot
buffer variance that would allow for the extension of the existing parking lot approximately 8’ to
the north, with a 30” thick, by 3.75’ tall retaining wall along to the north (the retaining wall is not
a setback feature). This letter also responds to the comments left by Planning, Public Works, and
the Estes Park Sanitations District.
Property information:
The subject property abuts the south right-of-way of US Highway 36/N St Vrain Ave (Arterial),
and the east right-of-way of Stanley Ave (non-arterial). Per 7.5.G of the Estes Park Development
Code parking areas shall be separated from property lines which abut arterial streets by 25', for
other streets by 15', and by 8' to side and rear property lines.
Existing Parking Lot Area:
The closest edge of the existing parking lot is 11.2’ from the north property line and 12.1’ from
the west property line, which is less than the code prescribed parking lot buffers. The existing
parking stalls have a length of approximately 16.5’, and have stall widths which range from 8.5 to
9’ wide. This results in a tight area which is hard to pull in and out of and does not meet the
standards set in 7.11.O.3 of the Estes Park Development Code which requires a minimum stall
length of 19.5’ and a stall width of 9’.
Proposed development:
This 8’ extension will result in 19.5’ long parking stalls that would bring said parking lot into
compliance with the parking standards set in the development code. The closest edge of the
proposed parking lot (drivable area) would land 5.7’ from the north property line (which abuts an
arterial). We are proposing that the north parking lot buffer be reduced by 19.3’ resulting in a 5.7’
setback and a 77% relief. To the west the closest edge of parking would remain at 12.1’ from the
property line which will require the buffer to be reduced by 2.9’ resulting in a 12.1’ setback and a
19% relief to the standard.
VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
LAND SURVEYS
SUBDIVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
IMPROVEMENT PLATS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SANITARY ENGINEERING
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING
ATTACHMENT 129
1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-9388 E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
Responses to 3.6.C. of the Estes Park development code (with responses in italics):
3.6.C.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.
The site was purchased with an existing parking area
which does not meet the development code and is within
the parking buffer/setback. The location of the parking lot
and other improvements like the building leave
insufficient room for correcting this without a variance to
said buffers being granted.
3.6.C.2.a.- Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property
without the variance
While the businesses at the subject property are currently
benefiting from the site and existing conditions, the small
and narrow parking lot is causing hardship requiring
vehicles to make multiple point turns to turn around and
exit.
3.6.C.2.b.-Whether the variance is substantial
The requested variance requires a 77% relief to the
setback/buffer along US-36 (the north property line); the
intent of a buffer is still met by the large right of way
(open area) which exists along the north property line.
3.6.C.2.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
Multiple parking lots in the area are closer to US Highway
36 than the proposed parking lot extension which intends to
leave over 40’ unpaved (open area) from US 36 edge of
asphalt. For example, the Town of Estes Park Public parking
garage has parking lots within 15’ to 20’ of the edge of US
36 asphalt, as do other parking lots in the neighborhood, so
such an extension would not alter the character.
3.6.C.2.d.-Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of
public services such as water and sewer
ATTACHMENT 130
1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-9388 E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
Utility locates were performed for this project, the only
service which may be affected is a lateral sewer line
which runs under the proposed parking extension, concerns
about said service are addressed below.
3.6.C.2.e.-Whether the Applicant purchased the property with
knowledge of the requirement
Mr. Don Darling was not aware of the narrow and shallow
depth parking lot, however through use and vehicles which
mistakenly turn onto Stanley Avenue using this parking
area as a turnaround the insufficient nature of the parking
lot was reviled.
3.6.C.2.f.-Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated
through some method other than a variance.
The only way to achieve this parking lot extension and
bring it into code compliance is extending the lot in the
direction this variance is requesting relief on.
3.6.C.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.
While many sites have narrow parking lots, the position of
the parking lot relative to the property line and constraint
by existing improvements creates a unique circumstance.
3.6.C.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.
This variance involves an existing 0.37-acre lot, and will
result in a 0.37-acre lot with no change in boundary
line. No new lots are proposed.
3.6.C.5.-No variance shall be granted increasing the number of
accommodation units beyond the number otherwise permitted.
