HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2023-01-03
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, January 3, 2023
9:00 a.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and recorded and
posted to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Board of Adjustment Minutes dated November 1, 2022
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Habitat for Humanity TBD Raven Avenue Senior Planner Woeber
Applicant requests a ten-foot variance to allow a lot width of 50 feet in place of the
required 60-foot lot width.
2. El Mex Cal 160 South St Vrain Planner I Washam
The applicant requests a variance to allow a reduced front setback of eight and three-
tenths feet (8.3’) and a reduced arterial road setback of twenty-two feet six inches (22’-
6”) in lieu of the fifteen feet (15’) and twenty-five feet (25’) respective setbacks.
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.
December 28, 2022
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 1, 2022
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting was held virtually in said Town
of Estes Park 1 day of November 2022.
Committee: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board
Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Moreau, Vice-Chair Newsom, Board Member Holtzman,
Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Senior
Planner Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town
Board Liasion Barbara MacAlpine
Absent: none
Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Holtzman/Newsom) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 3-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holtzman) to approve the Consent Agenda with
the addition of Senior Planner Jeff Woeber in attendance. The motion passed 3-0.
Public Comment: none
VARIANCE REQUEST 223 Cleave Street Senior Planner Woeber
Planner Woeber reviewed the request to approve a variance to allow a zero-foot (0’) front
setback for the upper-level decks and roof eaves and six feet (6’) for the structure at street
level for the planned BAT Building. The third story of the proposed project will include a
step back of no less than eight feet (8’) from the building
façade as required.
Applicants for the project were on hand to answer questions: Joe Calvin, Architect; David
Bangs, Engineer; Nick Smith, owner. Calvin stated that the building would be within feet
of the rock wall but not built into the wall.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request for
reduced front setbacks for the subject property addressed at 223 Cleave Street, with
findings outlined in the staff report and the requirement of setback certification when the
project is complete. The motion passed 3-0.
REPORTS
The Comprehensive Plan is nearly finalized and will be brought to the Planning
Commission on November 15 and the Town Board on December 6.
There being no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m.
Jeff Moreau, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
dra
f
t
3
4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner
Date: January 3, 2023
Application: Setback Variance for Lot Width
TBD Raven Avenue
Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley, Inc., Owner/Applicant
Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, Representative
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: (Future Land
Use): Mixed Residential Neighborhood
Zoning District: RM Multi-Family Residential (RM)
Site Area: 0.82 Acre
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Conduct a public hearing to reconsider and make a decision on a previously-approved
request from the Applicant for a ten-foot variance to allow a lot width of 50-feet in place
of the required 60-foot lot width.
Location: The property is legally described as Lot 2A, Ward Minor Subdivision. It is
located approximately 300 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Lone
Pine Drive and Raven Drive.
5
Background
The 0.82-acre subject property is in an RM (Multi-Family Residential) Zone District. It is
undeveloped and was created through the Ward Minor Subdivision, approved and
recorded in January 2021. The Minor Subdivision was done in anticipation of further
subdividing the property, which will enable Habitat for Humanity to develop single family
residences on five proposed lots.
A somewhat similar variance was processed and approved by the BOA on October 5,
2021. That variance was also for 50-foot lot width, but for four lots. The current plans
are reconfigured into five lots, plus a separate “outlot.”
The EPDC, under Section 3.6.D., requires an applicant to “…apply for a building permit
and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one
year of receiving approval of the variance…” Failure to do so renders the BOA approval
null and void. With that being the case the variance has expired. The applicant has
also reconfigured the proposed subdivision from what was initially proposed.
Variance Description:
The Applicant seeks a 10-foot variance to the minimum lot width standard for the RM
Zone District. If approved, the property will be subdivided into five lots, each 50 feet in
width. There will also be an outlot for a detention pond. Developing this property
presents significant challenges related to drainage and the location of a sewer main,
which would otherwise need to be relocated.
Location and Context:
The subject property is located approximately 400 feet from Big Thompson Avenue
(Highway 34), and is zoned RM (Multi-Family Residential). Property across Raven
Avenue to the north is also zoned RM and contains a multi-family residential use. RM
zoned property to the west contains condominiums. Property to the east is zoned E
(Estate), and contains a single-family residence. A, (Accommodations) zoned property
is located south of the subject site and contains the Rocky Mountain Hotel and
Conference Center.
