Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2016-07-12Prepared: July 7, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:00 a.m. — Town Hall Board Room 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated June 7, 2016 3. LOT 24, SUNNY ACRES ADDITION, 553 W. Elkhorn Avenue Owner: RSDP, LLC Applicant: Peter & Dana Maxwell Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.4, Table 4-5 which requires 25-foot setbacks in the A-Accommodations zone district where abutting a residential zone district. Request to allow a side setback of 18.5 feet for a proposed development to include one new building containing four accommodations units and the remodel of one existing unit from a guest suite to a guest laundry facility and accessible restroom. Staff: Audem Gonzales 4. LOT 9, BLOCK 3, WINDCLIFF ESTATES 591, 3323 EIGER TRAIL Owner: Andrew B & Stephanie K Newberg Applicant: Nathan Kinley Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires 25-foot setbacks in the D-1 Estate zone district. Request to allow a 7-foot front and a 14-foot rear setback. Request for variance from EVDC Section 1.9.E.2 which states the maximum height allowed after slope adjustment is 40 feet in all zone districts. Request to allow 2.2 feet over this allowance, after slope adjustment. Variances would allow construction of a proposed single-family dwelling. Staff: Carrie McCool 5. REPORTS A. Board of Adjustment vacancy — County Representative 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 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment June 7, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Don Darling, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, and John Lynch Attending: Chair Darling, Members Newsom, Lynch, and Smith Also Attending: Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Moreau Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were five people in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated May 3, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-0 with Member Moreau absent and Member Lynch abstaining. 3. LOT 4A, 2"d AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 4 & 5, SPANIER SUBDIVISION, 1774 Spur 66; The Landing at Estes Park Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Jennifer and Jerome Johnston, requested variances from EVDC Section 7.5.F.2.b(3) Landscape Buffering and Screening, and 7.5.G.2.b(1) Parking Lot Landscaping. The request is to allow a 12.5-foot wide street and parking lot landscape buffer in lieu of the 25- foot wide required buffer in the A—Accommodations zone district. These areas overlap on the lot. The site is in the unincorporated Estes Valley. Planner Gonzales stated there was an informal 20-foot buffer. A recently approved amended plat reduced the buffer area to 12.5 feet. There is a portion of the site that could meet the required buffer, but the location is not ideal regarding the rest of the development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 June 7, 2016 Planner Gonzales stated the site recently underwent a Development Plan review to redevelop into Resort Lodge/Cabin use. The plan was approved March 29, 2016 and includes remodeling the existing cabins and lodge building and building two new cabins and a private recreational hall. The application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. A notice was published in the local newspaper. No major comments or concerns were received by affected agencies, and no public comments were received. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: The property was originally developed in the 1970's with three cabins along the river, and has been used with this configuration for the last 40 years. With the Amended Plat and Development Plan applications, an additional ten feet of right- of-way was required to be dedicated, reducing the existing buffer area. The proposed parking area will be asphalt and have curb and gutter. Code requirements for this type of development at this location call for a 25-foot landscape buffer along Highway 66. Providing a 25-foot street landscape and parking lot buffer would require the parking area to be reduced by 12.5 feet, which would eliminate the drive aisle and make the existing and proposed parking inaccessible. Staff feels the site had many constraints in the pre-development stage and has address many of those issues. The variance request would relieve practical and topographical difficulties associated with redeveloping an existing site. 2. In determining "practical difficulty": a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the existing configuration of the site may continue to be used. Any substantial redevelopment of the site would require a Development Plan, which would require the landscape buffers. The existing buffer is not code compliant in regards to width or landscape units. The existing strip of land is merely grass and dirt, while the proposed buffer would consist of a mix of trees, shrubs, and boulders. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance request is for a 50% reduction from code requirements, from 25 feet to 12.5 feet. The parking area location is below the view plane of Highway 66, and proposed landscaping will help shield and buffer parking from the road. The existing grass area in the additional 10-feet of right-of-way will not be altered. 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 found the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining property would not suffer a detriment. Staff believes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 June 7, 2016 the redevelopment proposal would enhance the neighborhood. The parking area will be improved. Additional parking is proposed on the western portion of the site that would include the same 12.5 landscape buffer width. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found the approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. All public service locations were approved with the development plan. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; The applicant assumed Highway 66 was a Minor Collector Street, based on the Larimer County classification. Through the Amended Plat process, additional right-of-way was required to be dedicated. Per code, any street with a 60-foot right-of-way or greater is designated an Arterial Street, and landscaping standards increase from a 15-foot buffer to a 25-foot buffer. f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found because this is a redevelopment project, the constraints of the site are numerous. Meeting landscaping code standards would require the existing parking area to be moved to the lower portion of the site. This would conflict with fire access and river setback requirements. Formalizing the existing parking area is the most practical solution for this property. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief: Staff found the variance request is a result of additional right-of-way dedicated through the Amended Plat and Development Plan process. A variance would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the site to be redeveloped as proposed. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff found all proposed landscaping shall be irrigated per the approved Development Plan. The applicant shall also provide as-builts for the parking area and sidewalks which shall ensure compliance with the approved plans. Staff has no additional conditions of approval for this variance request. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request with no recommended conditions. Member and Staff Discussion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 June 7, 2016 Chair Darling inquired about the location of the original sign (in the right-of-way). Planner Gonzales stated the original sign was recently removed, with a new sign erected entirely on the applicant's property. Public Comment The applicants were in attendance but had no comment. Member and Staff Discussion Planner Gonzales stated the appropriate place for a trail or sidewalk along this property would be right along the road within the right-of-way. The county would be responsible for plowing a sidewalk. If a trail was installed instead, the Town and County would negotiate the maintenance. The county engineer had no comments on the variance, but did have comments on the development plan. The grassy area on the plan will remain in order to have a larger pervious area. Several members commented on how much of an improvement to the area this redevelopment would be. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance with the findings presented by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. LOT 1A, LARIMER TERMINALS SUBDIVISION, 444 ELM ROAD; Polar Gas Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The property is located in the unincorporated Estes Valley and is currently occupied by Polar Gas. The variance request is to allow a 0.92-foot front setback in lieu of the 15-foot required front setback required in the i-1—Industrial zone district. Approval of the variance would allow an existing 144 square foot building to remain at its current location, which is almost entirely in the setback. Planner Gonzales stated the building was constructed in 2007 without proper building permits. Earlier this year, staff conducted a site analysis in regards to a code violation. At that time, staff gave the property owners the option of moving the building or applying for a variance. The building is currently used as the office for Polar Gas. Planner Gonzales stated the application was routed to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. A notice was published in the local newspaper. No major comments or concerns were received by affected agencies or the general public. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 June 7, 2016 Staff found the property is approximately 1.727 acres and zoned /4—Industrial. Only 50% of the site is being used due to the steepness of slope. The existing building was placed on a concrete foundation and is located almost entirely within the 15-foot front setback. Staff found no reason the building could not have been placed at a different location. At 144 square feet, size was not an issue. There are no special circumstances or conditions associated with this property that would justify the current building location. 2. In determining "practical difficulty": a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found without the variance, the shed/office building would need to be relocated on the property. If the variance is granted, the building may continue to be used at its current location. Relocating the building would create additional costs for demolition and new construction. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance request is for nearly a 100% reduction from Code requirements; therefore, substantial in that regard. Staff did not find that allowing the building to continue to be used at this location was a substantial request, as it has been there since 2007 with no comments or concerns presented to the Community Development Department. 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 found the character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment. No complaints or documented adverse impacts have been noted in the nine years the building has been in place. Drainage, lighting, access, etc. were reviewed with this application. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. The application was routed to various reviewing agencies and no comment or concerns were received in regards to the 10-foot utility easement. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff found the shed/staging office was constructed in 2007 when the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) setbacks were in effect. A county building permit was not applied for in 2007, which would have flagged this location as inappropriate. f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; Staff found the building could be placed at a new location, compliant with the EVDC. Because the building is constructed on a permanent concrete RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 June 7, 2016 foundation and no complaints or concerns have been received, staff believes the location of this small office building is not detrimental or poses any risks to the property or adjacent properties. Relocating the building is not financially practical. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief: Staff found a variance would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the building to continue to be located at this location on the property. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff recommends the applicant apply for a Larimer County building within 30 days. if the building permit is denied, the variance would become null and void. Public Comment Nathan Reed/applicant stated he leased the property from Doug Klink, and the property line was incorrectly determined. Had he truly known where the property line was, he would have built the structure in a compliant area. Mr. Reed stated the Zoning Approval Form was completed and approved by former Planner Dave Shirk following a site visit; however, a county building permit was never applied for. He presented a copy of a zoning approval form, required for projects in the EVDC area but outside of town limits. (Note: this was the first staff had heard of or seen an approved zoning form for this location). Chair Darling stated a site plan would have shown the property lines and setbacks. Mickey Leyba/applicant stated they called the county building department and there was some confusion as to whether or not a building permit was required for this size building. Chair Darling recommended the applicants speak with the Larimer County Building Department regarding the building permit process. Member comments included but were not limited to: the applicant did his due diligence prior to construction; the 2003 adopted building codes were in effect in 2007, and permits were required for any structures over 100 square feet; if the road is expanded in the future it will be completely on the subject property. Conditions of Approval 1. If required by the County, a building permit shall be applied for with one month of variance approval. If the building permit is not issued by the County, the Variance shall become null and void. 2. Proof of the County permit issuance shall be provided to Community Development staff. 553 West Elkhorn Avenue — Setback and Lot Coverage 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 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: June 12, 2016, 9:00AM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Table 4-5, footnote 6 — In A-Accommodations setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot abuts a residential zoning district boundary. The Variance would allow an 18.5-foot setback in lieu of the 25-foot required setback. The second request for a variance is to EVDC Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts requiring a Max Lot Coverage of 50% for A-Accommodations zoning districts. The Variance would allow 62.7% impervious lot coverage in lieu of the 50% max allowed. The purpose of the Variance is to allow for the construction of a 4-unit accommodations building on an existing site. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 553 W. Elkhorn Ave., within the Town of Estes Park VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: RSDP, LLC STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow for a 4-unit accommodations building to be located on an existing site. The first variance would allow an 18.5- foot setback in lieu of the 25-foot required setback. The second variance would allow 62.7% impervious lot coverage in lieu of the 50% max allowed. The subject property is currently developed with the Maxwell Inn. The main building currently has 17 units. The applicant is proposing to convert one of the existing units into a public laundry/bathroom for guests. A Development Plan was approved by Community Development Staff for a 4-unit accommodations building to be located on the site. This would bring the accommodations unit count up to 20 for the property. The proposed building is located with the 25-foot side setback. A variance would be the only option to accomplish this proposal. The entire subject property is currently grandfathered in with a 62.2% impervious lot coverage. Code requires in the A-Accommodations zoning district that a property be no more than 50% impervious. A variance would be the only process to allow the proposed 62.7% impervious lot coverage. Figure 1: East properly line, 25-foot required setback from residential zone districts, 18.5 foot setback proposed. 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: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 57 surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department "Current Applications" webpage. The site has been posted with a "variance pending" sign. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No major comments or concerns were received. Public Comments. Staff has received no written public comments as of July 6, 2016. Any written comments received after this date will be posted to the "Current Applications" webpage under public comment. 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: Setback Variance The existing accommodations building was constructed in 1946 in the middle of the property. Additional space to develop is limited to the southeastern portion of the site. Existing parking areas further limit the available space to develop. Lot Coverage Variance The site has operated with its current configuration for several years. The existing lot coverage is 62.2% impervious. Code requires a max of 50% impervious coverage. The proposal calls for an increase of 0.5% lot coverage. The applicant has proposed a plan that removes Staff feels strongly that the site has many existing constraints that limit the location for further development. The site is allowed up to 20 accommodations units per Code density calculations. Currently, the site is built with 17 units. The Variance request would relieve practical difficulties associated with developing on an existing site. 553 W. Elkhorn Ave. — setback and lot Page 2 of 6 coverage variance 1,407 SF of impervious coverage by altering the parking area but keeping the appropriate amount of parking spaces. The new 4-unit accommodations building along with new concrete walks add 1,590 SF of impervious coverage to the site. The actual gain in impervious coverage is 0.5%. Staff feels this project meets the intent of Code and the applicant has made an effort to reduce the legal non-conforming lot coverage % while trying to obtain the permitted amount of accommodations units. 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: Setback Variance Only 17 of the 20 units in the main building are being used for occupancy. The remaining 3 units were repurposed in 2013 but are very small and are located underground with little daylight. The applicant has proposed to build a separate 4-unit structure to offer modernized hotel rooms for guests. Of the existing 17 units, one unit is proposed to be converted into a guest laundry/bathroom, bringing the total number of units on-site up to 20. Staff feels that full utilization of the allowed density is the most practical use of the site. Lot Coverage Variance The property is grandfathered in with a 62.2% impervious lot coverage. The applicant has made an aggressive effort to reduce impervious coverage while incorporating the new -1,100 SF building. The gain in impervious coverage is 0.5%. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: Setback Variance The variance request would make the new side setback 18.5-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required. This calculates out to be a 26% variance. The threshold for a Board of Adjustment Variance vs. a Planning Commission Minor Modification is any request over 25%. Staff does not feel this request is substantial. Approximately 67 SF of the building would be located within the required setback. Lot Coverage Variance The actual increase in impervious coverage from existing conditions is 0.5%. The applicant has proposed a two story building to minimize the footprint of development on the site. The new plan improves the existing conditions by removing a significant amount of paving from the front setback. The proposed 62.7% impervious lot coverage is a 12.7% deviation from Code, which would require a Planning Commission Minor Modification or a Board of Adjustment Variance. Staff feels this request is minor. 553 W. Elkhorn Ave. — setback and lot Page 3 of 6 coverage variance 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: Setback Variance The property to the east consists of residential condominiums that were constructed in the 1990's12000. The driveway for the condominiums abutting the Maxwell Inn property is located on the western edge, serving as a buffer between the proposed accommodations building and the condos. The condos are situated 30-40 feet from the west property line. With the Maxwell Inn proposed new side setback of 18.5-feet, the condos would be roughly 48-58 feet from the new building. The approved development plan for the Maxwell Inn has required a district landscape buffer between the properties. The applicant has proposed to concentrate the plantings east of the proposed building to further buffer the use. Staff does not feel the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered or suffer detriment as a result of the variance. Lot Coverage Variance Again, the property has been operating with a 62.2% impervious lot coverage for several years. A 0.5% increase would not substantially alter the neighborhood in any way. Drainage and runoff would not be affected. The approved development plan and drainage study have concluded there is very little to no impact on drainage on the site. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Setback Variance and Lot Coverage Variance Approval would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. All public service locations were approved with the development plan. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: Setback Variance and Lot Coverage Variance The applicant purchased the property in 2013 and decided to eliminate 3 of the existing units due to their poor quality. During the design and planning process of the new building, setback regulations were in effect. The applicant has decided this plan is the best approach to restoring the 3 units. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Setback Variance The applicant has stated that it is impossible to create additional units within the footprint of the existing building. The west side of the existing building was analyzed and it was found that this was not a practical location due to the creation of conflicts with the caretaker's unit, access would be cut off from other hotel support areas, and there would 553 W. Elkhorn Ave. — setback and lot Page 4 of 6 coverage variance be no direct access to parking. Also, including a handicap unit at this location was found to be infeasible. A variance would be the only process to achieve the proposal, Lot Coverage Variance The increase of impervious coverage is 0.5%. An additional reduction of 0.5% of impervious coverage could be explored. The applicant has already reduced 1,407 SF of impervious coverage on the site by re-configuring the parking area. The applicant has stated it is not possible to further remove impervious coverage without sacrificing the area needed to meet parking and drive standards, and to allow for emergency vehicle access through the property. 