Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2026-06-02 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK 170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room Estes Park, CO 80517 Tuesday, June 2, 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 April 7, 2026 PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address). ACTION ITEMS: 1. Variance Request for Building Setback and Landscape Buffer 2831 Fall River Rd Planner II Washam, presented by Joe Berek, Planning Technician REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Upcoming meeting items ADJOURN The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. May 26, 2026 2 draf t Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 7, 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 March 3, 2026. Board: Jeff Moreau, Colin Godsey, Steven Neilson Attending: Chair Moreau, Vice Chair Godsey, Member Neilson, Director Steve Careccia, Planner II Kara Washam, Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent:none Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were 4 people in attendance. INTRODUCTIONS: APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Godsey/Neilson) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Neilsen/Godsey) to approve the Consent Agenda, with a correction to the page 3 motion. The motion passed 3-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Member Neilsen nominated Chair Moreau to continue as Chair. Chair Moreau nominated Vice Chair Godsey to continue as vice chair. Member Neisen concurred. The motion passed 3-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: none ACTION ITEMS: 1.Wetlands Setback 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd Senior Planner Hornbeck At the March 3, 2026, meeting, the Board of Adjustment (BOA) considered a variance request regarding activities within wetland setbacks at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road. The BOA continued the item to the next scheduled meeting (April 7, 2026) with a request that wildlife and wetland studies be provided for review. The applicant provided those studies, which were first shared with the BOA in a Supplemental Memo dated March 16, 2026. March 3 review: The applicant submitted a subdivision application that depicts approximately 100 dwelling units and associated road and infrastructure improvements. Roads and associated earthwork and grading are proposed to occur within the 50-foot wetland setback required by Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) Section 7.6.E. The EPDC 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 in the staff report, 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 disturbances 3 draf t Board of Adjustment, April 7, 2026 – Page 2 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. Staff recommended that 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. DISCUSSION: In answering Member Neilsen's questions, planner Hornbeck noted that the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) is responsible for ensuring that Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with the development proposal are implemented. The HOA board explored the possibility of hiring a third party to oversee compliance with the BPMs and report back to the EPHA, which was considered a reasonable idea. Also discussed was the difference in the number of BMPs listed in the wildlife report versus the information in the previous meeting packet. It was clarified that the wildlife report is more holistic, addressing overall wildlife impacts, whereas previous documents were strictly focused on wetland protection. Pete Levine, EPHA Director of Real Estate Development, introduced the team. He shared a slide showing the number of needed housing units in the Estes Valley, along with other housing figures. Ronnie Pelusi, Pel-Ona Land Planner for the project, discussed the importance of wetlands and stated that the consultant noted no harm to them with this proposal. Proposed modifications are intended to improve and formalize the wetlands' impact, creating definitive buffers that prevent future damage to sensitive ecosystems. He confirmed that BMPs are included and will be codified through the planning process, including during construction and long-term maintenance, likely through a master HOA. Project Engineer Rob Goss confirmed that erosion control measures are in place at a preliminary level. This includes silt fencing, inlet protection and the use of water quality control ponds to allow solids to settle before discharging clean water. BMP recommends that the team conduct periodic site inspections for at least the first few years following construction to assess erosion control during the first year or so. The board asked about the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) preliminary recommendation for a 300-foot construction buffer from wetlands and 500 feet from Fall River. Goss explained that the project team is mitigating these concerns by isolating construction activities through silt fencing, straw wattles and erosion control mats, alongside plans to reroute water away from sensitive areas. Palusio argued that the 300-500-foot buffers suggested in the CPW report are exceptionally large and would render the vast majority of existing riverfront development