6
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
7
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Comprehensive Plan Zone Uses
Subject
Site
Mixed Residential
Neighborhood RM (Residential) Residential
North Mixed Residential
Neighborhood
RM (Multi-Family
Residential) Residential
South Mixed-Use
Centers & Corridors A (Accommodations) Accommodations,
Motel
East Suburban Estate E (Estate) Residential
West Mixed-Use
Centers & Corridors
RM (Multi-Family
Residential)
Residential,
Condominiums
Project Analysis
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are
not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated 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: Special conditions exist. Development of the property with five
lots would not be possible without the outlot, which would contain drainage
improvements and an existing sewer line. The requested variance will not nullify
or impair the intent and purposes of the lot width standards, the EPDC, or the
Comprehensive Plan.
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: There may be beneficial use of the property without the variance.
8
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial, with the 10-foot reduction in lot
width being a 16.7 percent decrease from the required 60 feet.
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be
substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a
substantial detriment as a result of the variance;
Staff Finding: The character of the neighborhood would not be altered with a lot
width of 50 feet. There are numerous condominiums in this area, which include
fairly high density, attached structures. There would be little or no detrimental
impact to adjoining properties.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: Public services such as water and sewer will not be adversely
affected by the variance.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The Applicant was aware of the required minimum lot width, but
may not have realized the difficulty of relocating existing sewer lines and
providing effective drainage improvements
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The applicant could plat and develop fewer lots without a
variance.
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 conditions affecting the Applicant’s property are not general
or recurrent.
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.
9
Staff Finding: If the variance is granted, other applicable RM Zone District
regulations would not preclude the applicant from creating five single family lots.
5.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The proposed variance would be the least deviation from the
EPDC regulations.
6.Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of
this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance
is sought.
Staff Finding: The proposed variance is for a use permitted in the RM Zone
District.
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 does not recommend conditions.
Reviewing Agency Comments:
This request has been referred to all applicable review agencies staff for review and
comment. There was no objection to the proposed variance. The Public Works
Department noted the need for a sidewalk along Raven Avenue, which was a condition
of approval for the Ward Minor Subdivision which created the subject lot.
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements.
Written notice was mailed to adjacent property owners on November 23, 2022.
Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on November 25, 2022.
The application was posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage on
October 26, 2022.
Advantages:
Approval of the variance will allow development of an additional Habitat for
Humanity housing unit.
Disadvantages:
No disadvantages have been identified by staff.
10
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the variance request.
Level of Public Interest:
Low. To date, no public comments have been received for the variance application.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, in accordance with
the findings as presented.
I move that the Board of Adjustment deny the variance, finding that [state findings for
denial].
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments:
1. Application Form
2. Statement of Intent
3. Proposed Site Plan
4. BOA Minutes, d. 10/5/2021
11
12
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
APPLICATION FEES
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.
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
Phone
Cell Phone
Mailing Address
Mailing Address
Fax
Phone
Contact Information
Consultant/Engineer
Email
Mailing Address
Record Owner(s)
Applicant
Revised 2020.04.01 ks
13
14
STATEMENT OF INTENT
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY VARIANCE REQUEST
October 18, 2022
This is a Variance Request for Lot 2A, Ward Minor Subdivision, parcel
#2520316002, Located in the Southwest ¼ of Section 20, Township 5 North, Range 72
West of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
A similar variance was approved in October of 2021; however, it has expired. We
are requesting a 10’ variance to the 60’ minimum lot width on Table 4-2 in the RM
zoning for this parcel with the ultimate goal to provide sorely needed Workforce Housing
in Estes Park. The existing topography and utilities on the property constrain the
developability of this parcel and make it rather costly to optimize the number of units
Habitat for Humanity can build.
The original plan for this property was to develop 5 lots at 60’ wide. The
property is 300 feet long, so 5 lots would fit on the property and meet the code. In order
to fit these 5 lots we would have to move the sewer main and the drainage channel to the
east end of the property. It turned out, the complications of the drainage was very
difficult to design due to grades along the south and east side. In addition, the future
drainage detention requirements add more complications and becomes rather costly to do
so in the small amount of area along the south line. We planned to do the drainage
detention along the southern 20’ of the entire property, however, directing the drainage
along the south side then along the east side were not conducive to this plan. The sewer
main is possible to move but would be rather costly for Habitat for Humanity to move.
After further analysis, it is easier to make the drainage work by creating (5) 50’ wide lots.
East of the easternmost lot will be a 50’ wide out-lot for the property for the future
drainage detention area. With this design, we would not need to move the sewer main
and keep the existing drainage path.