This lot is zoned O (Office) no rezoning is proposed, and
the proposed use of this lot is Office.
3.6.C.6.-If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation
from the regulations that will afford relief.
The proposed extension will bring the parking lot into code
compliance by achieving the bare minimum standard set by
ATTACHMENT 131
1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-9388 E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
7.11.O, any less of a variance will result in a parking lot
which does not meet this standard.
3.6.C.7.-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.
This lot is zoned O (Office), and the proposed use of this
lot is as an office.
3.6.C.8.- 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.
The Development code states the purpose of street frontage
buffers are “intended to create tree-lined streets, provide
shade, improve air quality and enhance property values
through improved views for the traveling public” a large
buffer (open area) already exists within the right of way
for US Highway 36. The proposed parking area will be
41.0’ from the closest physical edge of US Highway 36,
well over the 25’ this standard was intended to maintain.
Response to Planning Division Comments:
1) Update application materials to reflect sewer district as EPSD
not UTSD.
Submittal material now reflects the proper sewer district.
2) Responses to 3.6.C. of the Estes Park development code
See above for responses.
3) It appears additional variances will need to be requested to
Section 7.5 D.2.b. for the following:
(2) Preservation of Existing Trees. If located within twenty-
five (25) feet of a property line at the street, no existing
tree of four (4) inches DBH or greater, or dense stand of
trees or shrubs of four (4) or more feet in both depth
and height shall be removed, unless dictated by plant
health, access, safety or identification of the premises, all
as determined by Staff. See §7.3, "Tree and Vegetation
Preservation," above, for additional requirements regarding
preservation of existing and significant trees and plant
material.
We are requesting a waiver to 7.5.D.2.b.2. due to the fact
that multiple trees exist along the north edge of the
existing non-compliant parking lot, and the only direction
to expand the parking lot is northerly due to existing
ATTACHMENT 132
1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-9388 E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
improvements. We request permission for the removal of
(3) 6” trees and (2) 12” trees on the property.
(3) Root zones. Design of the landscape shall take retained,
existing trees into consideration with an adequate area
provided around each tree that is free of impervious
material to allow for infiltration of water and air. This
pervious area shall be equal to one and one-half (1.5)
times the drip line of the tree. The root zones of existing
trees and shrubs to be preserved shall be protected from
unnecessary disturbance due to cut or fill grade changes.
The location of underground utility lines shall be carefully
planned to avoid unnecessary disturbance of root zones that
would threaten the survival of existing trees and shrubs to
be preserved. (See also Appendix D for protection of
trees/vegetation during construction activities.) (Ord. 8-05
#1)
Some fill in rootzones will be required in order to complete
this proposed project. A block wall is proposed at the north
end of the parking extension to minimize fill, and will help
mitigate fill within the “root zone”. Even with these
mitigating factors 3 trees will have fill within their root
zones, with the most extreme case being an 18” tree on the
west side of the property, which will have fill 7’ away from
the trunk covering approximately 11% of the tree’s root zone.
We do not believe this minimal fill with in the root zone
creates a substantial threat to the tree’s health.
4. Since the trees being retained in CDOT ROW serve to meet the
intent of the required on-site parking lot buffer trees, care needs
to be taken to ensure they aren ’t damaged by construction or
finished condition. Please address item above regarding root
zones.
If trees are damaged/die during construction they will be
replaced in accordance 7.3.D.5. on the east or west side of
the parking lot.
5. Please address Development Code Section 7.2.B.6, which
states: Retaining walls visible from an arterial street or highway,
or from public open areas or parks, shall be screened by
vegetation or faced with wood, stone or other earth-colored
materials that blend with the surrounding natural landscape.
10 shrubs will be planted to mitigate visual impact. The
wall will also be stained with earth tones to make the
wall less visible to the public.
6. Show proposed shrubs and list species. Taller shrubs are
recommended to meet the intent of screening both the retaining
wall and parking area.
ATTACHMENT 133
1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-9388 E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
Shrubs are shown on the site plan and the species will be
potentilla.