in the community non- compliant. He noted that while federal and state agencies often propose large-scale, generalized buffer requirements, local boards have the authority for discretionary review. Palusio emphasized that the board's role is to determine if the proposal meets the intent of the wetland protections at a site-specific level. He reiterated that, by utilizing BPMs and third-party expert oversight, the project team believes they have effectively satisfied the approval criteria. Public Comment: Sandy Cherman acknowledged the need for workforce housing; however, wetland setbacks are in place for a reason and would like the project to be done without encroachment. Terry Rizzuiti agreed with Mr. Cherman, adding that the daycare center is a bad idea because parents want their kids closer to their work, not their home. 4 draf t Board of Adjustment, April 7, 2026 – Page 3 Kristine Poppitz noted that less than 5 units are affected, and granting the variance could set a dangerous precedent for future development requests. She criticized the project's evacuation plan and urged the board to deny the request, stating that requests are not rights. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Godsey) to approve the variance request with the following conditions: 1) survey to defined the setback area prior to beginning construction 2) engineering firm to inspect erosion control measures after they are instralled and 3) engineering firm to monitor the erosion control and Best Practice Managemet and original conditions at a minimum of monthly and give a report to the town. The motion passed 3-0. REPORTS: The Development Code is in draft mode,and an open house is scheduled for June. With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:33 a.m. Jeff Moreau, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 5 6 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: June 2, 2026 Subject: Variance Request for Building Setback and Landscape Buffer 2831 Fall River Road, Estes Park Nathan Kinley, Kinley Built, Owner/Applicant Objective: The Applicant requests approval of a variance for a reduced building setback and landscape buffer along arterial street frontage (Highway 34) to allow encroachment by four (4) proposed short-term rental cabins. Present Situation: The subject property, addressed as 2831 Fall River Road (Highway 34), is 3.61-acres and consists of two (2) 1.28-acre and 2.33-acre metes and bounds parcels. Both parcels are undeveloped and identified as Larimer County Parcel Numbers 3516400087 and 3516400034, respectively. The applicant purchased the properties in 2025 with the intent to plat them into one (1) lot and develop approximately sixteen (16) detached short-term rental cabins. Variance Description: § 4.4.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), requires twenty-five feet (25') front setbacks along arterial streets in the A (Accommodations) Zoning District. § 7.5.F.2.b.(3) requires all development on property abutting an arterial street provide a landscaped buffer with a minimum width of twenty-five feet (25’) along the entire frontage. The Applicant requests approval of a variance for a reduced building setback and landscape buffer along arterial street frontage to allow encroachment by four (4) 7 proposed short-term rental cabins. Encroachment is proposed at a maximum of ten feet (10’) into the required front setback and landscape buffer (Attachment 4). Existing Conditions Proposed Site Plan, enlarged 8 Location and Context: The 3.61-acre property is located at 2831 Fall River Road, directly west of McGregor Mountain Lodge and approximately 850’ east of the intersection of Fall River Road and Fish Hatchery Road (west connection). The subject property is zoned A (Accommodations) and bordered by Rocky Mountain National Park to the north. All adjacent parcels are resort lodge or low-density residential use. Vicinity Map Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Comprehensive Plan (2022) Zone Uses Subject Site Accommodations A (Accommodations) Resort Cabins (proposed) North Natural Resource Conservation and Parks NR (Larimer County Natural Resources) Rocky Mountain National Park South Neighborhood Village E (Estate), A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) & EV E (Larimer County Estes Valley Estate) Residential 9 East Accommodations A (Accommodations) Resort Cabins West Accommodations A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) Undeveloped 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. 10 Staff Finding: Significant space constraints exist due to the narrow property shape, steep site grades, and predominately rugged terrain. 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 Applicant can have beneficial use of the property by revising the site design to avoid encroaching into the setback and landscape buffer . However, units were strategically placed to minimize conflicts with terrain constraints and limit the removal of existing trees and shrubs. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance is not substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered by this variance request. Screening from adjacent properties is achieved through the approximately 50 to 70-foot grade change between the proposed development and the existing developments south of Fall River Road. § 7.5.F.2.b.