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 of situations. Staff Finding: Setback Variance and Lot Coverage Variance The conditions of this application are not general. They are specific to this property, size and orientation. 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: Setback Variance and Lot Coverage Variance No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by these variance requests. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: Setback Variance Multiple factors influenced the layout proposed, including maintaining parking spaces, replacing impervious coverage, pulling parking and paving out of the front setback to the degree possible, maintaining clearances for emergency vehicles, and minimizing the amount of variance necessary. The level of variance requested is approximately 67 SF which staff finds to be very minimal. Lot Coverage Variance Again, staff finds a 12.7% deviation from Code to be a very minimal request. A variance would represent the least deviation from Code 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: Setback Variance and Lot Coverage The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 553 W. Elkhorn Ave. — setback and lot Page 5 of 6 coverage variance 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Setback Variance and Lot Coverage Variance No recommended conditions STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances with no additional conditions SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variances with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variances with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site plan 5. Architectural drawings 6. Impervious coverage map 553 W. Elkhorn Ave. — setback and lot Page 6 of 6 coverage variance • 311 A • ' it* Affi e_ "4040,. ,rrqpiroi _astir- —1"•,-- - fl 340 • IF • 89 38 - 83 187- 182 166 e5 181 l o 11' Ii DEMI_s GULCH w ivazRvIE Site 13 Vicinity Map FL Proiect Name: Maxwell Inn Variance 553 W. Elkhorn Ave. 1 in = 83 f Printed: 7 /7 /2010 Created By: Audern Gonzales ESTES PARK COLORADO Project Description: Variance to setback and lot coverage Town of Estes Park Community Development Vicinity Map Petittoner(s1 RSDP, LCC INIMME1== 0 40 80 Feet 553 W. Elkhorn Ave Parcels-Larmer ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE STATEMENT OF INTENT 553 West Elkhorn Ave, Estes Park, Colorado This application is a request for a variance from the setback requirements of Table 4-5, footnote 6, in A-Accommodations zoning of 25-feet where abutting a residential zoning district. We are requesting a variance to be 6.5' into the required setback. The variance would allow a net of (3) accommodation units to be constructed per the development plan application submitted concurrent with this application (Four new units with one existing unit to be repurposed). The intent of the project is to replace three units that existed when the owners purchased the property in 2013 but have subsequently been determined to be sub- standard and repurposed to support space. Construction of these units would bring the motel back to its historic (and code compliant) density of 20 units. Review Standards 1 Special circumstances or conditions exist: The existing motel property is somewhat oddly shaped and the existing building, constructed in 1946, is essentially in the middle of the property, with drives and parking surrounding. Because it is necessary to maintain access around the property, for parking spaces, and for emergency vehicles there is really only one practical building area, in the southeast corner. 2. Practical Difficulty a. The property has been in use without the variance; however, only 17 units have been available for occupancy. . The existing units repurposed in 2013 did not meet standards for a hotel room — they were very small and mostly underground with little daylight access. Larger rooms with modern amenities are necessary to attract guests today. Twenty units are necessary for a viable hotel operation on this property and this is the best way to replace the units on the property. b. The proposed building has been rotated so that the maximum variance requested (6.5' or 25%) only occurs at one corner. Only 67 square feet of the building footprint would sit Inside the 25' setback, representing approximately 6 percent of the footprint. The size of the building and the units are not excessive, though they are larger than the repurposed units. We feel this is a reasonably sized building to replace the units. Due to parking , driveway and backing needs, it is necessary to push this building into the setback by the requested 6.5'. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer detriment as a result of the variance. The adjacent property to the east consists of residential condominiums constructed in the late 1990's/2000. These units are oriented to the south and southwest, and due to the existing driveway access on that property, the units sit 35-40-feet from their west property line. A district landscaping buffer is proposed on the subject property, along the east line to further shield the new building. The applicant proposes concentrating a greater number of plantings near the proposed building to assist in mitigation of the variance. d. The variance would have no effect on public services. All necessary services are already extended to the property and main upgrades are already being taken care of for the insufficient sewer line that will benefit the entire neighborhood. e. The owners purchased the property in 2013 but later decided to eliminate three rental units and consider a proposal to create newer units (including one ADA unit) to replace them. This plan represents the result of that planning and design process, after much consideration concerning the best approach to restoring three units. f. It is not possible to create additional units within the footprint of the existing building. The only other area that could possibly provide space for an addition would be directly west of the existing building; however, this is not practical for a number of reasons, including causing conflicts with the caretaker's unit, cutting off access of other hotel support areas, and having no direct access to parking. It would also be infeasible to provide a handicapped accessible unit in this area. 3. The conditions reflected in this application are not general. They are specific to this particular property, size and orientation. 4. No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5. The plan proposed is not excessive, particularly considering the number of existing conditions and the very small percentage of building requiring a variance Multiple factors influenced the layout proposed, including maintaining parking spaces, replacing impervious coverage, pulling parking and paving out of the front setback to the degree possible, maintaining clearances for emergency vehicles, and minimizing the amount of variance necessary. 6_ The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. "Addendum" July 7, 2016 Following staff review of the project, it has been determined that a variance is also necessary for impervious coverage on the property. As noted on the development plan, the existing lot coverage, prior to this proposed project, is 62.2%, while per the EVDC, the maximum allowed is 50%. The development plan proposes a net increase the impervious coverage of 0.5% to 62.7%. The net increase is a result of the new building footprint and parking added, minus existing paving to be removed. A minor modification was requested, however, staff determined that a variance was required. This would be a variance of 25.4% from EVDC Table 4-5, max lot coverage of 50% to 62.7%. Review Standards 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Because drives and parking surround the building, the amount of paved area is higher than could be created with a new building on a full-size site. 2. Practical Difficulty a. The property has been in use without the variance; in fact, it is currently non-conforming with respect to this standard. b. The plan conceived the highest practical amount of impervious area to be removed to minimize the impact of new impervious coverage to one half of one percent. (0.5%). The building was designed as a two-story structure to minimize the footprint. Arguably, the new plan improves the existing condition, by removing a significant amount of paving from the front setback. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer detriment as a result of the variance. d. The variance would have no effect on public services. e. The owners purchased the property in 2013 but later decided to eliminate three rental units and consider a proposal to create newer units (including one ADA unit) to replace them. This plan represents the result of that planning and design process, after much consideration concerning the best approach to restoring three units. f. It is not possible to remove additional impervious coverage without sacrificing the area needed to meet parking and drive standards, and to allow for emergency vehicle access through the property. 3. The conditions reflected in this application are not general. They are specific to this particular property, size and orientation. 4. No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5. The variance requested is not excessive, especially when the increase of 0.5% beyond existing is considered. 6. The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. Prepared by: Steve Lane, AIA BASIS Architecture PC ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION \P\ Submittal Date. \ Record Owner(s) RSDP LLC Street Address of Lot 553 W. Elkhorn Avenue Legal Description. Lot. 24 Block. Tract Subdivision. Sunny Acres Addition Parcel ID # 35252-10-024 Site Information Lot Size 0.826 acres Zoning A-Accommodations Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service Motel Motel X Town X Town Well Other (Specify) Well Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service X EPSD UTSD I Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service X EPSD : UT SD I Septic Existing Gas Service X Xeel Other ' None Site Access (if not an pubic street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes X No Variance Desired (Development Code Section ft). Table 4-5 Footnote 6 - sloe setback of 25-feet in Accommodations zone where abutting residential zoning district. Variance requested is 6 5, i e to a setback of 18.5' Name of Primary Contact Person Steve Lane, AIA - BASIS Architecture PC Complete Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave, Ste 100 Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant X Consultant/En 'neer Attachments Application fee (see attached fee schedule; r Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3 6.0 of the EVDC) NI 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 ol piatsiolans in TIFF or PDF format ea-ailed to plaft!,ng@estes.org ** The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Coe 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. 7.7-7=17r=rx IM777,7=egor A,.enue .77es Fork. CO 80517 Community Developmerit Deportment Phone. 1?70) 577- 3721 Nis f t 970) 536-0249 wvvv.i.estes org/CommunlyDevetoorrierit Revised 2013.082? KT . c.'="01:1117i1D?IfEirtc:17) Record Owner(s) RSDP LLC Mailing Address 553 W Elkhorn Avenue Phone 970.586.2833 Cell Phone Fax Email Business@TheMaxwellinn.com Applicant same as above Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer BASIS Architecture PC Mailing Address 1692 Big Thompson Ave, Ste 100 Phone 970 586 9140 Cell Phone Fax Email steve@bas1s.com 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 fillip //www.estes.orci/ComDeviSchedules&Fees!PlanninqApplicationFeeSchedue.