We have provided a potential footprint to show that the building plans can fit
within the setbacks of a 50’ wide lot. These plans are from past Habitat housing projects,
however they may vary slightly when the building design is finalized for this project.
The existing Lot 2A can easily be served by all major utilities. A sewer main runs
in Raven Ave as well as across the east portion of the property. Water service exists in
Raven Ave. Power service also exists on Raven Ave. Access to the five proposed lots
would come off Raven Ave. There is an existing storm drainage across the south portion
that we plan to pass through. With the additional drainage area on the east portion of the
property, we can create our own detention pond for this development. A wetland study
was done by Van Horn Engineering in 2009 and has determined that there are no
wetlands present on the property. Dense vegetation exists in the southeast of the property
due to the concentration of storm drainage across this section of the property, however
15
they don’t contain all the qualities of a wetland. The property does not lie within a
Mapped Estes Valley hazard area.
In determining Practical Difficulty, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the
following factors:
A.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the
variance; There can be beneficial use of the property by spending the
money to move the sewer and the drainage, however this variance would
provide more beneficial use to the community in this time of needed
workforce housing by providing more units at a cheaper cost.
B.Whether the variance is substantial; The variance amounts to a 16.7%
variance which 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; The variance would not
change the number of units we could develop on this property, so we
don’t believe it would affect the character of the neighborhood. There is
a hotel to the south, condominium units to the west and duplex housing
to the north. It is an appropriate density for this area.
D.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public
services such as water and sewer; The Variance would not affect the
delivery of utilities. In fact it would simplify the delivery because we
would not have to move the sewer main.
E.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement; The applicant did purchase the property with the
knowledge of the difficulties, but thought they were easier to overcome.
It turns out the grades are not very conducive to providing effective
drainage and the costs of replacing sewer mains are rather prohibitive
to Habitat for Humanity or to anyone looking to serve income levels at
40-60% Area Median Income with homeownership opportunities.
F.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance. The predicament can be solved, but not
without excessive costs that can not be passed on to potential
homeowners or the loss of a unit. Habitat would like to provide as many
units as possible given the extreme need in the area.
Thank you for your consideration of this variance request,
Sincerely,
David Emerson on behalf of Habitat for Humanity
Lonnie Sheldon on behalf of Van Horn Engineering
16
17
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 5, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually in said Town of
Estes Park on this 2 day of March 2021.
Committee: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Board
Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Newsom, Vice-Chair Moreau, Board Member Holtzman,
Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Planner II
Alex Bergeron, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Town
Board Liasion Barbara MacAlpine
Absent: none
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. New Director Jessica Garner was
introduced.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holzman) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 3-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the Consent Agenda. The
motion passed 3-0.
VARIANCE REQUEST, Ward Minor Subdivision, Planner II Alex Bergeron
Planner Bergeron reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Habitat for Humanity, is
seeking a 10’ variance to the minimum lot width standard for the RM (Residential-
Multifamily) zone district to permit the subdivision of the Property into five lots, four of
which are 50’ wide and one which is 100’ wide and features a 50’ drainage easement.
The request is rooted in site challenges related to drainage and the existing sewer main
location; the costs of remedying would be very burdensome to the non-profit entity.
Staff recommended approval of the variance request.
DISCUSSION:
Joe Coop, VanHorn Engineering, explained that parking would be within the setbacks,
exceeding the requirements. David Emerson, Habitat for Humanity, thanked the Board
for their time and consideration of this project. Units will be income-restricted. Public
Works Engineer Jennifer Waters noted that Public Works is in support of this variance.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request as
written with the condition of setback certificates. The motion passed 3-0.
18
Board of Adjustment, October 5, 2021 – Page 2
REPORTS
Director Garner discussed the Comprehensive Plan update process. The committee
meets every two weeks, and things are progressing as planned. All documents, meetings
and handouts are available at engageestes.org.
There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.
Wayne Newsom, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
19
20
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director
From: Kara Washam, Planner I
Date: January 3, 2023
Application: Setback Variances for Front and Arterial Road
160 1st Street, Estes Park
EPCO Properties LLC (Mark & Jean Rissmiller), Owner/Applicant
Jacob Gruver, Van Horn Engineering, Representative
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: (Future Land
Use): Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors
Zoning District: Commercial Outlying (CO)
Site Area: 0.99 Acre
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a reduced front setback of
eight and three-tenths feet (8.3’) and a reduced arterial road setback of twenty-two
feet six inches (22’-6”) in lieu of the fifteen feet (15’) and twenty-five feet (25’)
respective setbacks required in the CO (Commercial Outlying) Zoning District under
Section 4.4.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). The applicant is
proposing to eliminate three parking spaces in the subject area to construct a deck
for outdoor seating at the El Mex-Kal Family Restaurant.