(5)(a)(i) requires one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage and one (1) shrub for each ten (10) lineal feet. The quantities of new trees and shrubs required in the landscape buffer will not be affected by granting the requested variance. In addition, numerous mature evergreen trees currently exist within the CDOT right-of-way (ROW). If these trees are to remain, at the discretion of CDOT, their presence will provide further screening from adjacent properties. The following image, facing east, shows the existing trees on the left (north) side of Fall River Road. 11 d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Public services and utilities will not be affected by the variance. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: At the time of purchase, the Applicant was aware of building setback regulations but was unaware of the landscape buffer requirement. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Initial discussions with Planning staff considered the feasibility of placing the landscape buffer within the ROW, contingent upon approval from CDOT and Public Works. It was subsequently determined, however, that EPDC § 7.5.D.3.b. prohibits including ROW landscaping in the calculation of the mandatory buffer, even though such landscaping is permitted to exist within that space. The proposed site could be redesigned to avoid encroachment. However, to reduce the impact on existing vegetation and avoid potential obstacles, units were strategically positioned to preserve as many trees and shrubs as possible. 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 12 make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. 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 applicant proposes encroachment of only the corners of four of the proposed structures rather than requesting a reduced building setback and reduced landscape buffer along the entire 914 lineal feet of arterial frontage on Fall River Road (Highway 34). The proposed encroachment extends a maximum of ten feet (10’) or 100 square feet into the setback, consistent with the image shown below and in Exhibit A (Attachment 4). 13 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 Applicant proposes to develop approximately sixteen (16) detached short-term rental units. This use is classified as “Resort lodge/cabins” and is permitted by right in the A (Accommodations) zoning district in accordance with Table 4-4 in § 4.4 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 recommends the following conditions of approval of the variance: 1. Encroachment by the proposed development must be generally consistent with Exhibit A. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed development, the two subject parcels are required to be platted via the Minor Subdivision process in accordance with EPDC § 3.9.D.1.a. 3. A development plan for the proposed structures must be approved before issuance of any building permit. 4. In accordance with EPDC § 7.3, the development plan must identify all existing trees and comply with established Tree and Vegetation Protection standards. The development plan submittal must incorporate a landscape plan that emphasizes the preservation of trees to the maximum extent feasible, provided that such landscaping—whether existing or newly introduced—does not interfere with the sight distance requirements necessary for development access. Advantages: This variance would allow the Applicant to move forward with a development plan to develop sixteen (16) short-term rental cabins. 14 Disadvantages: There are no known disadvantages of approving the variance. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with a reduced front building setback and landscape buffer consistent with Exhibit A (Attachment 4). Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low. Sample Motions: • I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front building setback and landscape buffer along Fall River Road consistent with Exhibit A for the subject properties addressed as 2831 Fall River Road in Estes Park. • I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front building setback and landscape buffer along Fall River Road consistent with Exhibit A for the subject properties addressed as 2831 Fall River Road 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]. Attachments: 1. Application 2. Variance Request Letter 3. Site Plan 4. Exhibit A 15 16 17 18 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd. Suite 200 Johnstown, CO, 80534 303.800.3300 • GallowayUS.com 04/15/2026 Board of Adjustment Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: 2831 Fall River Road Site Development Plan – Variance Request To Whom It May Concern, The purpose of this letter is to request a variance for Site Development Plans at 2831 Fall River Road. The proposed development will consist of 16 short-term rental cabins that will vary between pier- supported and slab-on-grade foundations. The small-scale lodging project will complement Estes Park’s natural setting, use wildfire-resistant building methods, and enhance local tourism while respecting the surrounding environment. The following variance is requested with this submittal: Per EPDC Section 7.11F.3, a 25-foot landscaped