The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2026-03-03BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK 170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room Estes Park, CO 80517 Tuesday, March 3, 2026 9:00 a.m. 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 February 3, 2026 PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address). ACTION ITEMS: 1.Wetlands Setback Variance Request 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd Planner Hornbeck To allow activity within the required 50-foot wetland setback 2.Setvack Variance Request 448 Chiquita Ln Planner Washam Reduce the north side setback from 25 feet to 17 feet for a detached garage 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. February 25, 2026 11 22 draf t Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 3, 2026 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 February 3, 2026. Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Colin Godsey Attending: Chair Moreau, Member Godsey, Director Steve Careccia, Planner II Kara Washam, Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck, Town Board Liaison Bill Brown, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Godsey) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 2-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Godsey)to approve the Consent Agenda.The motion passed 2-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: none ACTION ITEMS: 1.Front Patio Setback 203 Cleave St Planner II Washam Planner II Washam reviewed the staff report. The Applicant requests approval of a variance to eliminate the front setback along the south property line to zero feet (0'). The CD (Commercial Downtown) Zone District,under § 4.4.C.4. (Table 4-5) of the EPDC requires a setback of at least 8 feet (8') and no more than 16 feet (16') to the front property line. The applicant proposes to construct a new patio east of the adjacent building,with shade sail coverings. The new patio will be slightly elevated from the existing sidewalk along Cleave Street and will be approximately 50 inches (4’-2") from the property line. The proposed new ADA accessible ramp will abut the existing sidewalk at the property line. Staff recommended approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with the front setback consistent with the Site Plan.Staff recommended approval of the variance request. Public Comment: none Discussion: none Steve Lane, project Architect, stated that the wall shown in the photo is temporary. He also confirmed that a permit was pulled for the posts and electrical work. The project would comply with setbacks if the handicap ramp were eliminated; however, the owner wanted to make this improvement. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Godsey) to approve the variance request to eliminate the front setback to zero feet (0') along the south property line for the subject property addressed as 203 Cleave Street in Estes Park. The motion passed 2-0. 2.Wetlands Setback 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd Senior Planner Hornbeck It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Godsey) to continue this item to the next scheduled meeting. The motion passed 2-0. 33 draf t Board of Adjustment, February 3, 2026 – Page 2 REPORTS: We are actively recruiting for a new board member. With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:11 a.m. Jeff Moreau, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 44 55 Memo To: Chair Jeff Moreau & Board of Adjustment Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Department: Community Development Date: March 3, 2026 Subject: Variance Request to Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 Regarding Activities within Wetland Setbacks at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Objective: Hold a public hearing to consider a variance request from the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) related to development at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road. Present Situation: The subject properties are owned by the Town of Estes Park and the National Park Service (NPS), and the Estes Park Housing Authority (Applicant) is seeking to develop workforce housing on the northern portion of the site. The entire property is approximately 75 acres aces in size and is bisected by Fall River and Fish Hatchery Road. The scope of the Housing Authority development is limited to an approximately 25-acre site north of Fall River, which can be considered the development parcel. The property was previously used as a fish hatchery from 1907 to 1983. Many of the current wetlands on the site appear to have been created as a result of the ponds and related infrastructure created by development of the fish hatchery. The NPS owns a strip of land through the site, which was dedicated in the early 1900s to provide access to Rocky Mountain National Park. 66 2 Vicinity Map Zoning Map 77 3 Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Subject Site North Unincorporated Larimer County RMNP Visitor Center/ Open Land South Single Family/ RMNP East Single Family West RMNP Proposal: The applicant has submitted a subdivision application which depicts approximately 100 dwelling units and associated road and infrastructure improvements. Roads and associated earthwork and grading are proposed with to occur within the 50-foot wetland setback required by EPDC Section 7.6.E. The Development Code goes on to describe activities prohibited within the 50-foot setback in Section 7.6.F.1: Prohibited Activities. No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stream or river corridors, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas, except as may be expressly allowed in this Section or Code. No disturbance is proposed within any wetland; however, the applicant requests a variance to EPDC Section 7.6.F.1 to allow activities that would disturb areas within wetland buffer/setback areas as indicated in the table and map below, plus a 10% margin of error to allow for field changes during construction or other unforeseen circumstances. Factoring in the 10% margin, the variances would allow disturbance with the following setbacks from wetlands: 8.7-feet in area B, 15.6-feet in area C, 25.8- feet in area H, and 22.5-feet in area I. 88 4 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: 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: Numerous factors, including the historic use of the property, steep topography, prevalence of wetlands, and bifurcated ownership create special 99 5 circumstances and conditions unique to this property. Subdivision and variance application materials indicate the site’s historic use as a fish hatchery included 20 or more ponds and that some, but not all of these ponds were remediated after the fish hatchery ceased operations. Areas that were not remediated remain on site and are now deemed wetlands. EPDC defines wetlands as “an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” The variance request for areas B and C is driven by the special circumstance of NPS ownership of a parcel of land running through the site. The 60-foot-wide strip of land was dedicated to the NPS in the early 1900s for access to the park. This strip of land is in generally the same location as the unimproved dirt road south of Fish Hatchery Road and north of the river. The NPS no longer has a need for the parcel given the access provided by Fall River Road (US 34); however, the parcel bifurcates the property and removes a significant portion of usable land as it cannot be built upon or easily transferred to the Town. Application materials indicate a transfer of the land from the federal government to the Town of Estes Park was considered; however, that would require an Act of Congress that would be costly and take many years. However, the NPS is agreeable to allowing Fish Hatchery Road to be realigned to run within the strip of land, therefore allowing the existing Fish Hatchery Road right-of-way to be utilized for the proposed development. Constructing a new paved road in place of the existing dirt road in this location will necessitate a wider footprint and therefore encroachments into the 50-foot wetland setback. The variance request for areas H and I is largely necessary in order to construct a road to access the eastern portion of the site. This approximately two-acre portion of the site makes up approximately 20% of the developable land on the development parcel, meaning areas outside of steep slopes, wetland setbacks, etc. This portion of the site would be inaccessible and therefore unusable without either a variance or extensive cut and fill grading on otherwise undisturbed steep slopes to allow access. 1010 6 The requested variances will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of wetland protection standards in the Development Code. A letter from the applicant’s wetland consultant (Attachment 3) describes the best management practices that the project commits to follow, and states that with these measures implemented, the wetlands will not be harmed. Separate from these variance requests, the applicant is seeking staff-level approval of minor modifications for other locations on the site to allow activities that encroach 5-feet or less into the required 50-foot setback. The Development Code permits staff to approve minor modifications up to a 10% deviation from development standards. The minor modifications are subject to the same review criteria as these variance requests and will be evaluated by staff in the near future. In determining "practical difficulty," the Board of Adjustment (BOA) shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: While there can be beneficial use of the property without the variances, certain portions of the site are largely unusable without the variances. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variances are not substantial as the majority of the 50-foot wetland setbacks on the site are not encroached upon. 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. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 1111 7 Staff Finding: The variances will not adversely affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Town appears to have assumed ownership of the property prior to adoption of the subject requirements. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: There is no viable alternative to accessing the eastern portion of the site or utilizing the NPS strip of land 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 provide access to the eastern portion of the site and utilize the NPS strip of land. 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. 