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in venting. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 K1 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION II' 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 lb. In submitting the application materials ano 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) ► 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: http ilwww estes orq/ComDev/DevCocie ► 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 EVDC. b. 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 will be charged if my application is incomplete 10- The Community Deveropment Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the applicrtion is determined to be complete 11.- 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. P. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley 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. P. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" 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 len (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing pi 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 (1) year of receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3 6 D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT, 1Ut6 vt.,,±1 'I R'fri/- /1/1 6_,( tve( Applicant PLEASE PRINT aq1A ri/ickytv-rt R-f-cy. Mil r \/- Signatures: Record Owner tis'it,(:)116 Date t• Applicant 1A/(it Date Revised 2013.08.27 KT 1. Zonirry Districts § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Zoning District Minimum Land Area per Accommodation or Residential Unit (sq. ft. per unit) Minimum Lot Size [7] Minimum Building/ Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Max. Bldg Height (ft.) [9] Max. FAR Max. Lot Cover- age (%) Area (sq ft) Width (ft.) Front (ft.) Side (ft.) Rear (ft) A Accommodation Unit =1,800 [1]; Residential Units: SF = 9,000; 2-Family = 6,750; MF = 5,400 40,000 [2] 100 [3] = 25 [5]; Arterial All other streets = 15 15 [6] 10 [6] 30 N/A 50 A-1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 15 10 30 .20 30 CD Accommodation Units Only = 1,800; SF & 2-Family (stand-alone) = 9,000; Dwelling Units (1st Floor) 1 unit feet of gross land area Dwelling Units (2nd Floor) No minimum gross land area per unit (Ord. 15-03 #3) per 2,250 square Accommo- dation uses = 20,000 All other uses = n/a SF & 2-Family (stand- alone) = 25; MF (stand- alone) = 100; All other uses = n/a Mini- mum = 8 Maxi- mum = 16 If lot abuts a residential property = All other cases = 0 All other If lot abuts a residential property = 10; cases = 0 30 2.0 n/a CO n/a Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commercial Recreation/ Entertain- ment = 40,000 pi All other lots = 15,000 [2] Fronting arterials = 200; All other lots = 50 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets =15 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 65 Supp. 5 4-21 Area (sci ft) 6,000 [2] Width (ft•) Fronting Arterials = 200; All other lots = 50 50 Fronting Arterials = 200; All other lots = 50 Minimum Lot Size [7] 15,000 [2] 15,000 [2] Front (ft.) Building/Structure Setbacks Minimum [4] Side (ft.) § 4.4 [8] Rear (ft•) Nonresidential Max. Building Height (ft•) 19] Max. FAR Zoning Districts Max. Lot Coverage (%) Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 50 15 0 [6) 0 [6] 30 .50 80 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets 10 [6] 10 [6] 30 .30 80 = 15 Zoning District 0 CH I-1 Zoning Districts Minimum Land Area per Accommo- dation or Residential Unit (sq. ft. per unit) Residential Units (2nd Floor) 1 unit 2,250 sq. ft. GFA of principal use. n/a n/a (Ord. 2-02 #6; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 15-03 #3) NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1] [3] [4] [5] For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that have full kitchen facilities, the minimum land area requirement per guest unit shall be 5,400 square feet. See also.§5.1.P below. [2] If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." For lots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shall be 200 feet. See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in §7.5 of this Code. Setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary. See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 #6) [8] All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is applicable only in the "A-1" district. (Ord. 11-02 §1) [9] See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) 5. Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel. a. Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted. One (1) or more principal uses shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that in the A zoning district, only one (1) principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel. b. Permitted Mix of Uses. Where more than one (1) principal use is permitted per lot or development parcel, mixed-use development is encouraged, subject to the following standards: (1) More than one (1) principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code and all other applicable ordinances are met. Supp. 5 4-22 [6] [7] Page 1 MaxwellInnDP: nce-500feet.xls Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip 341 FAR VIEW DRIVE LLC 341 FAR VIEW DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 AITKEN MARTHA JEAN PO BOX 1163 WALDEN CO 80480 AYRES ROBERT G/JUDITH C 3603 HUNTERS POINT SAN ANTONIO TX 78230 BAILEY VERD R/CHERRI L RLT 540 W ELKHORN AVE UNIT B-3 ESTES PARK CO 80517 BARTLETT FRED/TINA TRUST THE 880 N PEAK VIEW WAY PRESCOTT AZ 86303 BEAN WILLIAM B/WILLEMINA 1216 ANDOVER DR WIXOM MI 48393 BOLES JEFF/JULIE 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT Dll ESTES PARK CO 80517 CHAMBERLAIN CHARLES /WRIGHT LAURA MARECEK MARY 1023 CADIZ ST NEW ORLEANS LA 70115 DROTAR BENJAMIN LAWRENCE/LAURA LEI 9674 W 87TH CIR ARVADA CO 80005 ECKERT JASON D/KARI M 8389 COLE ST ARVADA CO 80005 ELKHORN PLAZA ASSOCIATION PO BOX 2792 ESTES PARK CO 80517 FALL RIVER VILLAGE LLC 3303 W 144TH AV STE 106 BROOMFIELD CO 80023 FINNEY PATRICIA J 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT 14 ESTES PARK CO 80517 GOLDEN LEAF INN LLC 325 JAMES ST ESTES PARK CO 80517 GRAY STANLEY E 2109 ZUPPKE DR URBANA IL 61801 HAIGH ROBERT B/CATHY A 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT 8 ESTES PARK CO 80517 HAMMERSCHMIDT EDWIN F/DEBRA L 12383 ROBYN RD SAINT LOUIS MO 63127 HARRIS CLARENCE E & MARY L 9377 WOLFE ST LITTLETON CO 80129 HAWKINS GILBERTJ TRUST 7830 FAIRVIEW AVE DENVER CO 80221 HEWITT MARJORIE B 6334 5 35TH CT LINCOLN NE 68516 HICKS ROBBY G/PAMELA S 366 DATE ST AKRON CO 80720 HINKLE RONALD L & EDWINA I 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT 16 ESTES PARK CO 80517 INGALLS DEBRA LEE & MARTHA BETH 2413 N CORONA ST COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80907 ISERNHAGEN GLENN A/LOUANNE 7789 S WAVERLY MTN LITTLETON CO 80127 JACOBSON ERNEST E JR & MAE C 6105 E MEXICO AVE DENVER CO 80224 JAMES CHRISTOPHER N 321 FAR VIEW DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSON ROBERT EDWARD PO BOX 2744 ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSON S JOWAYNE ARNOLD M/ROY EMIL PO BOX 2744 ESTES PARK CO 80517 JOHNSTON GERALD/LINDA LIVING TRUST 128 OLD CREEK DR MONUMENT CO 80132 JORDAN DONNA HELEN PO BOX 1725 ESTES PARK CO 80517 KITELEY CHERYL FALLON/STEVEN M 913 3RD AVE LONGMONT CO 80501 KUPKA CHARLES R/JANICE E 1736 2ND AVE SE CEDAR RAPIDS IA 52403 LEE MICHAEL/JULIE 311 FAR VIEW DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 LITTLE TERRY HAMMOND/MARCIA LYNN 412 JACKSON ST DENVER CO 80206 MANSFIELD GARY T/SUZANNE B PO BOX 1910 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MAYO SUZANNE J REVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 3989 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MORRONI THOMAS 7130 S QUINTERO ST FOXFIELD CO 80016 MURPHYS RIVER LODGE LLC 10047 ALLISON CT BROOMFIELD CO 80021 NET INVESTMENTS LLC 552 W ELKHORN AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 PRIES ROBERT/JILL 1107 MCINTOSH AVE BROOMFIELD CO 80020 RAYMER GREGORY A PO BOX 49241 DENVER CO 80249 RIVAS-MARQUEZ MANUELA PO BOX 4216 ESTES PARK CO 80517 RIVKINA TETIANA & SHRESTHA SABIR 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT 9 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MaxwellInnOP&Variance-500feet.xls Page 2 RSDP LLP 553 W ELKHORN AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 SCHWARK RENEE 13938 LEXINGTON DR WESTMINSTER CO 80023 SHIRK DAVID WAYNE/ESLA MINER PO BOX 3571 ESTES PARK CO 80517 STONE HEATHER GLISMANN 627 MARIGOLD LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 TESSLER JOHN A/SALLY S 3530 CHARLESTON LN BEAUMONT Tx 77706 THOMPSON JACK D 4750 W 25TH ST NO 16 GREELEY CO 80634 THOMPSON RON L/CINDY 4118 W 8TH ST GREELEY CO 80634 THOMSPON MELISSA D 300 FAR VIEW DR UNIT B5 ESTES PARK CO 80517 THURMAN THOMAS R/SUZANNE E 1410 7TH ST MARION IA 52302 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK CO 80517 WATSON WILLIAM E & VIVIANNE M 625 W ELKHORN AVE ESTES PARK CO 80517 WEBB WILLIAM E 1670 E BROAD ST STATEVILE NC 28625 WHITE STEPHEN M/CATHY M 1805 N BROAD ST GALESBURG IL 61401 ZAHOUREK CONSERVATORY LLC 4225 FAWN TRL LOVELAND CO 80537 ZIEMKOWSKI MARK 0/LESLIE B 331 FAR VIEW DR ESTES PARK CO 80517 IZZA17ML TAIR IMPERVIOUS CHANCES FAR V/Ell' DR r- _ „, --ti, .” .. .er• Vtg! "i•p it al ---,,,---unimmiin • AI zz.-- ,z1=1111111110 f .- Ate -' ..MM M • r. • lair 1 47=MIIIIIIIIIIIIII ter.== IIIT2INIME NV e fir =11 Abil_wz„Rir HI EMILY IIIN . ' I=Ef ..-. - in.:7.1112, . - immunri,r, 111111111111U v,..1..- . it ...-,amm.=, ..-_,..imm• ,... Iiiiwr SCALE 1" = 40' • • • • • • LOT COVERAGE • EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE = 22,389.3 SF \ • \ 22,389.3 SF/35995 7 SF = 62.2% • IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO BE ADDED = 1,590 SF • • IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO BE REMOVED = 1,407 SF • NEW IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE = 22,572.3 SF • 22,572.3 SF/ 35995.7 SF = 62.7% COVERED (50% ALLOWED - MINOR MODIFICATION REQUES1ED) 1111111--111 minismem VilipiVNAV 011"8,011 1121,160,11,44/ CONVERT TO PERVIOUS EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA REMOVE FROM PERVIOUS DRAWN DATE PROJ. NO. SCALE 40' 2013-1-11 VAN HORN ENGINEERING 1043 Fish Creek Road — Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-9388 — Fox: (970) 566-8W1 JWC 5-23-2016 n !lir= MAXWELL INN DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOTS 24 SUNNY ACRES ADDITION TO THE TOWN THE NW Y4 OF THE NW i SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP OF ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO IN .5 LS 11,:7 ICA i. INFORMATIOD A- ACCOMMODATION i Oh INC , .341..S PEWEE. 46 - 15.41T Sr 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH PM. : ......., 0, ON'TS PSOPOSSE E. PO ••../10 5CAL Et• TO t5 Ois 1(9 4114111% 15E5 TTLX. Sr/....1 asno pp..., Tv • Too, To , Es is 1001! it. i,j 1 40,0 On • 4 ty • • T45.6 si-/,y -, try 6.114 4.24, 401 Fi...19 TAB .T. Wry., I TAD .1 /1/T 'Cli 2042 6- 1 O' IP.T.2./ it - tA). ,or-;;; AODOn, ____----/ _ _ . - - - _....... . . 440 T • 1 I i To-44 5,44 ALOoysit . tit, : • yl N 61. 3 Lii•Lorros . to- AC L i L 5 tot.t.LL: - s _L--.--.6---."---4---0---- T-957•1 3; ....s. srE •TrE FAC,A,0, • ( 6.1,64 61,24 00.0 rn . 25 7 6 GAUD o 111 i, 1 693. 1 4461 11424 0 4,1-0 - X' • /VW, 040 n[ 1 0•14 1114F4 AXPIVAK ( 510400 ILA,C:40_, rI 11 ' ACT RLDEPT.5. f 570611.' _ - - - • EARVICE DRIVE 01 MI:11r1r IrlfCMC 10 TY, 11.6.054".., 10' lIt1114 Lnl LA4LW41 -- • - - - y y 5 - LT 6" /in VAR. 4114,4 •• • T6306 (,11 46,4/6-111416.' 42EPTc. 46,C25.41 [Fiff.tter. 110 O0'lil stoo,111. 