The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2015-07-28Prepared: July 23, 2015 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, July 28, 2015 2:00 P.m. — Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated June 2, 2015 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 1740 HUMMINGBIRD LANE Owner: Mary Wilson Applicant: Paul McKinley Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25 setbacks in the E-1—Estate zone district. Request to encroach 21 feet into the side setback to allow existing cabin footprint and foundation to remain after unpermitted removal of existing dwelling during construction of a permitted addition. Due to the size of the lot and the zone district, the entire lot is considered in the setback. Staff: Phil Kleisler 5. REPORTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 2, 2015 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Pete Smith, Vice-Chair Don Darling, John Lynch, Jeff Moreau, Wayne Newsom Attending: Smith, Lynch, Newsom Also Attending: Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Members Moreau & Darling Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were two people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the April 7, 2015 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-0, with two absent. 3. LOT 1, THOMPSON'S PINEWOOD ACRES RESUBDIVISION, 610 Pinewood Lane Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The application is for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25-foot setbacks in the E-1—Estate zone district. The applicant, Steven Rusch, requests to encroach entirely into the side setback for construction of a proposed storage shed. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant recently received Town Board approval to vacate an easement in the area of the proposed shed. The property was platted in 1972, and there was a 10 foot utility easement platted along the west side of the lot. Since the subdivision was built out, utilities have been built along the street rather than along the property lines. Staff determined that in order for the shed to be built along the property line, the utility easement would need to be vacated, and a variance would need to be granted. The location of the proposed shed will be located on the eastern portion of the lot, approximately two feet from the property line, and would be adequately hidden from street view. The proposed shed will be 120 square feet or smaller, and will not require a building RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 June 2, 2015 permit. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. There were no concerns expressed. Two letters of support from adjacent neighbors were received. The easement vacation request required sign off by each utility agency, and there were no concerns expressed at that time. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Other areas of the lot, particularly the easterly area, become seasonably wet and boggy. Such conditions may pose substantial maintenance issues. 2. Practical Difficulty: a. The residential use may continue without the variance b. The variance is not substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes have adequate separation from the project site and many have similar sheds. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance. The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 40 feet to the east, and has provided a letter of support for the project. d. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the property in 2013, after the adoption of the current setback requirements. f. A variance appears to be the only practical option to construct the shed, as proposed. 3. Staff found the seasonal conditions as submitted in this variance petition are not general and recurrent in nature, and it would not be reasonably practicable to form a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 4. Staff found the variance, if granted, will not 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. 5. Staff had no comment in determining if a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. Staff found this accessory use is permitted in the E-1—Estate zone district. 7. Staff had no recommended conditions of approval. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the variance request. Public Comment Steven Rusch/applicant stated the shed will not exceed 120 square feet or 12 feet high. It will not require a building permit. The exterior will most likely be cedar siding, at the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 June 2, 2015 request of the nearest neighbor. The east side of the property is a muddy bog, and placing the shed at that location is not practical. Public comment closed. Staff and Member Discussion The members were supportive of the location. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Newsom) to approve the variance request with the findings recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-0 with two absent. 4. REPORTS A. Planner Kleisler reported an application was received for the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center, previously referred to as EPIC, A variance received approximately two years ago has lapsed, and the applicant has submitted a new application. Due to a code amendment a couple of years ago, the variance will be the last part of the development to be heard. If the application moves forward according to the review schedule, the variance will be heard at the September meeting. The variance requests will most likely contain a height variance, river setback variance, and a possible variance to the floor area ratio. Details are still being verified. The application also includes review by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, with decisions to be made by the Town Board. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 a.m. Pete Smith, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Southwest view (prior to demolition) 1740 Hummingbird Lane Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org ( FP ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: July 28, 2015 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which sets a minimum building and structure setback distance of 25 feet from all sides of the property in the E-1 Estate district. The applicant received a variance in November, 2014 for a 580 square foot addition. During construction the contractor began demoing the principal structure. Because this was unpermitted work, Larimer County immediately issued a Stop Work Order. Given the extent of the demolition (see attached photos), Town staff determined that an additional variance was needed to reconstruct the principal house in the same location. Background Prior to demolition, the site contained a 548 square foot home constructed in 1935. The home used septic service and Hondius water service. The applicant proposed to construct a 580 square foot addition and remodel the existing cabin in an effort to increase the functionality of the home. The initial plan also included the demolition and reconstruction of a deck and the relocation of an accessory building to the southern portion of the lot. Approval of the November, 2014 variance allowed this addition to have a side setback of ten (10) feet and front setback of 15 feet in lieu of the 25-feet requirement. The entire lot is within the regulatory setback, given the lot width of 45 feet and side setbacks of 25 feet. The Applicant received a similar variance from the Board of Adjustment on August 5, 2003 to construct a 1,200 square foot building addition; this addition never constructed. LOCATION: 1740 Hummingbird Lane (County) APPLICANT/OWNER: Mary Wilson/Owner, Paul McKinley/Engineer STAFF CONTACT: Philip Kleisler, Planner II REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies. No concerns were expressed during review. Public. As of July 22, 2015 one (1) written comment has been received; comments received after this date will be posted at www.estes.org/CurrentApplications for the Board's review and summarized in the staff presentation. The concern expressed in the written comment centers on the existing septic system. Staff has relayed those concerns to the Larimer County Building Division, who confirmed that the Health Department would be reviewing the application through the building permit phase. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated 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: Staff finds that special circumstances and conditions exist relating to lot size and width. The existing house was built in 1935, prior to the establishment of setback requirements. The house was located legally at the time it was built. With present setback requirements, the entire house is considered non- conforming. The lot is significantly sub-sized for the E-1—Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of one (1) acre. This parcel, at 0.26-acres, is comparable in size to lots in the R—Residential district, which have a 1/4 acre minimum lot size, 10-foot side setbacks and 15-foot front setbacks. The project would not require a variance if zoned "R". 