Background:
The subject property is located on the northern end of a strip mall owned by the
applicant, EPCO Properties LLC. The commercial strip shares a large parking lot
northeast of the building with on-street parking along CO-7 to the west, two spaces
21
2
along the south side of the building, and four spaces along the northwest side of the
restaurant. The proposed deck would eliminate three out of the four parking spaces
along the northwest side of the building and would accommodate up to thirty-two people
or eight tables with four chairs.
Variance Description
This is a request to approve a variance to allow a reduced front setback of eight and
three-tenths feet (8.3’) and a reduced arterial road setback of twenty-two feet six
inches (22’-6”) in lieu of the fifteen feet (15’) and twenty-five feet (25’) respective
setbacks, as shown below and depicted on the attached drawings.
Location and Context:
The 0.99-acre lot is located at 160 1st Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection
of 1st Street and S. Saint Vrain Street in Estes Park. The subject property and adjacent
properties to the north, east, and south are zoned CO (Commercial Outlying). The
property to the west, known as the Estes Park Convention Center, is zoned A
(Accommodations). This area has a mixture of uses, including restaurants, retail, office,
hospitality, and other services.
22
3
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
23
4
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Comprehensive Plan (2022) Zone Uses
Subject
Site Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors CO (Commercial
Outlying) Commercial
North Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors CO (Commercial
Outlying) Gov/Organization
South Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors R-2 (Two-Family
Residential)Residential
East Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors CO (Commercial
Outlying) Commercial
West Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors A (Accommodations) Hospitality
Project Analysis
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic
conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are
not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated 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: Special conditions exist, due to the location of the existing four
parking spaces along the northwest side of the building. Eliminating these
parking spaces could provide a safety benefit to the community as vehicles
currently have to back up onto 1st Street. The requested variance will not nullify
or impair the intent and purposes of the setback standards, the EPDC, or the
Comprehensive Plan.
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;
24
5
Staff Finding: There may be beneficial use of the property without the variance if
the area remains as existing, with four parking spaces. However, the design and
utility of the proposed deck would be constrained without the variance.
b.Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance of the front setback is somewhat substantial due to
the proposed setback being nearly half of what is required by code. However, the
arterial road proposed setback variance is minor when compared to the existing
setback between the arterial road and the face of the building, which is
substantially less than the twenty-five feet required by code.
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 does not find that the mixed-use character of the immediate
neighborhood would be altered, nor would adjoining properties 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.
Staff Finding: Public services such as water and sewer will not be affected by
the variance. The proposed deck will not obstruct the manholes used to access
the grease interceptor.
e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The Applicant purchased the property years ago and prior plans
to request a variance for constructing a deck are unknown.
f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: There is no alternative to mitigate the Applicant’s predicament
aside from a complete redesign of the Project.
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.
25
6
4.No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing
or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots
beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to
the applicable zone district regulations.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
5.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The proposed variances would be the least deviations from the
Development Code.
6.Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not
permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of
this Code for the zone district contained the property for which the variance is
sought.
Staff Finding: The applicant requests a setback variance in order to construct a
deck for outdoor seating. Outdoor seating or food service is permitted by right in
the CO (Commercial Outlying) zoning district per Table 4-4 of the EPDC.
7.In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its
independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so
varied or modified.
Staff Finding: Staff recommends that if the variance is approved and the deck
constructed, all four parking spaces on the northwest side of the property be
removed. The Applicant suggested that only three of the four parking spaces
would need to be removed. However, leaving one parking space would not be
practical and could present safety issues for customers using the deck for
outdoor dining.
Review Agency Comments
The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public
Works supports approval subject to the removal of all four parking spaces rather than
just the three spaces indicated in the Statement of Intent. Keeping a space adjacent to
the new deck is not approved per EPDC Chapter 7.11 K.1. Public Works acknowledges
the bollards shown on the proposed sketch plan are a safety amenity. In addition, if the
variance is approved and the deck constructed, Public Works will verify that there is no
encroachment in the sight triangle. No other agencies had concerns or comments.
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been
received for the variance request.
•Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on December 14, 2022.
26
7
•Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on December 16, 2022.
•Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website on December 15,
2022.