200/3 _ RAC X sc-rogkoo) tssrLc's D.05) (11CCETT50 9104141) OM, chi 16,14 EA5TE 4100 41I 11.1.tyl. INN (t) .. • ...t ---1 t s, \DTATAl• 201 [01[11 ',. \ 711/eT7111. # 99 Oo, / SE n , LOT ze 1164 71 41631 FES (4.4141 DCA) LI liO5/1 PAD I./ NLA. TO Tx[ wo, is....t 4 ''. "E X'°//' r \ '17,,..1..., CESIKS Or sEPE11 . 664, cs•TPOTI 6 . M4 LE#1141 iTA0ATA STTI04 A EAS110, 0T0 I i MC 00 00 ,... 100S, sT i I I .!, I I I I krt 13.5. 46 IT SEWS EASE4EN-1 ITV PATOTO CO,TEPEO Mgt 4 oury ItnousKAI Err51 aY S' /61430 5',1.1 104,440E 51091 60615 414 Of DEL 1,11..104,41) - 511 10 EEO 40 0011:1017, 1 APPIISTATTILY 15 464 60401 .01 coomors **snot 1011/644 0.416411 11.41.1 22506.1 11v35565 1 411 EET0.11. 0.5641 II AOPID 1.650 5' 10196.60.5 1090.4.0 TY at 405-1E - 1.41 all 8146-90.1.3 00.11.40 - 20312.1 103/13.3 Sr/ 356557 Sr - CP ?X CROKE/ (051 0034!0 -3.1%90 110,1 104 PROJECT .COTES' 14 66614 511 TA 619040 70 Pour& ILA wits,. o.,a.•,•sb..., MIN 14.1 AL 1, 1E,9 AW0 isor. ; III P IOTA OP ..LAVA 4..L 44 00114 11 30 46.1441 tater Po ors D.. DC Sr. 1.111:042 .41441. IL 1.1 0110001 4.1 0.1 II 910,1N0 1.5 N111 TOY[' DOTATTTAAD 1564.6.40 *110 5/01105 iv 44 100 EMS 11.1.111 SOTYLOTTOCor GYOT D 140.14131 ▪ ALI WO, 0•P0001TT0IS 00000100 • 01.64,51typ '4COPTIA.,1 (MC 510I8145 7 II WO I. • PEA 01144 71J. 4.0V, loSTEPS /61013 0146 9n6.14.1 1171:110 10 THE 546.116; OP /.101440440 MOM 1.1 Pal/ CPAS 0. 5041144 00.1011 PoDEL. To 166441{ 015110 810001' s 1011101 rOT. I II 1.461 141044; 5-611 4,06460 16 1451 0.0.00•0000 WA:MU [HD COOTS GI 116. 0.0.0109 A la 10095 001540 10 11/011 la 010110111 COTESTROOID. 051014. 10 lx( 4010 6461 1102410 T Ton M1)101 Ws 13. EDP 1 51 011)411 1406 4 25' 051E41 ROVE. 1110190 TO 14 EAST Ion KoPEATT TiO1 611. LECT-41: 451i 111,00 ;soma 1.001 ACCOMYTTO 10 14 010(5 ECTELOPTuCTE CICE wArS 1.1.1,0WLL :1•16 KAN 01.1.1.1i.$ A 4511.0 41•1411 Roof Pel9J4.1 11 108.:60 50 Dr 6111 IA Er 5 19 0.4101/0 SURVEYOR'S NOTES 1 TIty Flt PLR, rS ARPHIsfxr.o. oTAT '1 21 501 19 81 0661514E1 ol a too blIFIVIT KAT ACI. art ht660461.51 50.11 PEAT TOSE, 4.6.164 054206 A Tru.o.:•5„ Ost A10 1612110-13. 4E110 990 414; 11.4 4.04. OPAIVISIT, tod 0414.1 0150.45 03L15101 AArn 01.504441. mponvoyoK DATA Tv. 46.. 6E46= AT PECI TToon #41401-664 ffixo 04110 02.25-9911 • 14 T C 0.8 kiC-4.111.0 100 YEAR 40351 • 54.00. • tlys. 11 110. 1140 10606410631. 011(0 LtstvalA 16 246 5604 140 Y10. 1.001111 441A 4041 11.3. 00095 (10.41* DBE S I. 14 AKA 1111 201; TsOOD OD 101 1..4414, 1./40 14 40440 EMT.; APLA Or 14 P446, O Al 41.10144.6.5 11114111 Snot. AK 111440 MAI PRIM Hui 4110* Di5,411.0 To. 110 LITAITY ;Gm.. 4.66625 hire Am hoz 11100.01E Aso 54.4, Aro 6D6T, uPC. EDP FAACT lIXAND6 THE ODLE. 1.440. .2. TO 401•010 111115[9 001* 1.66.41 ND Cllali5NIUS 7.1 !It ViDEN.KANNO. 101,1la III 1.11 51K14 SIT1,141-1. IN tor ANSA tArtA a-stIrA• • 11,1ANDOPirO II! 01.10T/TION fierrl,[11 Mt* 41.1.41.1.1 *1.50 VI( 1.1•IDINCNN/1( ./.1.0.f.f, 54. AAA E141 LOC.*. 00sTA0LD AA.100.191 sLorroVi 071 1144911 1451:1 nil` wr (0071(. AS A10114141511 As nister -111dOt INVONNAION. DIE 5.4.615044 1.01 PNTSIZAW, LOCATED rya 1.41C13421/60 VoLoCi. 6 1.2 1.01 IS MT: A (4•A000EA19O TTE 0445C60133 EWE.; SMACKS 10. To 46001. 000 MA THE PY 2/04 PATATTET TT, 0.1 TAM 000 TV 1110A1 100 000 1660E To 14 11151 AAO Naino T 140 1101 SLAPPESSON LlnE IS 451140(0 FO DE 4' 0 WILL 1E DiS3.10 Er 14 140315011 CADNEEP 41 OTE TIC CV 99004 Paul 6 10I040 15 41 1/46054 O/Ch DIP 0050000 Dr ITZ 000:021 6 14 STORRHATIR 001,0 1.61 1E4E PROTECI 4/41 $1.191415 6410 1.1 51444 DoRt.0 coeSTPLO14y An0 WAIL 3001101109 II 1115/43341 0.66 NT .41.6E0 TAM 14 S61 SM.. • 44000* 1[[ (06 * PA To 1.E Intooterr lo 14 Tma. st 1661s • ars00000a1 6.44 • Dat.......04 rot M IC potaattotto.1 10 [06506.6"16, 5,10 cOT456,21,5ABT646 E144 • $060 61411 4145 APPRITA0 Ely Slaft To DaboouTio -RIAU WI' comp *omit Ili) 001.1e8IT 0511114614N01 111411 sTP.1se 1.4 IV 9' otosTIS TOR C.0 or) LE 01:5'0 1100 SGVIZI 04,-. $CAPA 1 • 21' • C. WE. VMS ATTP631 MAE 1'",.s"f.:tr":0 OlY1/4.1 9E6 CONOTAT 64(614 FOP nOw lOLL 10 81.5640 6E6 .! afror 1116411 4156 • ESTrott; 1010004 • I 11111 15' SDKS ME1610.1 IE TVCED COMPEO \ 1 PE.OLT4T0 • KIT 66.6 81 SOTARol ' I r___ PC utzr ... „._ . onytot EASO401.1 _CY 3' 56.0- 10110 / RA 01411 LeDAL DESCRIPTION EFOO TIM couurauo LC' 24, SOD. 4C11E5 40E4TE 1C 14 1041 Or EVES PARS. 16911.1 1.41 114416.19 1050(150 01 STATE 44.1.4.5 0E00RT1004 REDORDEO ON JOKE 1E, Mt 1n 00110 554 Al 1.91 204 AND ALSO OCEP1 IMO POPINCti COTOIEVED 10 THE TO. 90 611LS Pa,* IN 195'10151[0. ACV:AM sohE II. 1941 Al RECE6401 HO 9102009, COATETT OF LARRIER, STATE 010 0101.01017 trPTIFINTION AND APPROVAL 4 ,.....c•I tkr2"54:"." e 4N(.4! ..... ,. .•• • .... ., • i). • 4 __,.__L•_.„t v....,... „...,,,, , ...,:-... Xs _____ • 164110E OTTIEAD, SIAT.00 341 TO ar.clio.oaa.rz 1Lno 01.4.0G rOMMI.WirY DEV ELOPMENT CERTIFICATE - 100 UNEW.-na.CD. TADNG 101 06.409. DO HERE01 001110 1001 MEAL PROPEPT. 05 0696911390 IN THE AP0o191110* 050 DCACI.OF-NIEI, Pus RENEW 1500 *110011.9 AND AS $110111.4 981 145 SITE. PLATT SCALE OE 51/13.15C1 12 +90 0003969S 04 ETTLE 11 O THE 1406444 COOE 7 24 TO. CE ISTE$ FARR. COLORADO 1/0 AHT 0O1E9 OTIOAAKES DE THE TO. Or ESTES PARK, COLORADO P2RTVAD0 10000.10 * 110 1.68 06 µoxwELL 0604660 104.0 0' 1545 PARK 004.0.1.0414 NYOLOPMENTT KATHY 1.143O. witcrok 0.0AT04A1 0 , 104.0 KAN CREATES A v1010.5 0400450! VONT 004051441 12 1011153E 50 00 1116E 24, C S AS ATTENDED / 0, 0 • Eacfnc 3 1(30P0.O.L PEDESTAL a 54.11 0') vAro, • rat[ J.1000 1)0.444110 SETS. LAS - SEAM* 051 - 14.0 - 1- TI,K0 LAS - TO 60 tnoOnED -6- PALITI LW-MST. • RATER LAR - .0* CA3 L61f - 6644 PAS 01.0 NEW 64- 0,941140 LEL. Lifts KAM AD CLECTInt ELEC1.10 066PD - EirSP.O. ItATES 1150440 1400 SAID - Nh C 15.164 1.151 - 11414,514 --- - - 46.04 41154x EAsrirtv mom, C•1164 1' CODDLA 126-564 E CO011oR MLA. 11141 OTA-4 COTNIDA - CH ROAD DI LATK NOT OTOTO.A.00rm PMT. 14 140C-401 16600.30'. • ESAID 61944141 15 4110 • roLog) #. RESTA 616 Er, 1249 ,4 SO C13 .0As30(0 T OkattATCE 0.40441. (DO 00) In.11191 on 00L0E0 E6446.1 Cr EA 05.1. Ea PONDEROSA Cl 3.11E1E0 opta 0 511010E (02) pr/ARR. ASEET LLE OSHA 21.00 Kira 115IIIII1 553 WEST ELKHORN PVT ESTES 1,414. CO BOW 591-2913 139XI[ECI BASS ARCinTEETLRE +692 913 0090369 141. STE 144 ESTES PARK, CO 8051? ME-6140 15/31400. SHINETTOR. VAN H014 E142.07104 1341 E/50 OPi.E9 1+1663 69116 P694. 06 9650 560-9369 CO/4141Y 2DE COST 4. r SITE VICINITY MAP 100.1 1%1505' ORA. lar 280 :NECKED 81. LOS SGLL DATE 65 - 23 - 2018 $10101 1 3 1 I PRO) 52 2013-01-11 I 1 1 VO(14.C.C1 PsAl CO LOTS IV 4D It [01 130 Sonn 41113. 40-40 / I ONO 4 141 40010 4151,151 4640040 51.154 , I I 1/4" = 1'-0" 0I A R C H I T E C T U R E p C. Sheet Title: ELEVATIONS Sheet No: A3 12 J CEDAR LAP SIDING. TOP PRIVAGO SCREEN AT DECK BEYOND BM POST North Elevation 1/4" = 1,-U, 3 TAPERED STONE iPIERS A:, STONE CAP DIVIDER WALL 1-2 — 808 POSTS L Domond Rom EL DARK SIC, 010001 FIXTUR(. TYP West Elevation - - SMINGLE SIDING IN GABLES, TYP Secard HEW .c7. EL 110.1 3/4" STAIRS A RAILING G-oure: RIcr DI: 100,0' _ 2o CORNERBOAR1 I TRIM TYP STONE WA/NSOD El CAP ola DARK SKY IGI-FT Filo—BRE EXISTIMq AND FIrBSR cr.1 N- a) in > < co E cc; o En .0) ▪ a) 4 L() co cr)w The Maxwell Inn vj 11 ,1E-1 EZ1 ASPNAT S,IPIGLES — NIGH PION CEDAR E oroGL E 0101110 _ PRE TINS HE 0 GRILLS Sean0 FIxo DECK Cl 3 r (I) CO O 0 C >• 3— <0 C 0 (0 0- .1E E O 0. .c t— C o uJ 4101 0:1 vox: 970.566.9140 wwwbasls.can S10:.1 Roc: EL 130-1 EL: 310'.1 ti © BASIS Architecture RC CEDAR LAP $toma - STONE WAINSCOT $0000 WAINSCOT WAINSCOT 6 CAP TAPERED STONE PIERS KICAW _ EXISTWG FINISH GRADE SZI__nourrtl Rau GraWKI RICA El: 102,0- EL: 100 -0' '0 5 East Elevation 2 South Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" Issue: Dev Plan Date: 5118/2016 vox: 970.586.9140 wmv.basiscom HALL N P. C! VANITY B. H IS .4 GUESTROOM 200 17'x15'-8" coats coals VANITY BATH CI_ 4'x4'-11' I GUESTROOM 2D1 17' x 15' - 8" © BASIS Architectire PC. Issue: Dev Plan Date: 5/18/2016 DECK 9'01' EXI51. WALLS. r FURRED WALL r FOR SOUND W D LAUNDRY/ HOUSEKPING NEW TOILET TURNED VT FROM J r— E %1ST. • PROV1DT BLOCKING FOR GRAB BARS WALL REMOVED iRESTROONI‘ — WALL KING LAY • • ORWAIID S WALLS. TYP _ DOOR MANEUVER!, CLEARANCES. TYP NEW 1' DOOR (El .,,--- _.--,--A DN 1 DECK 9'x11' ENTRY „IQ 111 - — ENTRY 4' .x(I' 5' CIA. TURNING SPACE TYP BATH I \5'x8 2"I ___ _47 CLIr I VeAN1TY ',,442earV.-21 `.4 P. L A ENTRY 1.1--- 4'.4"x5•-•6" CL VANITY ^ BA 4'x4'-11" x5 GUES400M 100 (1 ONG) L _ _ SPRINKLER ROOM 4'x11'-.1" DOR MANEUVERING CLEARANCES. TYP 11111 11111 UP ' r GUESTROOM 101 (ADA) 17' x 18' A•C UNIT BELOW WINDOW. TYP w•we• PARAL545 CLEAR FLOOR SPACES, TIP rzT p, Ic 2 3 1/4" = 1'-0" Sheet Title: PLANS Sheet No: A2 04 Second Floor 1/4" = 1'-0" Laundry/Restroom Plan EXISTING BUILDING GUEST ROOM 07 CONVERTED Ground Floor 1/4" = 1.-0" AR CHIT EC T U R E P C. Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates, 5th Subdivision, Variance Request Height and Setback Requirements 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 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: July 12, 2016 REQUESTS: This request is for three (3) variances from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) as follows: 1. Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a front setback of 25 feet. The request is to reduce the front setback to 7 feet from the east property line due to the narrow lot configuration; to minimize grading impacts, driveway slope; and to reduce the amount of height variance. 2. Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a rear setback of 25 feet. The request is to reduce the rear setback from the west property line to 14 feet due to the narrow lot configuration; to minimize grading impacts, driveway slope; and to reduce the amount of height variance. 3. Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a maximum height of 30 feet. The request is to allow the building to reach a maximum height of approximately 39 feet and average height of 32.2 feet due to an average lot slope of 54%, a 2.2-foot variance to the height requirement. LOCATION: 3323 Eiger Trail RECORD OWNERS: Andrew and Stephanie Newberg APPLICANT: Nate Kinley CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Primary Contact: Celine M. LeBeau, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying STAFF CONTACT: Carrie McCool, Estes Park Planning Consultant PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The subject property, Lot 9 is located in the Westcliff Estates Subdivision which has a mixture of lot sizes and configurations, steep topography and vegetation that create unique hardships during development. The typical lot in Windcliff is subsized for the zone district with average slopes of approximately 40 percent. Figure 1. Aerial Vicinity Map of Subject Site Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 12, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates, 5th Subdivision Variance Request Lot 9 has characteristics that are extremely challenging. The lot has average slopes of 54%, which generates significant design challenges with regard to meeting the minimum height standard of 30 feet and creates the need to construct the residence closer to the road for access purposes. The lot is long and narrow with a buildable area that is only 23' wide with the required building setbacks; thereby, making it very difficult to conform to the front and rear setback requirements. The applicant is requesting three (3) variances as a part of this project scope to construct a single-family residence of similar size and character to existing residences within the subdivision. Due to the unique topography of the site, the optimal location for this residence is proposed as to utilize the southern portion of the lot in order to minimize the amount of variance, and the need for significant grading, site disturbance, and tree removal. SITE DATA MAP AND TABLE: The project site is accessed directly from Eiger Trail, approximately 4,000 feet to the southeast of the intersection of Windcliff Road and Highway 66. All of the surrounding developed lots in the subdivision are single-family residences. The subject property is zoned E-1 (Estate), a single-family residential zoning district. The figure below depicts the vicinity of the project and surrounding residential land uses. SITE DATA TABLE: Parcel Number: 34101-15-009 Lot Area: 0.37 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Residential Land Proposed Land Uses: 1 single-family residence Development Standard: Proposed: Front Setback: 25 feet 7 feet Rear Setback: 25 feet 14 feet Height: 30 feet 32.2 feet Services: Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Valley Fire Protection District Hazards/Physical Features Mapped in the project vicinity? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard Steep Slopes/Moderate (2) Wetlands No Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Wildlife Habitat No 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. Please refer to the "Statement of Intent" document received on May 25, 2016, and the applicant's comment response letter dated July 2, 2016. 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: The subject lot has physical particularities that require variances from the Code standards. The combination of a narrow lot and slopes greater than 30% present challenges when planning the site layout. The applicant has made efforts to avoid trees and minimize extensive grading where feasible to achieve reasonable use of the property for a single-family residence. All other parts of the site would have required substantial grading with fill, and tree removal to accommodate a new residence. The steep slopes and narrow lot width results in a combined need for variances to both setback and height requirements. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 12, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates, 5th Subdivision Variance Request 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 buildable area on the lot is 23' wide with the required building setbacks and the average lot slope is 54%. A variance would be needed to accommodate any residence design; however, this particular configuration minimizes the amount of variance necessary. Similar variances were granted to other lots within this subdivision with similar characteristics. The house has been proposed for the southern end of the property to minimize the variances needed to accommodate a residence. Other locations on this property would require greater setback variances and potentially affect neighborhood character through the need for grading and removal of trees. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: The variance request is not substantial given the physical constraints of this lot. The average lot slope of 54% is a substantial challenge to development that necessitates the three proposed variances to setback and height requirements. 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 house design associated with this proposal seeks to match the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Without a variance, it would not be possible to construct a residence that conforms to the surrounding neighborhood character. The preservation of trees on the lot will minimize visual impact from development of this site. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The requested variances would not adversely affect public service delivery. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District has no objection to the proposed variance requests. The applicant has depicted a rerouted sewer service line to connect to the sewer main southwest of the subject lot as shown on the July 2, 2016 site plan. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District had not comments or concerns regarding the proposed plans. The Larimer County Engineering Department reviewed the proposed variance requests and provided three comments to be addressed as follows: Grading for Infrastructure Right-of-way Encroachment. The County Engineer raised concerns regarding the encroachment of grading and infrastructure in the Eiger Trail right-of-way and required that the design and grading would need to be revised as necessary so contours tie in within the property boundary. The applicant revised the retaining walls and grading around the house to stay out of Eiger Trail right-of-way. A short retaining wall was added along the entry walkway to keep grading on the lot, The applicant states that the driveway enters off Eiger Trail, so grading will be required within the right-of-way and the turnaround grading will enter the right-of-way. While the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 12, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates, 5th Subdivision Variance Request applicant proposes grading for the aforementioned items to be kept to a minimum to obtain safe grades and slopes, the County's comments regarding the requirement that grading for infrastructure shall not encroach into the road right-of-way must be adhered to. Turnaround and Parking within the Eiger Trail right-of-way. The County Engineer requested confirmation that the orientation of the proposed garage is such that the vehicles will still be parked outside of the road right-of-way limits and there will be space on the property to maneuver the vehicles in order to exit onto Eiger Trail in a forward manner. The applicant stated that parking is planned to be inside the garage and one spot on the west side of the turnaround as there is not 20' of space from the garage doors to the right-of-way line. The turnaround width is 20' and a three point turn is possible to enter Eiger Trail in a forward direction. The applicant asserts that the current drive and parking design present the most feasible design for this lot regarding access and parking as they note that if the house location was moved west, a greater rear setback variance will be required and greater site disturbance will occur (more fill, taller retaining walls). Historic Drainage Patterns. County Engineering Staff assumes that any subsequent improvements on this site would not adversely impact the drainage patterns or create erosion problems in the area. If drainage patterns are going to be changed, a drainage plan will need to be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Any disturbance of the site should be reestablished to be equal to or better than the preconstruction condition. All disturbed areas should be reseeded with a native dry land seed mix. The applicant stated that drainage currently flows west and southwest across the lot and confirmed that the flow pattern will be maintained and directed around the proposed house as shown by the drainage arrows on the site plan. Erosion control and re-vegetation notes, including a seed mix for the local area, have been added to the site plan. Staff finds that all comments from the County Engineering Department shall be adequately addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff has provided a condition of approval for the Board's consideration. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding: Staff was not provided information as to what knowledge the applicant had of these requirements at time of purchase. However, given that multiple homes have been built on surrounding properties, the owner must have purchased the lot under the assumption that they would have reasonable use of the property per the zoning of E-1, allowing for a single-family residence. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing the solution with the least impact to the site and with minimal permanent impact to the site by minimizing grading and Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 12, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates, 5th Subdivision Variance Request disturbance of vegetation on a steep slope. Staff finds that the applicant's proposal cannot be accommodated through any other method except 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: Staff finds that the applicant's request for a variance is due to the unique topographical challenges created by the steep slopes combined with the narrow width of the lot and small lot size of 0.37 acres. While other variances have been granted on other lots in this subdivision, this lot provides an extreme and unique situation. As such, Staff finds that the circumstances are unique to the applicant's proposal, and are not so general or recurrent of a nature as to make it reasonable for the regulation to be changed to accommodate similar circumstances. 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 requests will not result in a reduction in the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: Staff, the architect and project engineer evaluated the potential to minimize the amount of each variance and determined that the proposed site design was the least deviation from the regulations necessary to achieve reasonable use of the property as compared to other variances and residences throughout the subdivision. 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 variances requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted in the 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 Finding: Staff has provided recommended conditions of approval for the Board's consideration relating to the County Engineering Department comments to be addressed. The Board is welcome to set forth conditions of approval to address any concerns that arise during the public hearing. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 12, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates, 5th Subdivision Variance Request REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: This variance requests were routed to reviewing agency staff, the Windcliff Homeowners Association and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. All agency staff comments and concerns related to the variance requests that needed to be addressed are included in this staff report. The public hearing for the variance requests were publicly noticed in accordance with the applicable public notification requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. No formal written comments were received from the public or adjacent property owners. The Windcliff Architectural Control Committee has reviewed the variance as summarized in the May 25, 2016 Van Horn Engineering letter and have no objections to the variance requests. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that the application for the proposed variance request would comply with the applicable review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 "Standards for Review" of the Estes Valley Development Code and advance goals, policies, and objectives adopted in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan if the conditions of approval noted below are addressed prior to building permit issuance. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: Below are the Board of Adjustment options related to the variance request: 1. I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of the variance requests with no conditions. 2. I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of the variance requests with the following conditions: a. Prior to building permit issuance, all comments from the County Engineering Department and Town Staff shall be adequately addressed. 