Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2026-07-07 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK 170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room Estes Park, CO 80517 Tuesday, July 7, 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 June 2, 2026 PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address). ACTION ITEMS: 1. Variance Request to the front setback on the north property line (Cleave St) from 8’ to 0’ to allow construction of a screened enclosure 157 W Elkhorn Ave 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. June 30, 2026 1 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 2, 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. Committee: Board: Jeff Moreau, Colin Godsey, Steven Neilson Attending: Attending: Chair Moreau, Member Neilson, Director Steve Careccia, Permit Technician Joe Berek, Town Board Liaison Bill Brown, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Godsey Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were 3 people in attendance. INTRODUCTIONS: APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Neilson) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 2-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Neilsen) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 2-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: none ACTION ITEMS: 1. Building Setback and Landscape Buffer 2831 Fall River Road Planner II Washam, presented by Joe Berek, Planning Technician 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. The applicant purchased the properties in 2025 with the intent to plat them into one (1) lot. 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) proposed short-term rental cabins. Encroachment is proposed at a maximum of ten feet (10') into the required front setback and landscape buffer. Staff recommended 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 any building permit is issued. 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. DISCUSSION: Member Neilsen questioned whether mature evergreen trees located in the CDOT right- of-way were guaranteed to remain. Director Careccia clarified that they do not control DR A F T 3 Board of Adjustment, June 2, 2026 – Page 2 those trees, so they were included in the plan as an enhancement rather than a structural necessity for the variance, and noted that CDOT could remove the trees at its discretion. In addition, it was noted that potential fire-mitigation regulations might necessitate their removal in the future. Public Comment: Curtis Kelly, 2850 Fall River Road, pointed out that while the terrain provides some natural screening, it wouldn't completely hide the proposed development. He noted that the cabins would still be visible from homes below, especially toward the center and east side. Expressing concern about the impact on established neighborhoods, Kelly emphasized that the area isn't just hotels and lodging; it includes residential properties with deep roots in the community. He urged the board to consider typical neighborhood concerns , such as dark skies, noise, and privacy. He asked that the development remain sensitive to the sightlines of adjoining homes throughout the approval process. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Neilsen) to approve the variance request to reduce the front building setback and landscape buffer along Fall River Road, consistent with staff-recommended conditions for the subject properties addressed as 2831 Fall River Road in Estes Park. The motion passed 2-0. REPORTS: With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:18 a.m. Jeff Moreau, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary DR A F T 4 5 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: Joe Berek, Planning & Permit Technician Date: July 7, 2026 Subject: Variance Request for Building Setback 157 W. Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park Tebo Estes, LLC, Owner JWC Elevations, Applicant Steve Lane, BAS1S Architecture PC, Consultant Objective: The Applicant requests approval of a variance to eliminate the minimum front setback along the north property line (Cleave Street) to allow the construction of a roof and screen wall within the eight-foot (8’) setback required in the CD (Commercial Downtown) zoning district pursuant to Table 4-5 of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). Approval of the requested variance will also bring the placement of the existing cooler into compliance. Present Situation: The subject property is an existing commercial building, originally built in 1954. The building, which has frontage on both Cleave St. and W. Elkhorn Ave. has been remodeled within the last year and converted into the Stanley Chocolate Factory. An existing restaurant space within the building is currently being remodeled to include a bar, pizzeria, and BBQ kitchen. The area in question is the only location on the property that can accommodate trash and recycling receptacles, as the sides have zero-foot (0’) setbacks, and W. Elkhorn is the primary street frontage. Additionally, there is need for firewood storage to support the new BBQ kitchen. The north side of much of the existing 6 building encroaches into the eight-foot (8’) setback, and there exists a restaurant cooler on the northeast corner that has a revocable encroachment permit associated with its location (Attachment 4). The Applicant applied for a building permit in May 2026 for the Commercial alteration/remodel of the restaurant space without knowledge that the proposed screened structure would not be exempt from building setback requirements, as outlined in EPDC § 1.9.D.1.b. Once informed of the regulations, the applicant moved forward with the subject variance request. Existing Conditions Variance Description: The Applicant requests approval of a variance to eliminate the front setback along the north property line to zero feet (0'). The CD (Commercial Downtown) Zoning District, under § 4.4.C.4. (Table 4-5) of the EPDC, requires a setback minimum of eight-feet (8’) and maximum of sixteen-feet (16’) to the front property line. The