Advantages
This variance would allow El Mex-Kal to construct a deck that would be beneficial to the
community of Estes Park by creating expanded business opportunities through the use
of outdoor seating. In addition, the proposed construction of the deck would eliminate
the four parking spaces on the northwest side of the building. These spaces have posed
a safety concern due to vehicles backing up directly onto 1st Street. The proposed deck
should not encroach on the sight triangle; design shows approximately 0.5’ of
clearance.
Disadvantages
The proposed variance and deck construction would eliminate four parking spaces from
the property. However, an informal traffic study provided by Van Horn Engineering
suggests that existing parking remains sufficient for the property’s needs after the
proposed increased square footage of customer service area and the eliminated parking
spaces.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with
setbacks consistent with the El Mex-Kal Project plans provided in Attachment 3.
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the variance request for reduced front setback and reduced arterial
road setback for the subject property addressed as 160 1st Street in the Town of Estes
Park, with findings as outlined in the staff report.
I move to deny the requested variance with the following findings (state
reason/findings).
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
1.Application
2.Statement of Intent
3.Sketch Plan for El Mex-Kal Setback Variance
27
t
ISubmittal Date:11/14/2022
ESTES PARK
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
Record Owner(s):EPCO Properties LLC (Mark and Jean RissmitLer)
Street Address of Lot:160 1st St,Estes Park,CO 80517
Legal Description:
Subdivision: Reclamation
Parcel ID #:2530206008
Lot Size 0.99 acres
Existing Land Use
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service
Proposed Water Service
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service
XcelExistingGasService
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site?
‘Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):
Complete Mailing Address
Primary Contact Person is
1043 Fish Creek Rd.Estes Park,CO 80517
0 Applicant [9 ConsultantiEngineer
o Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
C Statement of intent {‘‘‘‘,n 3 s.c of the EPDCJLo 3-1 0-3-11 see attached)o I copy (folded)of site plan (drawn aa scale of 1”=20’)**
o 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11”X 17’)o Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planningestes,org
The site plan shall include information in Estes Park Development Code Appendix B.VIl.5.
The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review
(see the Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded.
Town 01 Estes Park .P.O.Box 1200 -e.170 Mac Sregor Avenue Estes Park,GO 80511
Community Development Department Phone:(970) 577-3721 .Fax:(970)586-0249 -e,www.estes.org/Cbrp
[V i 2ü22
Lot:8-12 Block:2 Tract:
Mixed CommerciaL
Mixed Commercial
Zoning Commercial Outlin (CO)
Town
Town
0
0
Well
Well
C Other (Specify)
o Other (Specify)
EPSD 0
0
UTSD
EPSD
Other
00
0 Septic
UTSD
None
C
0 Septic
Yes No
Name of Primary Contact Person Jacob Grover
fl Owner
Revised 2020.04.01 ks
28
Record Owner(s)
Mailing Address
Phone
EPCO Properties LLC
P.O.Box 2192,Estes Park,CO 80517
Cell Phone (214)416-9430
Fax
Email mark.hssrnitter@epcoproperties.com
Contact Information
Applicant Mark Rissmitter
Mailing Address P.O.Box 2192,Estes Park,CO 80517
Phone
Cell Phone (214)-616-9430
Fax
Email mark.hssmiuer@epcoproperties.com
Consultant/Engineer Jacob Gruver
Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Rd.Estes Park,CO 80517
Phone (970)586-9388x1 1
Cell Phone (630)-699-8917
Fax
Email jacobg@vanhomengineehng.com
APPLICATION FEES
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at:
www.estes.org/planninaforms
All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal.
DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL
UNDER REVIEW
FOR THIS PROPERTY
a 970-577-3721
Revised 2020.04.01 ks
29
OWNER &APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
As Owner,I certify the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and I am the record owner of the property.
As Applicant,I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property.
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:
https://www.niunicode.com/library/CO/estes_valley/codes/development_code
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 this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is
incomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date.
I understand that a resubmittal fee may be charged if my application is incomplete.
The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is
determined to be complete.
I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
identification access to my property during the review of this application.
I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Park Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure
to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming null and void.I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
I understand that I am required to obtain a “Development Proposal Under Review’sign from the Community
Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road.I
understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked.I
understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10)business days prior to the
Estes Park Board of Adjustment hearing.