3. I find that the variance requests do not substantially meet the criteria above, and move to recommend DENIAL of the variance request applications. ENCLOSURES: 1. Statement of Intent and Application 2. Revised Site Plan dated July 2, 2016 3. Applicant's Response Letter Dated July 2, 2016 4. Larimer County Engineering Department Comment Email dated June 21, 2016 5. Windcliff Architectural Control Committee Approval Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 12, 2016 Page 7 of 7 tiJ Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates, 5th Subdivision Variance Request From: Audem Gonzales [agonzales@estes.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:30 PM To: Carrie McCool Subject: Fwd: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: EIGER TRAIL-3323 - NEWBERG RESIDENCE Forwarded message From: Traci Shambo <shambot1(&,co.larimer.co.us> Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:28 PM Subject: Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: EIGER TRAIL-3323 - NEWBERG RESIDENCE To: Karen Thompson <kthompsonti)estes.org>, Audem Gonzales <agonzalesestes.org> My Comments are as follows: 1. Grading for the infrastructure shall not encroach into the road ROW. The design and grading should be revised as necessary so contours tie in within the property boundary. 2. It should be confirmed that the orientation of the proposed garage is such that the vehicles will still be parked outside of the road right-of-way limits and there will be space on the property to maneuver the vehicles in order to exit onto Eiger Trail in a forward manner. 3. Staff assumes that any subsequent improvements on this site would not adversely impact the drainage patterns or create erosion problems in the area. If drainage patterns are going to be changed, a drainage plan will need to be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. Any disturbance of the site should be reestablished to be equal to or better than the preconstruction condition. All disturbed areas should be reseeded with a native dry land seed mix. On Fri, Jun I0, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Karen Thompson <kthompson(a),estes.org> wrote: TO REVIEWING AGENCIES The Town of Estes Park Community Development Department has accepted the below referenced development application(s) as complete for review, i.e. minimal submittal requirements have been met and the application is ready for review for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. PROJECT NAME, TYPE, & LOCATION Name: Eiger Trail — 3323 — Newberg Residence Type: Variance Legal: Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Plat of Windcliff Estates, 5th Filing Address: 3323 Eiger Trail Project details can be found in the Statement of Intent & Application (SIA) COMMENTS DUE ON OR BEFORE June 24, 2015 EMAIL COMMENTS TO Property Owner: Andrew & Stephanie Newberg — no email address provided Applicant: Nathan Kinley nathanakinlevbuilt.com Consultant/Engineer(s): Celine LeBeau celinevheairbits.com Planner: Carrie McCool plannincaestes.orq Email addresses can be found in the email distribution list above. APPLICATION DOCUMENTS Documents are posted at www.estes.org/currentacolications and/or are attached. EXTENSIONS OF TIMEFRAMES FOR REVIEW In certain circumstances, review agencies can request additional time to review an application and the public hearing(s) may be delayed. For questions about this please contact the planner. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department )vvn of Estes Park none: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org Traci Shambo, P.E. Larimer County Engineering Department 200 West Oak St, Suite 3000 P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 498-5701 tshambo(-&,larimer.org Audem Gonzales community Development Department iwn of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 Ph: (970) 577-3729 • • if,. -• - LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING Statement of Intent For the Newberg Variance Application 40 ,,r .cd•-v.604,cc.. IS -11 %1 , Sec-4" 4.3' c-6- May 25, 2016 0.1,- C-- A/v.4 S e-h-of, 1.61.0 OveApvt- ev IG t•tw A height and setback variance are being requested prior to the construction of a single-family home on Lot 9, Block 3, of the Amended Plat of Windcliff Estates, 56 Subdivision. The lot is a narrow, triangular lot located between Eaglecliff Drive and Eiger Trail. The lot is zoned E-1 with 25' building setbacks along all lines and an average slope of 54%. The buildable area is 23' wide with the prescribed building setbacks. The minimum lot size in this zoning district is 1.0 acre. The actual lot size of the subject lot is 0.37-acre. Due to the small lot size, narrow building area and steep slope, -practical difficulty" is demonstrated and setback and height variances are being requested. A 7' setback along the east lot line, 14' setback along the west lot line and 41' height limit is being requested. The proposed house fits the character of the neighborhood. A home that would fit within prescribed setbacks and height limits would likely not fit the character of the neighborhood. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, Colorado 80517 • 970-526-9388 • E-mail: N'hegairbits.com ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: 5-)— I-16 e ,09 re 33231 —tic A, I r~rlL, Legal Description: Lot: 9 Block: Tract: F r)11„ Subdivision: .4/frit') /-16.-/ Parcel ID # : Site Information Lot Size C% 3 3 e? Zoning Existing Land Use 64 ;c/e4 , et—( /1/,t c (4 Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service r Town T" Proposed Water Service r Town r Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service r Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Variance .1.> ie fc=4. 1-14 Well ry< Other (Specify) tt), h ci Well Other (Specify) EPSD f UTSD r Septic EPSD R UTSD r Septic Other r None r Yes No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): rya L t 4.1?) Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person J4eline 1 eaett j.tbco F. Complete Mailing Address 70V-.3 Fish (Pi e ta Primary Contact Person is r Owner r Applicant IR Consultant/Engineer 3 Application fee (see attached fee schedule) 3 Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVOC) r 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of v.= 20') ** 3 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") r- 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 Estes Pork., P.O. Box 1200 ss 170 MacGregor Avenue -6 Estes Pork. CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: 197oi 577-3721 .6i Fox:1970) 586-0249 i•ei www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2013.08.27 KT ,V1MrafcMtioi Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone ; • elk 0-( . Vk. '4(A) C Ni 2 , l 0 i{) ,,tt P ( 0 .4 E.. Fax Email \(\ A4 (,+&ii \64) /L r-,vj . I-1 Consultant/Engineer VO. 1 (f t-- ik »r c 4 iv\ `1 ) fJ 6 C . - Mailing Address t, t f- 1.5 , I. 5-4( t2. Phone C1-1-0 (( Cell Phone q:)-0 2 -?•)- .k3 Fax Email \‘ • C" 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: hitp://www.estes.orq/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08-27 KT iz V/C, Re.sed 20,13 03.27 K1 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION C I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true arid correct to the best of my knoWleOge and that In filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. tx 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). t f 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: htip'!/www.estes orcgComDeviDevCode t> I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the applicaiion fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of he EVDC. P. 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, e. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. I> The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the applicatilen is determined to be complete. P. 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. e. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley 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. t understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" 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 errs 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 Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. t> I understand that d 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 (1) yeir of receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void: (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: 4 012Old /lig° 41726: 51-F,e411- )011; kaA54,.-P-&--- Applicant PLEASE PRINT tqcote IA) A)AA-q(1--er- crEftoust /(1 Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts 1.• . 4-•' ,.. izfi ...,P-1,-, . 1 , ..., •• r • . *MO Dl •-- - r." ,l.-.. f' c- . , .1,r i4 --4.,..,• • . , • .- ' - - Mex. Net . '- OtingitY ' : (unitsfativ) • ,i 1415114100 Los. ,-. • ., ', ; • • • .. ;- • Mende* ri) IQ y • -• (OM. 2E47 §1) . ,.- : ::,.; lignIntura fimildit-beetti*ture - _ • ,,,, „,,..._.„[ -1:= • ./ PrePettrUMStdbatdiel*.i Li; 7 (Ont. 25.07 fill OM. 15.41 $1) .-, ' ; - .,,, max. : Pinang . • ! .:;','i , ', mitt& , • . DURAN ' WV* , 00 -, .. ' 41,4 .- • ' /.414 f): . Width : - (IL) ' '.•:-Si • '••• . ' ' Front (ft.) `" e• Side '-: , (h.) - near . (ft) WOK , (ft.) /87 RE-1 in 0 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 E-1 1 1 Ac. [3) 100 25 25 25 30 20 E 2 1/2 Ac. [3) 75 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 15 30 20 R 4 14 Ac 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 15 30 20 R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 R-2 4 Single-family = 18,000; Duplex = 27,000 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 10 30 20 AM (Ord. 18-01 §14) Residential Uses: Max = B and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 40,000, 5,400 sq. ftlunit [6] (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15- 11 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: 1/ Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 (Ord. 15.11 §1) 10 30 20 [5) Notes to Table 4-2 (1) (a)See Chapter 4, §4.3.0, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.0.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 §1) (2) See Chapter 7, §7.6, for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1) (3) 11 private walls or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." (4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1) (5) Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. (6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 §14) (7) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or otl-site dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property fine, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. (Ord. 11.02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 §3) (Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) 4.7 Supp. 12 FRON1 610.1f1 LO,At 10 1 4049 1.0.1{D IL la...L.7c CORP.ILF LOIS • .51R1. " • . LUSILIh. ID% P911C4.010/-C.K A.1.1.0191.12 SIL MACK 41,1 .07 9 0 BtlIDI.G SETEAM: HECHT WM, FM LOWS PROFILF OF EASING, HAMM. GRACE ,MINM•••• 111* - RBI 1 111 !!!! f 94.TING NATURAL TERRA N PRIOR TO GpArlffiC IrL1. IN TERRAIN a NO PORTION Of ERALOINGHAT EXTEND ABOVE NEJONT (RIR EXISTING NAMPA. IL/RUIN PRIOR TO GRADING CUI IN TERRAIN p4EJGIIT LIRA T FOLLOWS PROFILE OF FASTING NATLIRAI TERRAIN kill I L . • - NU. PI TEITATaN EXISTING TERRAIN T 9 E BORDTNG NE.G.41 General Provisions § 1 9 Rules of Measufernent Figure 1-2 E. Height. 1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height shall be established by a plane measured vertically above the existing natural terrain elevation prior to grading. Height shall be measured as the vertical distance in feet from the original natural terrain within the building footprint to the highest point of the finished roof situated directly above the point of measurement. Small areas of rugged terrain inconsistent with this plane shall not increase or reduce building height. "Small areas" are those features with a maximum width of twenty-five (25) feet. See Figure 1-3. (Ord. 18-02 #3) Figure 1-3 Supp. 4 1-7 N4=30' Mb=35' K-scpq soon = Genera! Piovisions § 1.9 Rules of Measurement 2. Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. The maximum height of buildings on slopes may be adjusted up to a maximum of forty (40) feet using the following calculation (see Figure 1-4). This adjustment requires submittal of a site plan containing the following information: building elevations, roof design, finished floor elevation, and grading plan with existing and proposed contours. Mb=30+150(a-b)] where: Mb=Maximum height in feet at any given point above original grade a=Elevation at highest point of natural grade of proposed building location b=Elevation at any given point Original ground surface Figure 1-4 (Ord. 18-01 #2) 3. Exemptions from Height Standards. a. Residential chimneys to the extent required by the Uniform Building Code; and b. Wireless telecommunications facilities and structures, but only to the extent allowed by the specific provisions set forth in Use Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Chapter 4 and in §5.1.T of this Code. F. Spacing Requirements. The required minimum space between a proposed use and an existing use or lot shall be measured from the edge of the principal structure housing the proposed use to the closest edge of the principal structure housing the existing use or to the closest lot line. G. Signs. For measurement provisions applicable to outdoor signs and advertising, see Chapter 8 of this Code. (Ord. 18-01 #1, 2, 10/23/01; Ord. 18-02 #3, 12/10/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) § 1.10 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS This Section addresses the applicability of new substantive standards enacted by this Code to activities, actions and other matters that are pending or occurring as of the effective date of this Code. (For definition of "effective date of this Code," see Chapter 13.) Supp, 6 1-8 Eiger Trail-3323 - T 'rg Variance.xls Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip Douglas & Lynn Calvin 1601 Prestwick Dr Lake Geneva WI 53147 Wayne & Julie Reschke 4810 Fond du Lac Trl Madison WI 53705 Janice Barnett 112 S Port Dr Seneca SC 29672 Rina Ruttenberg & Phyllis Akmal 3404 Barranca Cir Austin TX 78731 Alpine Meadow HOA PO Box 2057 Estes Park CO 80517 Karol Anderson & Sheryl McMulin 13904 5 Outer Belt Rd Lone Jack MO 64070 Cornelis & Brigitte Deering 1178 Trueno Ave Camarillo CA 93010 Martha Stephens 5115 Amherst Ct Paris TX 75462 Sponsel Interests, Ltd 50 Briar Hollow Ln, #370 West Houston TX 77027 Mary Sumioka 1065 SW 328th Ct Federal Way WA 98023 Frederick & Natalia Math 2780 Hitchingpost Dr Green River WY 82935 Eiger Trail, LLC 2 Marine Ave Camden ME 4843 Mountain Greenery Properties, LLC 1161 Lenox Rd Bloomfield Hills MI 48304 Judy Peet Trust 3469 Eaglecliff Cir Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Tara & Rosemary Smith Trust 5194 Catalpa Creek Dr Cincinnati OH 45242 Robert & Erin Parkinson 5333 Cocos Plimosas Kenner LA 70065 Keith Bible & Mary Kasten 778 Upper Meadow Ln NW Rochester MN 55901 Andres & Stephanie Newberg 805 Edwin Ln Bryn Mawr PA 19010 David & Leslie Yale 1521 St. Moritz Trl Estes Park CO 80517 Bay Ridge LLC PO Box 490 Maize KS 67101 George Kryder 2001 Ross Ave, Suite 3700 Dallas TX 75201 Page 1 ~~ NEIGHBORING HOUSE 3266 EIGER TRAIL NEIGHBORING HOUSE 1501 ST, 1.1081T2 TRAIL r r 1.8_C_EIND t:C HYDRANT ELECTRIC PEDESTAL A m ELECTRIC TRANSFORmER EINFEB.7742LNI.W.S.: ANDREW 6 ARO SIEPHANT K NEWBERG 805 EDWIN LANE NAVID, PA 19010 APPEJCIINTISQYZEUrrefii NATIme Rm.. 0, AINLE, BUILT. LLC PO DDT 2511 ESTES PARS, CD 60517 9'D-227-A46S DATE OS-07-16 AD-30-18 REVISION ACC ROUSE FOOTPRINTS W/IN 200 Or PROPERTY LINE REVISICWS PER RDADIANG AGENCIES (0155. town., Inrco BY CAL CMI VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING 1043 FISH CREEK RO • ESTES PARK. COLORADO 80517 PHONE: (970) 586-9380 • FOR. (970) 586-8101 NEIGHBORING HOUSE 3245. 3247, 32 49 EIGER TRAIL NEWBERG VARIANCE SITE PLAN \ LOT 9, BLOCK 3, OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WINDCLIFF ESTATES, 5TH SUBDIVISION, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO LOT 1, BLOCK 2. WINDCLIFF 5TH E-1 LOT 13, BLOCK 4, WINOCLIF6 5TH 6-1 NEIGHBORING HOUSE 1511 ST. 400712 TRAIL LOT 8. BLOCK 3, WINOCLIFF 51N 25.0 FOUND 04 REBA E-1 WITH PLASTIC CO 37. BUILDING SETBACK STAMPED RLG (TYPICAL) 4845 . (at:Nerit:i LOT 2. BLOCK 2, WINOCLIFF 5TH OPEN AREA NEIGHBORING MOUSL 1570 ZERMATT TRAIL LOT 3, PLOCK 2, WINDCLIFF 5TH E- 1 ; TAPERING( Firtome 'WALL , 21:6' 14 6' 4t S- Aft, 1,!oe AD'S' LOTTED -O-W RIGRIAL SURVEY CO ROL Cl ikAt,[-E156St2. POINT ,(,GU ELEVATION= 545.5. E:3 • -74 LLOWAIKE,4,38. C6OpOSED+36. 0 FOUND #4 REB WITH PLASTIC CAP STAMPED RLS 4845 T. TAPERING RETAINING WALL ORIGINAL 10 GRADE -8572.3' RIDGE Nf EIGHT-8611.3' Kb OWABLE-37' 3, PR 05E0=39' LOT 1. BLOCK 6. WINDCLIFF 5TH OPEN AREA 30,1. PLAT"' R-0 w LOT 9. BLOCK 4, WINDCLIFF 5TH E -1 LOT 9,J1LOCK 3, LOT 14. BLOCK 4. WINDCLIFF 5TH OPEN AREA yA (, :e:cr NOTTS: Doan. 1410 LINENSIONAL STANDARDS Of RESIOCIPLAL 20NING DISTRICTS. PINCH SKINS IRE NININUm 0000155 1 THE VARIANCE REOUESTED IS PROM TOE ESTES SALINE OrvELOruENI CODA TABLE A-I IN SECTION •3.0 5. ROSE SETBACKS Pra TN( (-I 2040NG 10 et MONT 25', SIDE 4 25 WS REAR • 15- AND • TAARA1,1 551.0111G MEIGUT Or 35- D111,, ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ACCORDING TO THE SLOPE SLIDING SCALE N CHAPTER 1, SECTION 1 B.E Of THE ESTES VALLEY DEVITOPMENT CODE 2 THIS VARIANCE 4LOUEST IS FOR APPRO.!. 00 II' SETBACK ALCM: THE NEST PROOF.'LIME. T" SCITIAO, ALONG THE CAST PROPERTY LNE, AND 2' ABOVE Wx. 1[010 (Al THE SOUTH ENE Of THE "01150) TO ALLCNT THE CONSTRUCTION Of A SINGLE -rnamv How AS SAIGON Dm SCE RA., 3 101 STOOP SLOPE (ATARI. EORTSIED AREA. TRW/SOLAR 000 NARROW GERKIGLKADou OP INC LOT. SMALL LOT 5,1E RENTIVE TO ZONING, AND SMALL BUILDABLE /RCA AIR TO 1,1 REASON FOR IlitS 5101010E REOULSI. 4 ELEVATION DIrrERENCE OA ORIGINAL GRADE TROD HIGH 00101 TO LOW POINT (EAST TO WEST) or IRE PROPOSED 1-10051 AT TH EM *PPM:WM/JULY IT' ACCORDING. 10 THE [VOW E 2 TOE MAIDNUN RICAN mow DR•sN4L GRADE AT THE INCHEST P00/1 ON THE HOUSE AS PROPOSED IS 35.5' (3(f PLUS 1.1N.T Or RAE 51101 00,ERENt( AT THAT POINT). THE HEIGHT or TIN P0000510 NOL/SL THIS AM, AERROFINMELT 74 IS. 4 4' ABOvE ALLOWED MAX litICHT, TFIC MAXIMUM ALLOPTISIA HFIONT AT THE SOON END OF THE NOUSE AT THE 0I50[51 P0111! 15 ]1' THE PROPOSED POOH 0115.50 IT ENS P11101 IS 39 ARNE ORIGINAL RHODE. 2' ANNE SLOWED PAAS HEIGHT 111IfYir-EMIS. SITE PIAN1V ITREPRESENTATTONAL ONLY WO SHOULD 140T BE RELIED LIPON AS A BOUNDARY SURVEY NPR AN INPROVEMENI SOME? THIS LOT IS ZONED E-I ,ESTAIL) WHO 25' SIRLDRIG 6.05.045 /5.0.5 ALL LOT LNC S. 3. THE AMENDED PLAT or wINDcurr ESTATES 5TH SLIRONTS.SN WAS ILL COIL, SPRIER LIED TOP OWNERSIee AND EA REsEARcH HE MEW/OS ALONG ALL LOO LINES FOR OR INSTALLATION AND NIAINTENNICE AND OPERATION OF UR, SERVICES ARE SPECIFIED 'OR INC LOTS ON INE WENDED PLAT Or VIINOCIA f ESTATES STH SUIRDIVISION AND REPT AT WEBSTER BIG surcivisBN 5 (NE BANS 0, THE FOR TN* SRL PLAN IS TOE PEST PROPERTY LINE VAN A DEARING OF SOI.03.391 MONUMENTIO ON THE HORN AND SOUTH END Br SA /4 KERR Pr. H PLASTIC CAP STOOPED 04545. AS SHOWN NEREON. 6 PROPER, MIS 6, CLOSE PROPPEty PROPOSED RETAINING WALI,S 0[Neriro IS THE NELO 10 ENSURE HO RETANNy. WALLS ARE CONSTRUCTED IA INC 015,11-0T -HAY ACGLS,LANPCIILIVIES, 1 SEWER- SERER SEPACE TOR TOR SRC WR.I. BC PROVOtO Ii~ UPPED 10010P0ON sAKRADDI4 0451•61 THE 101 PROPOSED ROPED SERPKE LINE TILL CONSORT TO THE ExtsDPG ool.E 1004100 sotrDNLST Or 100 won., PRO D SERVICE Lmt wit RE AARROYAMTELY .r42' N 10151N 45 SNOW+ ON MS Set PLAN 2 WATER: 0011E51 1E WATER !OR THIS STE PILL DE PROVIDED WINOCIITT. 106 PROPOSED BLARED WATER LINE WILL CONNECT TO ENE uNN LOCATED NI EIGER TRAIL, EAST OP ENE PROPERtr ELECTROON DERI(STD ELEC.:RCM,' TOP 1HkE. SCE IS SUPPLIED PT INC TOWN Of [S1,5 PARK M. AND POWIP DEPARTMENT THE PPORDSED ROPED ELECTRIC UNE PILL CONNECT 10 TT noSvIc PEDESTAL LOCATED NORTHEAST CP THE PROPERTY I GAS. OAS FOR THIS 9TC WILL BE PROVIDER BY • PRIVATE 104,PAArr A PROPOSED SURIED PROPANE IA. PILL DE LOCATED FAST 0, THE HOUSE IN THE APPROXIMATE LCCATION AS 910114 TeG SIC PLAN S TELEPHONE, TELEPHONE SERVICE FOR Dos snE 0151 FIE PRO‘IDED BY A PRIVATE CONRAN., THE TELEPHONE AND CABLE LINE WILL SHARE THE SAAR TRENCH AS ELECTRIC AND CONNECT 10 THE EXISTING PEDESTALS LOCATED NOR.EAST Of THE PROPERTY 6 ACCESS. ACCESS PILL COME OFF Of EIGER TRAIL IN THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION SKR.. ON TIPS SRO PLAN 7, DR.NADC. DRAINAGE GENERALLY ROWS SOLtrevrt51 ACROSS 1110 PROPER,' URGE PILL RE DIPECTE0 AROUND THE rots[ TO THE EXISTING ROADSOC DIGHES ALONG EAGLE CLIFF CANT AND JLING,RALI TRNL. -LTC 0 (00.00) 00-DO 0 0 TELEPHONE PEDESTAL MANHOLE SEWER CLEANOUT STORM DRAINAGE DIRECTION EBSDNG DOUGLAS FIR TREE EXISTING PONDEROSA PINE TREE PRDPOSE0 BURIED ELECTRIC/TELEPHONE/FABLE ONCE PROPOSED BURIED OCHER SERVICE LINE PROPOSED BURIED WOOER SERVICE LINE rouND MONUMENtATION FLATTED DRAEN.SIONS mEILSDRED DIMENSIONS 2 6 SCALE- 1' • 20' 20 40 BO EROSION CONTROL NOTES . DUE 10 STEEP SLOPES ARO PROPOSED Goa. 0.1 IN sour CASES) mos.,. CONTROL MEASURES SHALL DE IMPLEMENTED ONCE AS REVEGRATON AND INSTALLATION 04 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS), 2, SLOPES STEEPER THAD 2:1 NOT SINYLIEED BE BEDROCK OR ROCK PALES) VOLE BE SEEDED (AMID BRoAccA51) wow A CERNFIED IUD-FM SEED MIX COMPRISED Sr SPECIES SAINT TO THE 11.11.1[0010 AREA ONCE SEED IS RARE( AM THE TOP 1.-6 OF SOIL. EROS.. CONTROL EILALIKET SHALL BE N5IALLE0 PER MANUFACTURERS ;NSTRUCTIONS. DISTURBED SONS ON SLOPES !LATTER THAN 2.I SHALL DE SEEDED (1NND BROADCAST) RIR WEED-NICE SEED VD COMPRISED Of SPECIES NATIVE 10 THE I1SIEV.TE AREA AND RUED IMO THE /OP 4.-6' Or HE SOIL 70 ENSURE GOOD. SELO/SOIL CONTACT. A THE REVEGETATED/SEEDED AREAS SHOULD Of IRRSATED NOR HE INITIAL TWO GROPING SEASONS (TWO TEARS) AT 14111000 TO ENCOURAGE PERMANCHT ESTABLISHMENT Of PLANTED SPECIES AND SOIL STABILI2ATION (WELL ESTABLISHED ROOT MEM), RECOINONDED SEED ND (SPECIES CAN WRY AS APPROVED EN ENGINEER). SHEET NEWBERG SITE PLAN PROJECT 3323 EIGER TRAIL ESTES PARK, CO TO 1 STONE STONE STUCCO STUCCO 1f4" = 1' FRONT ELEVATION (East) 11/1111!1111:I~I ill II ST RIGHT ELEVATION (North) 1 /4" = ammrocianagnaismisommasuansisaggi. firgifirtig rifirEffeeffiefiegregfiffilege MIN 01/ I I REAR ELEVATION (Nest) 114"=1" ( LEFT ELEVATION (South) it 11 r oAho que. f i r • el&I V . .1k! I 4111 -111. 1 ita rig/ k • . . / 77 \ \_ N / •Va •Vall r•II•bp111•1=•••• === STUCCO r es r u w n ra Olmm.1•M•i•IMEMMI•m•.1.11=•., DATE: 4-4-2016 Revislq, r. SHEET NUMBER N ES in GARAGE }MR SHEET NUMBER 2 0 CD Lt (fi was U m I. 4,) v, L; Z O zN p 2 i DN 10T -8" • 28' r•-,••••• POiCH 15'-1 X6'-8' MASTER BATH 10'4," CLOSET LAUNDRY 11'47 X 9'-4" Inr LIVING r7 -2 X 1e-5" o°'D 161.111•••••• DECK 1T-4" X 12.-10" 28' • 1T-6 1/18. viNG AREA *•.••.• 1852 5:2 FT Main Floor Plan 1/4' • 1' 52' • 15' -hi (' DINING 15%10" X 14'47 ,:11 • %Iry 9.5.a 3160f1. DECK ••* .•••• 2.0 10'-er HOT TUB io.--r x 8.-4" 18'•4" i6 2616 2 1 I DATE: 15.2" ''I LIVING AREA 11.12 50 FT 41> 4-4-2616 15-4" 21' 104' 35' 14' 57' 25'-9 1/2" 26' • r 1 I I I r 1 ml 1 CRAIALL SPACE 40'-1" X 5.-9" L L in L 17-10" 7 1 rloTer BEDRIOOM 2 12%6" X 12-11- 15-1 112" 5-2 1/7 cp Bath I ice, I UP— IP 1 1 10'-4" g 5-10 1/2" BAT. % 1V-9 112" VROOM 4 -5" x 11.-11" Giosel ji GARAGE 28.-2" X 24.-8" 25-10" J • m m rn -; rypro..etterilp elnaPrz 1100 Resbentl.1 specialist U7 lbdd VAIdd 303-592.3511 O mm Archiled ural DesLen and Draft* Contractor Kinley Built Nathan Kinley 970-227-4865 nethen§kinleybullt.com Newberg Residence Newberg - Estes Park CO Project Address: Lot 9, Block 3, Windcliff 5th, Larimer County CO