1212 8 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 a condition of approval that the best management practices outlined in the application materials be adhered to. Advantages: The requested variances meet the standards for review outlined above. Disadvantages: Activities within the wetland setbacks may increase the chance of encroachment into and/or negative impacts to the wetlands themselves. The best management practices outlined in the application materials can mitigate this risk. Action Recommended: Staff recommends the BOA approve the variance requests subject to the following condition of approval: 1.Best management practices outlined in the application materials shall be adhered to prior to, during, and after construction. Level of Public Interest: As of this writing, four public comments have been received and are included in Attachment. Public notice of the application occurred in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements: ●Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on January 16, 2026. ●Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on January 16, 2026. ●Signs posted on property by applicant. Sample Motion: I move to approve the variances in accordance with the condition of approval and findings outlined in the staff report. I move to deny the variances with the following findings [state reasons/findings]. 1313 9 Attachments: 1.Town of Este Park Application 2.NPS Application 3.Statement of Intent 4.Site Plan 5. Public Comments 1414 Revised 2024-03-11 ks Pre-App Development Plan Special Review Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat Project Description Lot Size Area of Disturbance in Acres Proposed Land Use Town Well None Town Well None Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None EPSD UTSD Septic Is a sewer lift station required?Yes No Existing Gas Service Other None Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Yes No Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Attachments No Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes Site staking must be completed as required/requested by the Planner. Complete? Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Project Address Parcel ID # General Information Boundary Line Adjustment ROW or Easement Vacation Street Name Change Time Rezoning Petition Annexation Request Extension Other: Please specify Project Name Condominium Map Preliminary Map Final Map Supplemental Map Variance Request (Board of Adjustment) ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION Type of Application Submittal Date: Site Information Application fee Statement of intent 1 copy (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" copy of plat or plan Xcel Primary Contact Information Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721  Fax: (970) 586-0249  www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Town of Estes Park  P.O. Box 1200  170 MacGregor Avenue  Estes Park, CO 80517 Digital Copies of plats/plans in PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE BOX Sign Purchase ($10) Fish Hatchery Develop Attainable Workforce Housing 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd, Estes Park CO 80517 N 1/2 SW 1/4 16-5-73; EP, EX RD AS PER 839-575; LESS 87000339, 89003857, 91004492, 92080005, 94099702, 96086646 3516000938 75 acres 22 acres Town owned land utilized for housing town employees Attainable workforce housing RM & A-1 RM & A-1 Peter Levine PO Box 1200 Estes Park CO 08517 12/26/2025 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sign.com Document ID: d9e57a9cd5 - Page 1/31515 Revised 2020.04.23 ks Consultant/Engineer PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Email Applicant Record Owner(s) Signatures: MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION (not required for Board of Adjustment) Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Park Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Record Owner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 970-577-3707 970-557-3707 Estes Park Housing Authority PO Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 9708930107 9708930107 plevine@estes.org Marcin Civil Engineering 213 Tabor st, Buena Vista CO 81211 970 485 3970 rob@marcinengineering.com Town of Estes Park Estes Park Housing Authority 1/15/26 Sign.com Document ID: d9e57a9cd5 - Page 2/3 01/16/2026 1616 Revised 2024-03-11 ks ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION http://www.estes.org/DevCode Record Owner Applicant Signatures: 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. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, no later than ten business days prior to the public hearing. I understand that a resubmittal fee will 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/Planning Commissioners/Board of Adjustment members, with proper identification, access to my property during the review of this application. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void Record Owner Applicant I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge Names: In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: For Board of Adjustment applications: 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 may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. (EPDC Section 3.6.D) Town of Estes Park Estes Park Housing Authority 1/15/2026 Sign.com Document ID: d9e57a9cd5 - Page 3/3 01/16/2026 1717 Revised 2024-03-11 ks Pre-App Development Plan Special Review Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat Project Description Lot Size Area of Disturbance in Acres Proposed Land Use Town Well None Town Well None Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None EPSD UTSD Septic Is a sewer lift station required?Yes No Existing Gas Service Other None Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Yes No Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Attachments No Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes Site staking must be completed as required/requested by the Planner. Complete? Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Project Address Parcel ID # General Information Boundary Line Adjustment ROW or Easement Vacation Street Name Change Time Rezoning Petition Annexation Request Extension Other: Please specify Project Name Condominium Map Preliminary Map Final Map Supplemental Map Variance Request (Board of Adjustment) ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION Type of Application Submittal Date: Site Information Application fee Statement of intent 1 copy (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" copy of plat or plan Xcel Primary Contact Information Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721  Fax: (970) 586-0249  www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Town of Estes Park  P.O. Box 1200  170 MacGregor Avenue  Estes Park, CO 80517 Digital Copies of plats/plans in PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE BOX Sign Purchase ($10) 1818 Revised 2020.04.23 ks Consultant/Engineer PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Email Applicant Record Owner(s) Signatures: MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION (not required for Board of Adjustment) Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Park Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Record Owner 1919 Revised 2024-03-11 ks ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION http://www.estes.org/DevCode Record Owner Applicant Signatures: 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. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, no later than ten business days prior to the public hearing. I understand that a resubmittal fee will 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/Planning Commissioners/Board of Adjustment members, with proper identification, access to my property during the review of this application. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void Record Owner Applicant I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge Names: In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: For Board of Adjustment applications: 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 may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. (EPDC Section 3.6.D) 2020 Variance Cover Letter This variance request is for an encroachment into the 50’ wetland setback in 2 key areas. The request is not a request that will allow building or disturbance of the wetlands themselves. Due to the potential of a small margin of error due to slight field changes during construction, small survey error, etc, that results in greater encroachment than currently shown, we are requesting that the variance request be approved with a margin of adjustment of up to 10%. The formal request is for a variance to the Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 to allow activities described herein within wetland setbacks per the table below, subject to a 10% margin of error: To determine if the proposed setback encroachment will or will not impact the wetlands themselves, we had a 3rd party Wetland Specialist review the plans. Their conclusion is as follows: “With the use of a clearly demarcated setback boundary at each wetland location boundary and a clearly demarcated work area for the proposed building envelopes, grading and earthwork, road construction, multi-use trail construction, tree lawn areas, a restoration area, and a soft-surface trail construction, project creep will be controlled and no direct impact to the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, open water, and riparian corridor, will be realized. The development team is committed to implementing and following the BMP recommendations outlined in this report. There are 2 documents that the project’s 3rd party Wetland Specialist has produced for this variance hearing. The first document is a single page document that is labeled “Wetland Variance Assessment for the 1754 Fish Hatchery Development Project in Larimer County in Estes Park Colorado.” This letter specifically focuses on the 2 areas that the development is requesting for a variance to the wetland setback 1. Area located in the National Park 60’ wide strip of land to be used for a public road 2. Access to the homes planned on the eastern side of the site 2121 The 2nd document is labeled “Variance Letter for the Development project at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road in Estes Park in Larimer County Colorado.” This 5 page report takes a wholistic look at all encroachments within the 50’ wetland setback. Due to the environmental nature of this request, this report was generated at the request of Town Staff in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the developments impact on the wetlands themselves. As noted above, the conclusion of the report states that the wetlands will not be implemented, as long as the best management practices are followed. The development team is committed to implementing and following the BMP recommendations outlined in this report. The variance request put forth to the Board of Adjustments are the items that eclipse the 25% threshold (<37.5’ away from wetlands). Road Construction Area I & H are due to the access for the homes on the eastern portion of the property Area B is due to the 60’ wide piece of land owned by the NPS Earth Work/Grading Area B & C are due to the 60’ wide piece of land owned by the NPS Area H & I are due to the access for the homes on the eastern portion of the property Restoration Located within areas H & I. There is currently an asphalt parking lot in this location. The development plan is to remove the asphalt to make it a permeable surface Less than 37.5’ but not for variance review Area G – A single family house & driveway