I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request,“Failure of an applicant to apply for a building
permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (‘I)year of
receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.”(Estes
Park Development Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:Mark D.RissmiL[er
Applicant PLEASE PRINT:Mark D.RissmiLter
Signatures:
Owner
________________________________________________
Date /—
Applicant -Date Q(/Cf 2 Jr
Revised 2020.04.01 ks
30
IN
November 2022
Statement of Intent for the Setback Variance at the El Mex-Kal Restaurant at
160 1MSt,Estes Park,CO 80517
Lots 8-12.Block 2,Reclamation Subdivision
This letter describes the intent of the applicant,Mr.Mark Rissmiller.to pursue a setback variance
that would allow for the construction of a deck attached to the El Mex-Kal restaurant.
Property information:
The subject property.El Mex-Kal Family Mexican restaurant,is located at 160 l St..Estes Park,
CO 80517, across
I’St from the American Legion Post 119,and across CO-7 from the Ridgeline
Hotel.The restaurant is located on the northern end ofa strip mall.covering a variety of
businesses including,but not limited to.a liquor store, physical therapist’s office,and a
laundromat.EPCO Properties LLC.owned by Mr.and Mrs.Rissmiller.currently owns the entire
strip and rents out the units to different businesses.The strip shares a large parking lot north of
the building.with parking alongside CO-7.two spaces along the south side of the strip,and 4
spaces artached to the El Mex-Kal restaurant,along l St.The current occupancy of the building
is set at 49 people.
Proposed development:
Mr.Rissmiller is seeking a setback variance that would permit the construction ofa deck attached
to the restaurant.The proposed deck would seat at most 32 people.or 8 tables of4 chairs.The
proposed deck would also eliminate three of four the parking spaces along I
°St.An informal
parking study found the existing parking at the property to be sufficient for the property’s needs,
even when accounting for the increased square footage of customer service area as well as the
three eliminated parking spaces,as several of the adjacent businesses have few cars,if any,
entering and leaving the lot.
Conclusions:
Allowing the construction of the deck in question would benefit not only the property owner,but
the greater community and local economy as well. The restaurant currently
does not have any
outdoor seating,and the installation of outdoor seating would allow for expanded business
opportunities during the summer,benefiting the local community both economically and
recreationally.Approval of this variance would not substantially alter or impact the character of
-i?t9
LAND SURVEYS
SUBDIVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
IMPROVEMENT PLATS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SANITARY ENGINEERING
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING
VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
1043 Fish Creek Road •Estes Park,Colorado 80517 •970-586-9388 •E-mail:infovanhornengineering.com
31
the neighborhood.as many of the buildings immediately surrounding the restaurant are also
commercial.The proposed deck will not cover the manholes that are used to access the grease
interceptor,and no additional effects on water and sewer access will occur.Eliminating these
parking spaces would be of benefit to the safety of the community as well,as vehicles would no
longer need to back up directly onto 1SE Street.The proposed deck was found to be entirely out of
the sight triangle,with approximately 0.5’of clearance.For the restaurant to make this expansion
into outdoor seating.a variance will be necessary,as any deck that would be constructed would
encroach into the setbacks prescribed by the propertvs zoning.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you in the future regarding this matter.
Regards,
Jacob Gruver
Project Manager
jacobg(i)vanlioriicngineering,coni
(630)-699-8917
1043 Fish Creek Road •Esles Park,Colorado 80517 •970-586-9388 •E-mail:infovanhornengineering.com
32
33
34
35
36
NOTICE
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., a meeting will be held by the Estes Park
Board of Adjustment to consider variance applications for the properties and purposes
described below.
Legal Description: Lots 8 - 12, Block 2, Reclamation Subdivision, Estes Park
Type and Intensity of Use: A Variance is proposed to allow a front setback (to Highway
7/S. Saint Vrain Avenue) of 22.5 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required and a front setback
(to 1st Street) of 8.3 feet in lieu of the 15 feet required in the CO (Commercial Outlying)
Zone District. The property is located at 160 S. Saint Vrain Avenue, Estes Park.
Owner/Applicant: EPCO Properties LLC, Mark Rissmiller
Legal Description: Lot 2A, Ward Minor Subdivision, Estes Park
Type and Intensity of Use: A Variance is proposed to allow five lots to have lot widths of
50 feet in lieu of the 60 feet required in the RM (Multi-Family Residential) Zone
District. The property is located on the south side of Raven Avenue, approximately 350
feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Raven Avenue and Lone Pine
Drive in Estes Park.
Owner/Applicant: Habitat for Humanity of the Saint Vrain Valley, Inc., c/o David
Emerson
For more information, please visit www.estes.org/currentapplications or contact the
Community Development Department at planning@estes.org or 970-577-3721.
37