1740 Hummingbird Lane Page 2 of 5 Setback Variance Request The E-1 district also has a minimum width of 100 feet. The width of the subject lot is 45 feet. One purpose of lot width requirement is to allow for enough space for a functional building site. In this case the 25-foot setbacks overlap one another, making it impossible to build anything without a setback variance. The mean lot size of parcels within 500 feet is 1.3 acres, five time larger than the subject lot (0.26 acres). 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 must receive a variance to reestablish a residential use on the property. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: Staff finds the variance is not substantial. The footprint of the original house is not expanding. 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 would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. The proposed addition is generally consistent with the size and character of surrounding homes. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the applicant purchased the home in 2005, after the adoption of the current setback standards. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: When asked by staff, the applicant's Architect expressed practical concerns with moving the footprint of the former principal structure 1740 Hummingbird Lane Page 3 of 5 Setback Variance Request towards the center of the lot. The main concern expressed during that time centered on the functionality of the floor plan layout. Regardless of location any structure will be entirely nonconforming to setback standards; therefore, it is impossible to build or expand a structure without a variance. The only other options for the Applicant are to (i) purchase an adjacent property, combine both lots and rebuild to meet setbacks, or (ii) rezone the property to a district with less restrictive setback standards. 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 as submitted in this variance petition are not general or recurrent in nature. 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: The variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: Staff finds the variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 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: Residential uses are permitted in the E-1 Estate 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 Comment. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends that a registered land surveyor verify building placement. 1740 Hummingbird Lane Page 4 of 5 Setback Variance Request STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance conditional to: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes, approved site plan, and building plans. 2. The proposed structure shall not extend beyond the original footprint and shall remain a single story. 3. Prior to pouring foundation, the applicant shall submit a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). 1740 Hummingbird Lane Page 5 of 5 Setback Variance Request 06/22t201,5 1,1;4;0 •-•41.1 • :;)% %Iv • .1.0.1-11 " 36. •-•'. • Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Request for Variance Statement of Intent 1740 Hummingbird Lane, Estes Park, CO This application is a request for a variance from the setback requirements of Table 4-2 in the El zoning from 25-feet to a maximum of 4-feet on the east property line. This variance is sought to further the setback variance of 10-feet applied for and approved in 2014. This would allow the existing cabin footprint and foundation to remain, keeping the same layout and feel to the property. The prior scope of work with the approved variance consisted of remodeling the existing cabin, approximately 550 square feet, and constructing a new 580 square foot addition. The new addition would comply to the approved 10-feet setback while the existing cabin would remain farther towards the east property line. During the remodel of the existing cabin the walls where removed causing the building to be considered new and requiring a further variance. The walls were not removed to alter the intent of the approved plan, only to ease the remodel process and ensure the building was eradicated of mold. The proposed plan is to rebuild the cabin walls exactly where they were located. Review Standards 1) Special circumstances exist. The existing cabin, built in 1935, was legally conforming when built. The property is in Larimer County, and was rezoned and included into the Estes Valley Development Area in 1999. The lot, being 45 feet wide, is narrow for its size, and is zoned E-1 Estate(1 acre minimum) despite the lot being just over a Y4 acre. The E-1 setback of 25 feet makes any structure on the property nonconforming. The proposed layout best positions the building, both existing and the new addition, on the lot to preserve spacing between the neighboring lots and buildings due to the lot layouts and building orientations. 