currently sits within the 50’ wetland setback. The plan is to keep this building as a leasing center for the apartments. Therefore, the development does not currently have plans for further development than what exists in that area as it is. If that should change, the development will need to go through a separate variance request: Area G – Structure construction: This house currently exists on site Area G – Grading: There are no plans for further grading in this area Area G – Road Construction: There are no plans for further road construction in this area. 2222 Multi-Use Trail Construction – Recreation trails are an allowable use within the 50’ wetland setback The Fish Hatchery Development Team 2323 Date: 12/11/25 Project: Fish Hatchery Workforce Development Parcel #: 3516000938 Request: Variance to wetland setback Document: Applicability with Variance Standards for Review C. Standards for Review. All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth below: 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Both Areas This parcel has a long and unique history that goes back to the early 1900s. It has seen numerous uses and ownership control & rights ranging from F.O Stanley, to the Public Service Company of Colorado, a long-term land lease to the Department of Game and Fish, and now the Town of Estes Park. Historical uses of the site starting in the early 1900’s included a Fish Hatchery accompanied by lodging for the workers as well as Fish Hatchery related recreation options for the public & visitors. In the 1970s The State of Colorado was planning to wind down the Fish Hatchery operations as it had become an undersized fish hatchery compared to others in the state operating at the time. The Lawn Lake Flood in 1982 unfortunately expedited this closure as it created significant damage that the state deemed too costly to repair. Remediation of the site took place in the following years which included filling in the vast majority of fish hatchery ponds on the site. However, a few ponds, or depressions where former ponds stood remain and these areas are deemed wetlands due to the vegetation & soil type that exists, suggesting that water lies just below the surface. Due to the historic use of the site, the property faces unique conditions due to fish hatchery ponds that were not filled as part of the prior remediation & cleanup process on the site. These ponds and the associated setbacks have become the cornerstone of the design & layout of the site, and we have kept a 50’ buffer as best as we possibly can. There are 2 areas on the site where this has proven to be very difficult. Area H & I On the east side of the site, we have 15 units, roughly 14% of our total units, that are accessed via a road that runs along an existing berm between a former fish hatchery pond & the outflow back to the river. The entire site has approx 9 acres of developable land. This is land that is not on steep slopes, outside of wetlands and the associated 50’ setback, outside of the historic district, and outside of the NPS 60’ strip of land. The land to the left is 1.9 acres of the 9 acres of developable land. This request would allow 2424 us to utilize roughly 21% of the developable land on site. Outside of the aftermath of heavy rain or snowfall, neither of these areas had notable standing water on any of our site visits. This berm is currently used for vehicular access to this portion of the site as tire tracks are present. This is the only route to access the east portion of the site that does not involve building a road on a steep slope to the north. The design team initially looked to minimize the impact in this setback by proposing a one lane bridge that would maintain a similar dimension to the existing berm. However, that idea was rejected by Public Works as they expressed emergency evacuation concerns and recommended a 2 lane road. Staff recommendations have been incorporated into the site plan presented today and the designed street section in this area is kept to a minimum width to limit any encroachment in setbacks while meeting life safety and access requirements. The Fire Department has also shown support for this approach. For the reasons noted above, there are special circumstances that exist on this site that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. Practical difficulty will result from strict compliance with this Code's standards as access to ~14% of the designed units become inaccessible. A letter from our wetland consultant describes the best practices that the project commits to follow, and states that with these measures implemented, the wetlands will not be harmed. Therefore, the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards of this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Area B & C As part of the long history of the site, there was a component that was lost to history for roughly 50 years until it was rediscovered as part of the Town of Este Park’s redevelopment of this site. In the early 1900s, F.O Stanley owned the entirety of the parcel, and he donated a 60’ strip of land that crosses the site to the National Park for access to the park. Title, supplemented by a historical review of the site from a 3rd 2525 party firm, indicates that this access was originally granted in 1909 and further formalized in 1924. This creates a unique aspect of this site with the Federal Gov’t owning land that runs across the site. This Federal Gov’t ownership runs across the Fish Hatchery Road bridge and is in roughly the same location as the unimproved dirt road south of Fish Hatchery Road and north of the river. Having a federally owned piece of land that bifurcates the property is a special circumstance and a unique condition. Multiple conversations with the NPS as well as members of the Town Manager's office and Town Attorney were facilitated to determine the best route forward. While one option was to have the federal government transfer the land to the Town of Estes Park, that would have required an Act of Congress that would be costly and take many years. It was mutually determined that the best path forward to allow workforce development of this site, is to realign Fish Hatchery Road along the National Park strip of land. The variance requests in area D & E are due to the location of the National Park owned land. To realign this section of the road, a variance that allows construction on the NPS strip of land, which requires some road construction & grading within the setback is required. 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 Areas H & I: 14% of the total project units will not be accessible. The project currently has modest density at 5.5 units / acre, significantly short of the maximum 16 units per acre that is allowed by the code. Significant infrastructure investment including road realignment, offsite intersection improvement, and a water pressure system that will push $1M, dropping the unit count below 100 will create significant difficulty in following through on the desire of the Town of Estes Park to develop this land for workforce housing. This road will provide emergency access for existing residents to the east of the property, improving the network of evacuation routes during extreme circumstances. Areas B & C: There cannot be beneficial use of the property anywhere on or south of the Federally owned parcel of land. This strip of land was intended for vehicular access and the realignment of Fish Hatchery to this area conforms with the intent and the current unimproved use. Limiting the construction of workforce housing outside of this area will push the development further towards the steep slopes on the north and limit the overall developable area to accomplish the Town of Estes Parks goals of Workforce Housing on this site. b. Whether the variance is substantial 2626 Areas H & I: No, the variance is not substantial and is for access purposes to the east side of the site. In no instance does the proposal touch or impact the wetlands themselves Areas B & C: No, the variance is not substantial and will be largely replacing an existing dirt road. In no instance does the proposal touch or impact the wetlands themselves 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 Areas H & I: The buildings planned on the eastern portion of the site match and complement the existing single-family homes to the east in scale and character. This portion of the site has the lowest density with a gentle density increase toward the center of the site. Rental units are 4-unit buildings at the center of the site, and for sale buildings are a mix of single family, duplex, triplexes, fourplexes, and 1 five plex. This gradation of density and building types addresses existing conditions while achieving the communities’ housing needs. Areas B & C: No, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered nor whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. This request is on the southwestern portion of the property. The Town of Estes Park owns the land to the south, and the National Park owns the land to the west. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer Areas H & I: It will not. Meetings were held with both sewer and water who support this proposal. A manhole and sewer line currently exist in this part of the site, and new water utilities will run under the proposed road. Areas B & C: It will not. Meetings were held with both sewer and water who support this proposal. Utilities will be placed under the newly constructed road. Permitting for the utilities on this piece of land does fall under a unique process that is run through the Federal Gov’t. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and Both: EPHA cannot speak to what the Town of Estes Park knew when they purchased this property. 2727 f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Areas H & I: No, there is no other feasible way to access this portion of the site without a variance. Areas B & C: No, there is no other feasible alternative to utilize this federally owned strip of land. 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. Both: As outlined in the history of the site and use as a Fish Hatchery, this is an extremely unique parcel of land within the Estes Valley. A formulation of regulation for these specific requests can be managed at localized areas. 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. Both: Understood. This variance does not request a reduction in the size of lots, nor allowing lots beyond the number otherwise permitted in the total subdivision. The total lots permitted are approximately 320 (16 units x 20 acres), and we are only pursuing ~111 5. No variance shall be granted increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the number otherwise permitted. (Ord. 17-24, §1(Exh. A)) Both: Understood. This project does not plan to have any accommodations associated with it, and the variance will not allow the number of accommodations units to be increased. 6. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Both: Understood. Please see the table below that shows the changes that the design team made between our first submission and current submission. You can see that structures were completely removed from the setbacks, as well as limiting the number of road and hard surface areas. Additionally, grading disturbance has been pushed back further. This was accomplished with a focus along the north side 2828 of Fall River, consolidating lots & turning some single-family detached homes into duplexes, and strategic placement of boulder walls. Through the help & guidance of Town Staff, particularly community development and public works, significant reductions in this variance request have been made and the project development team are confident that this proposal represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 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. Both: Understood. This variance request is not asking for a use that is not permitted or a use that is expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of the Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. 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. Both: Understood 2929 3030 3131 3232 3333 3434 Fish Hatchery Road is realigned to fit within the National Park Service strip of land that runs across the site. The road and existing multi-use path glance the northern edge of wetland setbacks in this area. All improvements proposed for this project all outside of existing wetlands. Minor changes to topography that allow for the regrading of the multi-use path and the realignment of the Fish Hatchery Road occur near the existing bridge. An existing structure and the paved area in front of it are proposed to remain in place with some improvements. These existing amenities fall within the wetlands setbacks. B C HVARIANCE - WETLANDS SETBACK FISH H A T C H E R Y R D CLEA R W A T E R D R HEAD G A T E D R BRO O D H O U S E D R FALL RIVE R R D Modifications at locations B, C, H, and I reflect setback deviation requests that are due to road alignment needs related to National Park owned land, and fire access requirements among existing improved vehicular access distances vary and are provided in the chart below. Improvements to the grading and pavement that service existing structures surrounding the two north- most wetlands fall within the setbacks. Modifications in this area include the removal of pavement, capping an existing manhole and restoration. LEGEND: WETLAND SETBACK EXHIBIT Wetland Area 37.5’ Setback 45’ Setback 50’ Setback DISTANCE TO WETLAND B C H I Road 39.0’32.2’ 27.2’ Multi-Use Trail 14.5’ 18.8’ Earth Work 9.7’ 17.3’ 28.7’ 25.0’ Tree Lawn 25.0’ Restoration 13.0’ Existing Slope 5% 45% 25% 40% Proposed Slope 6% 50% 10% 33% * With the exception of the existing structures, all other structures are hypothetical and illustrative of one potential development scenario. Actual building locations to be determined at site plan submission. Setback concepts depicted are intended to be illustrative, but ultimate building location shall comply with this chart’s maximum distance to wetlands. The proposed road narrows and utilizes the existing unimproved crossing between wetlands. Existing infrastructure conveys water beneath the road at this section. The proposed improvements allow for emergency service access. I 3535 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Mary Banken mary.banken@gmail.com For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. The buffer requirement for designated wetlands areas exists to protect valuable natural resources. Sacrificing those buffer areas in order to develop new roadways this contrary to the intents and purposes of wetlands protections. These protections have been fully in place for the entire time that the fish hatchery project has been under consideration, thus any perceived hardship from these restrictions must be viewed as self- imposed. An alternative development plan is needed. 3/2/2026 March 2, 2026 Subject: Opposition to Wetland Setback Variance – 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment, I respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the requested variance from EPDC Section 7.6.F.1 to allow disturbance within the 50-foot wetland setback at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road. While workforce housing is an important community goal, the standards for granting a variance are clear and must be applied consistently. In this case, the applicant has not demonstrated that the request satisﬁes the required criteria. First, the conditions cited as “special circumstances” — including wetlands, steep slopes, and bifurcated ownership — are site characteristics that were known or reasonably foreseeable. These conditions do not constitute an extraordinary hardship unique to this property. Rather, they are environmental constraints that the Development Code is speciﬁcally designed to address. Practical diAiculty resulting from a chosen development intensity does not justify relief from environmental protections. Second, the requested variance is substantial. Reducing a required 50-foot wetland setback to as little as 8.7 feet represents a dramatic deviation from the Code. Such a reduction cannot reasonably be characterized as minor. When combined with a requested 10% margin of error and additional minor modiﬁcations elsewhere on the site, the cumulative encroachment meaningfully weakens the protective purpose of the bu Aer. Third, the intent of the wetland setback requirement would be impaired by allowing road construction, grading, and earthwork within the buAer area. Wetland setbacks exist to protect water quality, prevent sedimentation, preserve habitat, and maintain ecological function. Roads are among the most impactful forms of development adjacent to wetlands, increasing runoA, pollutants, and long-term disturbance risk. While best management practices are proposed, mitigation measures do not eliminate risk, nor do they substitute for compliance with setback standards. Additionally, the National Park Service is actively engaged in managing moose populations within Rocky Mountain National Park due to documented impacts on wetlands. As Will Deacy, Large Mammal Ecologist for RMNP, stated in a December 17, 2025, article by Stephanie Butzer published by Denver7 ABC: “We’re starting this park-wide wetland restoration and moose management planning process with the goal of halting the loss of wetlands where they still exist and restoring wetlands that have been degraded or lost.” This statement underscores the ecological value and vulnerability of wetlands in this region. If wildlife pressure alone is suAicient to warrant active management and restoration eAorts, that recognition speaks directly to the sensitivity of these system s. Moose impacts, while signiﬁcant, are natural and ﬂuctuate over time as part of ecosystem dynamics. In contrast, road construction, grading, and infrastructure within the required setback represent permanent, engineered disturbance. If even naturally occurring wildlife presence is considered a threat requiring intervention, it is diAicult to reconcile how intentional human encroachment into regulated wetland bu Aer areas would not pose equal or greater long-term risk. The standard of protection should not be lower for development than for wildlife. Rather, it should reﬂect the same commitment to preventing further wetland degradation. Fourth, alternatives appear available. The applicant acknowledges that the eastern portion of the site represents approximately 20% of the developable area. The inability to maximize development potential does not constitute a hardship under variance standards. Reducing the number of units, reconﬁguring the site plan, or clustering development away from sensitive areas are reasonable alternatives that would avoid or reduce the need for encroachment. Finally, granting this variance would set a concerning precedent. If signiﬁcant reductions in wetland setbacks are permitted to accommodate roadway placement and density objectives, future applicants may reasonably expect similar treatment. This would undermine the consistent application of the Development Code and weaken long-standing environmental protections. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board deny the requested variances and require a site design that complies with the 50-foot wetland setback requirement. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christy Jacobs Full Time Resident Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Kristine L. Poppitz kjpoppitz@msn.com For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Dear Board of Adjustments: I am writing in opposition to the variance for 1754 Fish Hatchery Road. In reference to the Staff Report, even with the implementation of "best practices" and "protective measures", nothing can prevent direct impacts to the "waters of the United States" and/or to the land. Clearly demarcated boundaries can never guarantee impact on any waters. Disturbing wetlands buffer/setback areas and/or allowing for a 10% margin of error do/does not change the fact that any disturbance is a change. Denying this request for a wetlands setback does not cause any unnecessary hardship or difficulty on the Applicant. Thank you very much for denying this variance request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`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g # ij(`2)1)13H431(71\(10*;F)<42H*42*;73442F34)<\*1(4X6*021J<\20F02P(I*/21*1<*;F/23F2Y(4)21J8;7123;)*)BQF376'(;1(F(0S7*0Y2;+*4(*Q\20F02P(73442F34P34'33)(<F((4</(*4<*;F31I(4)H(72()Q42H*42*;/6PP(4)6HH3412;+(7303+27*0P6;7123;QP033FH0*2;[*FG*7(;1*4(*73;142/612;+13F4*2;*+(*;FP033F'212+*123;I(4(X624(F)(1/*7SP43'Z?P((113*HH43`2'*1(0JA]8lP((1;6002P2()1I(2;1(;13P1I(H431(712Y(/6I()(1/*7S2);31*4/214*4Jm21(`2)1)13H43Y2F('(*;2;+P60(7303+27*0H431(7123;*;F03;+[1(4'42)Y*42*;7(\360F'*1(42*00J2'H*241I(H64H3)(3P:(7123;_8@8 ! !" !#$%&'()*&+,&-./0,1).2.-(*&3(454 78 9 " : ; <= 6>:6?<@A<B : <C D ! < ! E E < GH IHHJ<JJJ ! < !.)2 9 : < ! :6 ! B R S !JD 8 V!W! < < ! ! < < < ! ! :YZJHPVJ\Q ! "#$ "# % " # # % " % " $ # # % To the members of the Board of Adjustment I am writing as a concerned community member living along Fish Hatchery Road to formally express my opposition to the requested variance regarding the wetland setback areas for the Fish Hatchery Development. Having lived in this area for years, I have personally observed that the specific land currently under consideration for this variance serves as a critical habitat and nursery for local wildlife: •Elk Nursery: From late May through June, female elk utilize the south-side setback areas as a protected nursery for their young calves. I have frequently observed these females communal-parenting and protecting their young in this specific corridor. •Moose Foraging: During the same months, moose frequent this area to forage. Since the 2020 Troublesome Fire, these moose have become a consistent presence here, utilizing the wetlands in a manner nearly identical to the Endovalley area of RMNP. •Seasonal Refuge: After the females and calves depart in early July, male elk use this area as a cool resting spot to escape rising summer temperatures before moving to higher elevations. This ecosystem is one of the last remaining rich wildlife corridors within town limits. Once this delicate balance is destroyed by encroaching development, it cannot be replaced. I respectfully request that the Board deny the variance and instead require Estes Park Housing Authority to present alternative plans. Specifically, I ask that the following be evaluated: 1. Moving the proposed development further north to preserve the southern setbacks. 