buffer area is required along the frontage of this development. For Zone A - Accommodations properties, a 25’ front (arterial) building setback is also required. Due to the narrow conditions of the property, steep grades across the site, and predominately rugged terrain, significant space constraints exist. Therefore, units were strategically placed to minimize conflicts with these constraints and limit the removal of existing trees and shrubs. As such, the site layout resulted in four building envelopes encroaching the 25’ landscaped buffer/building setback by 100 square feet each, for a total encroachment area equal to 400 square feet. Because care was taken to preserve the existing trees and shrubs on-site, and because an additional 35-40’ of existing vegetation will remain undisturbed between the south property line and the northern edge of Fall River Road, aesthetic benefits achieved from a landscaped buffer will still be achieved. This letter acts as a formal request to allow for the variance to the 25-foot landscaped buffer and 25- foot building setback and demonstrates that it will have minimal impacts to the overall standards. As noted previously, the encroachment area requested is not substantial, occupying only a fraction (less than 2%) of the total landscaped buffer required for the property. In addition, because the variance requested is not impacting the lot use type, it will not adversely impact the existing neighborhood character, which is primarily comprised of lodging and hotels. Finally, the variance requested will have no impacts to the delivery of any public services. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, GALLOWAY Cristina Slater, PE Civil Project Engineer 19 Know what's before you dig. PGS CMS SITE PLAN SHEET ---- OF 20 C2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STAMP H: \ K \ K i n l e y B u i l t \ C O _ E s t e s P a r k _ K L B 3 4 _ 2 8 3 1 F a l l R i v e r R d \ 0 C I V \ 3 - C D \ S D P \ K L B 3 4 _ C 2 . 0 _ S i t e P l a n . d w g - T i n a S l a t e r - 4 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 6 Init.# Issue / DescriptionDate KI N L E Y B U I L T 28 3 1 F A L L R I V E R R O A D SI T E D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N S ES T E S P A R K , C O L O R A D O THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF GALLOWAY, AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GALLOWAY. COPYRIGHTS AND INFRINGEMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED AND PROSECUTED. COPYRIGHT 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 GallowayUS.com Date: Drawn By: Project No: Checked By: NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N KLB34 04/24/2026 20 SHEET 1 OF 5 EXHIBIT A VACATED BUILDING SETBACK DESCRIPTION A VACATED BUILDING SETBACK LOCATED IN A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE CORRECTION WARRANTY DEED, RECEPTION NO. 20230025268, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL, AS BEARING S79˚44’38”E, BEING MONUMENTED ON THE WEST BY 3” BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE, STAMPED “STATE OF HWY DEPT ROW MARKER”, AND ON THE EAST BY A 3” BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE, STAMPED “STATE HWY DEPT ROW MARKER STA 249+14.9”, AND WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS RELATIVE THERETO; VACATION A; BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS S84˚22’39”E, 309.46 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE S79°44'38"E, 19.95 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF VACATION A BEING POINT A; THENCE S55°15'22"W, 14.11 FEET; THENCE N34°44'38"W, 14.11 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING VACATION A; VACATION A AREA CONTAINS 100 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.002 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. VACATION B; BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS S79˚44’38”E, 39.25 FEET FROM POINT A; THENCE S79°44'38"E, 19.96 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF VACATION B BEING POINT B; THENCE S55˚15’22"W, 14.12 FEET; THENCE N34°44'38"W, 14.12 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING VACATION B; VACATION B AREA CONTAINS 100 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.002 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. VACATION C; BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS S79˚44’38”E, 38.31 FEET FROM POINT B; THENCE S79°44'38"E, 19.98 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF VACATION C BEING POINT C; THENCE S55°15'22"W, 14.13 FEET; THENCE N34°44'38"W, 14.13 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING VACATION C; VACATION C AREA CONTAINS 100 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.002 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. VACATION D; BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS S79˚44’38”E, 134.36 FEET FROM POINT C; THENCE S79°44'38"W, 20.00 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF VACATION D BEING POINT D; 21 SHEET 2 OF 5 THENCE S55°15'22"W, 14.14 FEET; THENCE N34°44'38"W, 14.14 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING VACATION D; VACATION D AREA CONTAINS 100 SQUARE FEET, OR 0.002 ACRES, MORE OR LESS THENCE FROM POINT D S13˚58’57”E, 27.42 FEET, TO THE EAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL. EXHIBIT A DEPICTION IS ATTACHED HERETO AND IS ONLY INTENDED TO DEPICT EXHIBIT A - LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IN THE EVENT THAT EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION CONTAINS AN AMBIGUITY, EXHIBIT A DEPICTION MAY BE USED TO RESOLVE SAID AMBIGUITY. PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GALLOWAY & COMPANY, LLC BY JOSHUA J. MCCABE, PLS# 38638 5235 RONALD REAGAN BLVD., SUITE 200 JOHNSTOWN, 80525 22 KLB00034 JSP JJM 04/03/2026 EXHIBIT A VACATED BUILDING SETBACK DEPICTION 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 GallowayUS.com Galloway & Company, LLC© Galloway Instrument of Service. Not to be copied, disclosed, or reproduced without written consent. Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Date: VACATED BUILDING SETBACK DEPICTION 2831 FALL RIVER ROAD NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 16, T.5N., R.73W., OF THE 6TH P.M. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 3 OF 5 23 KLB00043 JSP JJM 04/03/2026 EXHIBIT A VACATED BUILDING SETBACK DEPICTION 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 GallowayUS.com Galloway & Company, LLC© Galloway Instrument of Service. Not to be copied, disclosed, or reproduced without written consent. Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Date: VACATED BUILDING SETBACK DEPICTION 2381 FALL RIVER ROAD NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 16, T.5N., R.73W., OF THE 6TH P.M. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 4 OF 5 24 KLB00034 JSP JJM 04/03/2026 EXHIBIT A VACATED BUILDING SETBACK DEPICTION 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 GallowayUS.com Galloway & Company, LLC© Galloway Instrument of Service. Not to be copied, disclosed, or reproduced without written consent. Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Date: VACATED BUILDING SETBACK DEPICTION 2831 FALL RIVER ROAD NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 16, T.5N., R.73W., OF THE 6TH P.M. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 5 OF 5 25 Community Development Estes Park Board of Adjustment June 2, 2026 Variance Request for Building Setback and Landscaping Buffer (2831 Fall River Rd.) Nathan Kinley, Kinley Built (Owner/Applicant) Presented by Joe Berek, Planning & Permit Tech. Objective The Applicant requests approval of a variance for a reduced building setback and landscape buffer along arterial street frontage (Highway 34) to allow encroachment by four (4) proposed short-term rental cabins. Present Situation •3.61 acres and zoned A (Accommodations). •Consists of two (2) 1.28-acre and 2.33-acre metes and bound parcels. •Parcel 3516400087 and Parcel 3516400034 respectively. •Both parcels are undeveloped. •The Applicant purchased the properties in 2025 with the intent to plat parcels into one (1) lot and develop approximately sixteen (16) detached short-term rental cabins. To date, no application for lot consolidation or development plans have been filed. Vicinity Map of Subject Area The property is located directly west of McGregor Mountain Lodge and appx. 850’ east of the intersection of Fall River Road and Fish Hatchery Road (west connection). Zoning Map FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ZONING USES SUBJECT PARCEL Accommodations A (Accommodations)Resort Cabins (proposed) NORTH Natural Resources; Conservation & Parks NR (Larimer County Natural Resources)Rocky Mountain National Park SOUTH Neighborhood Village E (Estate), A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) & EV E (Larimer County Estes Valley Estate Residential EAST Accommodations A (Accommodations)Resort Cabins WEST Accommodations A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity)Undeveloped Variance Description •The Applicant requests approval of a variance for a reduced building setback and landscape buffer along arterial street frontage. •§ 4.4.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), requires twenty-five feet (25’) front setbacks along arterial streets in the A (Accommodations) Zoning District. •§7.5.F.2.b.(3) requires all development on property abutting an arterial street provide a landscaped buffer with a minimum width of twenty-five feet (25’) along the entire frontage. •The applicant requests approval of the variance to allow encroachment by four (4) proposed short-term rental cabins. •Encroachment is proposed at a maximum of ten feet (10’) into the required front setback and landscape buffer. Site Plan Review Criteria Review Criteria #1: Special conditions exist that are not common to other areas. •Significant space constraints •Narrow property shape, steep grades, and rugged terrain Review Criteria #2.a: There may be beneficial use of the property without the variance. •The Applicant can have beneficial use of the property by revising the site design to avoid encroaching into the setback and landscape buffer. •However, units were strategically placed to minimize conflicts with terrain constraints and limit the removal of existing trees and shrubs. Existing Conditions Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #2.b: The requested variance is not substantial. •The requested variance is not substantial. Review Criteria #2.c: Character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered with the buildings. •The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered by this variance request. •Screening from adjacent properties is achieved through the approximately 50 to 70-foot grade change between the proposed development and the existing developments south of Fall River Road. Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #2.c: Character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered with the buildings. •§ 7.5.F.2.b.(5)(a)(i) requires one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage and one (1) shrub for each ten (10) lineal feet. The quantities of new trees and shrubs required in the landscape buffer will not be affected by granting the requested variance. •numerous mature evergreen trees currently exist within the CDOT right-of-way (ROW). If these trees are to remain, at the discretion of CDOT, their presence will provide further screening from adjacent properties. The following image, facing east, shows the existing trees on the left (north) side of Fall River Road. Existing Conditions Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #2.d: Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. •Public services and utilities will not be affected by the variance. Review Criteria #2.e: Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. •At the time of purchase, the Applicant was aware of building setback regulations but was unaware of the landscape buffer requirement. Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #2.f: Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. •Initial discussions with Planning staff considered the feasibility of placing the landscape buffer within the ROW, contingent upon approval from CDOT and Public Works. •EPDC §7.5.D.3.b. prohibits including ROW landscaping in the calculation of the mandatory buffer, even though such landscaping is permitted to exist within that space. •The proposed site could be redesigned to avoid encroachment. However, to reduce the impact on existing vegetation and avoid potential obstacles, units were strategically positioned to preserve as many trees and shrubs as possible. Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #6: Whether the variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. •The applicant proposes encroachment of only the corners of four of the proposed structures rather than requesting a reduced building setback and reduced landscape buffer along the entire 914 lineal feet of arterial frontage on Fall River Road (Highway 34). •The proposed encroachment extends a maximum of ten feet (10’) or 100 square feet into the setback, consistent with the image shown below and in Exhibit A (Attachment 4). Proposed Encroachment 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 Applicant proposes to develop approximately sixteen (16) detached short-term rental units. This use is classified as “Resort lodge/cabins” and is permitted by right in the A (Accommodations) zoning district in accordance with Table 4-4 in § 4.4 of the EPDC. 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 recommends the following conditions of approval of the variance: 1.Encroachment by the proposed development must be generally consistent with Exhibit A. 2.Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed development, the two subject parcels are required to be platted via the Minor Subdivision process in accordance with EPDC § 3.9.D.1.a. Review Criteria, cont. Review Criteria #8 Cont. •Staff recommends the following conditions of approval of the variance: 3.A development plan for the proposed structures must be approved before issuance of any building permit. 4.In accordance with EPDC § 7.3, the development plan must identify all existing trees and comply with established Tree and Vegetation Protection standards. The development plan submittal must incorporate a landscape plan that emphasizes the preservation of trees to the maximum extent feasible, provided that such landscaping—whether existing or newly introduced—does not interfere with the sight distance requirements necessary for development access. Public Notice & Comments Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. •Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on May 14, 2026. •Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on May 15, 2026. •Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. (No public comment has been received) Public Notice cont. Action Recommended Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with a reduced front building setback and landscape buffer consistent with Exhibit A (Attachment 4). Advantages This variance would allow the Applicant to move forward with a development plan to develop sixteen (16) short-term rental cabins. Disadvantages There are no known disadvantages of the variance request. Sample Motions •I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front building setback and landscape buffer along Fall River Road consistent with Exhibit A for the subject properties addressed as 2831 Fall River Road in Estes Park. •I move to approve the variance request to reduce the front building setback and landscape buffer along Fall River Road consistent with Exhibit A for the subject properties addressed as 2831 Fall River Road 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].