applicant proposes to construct a roof and screen wall within the setback. The new roof and screen wall will tie into the Stanley Chocolate Factory/Carousel to create a cohesive façade and aesthetic . (Attachment 3) 7 Proposed Site Plan, enlarged Location and Context: The 0.28-acre lot is located at 157 West Elkhorn Avenue in downtown Estes Park, approximately 350’ west of Big Horn Drive. The property is bound by Cleave St. to the North, and W. Elkhorn to the South. The subject property and surrounding adjacent properties are zoned CD (Commercial Downtown). Vicinity Map 8 Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Comprehensive Plan (2022) Zone Uses Subject Site Downtown CD (Commercial Downtown) Retail/Restaurant North Downtown CD (Commercial Downtown) Outdoor seating (Lower portion of 203 Cleave St.) South Downtown CD (Commercial Downtown) Commercial East Downtown CD (Commercial Downtown) Stanley Carousel (under construction) West Downtown CD (Commercial Downtown) Commercial/Retail Zoning Map 9 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. Staff Finding: Special conditions exist due to the buildings positioning between W. Elkhorn and Cleave St. The historic placement of structures along W. Elkhorn Avenue up to the edge of sidewalk creates exceptionally shallow lots. This creates a practical difficulty for the business owner to find adequate locations for storage & trash disposal. The front setback requirements along both frontages significantly limit the beneficial use of the property without approval of the requested variance. 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: Without the variance, the property can be used for its intended purpose, however the benefit of providing the variance would be significant to the adjacent properties by tying into the Stanley Chocolate Factory architecture, creating a more cohesive façade along Cleave St. The proposed use of screening for trash and other unsightly materials is an additional benefit of the variance if approved. 10 b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: Although the Rules of Measurement outlined in § 1.9.D.1.b.1 of the EPDC would permit the roof to encroach up to three-feet (3’) into the setback, the variance request for a zero-feet (0’) setback is substantial. While substantial, there are no known adverse impacts to other properties or uses of Cleave St. 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: Staff feel that the requested variance would support the ongoing enhancement of Cleave St. The proposal aligns with and maximizes the Town's investment in the Cleave Street improvements. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would have no adverse effects on public utilities. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant and/or its forebears have owned the property since 1989. The property was recently acquired by the current owner, who was unaware of the setback requirements. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant could pursue other methods of screening that would not require a variance. The Rules of Measurement outlined in EPDC §1.9.D.1.b.2 permits fences and walls to encroach into the setback so long as height and other restrictions set forth in the EPDC are followed. However, the applicant wishes to provide a more attractive and secure screening, which is subject to building setback requirements. A variance is the only method of relief for this request. 11 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. 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 variance would be the least deviation required from the Development Code. However, the full dimensional request of a 0’ setback is required to accommodate the proposal. 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 12 this Code for the zoning district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The proposed use is permitted by right in the CD (Commercial Downtown) zoning district, pursuant to Table 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 condition of approval of the variance: 1. Encroachment by the proposed development must be generally consistent with the Site Plan (Attachment 3). 2. Design shall blend with the adjacent architecture to create a cohesive façade and promote the overall and continued enhancement of Cleave St. 13 Review Agency Comments: The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment with the building permit application for the proposed roof and screened enclosure. Comments were received by Tony Drees with Estes Park Sanitation District stating that access will be needed for the grease interceptor. Public Notice: Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no public comment has been received. • Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on June 22, 2026. • Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on June 19, 2026. • Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website. • Proof of sign posting provided by the applicants on June 23, 2026. Advantages: This variance would allow the Applicant to construct a roof and screened enclosure that ties into the Stanley architecture and improves the facade along Cleave Street . Disadvantages: There are no known disadvantages of approving the variance to reduce the front setback along the north Cleave St. property line to allow the construction of a roof and screened enclosure. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with the front setback along the north property line (Cleave Street) consistent with the Site Plan (Attachment 3). Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low. 14 Sample Motions: • I move to approve the variance request to eliminate the front setback to zero- feet (0’) along the north property line to allow the construction of the proposed screened enclosure consistent with the Site Plan for the subject property addressed as 157 W. Elkhorn Avenue in Estes Park. • I move to approve the variance request to eliminate the front setback to zero- feet (0’) along the north property line to allow the construction of the proposed screened enclosure consistent with the Site Plan for the subject property addressed as 157 W. Elkhorn Avenue 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. Statement of Intent 3. Site Plan 4. Temporary Storage Agreement (1992) 15 16 17 18 19 Stanley Chocolate Factory + Carousel Old Church BBQ + Pizzeria Setback Variance Statement of Intent May 12, 2026 Project Location The proposed project is located at 157 Elkhorn Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. Legal description: Lots 14-17 and east 20-feet of Lot 18, Block 3, Town of Estes Park Second Amended Plat, Estes Park, parcel no: 3525225014. Lot area = 0.28 acre. The zoning is CD – Commercial Downtown. Owner The property is owned by Tebo Estes, LLC. Project Description The property is an existing building, originally built in 1954, remodeled within the last year into the Stanley Chocolate Factory. An existing restaurant space is being remodeled now, to include a bar, pizzaria and barbeque kitchen. The BOA request is for relief from the requirements of Table 4-5 of the Estes Park Development Code regarding setbacks. The minimum front setback in the C-D district is 8-feet, which technically applies since this is a street frontage. In effect however, Cleave street is the operationally the ‘rear’ of the lot since Elkhorn Avenue is clearly the primary street front and most buildings downtown, including this one, have zero lot lines on the sides. The north side of much of the existing building encroaches the 8 foot setback, and there exists a restaurant cooler on the northeast corner that has a revocable permit associated with its location. The area in question is the only location on property that can accommodate trash and recycling receptacles. Additionally there is need for firewood storage to support the new BBQ kitchen. These components are permitted to occupy this space- however, the owner/applicant would prefer to support the recent efforts of the Town to beautify the Cleave Street frontage by providing an attractive, bear- resistant, secure enclosure for these support elements, rather than simply leaving them to detract from the recent area enhancements. This request is to allow a roof and screen wall to be constructed within the 8-foot setback and to permanently acknowledge the cooler. As part of a façade improvement project on this portion of the existing building, the proposal would create/rebuild and/or re-side the cooler area and extend the roof across the rear of the building, which an unconditioned enclosure for firewood and a gated/screened area for multiple trash and recycling containers, all designed to tie the Stanley Chocolate Factory/Carousel aesthetic into one. Site Access and Parking Access to the property is directly from Cleave Street. No parking is provided. Pedestrian/Bike Access Pedestrian access is from the new sidewalk installed on Cleave Street. Utilities Electrical service is provided by Town of Estes Park. The project anticipates installation a minimal amount of security lighting associated. No water, gas or sanitary services are anticipated/required as part of the 20 proposed project. The roof+ enclosure has been designed to avoid conflict with the existing sanitary lines and grease trap. This will require field coordination. Stormwater + Drainage Historic drainage is across the existing grade to Cleave Street. The existing pattern would not change. Fire Protection The existing building is protected by a fire sprinkler system, which would need to be extended to protect the new roof. Lighting Lighting provided would be dark-sky compliant, anticipated as surface mounted under the roof. Landscaping There are no landscaping requirements. Schedule The project would commence as soon as possible pending approvals. Review Criteria Per the requirements noted in Section 3.6.C of the EPDC, the following are the applicable criteria for review of this request: Special Circumstances Exist that result in a practical difficulty of strict application of the code requirements: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Without the variance, the property can be used for its intended purpose, however the ‘benefit’ of providing the variance would be significant to the adjacent properties and Cleave Street as a whole. b. Whether the variance is substantial; The variance request does request essentially the full 8-feet, however, this is not substantial in light of the existing conditions, including the existing non-conforming buildings along Cleave and the already existing cooler location. It does not substantively change the nature of the building or area, except for the better. 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; The essential character of Cleave Street would actually improve as a result of the variance - it would support the continuing improvement of commercial properties along Cleave and enhance the investment made by the Town and neighboring properties in the Cleave Street enhancements. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; The variance would have no adverse effect on public utilities. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and The applicant and/or its forebears has owned the property since 1989. The property was just recently acquired by the current owner. 21 f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. A variance is the only method of relief to allow a roof over the wood storage and trash containers. 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. This is a specific request for a particular circumstance, given the pre-existing conditions and limited area on the property to accommodate these support facilities. 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. N/A 5. No variance shall be granted increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the number otherwise permitted. (Ord. 17-24, §1(Exh. A)) N/A 6. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The full dimensional request is necessary to accommodate the proposal. 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. The use is a permitted use by right in this zoning district. 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. 22