2. Downsizing the project to fit within the existing legal boundaries without requiring a variance. 3.A formal cost-analysis of these alternatives versus the ecological "cost" of losing this vital corridor. The long-term value of this wildlife area to the Estes Park community far outweighs the short- term convenience of this variance. Thank you for your time and for considering the protection of this unique ecosystem. Sincerely, Marty Miranda 2742 Ypsilon Court Estes Park, CO 80517 916-662-4798 2/25/26 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Rod Morten Rodneymorten@gmail For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. A self-imposed hardship in the context of a wetlands variance refers to a situation where the difficulty in complying with environmental regulations stems from the property owner’s own actions, rather than from unique, inherent physical limitations of the land. When a landowner knowingly creates a situation that prevents compliance with wetland setbacks or restrictions—such as by building in a protected area or subdividing a lot in a way that creates a non-conforming parcel—they cannot later claim "hardship" to obtain a variance. I submitted a previous comment with my opposition based on a self imposed hardship. I have reviewed epha application and some of my questions are answered. To reiterate-the epha knew wetlands existed on property and should have been familiar with the code regarding wetlands which in includes the disturbances associated with the set back. Variance should not be granted as a result of them self imposing this hardship. Thank you for entertaining my comment-Rod 2/25/26 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Rod Morten rodneymorten@gmail.com For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. I am not an expert in wetland variance but my understanding is that a hardship must be created in order to get a wetlands variance. What is the Epha definition of hardship here? With that, it is my understanding that the applicant knew that wetlands existed on the property before they adopted a development plan, thus it seems that their actions now are creating the hardship. Is this not a self imposed hardship? Also, have there been any studies done reflecting any potential harm to the wetlands as a result of the approval of this variance? Such as increased flooding potential, water quality degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat. Have all the necessary permits been obtained-State, Federal, etc? 2/22/26 Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> hearing regarding 170 macgregor ave 1 message Richard Lillie <richard.lillie@janusintl.com>Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:56 PM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> I would like to know why we have designated this parcel of land…within 300 yards of the RMNP entrance…..it’s a major travel route for elk and mule deer….prime real estate that is going to be developed for workforce housing???? It’s going to be the “presentation” the “view” of everyone sitting in line to get into the park…I don’t understand…of all the available land and this is what we chose? RICHARD LILLIE Vice President of National Accounts "Tell Us How We're Doing" _____________________________ 135 Janus International Blvd. | Temple, GA 30179 C: 404-427-7025 JanusIntl.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any action in reliance on the information contained in this e-mail is prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments immediately. 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Variance Request to Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 Regarding Activities within Wetland Setbacks Board of Adjustment March 3, 2026 Vicinity Map Proposal Variance to EPDC Section 7.6.F.1: Prohibited Activities.No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stream or river corridors, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas, except as may be expressly allowed in this Section or Code. Proposal Review Criteria 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Numerous factors, including the historic use of the property, steep topography, prevalence of wetlands, and bifurcated ownership create special circumstances and conditions unique to this property Proposal Review Criteria 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the Board of Adjustment (BOA) shall consider the following factors: a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: While there can be beneficial use of the property without the variances, certain portions of the site are largely unusable without the variances. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variances are not substantial as the majority of the 50-foot wetland setbacks on the site are not encroached upon. 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. Review Criteria d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variances will not adversely affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Town appears to have assumed ownership of the property prior to adoption of the subject requirements. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: There is no viable alternative to accessing the eastern portion of the site or utilizing the NPS strip of land without the variances. Review Criteria 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: The circumstances are not common. 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 design represents the least deviation in order provide access to the eastern portion of the site and utilize the NPS strip of land. Review Criteria 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: Not applicable. 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 that the best management practices outlined in the application materials be adhered to. Advantages/ Disadvantages Advantages: The requested variances meet the standards for review. Disadvantages: Activities within the wetland setbacks may increase the chance of encroachment into and/or negative impacts to the wetlands themselves. The best management practices outlined in the application materials can mitigate this risk. Action Recommended Staff recommends the BOA approve the variance requests subject to the following condition of approval: •Best management practices outlined in the application materials shall be adhered to prior to, during, and after construction. Public Interest •Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on January 16, 2026. •Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on January 16, 2026. •Signs posted on property by applicant. Sample Motions •I move to approve the variances in accordance with the condition of approval and findings outlined in the staff report. •I move to deny the variances with the following findings [state reasons/findings]. Fish Hatchery Neighborhood Development WETLAND VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 3, 2026 Roles Roles ◦Scott Moulton –Executive Director Estes Park Housing Authority ◦Peter Levine –Director of Real Estate Development Estes Park Housing Authority ◦Rob Goss –Project Civil Engineering –Marcin Civil ◦Ronnie Pelusio –Project Land Planner & Architect –Pel-Ona Studio Pelusio Property Owners ◦Town of Estes Park ◦Rocky Mountain National Park Applicant ◦Estes Park Housing Authority ◦Entered into agreement with Town of Estes Park to Develop the Land Request ◦Variance to the wetland setback in 2 key areas Why are Wetlands Important? Wetlands are important features in the landscape that provide numerous beneficial services for people and for fish and wildlife. Some of these services, or functions, include protecting and improving water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitats, storing floodwaters and maintaining surface water flow during dry periods. These valuable functions are the result of the unique natural characteristics of wetlands. Note that going into the setback does not impact the wetlands themselves “With the use of a clearly demarcated setback boundary at each wetland location boundary and a clearly demarcated work area for the proposed building envelopes, grading and earthwork, road construction, multi-use trail construction, tree lawn areas, a restoration area, and a soft-surface trail construction, project creep will be controlled and no direct impact to the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, open water, and riparian corridor, will be realized.” ◦All wetlands on site qualify as Waters of the United States Statement from 3rd Party Wetland Consultant Statement from 3rd Party Wetland Consultant “With the use of a clearly demarcated setback boundary at each wetland location boundary and a clearly demarcated work area for the proposed building envelopes, grading and earthwork, road construction, multi-use trail construction, tree lawn areas, a restoration area, and a soft-surface trail construction, project creep will be controlled and no direct impact to the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, open water, and riparian corridor, will be realized.” ◦All wetlands on site qualify as Waters of the United States Request A variance to the Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 to allow activities described herein within wetland setbacks per the table below, subject to a 10% margin of error: Purpose of Request – B & C ◦To allow construction of Fish Hatchery Road on the 60’ wide parcel that is owned by the National Park Service ◦The Owners on the variance application are ◦Rocky Mountain National Park ◦The Town of Estes Park ◦Agreements in Place ◦EPHA and The National Park Service have entered into a conditional agreement to construct a road in this location ◦The Town of Estes Park and the National Park Service have entered into a conditional agreement to maintain the road once constructed Purpose of Request – B & C ◦Q: Why do we need to build a road on the NPS Land? ◦Better utilization of the land to allow for low impact massing & building types ◦Q: Are there other solutions? ◦The parcel cannot be transferred to the Town of Estes Park without an action from Congress ◦No private property can be platted or constructed on the NPS land ◦The land bisects the site ◦Moving Fish Hatchery Road to the south allows for practical utilization of the site that will allow low massing workforce & attainable housing to be built ◦Conservation of land near Fall River ◦Furthers the goals outlined in the code & comprehensive plan Purpose of Request – H & I 1)To allow access to the eastern portion of the site ◦~21% of developable land is in this area ◦15 units exist in this location = ~14% of total units 2)To allow for restoration ◦Removal of an existing asphalt parking lot currently within wetland setback 3)To help facilitate evacuation and emergency service access ◦Provides additional emergency egress route to both existing neighbors