7. Staff is not supportive of the variance(s) as requested. The
intent of providing landscaping along the parking lot edge would
not be met with four shrubs. Additionally, the 3.5 ’ wide planting
buffer is not sufficient width for planting. A modified design would
likely have support if a minimum 6’ width planting area is
provided and planted with 1 shrub per 10 feet, or less, depending
on species.
A shrub will be planted every 10’ along the north property
line resulting in 10 shrubs total. We request a new design
with 5.2’ of planting buffer to be reconsidered as a 6’
buffer would be limiting and would not allow the parking
lots dimensions to be brought into code compliance. The
proposed shrubs will be planted within this 5.2’ wide area.
8. To achieve the 6’ width, an option that might work would be
parking stall lengths of 18.5 ’ and a drive aisle width of 22 ’
rather than 24 ’. With parking on only one side, 22 ’ is likely
sufficient.
Our client proposes a modified design which maintains a
code compliant 19.5’ parking stall, and a 24’ drive aisle
while also providing 5.2’ of planting area. The owner has
stated if the full code compliant length cannot be approved,
they would rather keep the parking lot in its existing
condition rather than spend significant amounts of money
just to achieve a parking lot which is substandard to the
code.
9. Please show wheel stops on plans. Overhang of up to 2 ’ from
parking stall over retaining wall could help provide more efficient
use of space.
A curb will be poured with the wall as shown on the plan.
10. Two “development under review ” signs (one along each ROW)
must be placed on the property no later than October 20th.
Please provide image of signs once placed.
The signs will be placed by October 20th, and pictures will
be sent then.
Response to Public Works Comments:
Sewer district referenced in Statement of Intent should be Estes
Park Sanitation District (EPSD), not UTSD.
Submittal material now reflects the proper sewer district.
It may be determined by Staff that trees within 25 feet of a
property line at the street are approved for removal due to
access and safety issues (EPDC § 7.5 D. 2. B. (2)).
ATTACHMENT 134
1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-9388 E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
We are requesting a waiver to this standard see response to
plannings item 2 above.
Access and safety would be enhanced with parking lot geometry
(parking stall length and drive aisle width) that meets EPDC §
7.11 O.
If the new proposed design is approved the parking lot will
meet the requirements set by 7.11.O
The reduced setback adjacent to an arterial street (US 36) is
currently mitigated by the generous triangular public ROW frontage
created by the intersection of US 36 and CO 7.
The Large existing right of way upholds the intent of the
code and provides ample separation.
With approval of the variances, the applicant shall obtain a Town
of Estes Park Grading Permit for construction of the project.
A grading permit will be applied for with the approval of
this variance.
Response to Sewer Districts Comments:
There is a private sanitary sewer line located on the north side
of the property. A minimum of 3-feet of cover must be
maintained over this line.
No cut is proposed over this lateral sewer line, only fill
will be performed, leaving equivalent or grater cover then
currently exists.
Other Utilities:
Water and Gas lines were located by 811 for this variance and are located outside of the area of
proposed disturbance.
Electric & Telecommunications: An underground Electric and Telecommunication line was
located by 811 for this variance and runs across the existing entry to the parking lot. However,
while adjacent, no impact to these utilities is expected for this project as it does not land in the
area of disturbance.
Conclusions:
In order to make this parking lot more functional, and compliant with the code parking standards
an extension to the north is required. We request the initial proposed 8’ extension be considered.
With regards to the arterial buffer the extension of the parking lot will be relatively
inconsequential when compared to the existing parking area.
This variance will also maintain the intent of the code and leaves a significantly sized buffer
within the right-of-way between the parking lot and US Highway 36. Even with the requested
waivers for trees, significant existing trees and the proposed 10 shrubs provides effective
screening to uphold the visually aesthetic intent of the development code.
Thank you for consideration of this variance, and landscape waver and I look forward to hearing
from you in the future regarding this matter.
Regards,
ATTACHMENT 135
1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-9388 E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com
__________________________
J. Andy Schaffner
Project Manager
Email: andy@vanhornengineering.com
Phone: (919)-880-9840
ATTACHMENT 136
ATTACHMENT 237