2) Practical Difficulty -Though the property was previously in use, the owners would like to update and improve the property to make for better use. -The variance seems substantial relative to El zoning requirement, which would disallow any structure -The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, nor would the adjoining properties be caused impairment as a result of the sought variance. -The variance would have no effect on public service -The owners purchased the property in 2005, at which time it was legal, nonconforming -Sought variance is the property's best layout solution 3) The conditions reflected in this application are not general. They are specific to this particular home and property's size and orientation 4)No reduction in lot size or increased number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5)Proposed plan is not excessive since it will result in keeping with the neighborhood layout and character. 6)The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. CE11Vr JUN 3 0 2015 ! Prepared by Paul McKinley Dp Construction and Design LLC Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Town Well "Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service Town Well Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) / Are there wetlands on the site? Yes 1/N'o Varia nce Q. -2,1 ac et, r Zoning C C 5 4-0,4,— EPSD VISD /Septic EPSD 'ityrSD Septic Other "None ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date. General Information Record Owner(s): °-`7' 5ce,, Street Address of Lot ! Hui-y.0A Legal Description Lot: Block: Tract: Subdivision: -e .3 4- ,, Parcel ID # : 11 • • 5 1 Site Information Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): ir...4tc 5 r e AA. -G. 111 541 on", Primary Ccotact Informal. en Name of Primary Contact Person M k 1,p Complete Mailing Address -10 -';'• ,L2."‘,Le. I (C Sh-1.72 - Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Attachments /Application fee (see attached fee schedule) /ptatement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) ./1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule) Copies must be folded. Town of i=sles Pork Ke, P.O. Box 1200 e 170 MacGregor Avenue .x Estes Pork, CO 87517 Community Development Department Phone: 19701 577-3721 4, Fox: 19701 586-0249 .e www.esles.org/CornrnunityDevehoprnent Revised 2013.08.27 KT Contact Information Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone j 0. i m.1 v\J , k Q r\ 35 1 S Go 1.(1 1-1.1k Di .•-•<.- , L, c../tfc,. ?/.3c:'!>cS Cell Phone (q1(:::) q 30 - 0-C Fax Email lj,) 1 ‘ SC r'N, :11 6.? ,..),-,., \ , ,,,,,,-._ Applicant PA L I M c t. ,....4---/,1 Mailing Address ,. , i 1 -10(2 -6 ,)ooki, DI < -e_ 1 , t-_-_--A,‘„./.(r, c c R0-2 --,-,_ 1 Phone Cell Phone ( 303 s..) S$1-1 - OG 0 3 Fax Email 4 p C.f:, fsS A Li t C,..4 ; tr., i‘ CA A LiCk '.? ,' c-N r - \ CEL-p Boka 1 y . C.,c-vV\ Consultant/Engineer g r_vs 1 A , .- 1,.A 1-C t 4 k.:, L 41— PC Mailing Address q ';'_.<ciz e, r., Tkcrs-'\ e Sc.-". 1 Nr.- , CI.- ).:1,:') Phone 7-'7-171:).,-- 5c Cell Phone Fax Email rule' b ,,,,... .'.- c e". APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at . All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All tees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 KT APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ;I. 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. OP 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 Valley Development Code (EVDC). 0. I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, 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 Valley Development Code is available online at: IP, 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 EVE/C. lb, I understand that this proposal may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. PP I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 10. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. IP. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Planning Commissioners with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Development Review Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule may 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. Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT Applicant PLEASE PRINT. Pc k- M Signatures: Record Owner Dale Applicant Date I. Revised 2013.08.27 KT Max. Net Zoning Density District (units/acre) RE-1 q10 Ac RE —E1/2.5 Ac e i E 1 R 4 R-1 R-2 rRM Residemal (Ord. Use s Max= 8 and §14) Min = 3 Senior In, inkonal Living Uses Max = 24 Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Standards (1) (4] (Ord 25-07 §1) Area Width (rig ft.) (ft) 10 A: I 0 Property Line (Ord 25-07 §1; Front (ft ) 0 Tor 1f. other strew 25-A rtera.,.• 15- Other siret.i .,2 — Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks 12] Ord. 15-11 Side (11.) oI t o 0 10 171 §1) Rear (ft.) 5[.., .A I 5 r 1 .f. Max. Building Height ift) [8] i_ 311.0 '30 r _ 30 J0 Min. Building Width (ft.) 0 — . '0 20 _f__ 5 Ac i .?00 100 —.- 1 Ac. ( .: Ac. I:5, 75 '4 A - r:11 5.000 50 15 10 -r 10 15 inglt•-f n iy = 18.000, Dupl x = ,000 (10 25-,1rtetals, 1= • other strews 10 40.000, 5,400 sq ItJunil [6 (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15- 11 §1) Sen or Insttutronal Living Uses. Ac, 50 LOtS Greater than 100,000 sq. 1!,: 200 2 - - rl n I - ober treet (Ord 15-11 §1) 10 JV .?0 1 31 Notes to Table 4.2 (1) ( )See Chaps r 4. 4.3.1), which allows a reduction in min mum lot s!ze (area) for c,ngle-fam y res dent at subd v.; Ion . that are required to t de private open are per Clap r 4 4,3.0.1. (b) See Ch pt r 11, 11.3, which allows a r act en n m n mum lots. ( r ) for clustered tots n open space devctopmenl (C) See Ch Writ §11.4. wrii::h allow a r d ct on n rn n mum lot s ri ) 1 r ttairable hc us n (d) See Chap r 7, §7.1, which requites an incr a e n minimum lots z (are .) for development on • teep sicipe: (Ord. 2-02 ;1) (2) See Chapter 7, §7.6. for r quired setbacks from stream/river corridors and wr-••tands. (Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 t 1) (3) II private well or sept c y 'ems are u ed, the m:rimorn lot area shall be 2 acres. See also ihe regulal ons se' for n 'Adequate Public Fact es.' (4) AU development, except eevelopment one s ncle- ,rn.ly dwell no on a ngle lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor Area ravo (FAR) of .30 and a max mum lot coverage of (Ord. 25.07 §1) (5) Minimum budding width requ rements shall not apply to mobile homes located h a mobile home park. (6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.l, and 27,000 s.t. r peel vely. (Ord 18-01 ;14) (7) All structures shall be set back from pubs or privar roads that serve more 'h n four adjacent or ott-sit dw II s or to . The setback shall be measured from the ed putilic or private road , ih edge of the dedicated ri ht-ol-w y or r orded easement or the property line. whicher r produc a greater settack. he etbacti, shat to the s me a the applic Oh morimum bJlIcling/structure setback (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1. §1.9.E which allows an increase In the maximum he ght of bu Wings on slopes (Ord. 18-02 ) (Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) Id Parcel Number Site Address Name Name1 Mailing Address Mailing City Mailing State Mailing Zipcode Site City Sub Number GIS ID 1 3527404052 721 CHICKADE E LN JOHNSON JAMES PHILLIP NANCY K 721 CHICKADE E LN ESTES PARK CO 805178504 ESTES PARK /270573 72884 2 3527404048 1751 HIGH DR SPICKNALL LOLA MAE 175 W 6TH ST AKRON CO 80720 ESTES PARK /270573 5 3 3527404057 1740 HUMMINGB IRD LN WILSON RICHARD ROBB/MAR Y FRANCES 4481 RIBBON CT LOVELAND CO 80537 ESTES PARK /270573 70433 4 3527404054 710 LAUREL LN WANDS ROBERT J/CAROL L ALFRED J/DOROTH Y P-LIFE ESTATES 424 CARLILE AVE PUEBLO CO 81005 ESTES PARK /270573 72882 5 3527404019 616 CHICKADE E LN RAWLINGS TEMPLE INVESTME NTS LLC(.501) GOULD LAURA JANE BLAND(.166 ) 7008 N LAKE FRONT DR WARR ACRES OK 731326430 ESTES PARK /270573 110948 6 3527404047 1731 HIGH DR FRANKLIN LAURIE B TRUST 5345 MISSION WOODS RD MISSION WOODS KS 66205 ESTES PARK /270573 6 7 3527404916 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GENERAL DELIVERY WASHINGT ON DC 20250 /270573 93032 8 3527404014 1701 HUMMINGB IRD LN STARR VELVA J/DEBORA H L TRUSTEES STARR VELVA J REVOCABL E TRUST 1806 COLONIAL PL HASTINGS NE 68901 ESTES PARK /270573 53842 9 3527404925 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GENERAL WASHINGT DELIVERY ON DC 20250 /250573 72506 Id Parcel Number Site Address Name Name1 Mailing Address Mailing City Mailing State Mailing Zipcode Site City Sub Number GIS ID 10 3527404031 780 LAUREL LN LLOYD PATRICIA W JOSEPH ANN L 5352 MAGGIE LN EVERGREE N CO 80439 ESTES PARK /270573 73026 11 3527404052 721 CHICKADE E LN JOHNSON JAMES PI-IILLIP NANCY K 721 CHICKADE E LN ESTES PARK CO 805178504 ESTES PARK /270573 72625 12 3527404053 1760 HUMMINGB IRD LN WHITE DANIEL M/ANN MARIE WHITE WILLIS H/MAURIA K PO BOX 