to the east & future residents Decision Criteria 1) Special circumstances or conditions exist ◦60’ wide strip of Federal land bisects the site ◦Site was previously used as a Fish Hatchery with many man-made ponds ◦While many of the ponds were filled in & remediated, not all were 2) Practical Difficultly ◦A)Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance ◦B) Whether the variance is 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 ◦D) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer ◦E) Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement ◦F) Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance Project Details Project Goals ◦The Town of Estes Park has identified this parcel for workforce housing for ~20 years ◦EPHA Goal for site: To provide quality workforce housing for the workers of the Estes Community with rents & sales prices to best serve these community members while creating ‘missing-middle’ architectural designs to limit the impacts & footprints in this unique location Unavoidable Costs ◦Improvement of eastern Fish Hatchery & Fall River Road Intersection ◦Above threshold of improvement, even without this project ◦Water booster pump station ◦Road and utility infrastructure for subdivision ◦Not pursuing a Metro District ◦Utility extensions across Fall River to property Impact of Wetland Decision Potential Outcomes ◦Variance is approved ◦The project can proceed as envisioned ◦Variance is not approved ◦Lots are lost on both the eastern and southwest portion of the site ◦Less lots available to spread the cost of various improvements ◦Costs must be made up somewhere ◦Higher rent & sale prices ◦Requires keeping unit count the roughly same ◦Larger buildings in the middle ◦Taller buildings ◦Limiting attainable for-sale housing If the Variance is rejected, it create difficulties in driving affordability for the future residents of this development & a will likely end in development plan that neighbors dislike more than our current iteration Impact of Wetland Decision 2022 America West plan: 190 units Units allowed by Right: 352 units Our site plan: 109 units Statement from 3rd Party Wetland Consultant “With the use of a clearly demarcated setback boundary at each wetland location boundary and a clearly demarcated work area for the proposed building envelopes, grading and earthwork, road construction, multi-use trail construction, tree lawn areas, a restoration area, and a soft-surface trail construction, project creep will be controlled and no direct impact to the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, open water, and riparian corridor, will be realized.” ◦All wetlands on site qualify as Waters of the United States 3940 The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org. Memo To: Chair Jeff Moreau, Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Kara Washam, Planner II Date: March 3, 2026 Subject: Variance Request for Setback 448 Chiquita Lane, Estes Park Martin and Pamela Boeckenstedt, Owners/Applicants Andy Schaffer, 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: 0.69 Acres (+/- 30,027 SF) ☒PUBLIC HEARING ☐ORDINANCE ☐LAND USE ☐CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐RESOLUTION ☒OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO Objective: The Applicants request approval of a variance to reduce the side setback along the north property line from the required twenty-five feet (25’) to seventeen feet (17’) to allow the construction of a detached garage. Present Situation: The subject property is Lot 139 and Lot 140 of the Al Fresco Place Subdivision and contains one single-family residence constructed in 1954. The majority of the existing dwelling is contained on Lot 139. However, a small portion encroaches into Lot 140. 4041 The property is 0.69 acres and is legally nonconforming, as it is smaller than the one- acre minimum lot size required in the E-1 (Estate) zoning district. The property has an existing attached two-car garage; the applicants wish to add the additional detached garage to meet their needs. The proposed location was selected to align with the existing driveway and to preserve existing trees located on the southern side of the property. Subject Property (facing east) Variance Description: The Applicants request approval of a variance to reduce the side setback along the north property line to seventeen feet (17'). The E-1 (Estate) zoning district, under §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 Applicants request a variance in order to construct a 14'x40' detached garage with access in line with the existing driveway (Attachment 3). 4142 Proposed Site Plan, enlarged Proposed Detached Garage Location 4243 Location and Context: The 0.69-acre lot is located at 458 Chiquita Lane, approximately 400’ northeast of W. Wonderview Avenue (Highway 34). The subject property and all adjacent properties are zoned E-1 (Estate). 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 E-1 (Estate) Residential East Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential West Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential 4344 Zoning Map Project Analysis: Review Criteria: The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In accordance with EPDC § 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. 4445 Staff Finding: Development of the proposed detached garage is only viable on the property's northern section (Lot 139). This location is ideal because it aligns with the existing driveway, avoids existing utility lines, and protects the mature trees located on the southern portion of the property (Lot 140). An additional challenge is that an accessory use, such as a garage, is not permissible on the southern portion of the property (Lot 140) because a principal use (residence) has not been established. 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 residential use of the property is beneficial to the Applicants. However, a detached garage is desired. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance requires a 32% relief to the side setback and is 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 proposed setback is consistent with the existing development patterns of the neighborhood. A review of surrounding properties confirms that many nearby structures already exhibit similar proximity to their lot lines. Therefore, granting this variance will not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Utility locates confirmed the area north of the existing house is clear. Based on surface evidence (water stop valves) and a map from the Water 4546 Division, the shared water service for 458 Chiquita and 497 MacGregor was located. The proposed structure will be approximately 43 feet from this water line. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Applicants purchased the property in 2012 and had plans for expanding their garage space. Although they understood the need to comply with setback regulations for the proposed structure, they were unaware that their property line crossed their existing driveway. This discovery significantly limited the available building area. Notably, a large part of the existing driveway is under an access easement and encroaches upon the adjacent property to the north. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: At the Pre-Application meeting for the subject variance request, Staff suggested amending the plat to dissolve the lot line between Lots 139 and 140. This process would eliminate the associated setbacks and create a new buildable area south of the existing residence. However, this location is not ideal because the Applicants wish to preserve the existing trees, which would be at risk from excavation. Other potential locations, such as southeast of the existing residence, would necessitate extending the driveway, causing more disturbance of the lot’s natural areas. 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. 4647 Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. No variance shall be granted increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the number otherwise permitted. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The proposed structure is approximately four feet (4’) from the existing residence and just over twenty-five feet (25’) from the east property line. This location minimizes the relief needed from the prescribed setback while maintaining a practical placement based on existing site conditions. The garage could be designed smaller. However, it is the placement of the garage to align with the existing driveway that causes the setback encroachment and necessitates the variance request. 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 zoning district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The Applicants request a setback variance to construct a detached garage. This is an accessory use permitted by right in the E-1 (Estate) zoning district in accordance with Table 5-1 of the EPDC. 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. Staff Finding: Staff has no recommendation for conditions of approval. Review Agency Comments: The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. No objections or concerns were received. 4748 Public Notice: Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. No public comment has been received at the time of this report's writing. • Proof of sign posting provided by the applicants on February 11, 2026. • Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on February 12, 2026. • Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on February 13, 2026. • Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Advantages: This variance would allow the Applicants to construct a detached garage. Disadvantages: There are no known disadvantages of approving the variances to reduce the side setback along the north property line to allow the construction of a detached garage . Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with the side setback consistent with the Site Plan (Attachment 3). Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low. Sample Motions: • I move to approve the variance request to reduce the side setback to seventeen feet (17’) along the north property line for the subject property addressed as 448 Chiquita Lane in Estes Park. • I move to approve the variance request to reduce the side setback to seventeen feet (17’) along the north property line for the subject property addressed as 448 Chiquita Lane in Estes Park, with conditions [state conditions]. • I move to deny the variance request with the following findings [state reason/findings]. 4849 •I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance request to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance]. Attachments: 1.Application 2.Statement of Intent 3.Site Plan 4950 51 !!2 !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 G!. $1 $1 !. !R $1 2178 CHIQUITALN 6'' 6'' 8'' PV C 458 497 141 448 441 471 441 450 421 440 161 6''D I This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon. Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you. 0 20 40Feet 1 in = 36 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Water & Sewer Lines Printed: 3/2/2026Created By: kwasham Legend Isolation for Service $1 Service Curb Stop !R Service Tap !.Abandoned Service Valve G!.Hydrant Water LateralsType, Status Fire, Active/Private Hydrant, Active/Private Service, Active/Private Sample, Active/Private Bleeder, Active/Private Abandoned/Inactive/Out of Service Cast Iron Copper Ductile Iron Galvanized Steel Poly Vinyl Chloride Water MainsStatus and Water Type Active Potable Private Active Potable Active Raw Water Private Active Raw Water Inactive Proposed Abandoned $1 Cleanouts !(Fittings !!2 Manholes Sewer Mains Services Larimer Road Labels Parcel Shift Larimer Buildings 52 5053 5154 5255 5356 1043 Fish Creek Road  Estes Park, Colorado 80517  970-586-9388  E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com January 13, 2026 Statement of Intent for the Setback Variance at 448 Chiquita Ln, Estes Park, CO 80517 25-EP-PL053 This letter describes the intent of the applicant, Mr. & Ms. Boeckenstedt, to pursue a setback variance that would allow for the construction of a detached garage with a ±550 ft2 building foot print (14’x40’ with a notch out as shown on the attached architectural rendering). Property information: The subject property consists of the west portions of lot 139 and 140 Al-Fresco Place Subdivision, and is located on the east side of Chiquita Ln, off the north side of west Wonderview Ave (US 34). This property is zoned Estate (E-1) per Table 4-2 of the Estes Park Development Code. Each lot line has a 25’ building setback. Based on the legal description two parcels exists meaning a 25’ setback still exists along the lot line splitting the two subject parcels. Existing Conditions: The existing lot has a “horse shoe” driveway which crosses the north property line onto 458 Chiquita Ln which has a dedicated easement (Reception #19860055933) and also crosses into 497 Chiquita Ln which is called out as an encroachment on the attached site plan. Also, the south end of the existing house was determined to cross the lot line splitting the subject lots. With setbacks, existing improvements, and the driveway configuration, two small building areas, for a detached garage remain. The building area north and east of the house is preferred over the south building site given the existing garage is on the north end of the house already, and will require a shorter driveway with less site disturbance (clients want to save the five significant trees south of the house). Proposed development: Mr. & Ms. Boeckenstedt are seeking a setback variance that would permit the construction of a detached garage (approximately 550 square feet) on the northeast side of the existing house. We are proposing the north property line setback be reduced by 8’ for a 17’ setback and a 32% relief. 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 VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING 5457 1043 Fish Creek Road  Estes Park, Colorado 80517  970-586-9388  E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com 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 layout of the lot(s) leaves little area outside the building setbacks. Existing improvements/driveways are also tailored to development on the north lot. 3.6.C.2.a.- Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the Variance While the owners are benefiting from the existing residential house a variance will be required for the detached garage that they desire. 3.6.C.2.b.-Whether the variance is substantial The requested variance requires a 32% relief to the setback. 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 other houses in the area are closer to adjoining lot lines than the proposed garage. The house at 458 Chiquita Ln is ±11’ from the east property line, and ±23’ from the north property line per a graphical scale from a land survey at reception #20210112916. Also, the cabin at 497 Chiquita Ln is ±4’ from its north property line per a graphical scale from reception #20220057396. So such a variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 3.6.C.2.d.-Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer Utility locates were performed (ticket #A600701182) and the area north of the existing house has been deemed clear. The shared water service on 458 Chiquita and 497 MacGregor was shot using surface evidence (water stop valves) and compared to a map provided by the water department. the closet edge of the proposed structure is ±43’ from the water line. 3.6.C.2.e.-Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement The owners bought the property with the intent to increase their garage space and knew that the improvement would need to meet setbacks, however they were not aware that the property line crossed their driveway limiting the buildable area to this extent. 3.6.C.2.f.-Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. At the preapplication meeting for this variance it was mentioned an amended plat could dissolve the lot line between 139 and 140 also eliminating the related setbacks and creating a new buildable area south of the existing house. This location is however not ideal as it is surrounded by trees which the owner is hoping to preserve and excavation in this area could put these trees at risk. Other proposed locations such as southeast of the existing house would require the existing driveway to be extended. 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. 5558 1043 Fish Creek Road  Estes Park, Colorado 80517  970-586-9388  E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com While many lots are restricted by existing structures, the remaining buildable area between setbacks and the existing structure is uniquely restrictive leaving no other practical buildable area. 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 two existing lots, 139 containing 0.41-acres, and 140 containing 0.28- acres, this variance will result in equivalent lots with no change in boundary lines. 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 E-1 (Estates) no rezoning is proposed, and the proposed use of this lot is residential. 3.6.C.6.-If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The proposed structure is very close 3.9’ from the existing house, and is 25.6’ from the east property line (with a 25’ setback). This location minimizes the relief needed from the prescribed setback while maintaining a practical placement based on existing site conditions. 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 E-1 (estates), and the proposed use of this lot is residential. 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 purpose of side setbacks is to prevent an over crowded aesthetic and to allow room to route utilities. The aesthetics of the neighborhood were addressed earlier given no structure exists to the immediate north of the proposed garage and many structures in the neighborhood are within the prescribed setback this proposal will not significantly change the aesthetics of the neighborhood and will maintain the intent of the code as it relates to side setbacks. Utilities were also addressed earlier and this proposal should not affect utilities and will maintain the intent of the code as it relates to side setbacks. Other comments Because the subject property has been granted permission for a VRBO, an ADU is not permitted and the proposed structure will not have any living space. Conclusions: Due to the combination of existing structures, driveway alignment, and the desire to preserve existing vegetation, the buildable area on the property is significantly constrained. To overcome this hardship and achieve the desired buildable location for the garage a variance will be necessary. 5659 1043 Fish Creek Road  Estes Park, Colorado 80517  970-586-9388  E-mail: info@vanhornengineering.com Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you in the future regarding this matter. Regards, __________________________ J. Andy Schaffner Project Manager andy@vanhornengineering.com (919)-880-9840 5760 5861 ! "#$%%&' ()*+,,-.+/0"12+3345,67-889.*-:856;*<=7>?@+AJ1H8-33:3.9+,E+,5;K.<?L+334M67-8812+3345,67-889.*-:856;*<WPQRXOYUZOW[Z\]VPSR^P_kedlmngoobgpaqnajrdapfjsqnatpjtapquojmgqahgqvwxynez{eqg|gdabrnemnefpaz{afqsjpfaqkgmvvxynez{eqg|gda€ sqapkaed‚j{qjsfqgqasjpqrjƒjdqnfbrqnefƒaaqed‚~egsjprgphahƒgeospjƒ„l…l€`agpaf{kƒeqqed‚j{prpeqqadmjƒƒagugofjkanjƒaedqeƒaqjgqqadhqnaƒaaqed‚edtapfjd€pqqnafaqkgm~gpegdmapaz{afqahgqvvxynez{eqg|gdagfram{ppadqou{dhapfqgjfahfaqkgmsjpghaqgmnah‚gpg‚aqngqgoe‚dfreqnqnaaˆefqed‚hpe~argubgfqnahepamqgmmaffspjƒynez{eqg|gda{fed‚qnefhpe~argureqnj{qqpg~apfed‚j{ptpjtd‚Šfqgdhed‚eff{afmjdmapded‚qnatpjtapquoedabedmo{hed‚qpaftgffed‚gdhhgƒgdapfjsvvxynez{eqg|gdabqnaepmjdqpgmqjpfbgdhhaoe~apu~anemoaf€`ang~amjdfa‚gphsjpj{ptpjtapquoeda€‹anemoafbedmo{hed‚mgpfbqp{mfbgdhqpgeoapfbng~atgpfrnjooujdj{ptpjtapquk{qgofjjdj{pdaroutogdqah‚pgffgdhgfsgpgfj{pjraaqspjƒqnatpjtapquoedaedqjj{pugph€ dhbngfkaaddagpoueƒtjffekoasjpogp‚aefqed‚hpe~argureqnj{qmg{fed‚hgƒg‚aqjj{pugphgdhqpaaf€`ang~ahefm{ffavvxynez{eqg|gdagdhqnaepƒgdumjdqpgmqjpfgdhhaoe~apuqp{mhpe~apfƒgduqeƒpqjqnatnjqjedqnatgmaq{dhap …pafadqleq{gqejd gfraoogfqnagqqgmnahtnjeo€}t‚b rnemnmoagpoufnjrfqnahpe~arguedz{afqejdbedmo{hed‚gƒgpahtpjtapqujgmnafjdqjj{ptpjtapqubgfraoogfqnatpjtapqugqŽ )I-6 K+.;K‘J+€pq{dequqjedsjpƒqnafqgssrnjtpatgpahqnaƒgqapegofsjpqnefƒaaqed‚b’rj{ohoepasapadmahbsedgoe“ahƒgduuagpfg‚j”’kaoea~aedqna•–wŒf—bftameseafqngqeqrgOP{fahsjpmjƒƒapmegot{ptjfaf€‰najrdapfjsvvxynez{eqg|gdang~ajtapgqa”oemadfašŒ–•›sjpƒgduuagpfbrnemned~goehgqafqnaagfaƒadq€’sqnef~gpegdmapaz{eoqbrareoot{pf{aj{ppe‚nqqj~jehjp~gmgqaqnaagfaƒadq€‰n{ftpj~ehed‚djh‚a€fjsvvxynez{eqg|gdagttpjgmnah{freqngtpjtjfgoqj~gmgqaqnaagfaƒadqbpagdhpafqjpaqnagpagesrarj{ohf{ttjpqqnaƒed‚aqqed‚gfaqkgm~gpegdmareqnguhafe‚d€šjra~apbqnau{oqeƒgqaouhamehahqjreqnhpgrqngqtpjtjfgo€ledmaqnaqaf{dqeorapamae~ahqnefdjqema€jped‚jjhsgeqnreqnj{pdae‚nkjpesqnaurj{ohrjpreqn{fqjpafjo~aqnaeff{aakjgphZR^žqnapaz{afqahfaqkgm~gpegdma€fqjgttpj~aqnapaz{afqbragfqngquj{gttoumjdheqejdfqjqnagttpj~goqngqrz{eqg|gdaqjmjdse‚{paghpe~arguqjqnatpjtjfahgqqgmnah‚gpg‚afjgfdjqqjpqu€ hheqejdgooubqnatjpqejdfjsqnaaˆefqed‚hpe~arguqngqadmpjgmnjdqnadae‚n 62 63 !"#$#"%&'())*+(,-./01.(02)1345'6))6137/1'8 9:;<=(.0+KLJM;)2'(32<Q1'';362RS(P(F1T'(32S60(/2101KV*06*3/(W(X;()2*2AAYQ:6X;62*Z3<>C[GD[DZUC\(1]3(0)1K2:(T01T(026()*2A_&*3JA`_E*/a0(+10LP(<G)2()D*0H<QUY@C&_7I12:1K2:()(T01T(026()<*3J](1TT1)(2:6))6J([R*0J)(2.*/HP*06*3/(212:(AAYQ:6X;62*Z3T01T(02R7U;01TT1)626136).()2)2*2(J.(F1]<212:(V*3b103G3+63((063+*3JO;0P(RcO2*2('(321K^32(32deVbGO[OU^f1Kg*3;*0R&\<>@>?<)(3.F6):(J632:(;T/1'63+I1*0J1KLJM;)2'(32eIULf'((263+63K10'*2613T*/H(2<)/:(J;F(JK10`*7'7E*0/:011'70(/20(TF6()21VbGO[OU^<2:(0(*0()(P(0*F0(TF6()2:*2](]6):21'*H(*.1;22:()2*KKh)K63J63+)*)T;.F6):(J.(]6FJ(0(J<21)*R<2:*2)2*KK1K2:(Q1'';362RS(P(F1T'(32S(T*02'(32J6J312T(0)13*FFR/132*/22:(*J]:(2:(0103122:(R);TT102(J)*6JP*06*3/(7U06K)2*KK:*JT;22:(X;()261321VbGO<i6K2:(R:*J*3R/132*]3(0)*3J6KVbGO;3J(0)211J2:(60K((F63+)*.1;2)*6JP*06*3/(*3JT01T1)(J+*0*+(ij+k?);++()2)2:*22:6)+*0*+(6)63*F6+3'(32]62:*J06P(]*R2:*2J60(/2FR/133(/2)21Q:6X;62*Z37L)626)'//())6.F(J06P(]*RK01'Q:6X;62*Z32:*2]1;FJ*F6+3]62:2:(106(32*26131K2:(T01T1)(J+*0*+(7b1](P(0<2T01T(02R'*R:*P()1'(2:1;+:2)*.1;2*3*FF(+(J(*)('(3279:(TF*/('(321K2:(+*0*+(132:()1;2:1K0+12:(3((JK10)*6JP*06*3/(7KcZ(P(F1KD;.F6/^32(0()2d6)cF1]d6):*0J21;3J(0)2*3J]:(3*FF1K2:(*JM*/(32*JM16363+T01T(026()*0(631l $m nom pqr$st u, pvw xt !"