84815 FAIRBANKS AK 997084815 ESTES PARK /270573 68080 13 3527404022 680 CHICKADE E LN EOFF DONALD D/DONALD DOUGLAS 680 CHICKADE E LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 ESTES PARK /270573 72636 14 3527404015 1706 HUMMINGB IRD LN CAMPBELL RICHARD M CAROLYN W 1440 LITTLE RAVEN ST NO 307 DENVER CO 80202 ESTES PARK /270573 53844 15 3527404049 1771 HIGH DR TERRY LONNIE/JU LIE ANNE TERRY 524 WYOMING CIR GOLDEN CO 80403 ESTES PARK 1270573 68084 16 3527404056 CHICKADE E LN MATUREY STEVE L/NANCY J 8292 W EASTMAN PL LAKEWOO D CO 80227 ESTES PARK /270573 73031 17 3527404018 1730 HUMMINGB IRD LN HENNINGE R FAMILY TRUST 4965 ELDRIDGE ST GOLDEN CO 80403-1767 ESTES PARK /270573 73148 18 3527404046 1681 HIGH DR BOOTH THOMAS MIKOLITCH JANET 1681 HIGH DR ESTES PARK CO 805170000 ESTES PARK /270573 7 19 3527404023 1751 HUMMINGB IRD LN NOFTSGER KRISTEN 4917 E LAKE AVE CENTENNI AL CO 80121 ESTES PARK /270573 73033 k A , I,ti a. v ( Thank you, Daniel M. White , i ., \ ;) \ --, "--,„1 ..:: L,..:. 7-:,,,,--:, , • k. l { -',1 ,-... ''( 1 ll't Ill % • `r t c I I •.-4. s 1 - .i.. ry,. 1, (4,;.,,,t, ..± .r'S I L. r-r 'L it F-‘ i ti~„ 1 • -.:. t 1 \ t , , r • • • • `~y,v,rC 1 l -- Please accept the following concerns 1 have regarding the variance request for 1740 Hummingbird Lane. I am the owner of the adjacent property to the west, 1760 Hummingbird Lane. In the end, I think that the applicant is a great neighbor and I am supportive of her 1-story improvement to the property. In my opinion, however, the variance allows development of the property for which 1 have not seen a viable plan for sewer or one that looks beyond the proposed 1 story vision. My concerns are the following: I. The site plan is currently for a I story residence. The application says that the variance request is specific to the 1 story plan attached to the application. 1 am supportive of that plan. If 1 understand a variance correctly, however, a variance is not specific to an addition plan, it is a condition of and on the property. If the 1 story residence is built next year, and a 2 story residence is preferred sometime in the future, would the variance have to be revisited? My guess is not. but I am not entirely clear on that. 2. The proposed sewage disposal is connection to the Upper Thompson sewer district. The proposed sewer line on the site plan has the pipe extending halfway down the owners property with no proposed connection to UTSD. When I spoke to an architect that was previously employed by the owners of 1740,his plan was to then run the sewer line across the front of my property to connect to sewer. There are no easements and he did not get my permission to run the sewer line across my property. Although I am in favor of having UTSD service in our neighborhood, I have not been party to a viable easement plan. 4. If1740 connects to UTSD and a sewer line is then accessible, it is my understanding that there may be a mandatory connection fee for existing properties. Will I and neighboring properties be required to pay a hook-up fee to UTSD? 5. Prior to the subdivision between 1760 and 1740, the residence at 1740 was used by the occupant at 1760 as a guest house. It is my understanding that 1740 may still use the same septic tank as my residence at 1760. If the demolition of 1740's current sewer disrupts the operation of my septic system then accommodations for repair should be made. EC7E-TVF-7/ JUL 2 2 203 C_QMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1.,t.; vv, •-\ tht10-10 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: f;lanwhite(aacsalaska.net 01cleislereestes.org; planninciPestes.ONI clanwhitefalacsalaska.net Wilson Residence Variance Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:43:39 PM 1 . ! APPROX LOCATION OF EXISTING SEPTIC FIELD (TO REMAIN - NO ADDED BEDROOMS) APPROX SANITARY SEWER LINES 0 I— cc 0 -z 21 L f.\9 N90'00'001/V \\AG- 45. 9 'zor o I 15' FRONT SETBCK d:,31 NEW GRAY rJ31 PARKINg 3P'ACE "21 ****:/ • VARIANCE APPROVED 10' SIDE SETBACKS REMOVE EXIST TREE APPROX EDGE OF NEIGHBORING - STRUCTURE EDGE OF GRAVEL ROAD/DRIVES VARIANCE APPROVED EXISTING PARKING__ — SPACE „fi N..-/ 1820 ISTING HONDIUS WATERLINE- _ —~SCISTING (1-STORY)CA REPLACE EXIST ROOF I TRACT AREA 11.648 §F 9 1 I 0.267 ACRES I o E-1 ZONING S89°17'490 E 45.26' (NORTH 260') ofO cn i N N EXISTING 25' E-1 -FRONTSETBACK N EXISTING DECK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING 145sf ACCESSORY BUILD -TO BE RELOCATED wI '5143 I --1 2 Site Plan 1" =20' Mary Wilson Cabin Remodel & Addition 1740 Hummingbird LnEstes Park, Colorado 80517 0 t_D ip 0 C M O BAS S O