#$#z"%]3(0)h1K2:(T01T(026()*2A_&*3JA`_E*/a0(+10LP(<G)2()D*0H<QUY@C&_<1TT1)()*6J)6J([R*0J)(2.:6X;62*Z3<G)2()D*0H<QUY@C&_7)62613[0(.;22*F[0()T13)()eUWWf1KK(0(J.R2:(*.1P(1]3(0)hK10/13)6J(0*2613.RI1*0J1KLJM;)2'(32eIUL*06*3/(7L+(32e)f<V*3b103G3+63((063+*3JO;0P(R63+<K102:(T01T(02R1]3(0)h1KAAYQ:6X;62*Z3:*P();2d*)0(X;60(J.RG)2()D*0H91]3/1J(*3J63/13K10'*3/(]62:2:(0(X;60('(32))2*2(J632:(LTTF6/*2613K1;+:221IUL)h*22(326132:*22:(L+(32h)cO2*2('(321K^32(32d:*)*'6)[)2*2('(32)632:(cG56)263+Q13J6261362*Z3J1()312(56)2*)63J6/*2(J.R*Z*06'(0Q1;32RZ*3J^3K10'*2613Z1/*210](.)62()(*0/:79:(;)(1K6312:(0T*02)1K2:();.'622(JcO2*2('(321K^32(32d*3J'6+:2.R('.F('*26/1K2:(F*/H1K2:101;+:3())1K1K2:(UWW)<2:(R*0(TF*/(J63/132(52]62:L+(32h)0()T13)()21)(/2613\7?7Q)2*2('(32).R;)63+vs € 2]*));.'622(J1310*.1;2g*3;*0R&\<>@>?.RV*3b103G3+63((063+*3JO;0P(R63+212:(21]31KG)2()e>C[GD[DZ@C\f*2AAYQ:6X;62*Z3<G)2()D*0H<QUY@C&_771K2:(G)2()D*0HJ(P(F1T'(32/1J(e]62:0()T13)()6362*F6/)K01'V*3b103G3+63((063+*3JO;0P(R63+fB0/;')2*3/()10/13J62613)(56)2e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a!##)! #% &# `$!`!%,)&$&)2M!-%& bcde0- &f#%ghhi($!* &$ `$!`$ 1#`$&)$&`/&%/&($!*&&#,%-$.1& $/` !#kOlOhlhhOmhn2o%!j /&'#& bmpe0- &f$&)$&`/&%/&($!*$/` !#kOlOOllcpNmn2q!%-/&.&$&#/"!-,#! & $ /&$&/ $!( #)'!$!@AD?stU:DFV>FAHB@Z54Z?5ACH@GG?AH:D?GJH5HJ?WHEI>FBAF@;u;s6;tH@G5?V>F5?:?I?AW??@stU:DFV>FAHH@GswxXH:J5?J45WDF:D5?E>BAF@AD?JH5HJ?I?B4:HA?GWFADF@;zT??A4TAD??HEAGFYFGF@JZ54Z?5ACBF@?H@G@4AAD?{zz|}F@GF:HA?GHI4Y?8HHBB~XHA>5?A5??EE?ZH5HA?EAD?AW4Z54Z?5AF?E4@ADFEI4>@GH5CBF@?8K@AF@>?G=HE@4A?G?H5BF?5AD?5?FE@4E>:DZ54Z?5ACHGG5?EE4T{swx:DFV>FAHB@}8:A>5?HAswxXH:J5?J45ADHA5?Z5?E?@AEH@GDFEA45C:HIF@ADHAWHETF5EAZBH:?G4CAHy5?:45GEF@zwz;8X5E8G??G44BF@J:HCDFBBZ>5:DHE?F@zwzsB4A€z7UHBT5?E:4FADAD5??X45?AW4H:5?B4AEz7x~z7w~H@Gzsu 8E4X?AFX?G>5F@JAD??H5BCzwtu‚ADW?5?E4BGHEAW4E?ZH5HA?Z54Z?5AF?EA4AW4B4:HBE8HAHBHAA?5Z4F@AF@AFX?~I?B>Azwtt6zwt9~AD?DFEA45F::HIF@Z54Z?5ACWHEGFYFG?GF@A4HAB?HEAAD5??Z54Z?5AF?EH@GW?5?AHyHIB?8HEH5?E>BA4THI?BF?Y?GE>5Y?CF@J?5545Z?5E4@HB:4XX>@F:H55F?AI>5J?EEH@GX5854I?5AE4@ AD??554@?4>EBCZBH:?GZ54Z?5ACBF@?I?AW??:BFZZ?GAD?@45AD?HEA:45@?54TAD?:HIF@H@GWHE@4AH@FEE>?>@AFBAD?swxZ54ZF:D~AD?@5?E>BA?GF@H@?@:54H:DX?@AFEE>?IC4@?Z54Z?5AC4@A4AD?4AD?58ADFEWHEZH5AFHBBC:>5?GICH@GAD54>JDH@?HE?X?@AI?AW??@AD?swxH@GswwZ54Z?5A5?GWFADHXF@45I4>@GH5CBF@?HGƒ>EAX?@AADHAZBH:?GAD?I4>@GH5CBF@?sT??A@ L \\L \L L $(!$*,… /Q konllplhhdO†&#, &$&#!$ !( +% #)!-%&%'#,*,/&$2M%&$,"& $%$./"&%%! -%#)%-$(&/.,#/…"& $% !`.&.%†&#,/!*`&$, !&*&``$!.,,'1 "& $,`&$ *# /!% -$%gbNi($!* "& $#24:4XX?@AK Š \ ‹\[ Œ ^`$!`$ 1" # # !#/$&% $)&$&)%`&/&#,Q#" & *`$!.*# "!-,#, !* % '&/Q%j!`$ 1#/$!%%, $,$."&1* #) '-,&'&$& ! %+ # 2D?@AD?ssU:DFV>FAHB@Z54Z?5ACWHEZ>5:DHE?AD?ICAD?:>55?@A4W@?5EFTHT>BE>5Y?CW4>BGDHY?FG?@AFTF?GE>:DZ4A?@AFHBFEE>?E8K ŠŽ \^^[\ [ ^^ \ …qˆe`$ &``/& !#†* #)(!$ %.&$&#/ "&%*# !#,&#&*#,,`& /!-,,%%!. ! #' "#hN,% '&/Q%&#,/$& #)&#"'-,&'&$&%!- !( +% #)!-%2M%!/& !#%!".$#! ,&&% %%-$$`#) !`$%$.&#,+/&.& !## %&$&/!-,`- % $%& $%Q2 $`$!`!%,!/& !#%%-/&%%!- &% !(% #),$."&1 !'+ #,,2 65 !"!#! !$%&'()#&*+',(('%-./%&*0)010.02)/34*23'*'*/+0%*'*+05)+%/,/#*%/0,2'/066*0%'4*0((+'47*/*0#'!*44/%/0*38%&'99:#&/;)/%*30(('%-4'+&*7'*3%'0*%/7'2)/34*23'*'*+!<=>?>@>A>BCDEFGHFIJKLMFNNOKPGFIQKRGKRSJHIPQMKLHTKDUNDQLJDIQFHIKRHIFIKVHLQHIPDGWGDWDLKRLSORHEHLHDIHUHQXHNNGKLSNQHIFIHIJGKFLKHIQMKISYOKGDUNDQLOKZDIRQMKISYOKGDQMKGXHLKWKGYHQQKRUDGQMKQDQFNLSORHEHLHDI[WSGLSFIQQDQMKFWWNHJFONKTDIKRHLQGHJQGKPSNFQHD ]^_ `a]b ]a` `cdb #ff'0%<KLMFNNOKPGFIQKRHIJGKFLHIPQMKISYOKGDUFJJDYYDRFQHDISIHQLOKZDIRQMKISYOKGDQMKGXHLKWKGYHQQKR>ji k h l ff'0%<R[FEFGHFIJKLMFNNGKWGKLKIQQMKNKFLQRKEHFQHDIUGDYQMKGKPSNFQHDILQMFQXHNNFUUDGRGKNHKU> ^_ol cpqol jcpo k\ 7*/*0#''3/',';)'+%+4'+0%4'+#/2'%&'7/+)*3/f(*#%,%&'+%)#%)'8/tm,%./4'6**6',)010.&'/6&%!%&/+'3/',2-7*/*0#'#'*%'+*7/+)*323#%)'/0*3,'+#+)24/7/+/0!<HGJSYLQFIJKLLMFNNQMKwxyPGFIQFEFGHFIJKQDFNNDXFSLKIDQWKGYHQQKR[DGFSLKKVWGKLLNZDGOZHYWNHJFQHDRKUDGQMKTDIKRHLQGHJQJDIQFHIHIPQMKWGDWKGQZUDGXMHJMQMKEFGHFIJKHLLDSPMQ>j k l #ff'0%<LSJMEFGHFIJKL[QMKwxyYFZGK{SHGKLSJMJDIRHQHDILFLXHNN[HIHQLKIQ[LKJSGKLSOLQFIQHFNNZQMKDO|KJQHEKLDUQMKLQFIRFGRLDEFGHKRDGYDRHUHKR> \ l l l l l ll l (+/%/0%%&/+7*/*0#'/+2'/06f*4'2-8*+f*0-*+%&''(('%/'+*45/0/0699%&*040'%%&''*+%!%&'(('%/'+%%&'0%&*04'*+%~9€*049€tf*#6'6%./332'7/+)*33-/f(*#%'42-%&'3*6'6**6'+%)#%)'%&*%.)342'+)((%€f*#6'6*7'(('%-&*+%&''f4'3'4&/+%/##*2/0~m9r+;,%80'2'4&23‚ rtr *04&*+2')+'4%+)((%%&'%)/+%*043#*3'#0f-+/0#',%'0./33&*7'*'+%&'%/#+/60/,/#*0%3-4'6*4'4!<%/0)'4 $*0%/4%*3'7/4'0#'+)66'+%+%&*%%&'&/+%/##*2/0.*+2)/3%.&/3'%&'+%)#%'4~tr€%tr *04.*+)+'42-0',%&'(5'#%f*0*6'~„ 4)/06%&'&+%)#%/0('/4!/%.*+0%)0%/3ttt%&*%3*/f'#)0%-%*s,,/#/*3+0%'4%&'63*04+%)#%)'/07'0%-+)7'-,'+%'+(*1!'+)3%/06/0%&'#*2/0'#'/7/0%/#'ttƒ!<OKGQLDI 66 Estes Park Board of Adjustment March 3, 2026 Variance Request for Setback (448 Chiquita Lane) Martin and Pamela Boeckenstedt, Owners/Applicants Andy Schaffer, Van Horn Engineering, Consultant Presented by Kara Washam, Planner II Objective The Applicants request approval of a variance to reduce the side setback along the north property line from the required 25’ to 17’ to allow the construction of a detached garage. Present Situation •Lot 139 and Lot 140 of the Al Fresco Place Subdivision. •One single-family residence constructed in 1954. •Most of the existing dwelling is contained on Lot 139, small portion on Lot 140. •0.69 acres and is legally nonconforming. •Smaller than the 1-acre min. lot size required in E-1. •The property has an existing attached two-car garage. •Applicants wish to add the additional detached garage to meet their needs. •Proposed location was selected to align with the existing driveway, avoid utility lines, and to preserve existing trees located on the southern side of the property. Vicinity Map of Subject Area Zoning Map Variance Description The Applicants request approval of a variance to reduce the side setback along the north property line to 17’. •The E-1 (Estate) zoning district requires 25' setbacks for the front, rear, and side property lines. •Applicants request a variance to construct a 14'x40' detached garage. •Access in line with the existing driveway. Subject Property (facing east) Proposed Detached Garage Location Proposed Site Plan, enlarged Site Plan Review Criteria Review Criteria #1: Special conditions exist that are not common to other areas. •Development is only viable on the property's northern section (Lot 139). •This location aligns with the existing driveway, avoids existing utility lines, and protects the mature trees located on the southern portion of the property (Lot 140). •Accessory use, such as a garage, is not permissible on the southern portion of the property (Lot 140) because a principal use (residence) has not been established. Water and Sewer Service Lines Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #2.a: There may be beneficial use of the property without the variance. •The residential use of the property is beneficial to the Applicants. However, a detached garage is desired. Review Criteria #2.b: The variance request is substantial. •Request for a 32% relief to the side setback is moderately substantial. Review Criteria #2.c: Character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered with the proposed detached garage. •The proposed setback aligns with the neighborhood’s existing development patterns. Neighborhood Development Pattern Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #2.d: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. •Utility locates confirmed the area north of the existing house is clear. •Existing water and sewer lines are located on the southern section of the parcel. Review Criteria #2.e: Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. •Applicants purchased the property in 2012 and had plans for expanding their garage space. •They were unaware that their property line crossed their existing driveway. •This discovery significantly limited the buildable area. Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #2.f: Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. •At the Pre-Application meeting for the variance request, Staff suggested amending the plat to dissolve the lot line between Lots 139 and 140. •This process would eliminate the associated setbacks and create a new buildable area south of the existing residence. •This location is not ideal because the applicants wish to preserve the existing trees, which would be at risk from excavation. •Other potential locations, such as southeast of the existing residence, would necessitate extending the driveway, causing more disturbance of the lot’s natural areas. Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #6. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. •The proposed structure is approximately 4’ from the existing residence and just over 25’ from the east (rear) property line. •This location minimizes the setback variance request while maintaining a practical placement. •The garage could be designed smaller. However, it is the placement of the garage to align with the existing driveway that causes the setback encroachment and necessitates the variance request. Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #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 zoning district containing the property for which the variance is sought. •The Applicants request a setback variance to construct a detached garage. This is an accessory use permitted by right in the E-1 (Estate) zoning district. Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #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. •Staff has no recommendation for conditions of approval. Public Notice & Interest Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. •Proof of sign posting provided by the applicants on February 11, 2026. •Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on February 12, 2026. •Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on February 13, 2026. •Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Letters of public comment have been received and express opposition to the variance request. These comments are part of the packet and have been made available on the website. Action Recommended Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in the staff report, with the side setback consistent with the Site Plan. Advantages: This variance would allow the Applicants to construct a detached garage. Disadvantages: There are no known disadvantages of approving the variances to reduce the side setback along the north property line to allow the construction of a detached garage. Sample Motions •I move to approve the variance request to reduce the side setback to seventeen feet (17’) along the north property line for the subject property addressed as 448 Chiquita Lane in Estes Park. •I move to approve the variance request to reduce the side setback to seventeen feet (17’) along the north property line for the subject property addressed as 448 Chiquita Lane in Estes Park, with conditions [state conditions]. •I move to deny the variance request with the following findings [state reason/findings]. •I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance request to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].