Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2018-06-05 Prepared: May 31, 2018 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, June 5, 2018 9:00 a.m. – Board Room Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated April 3, 2018 5. 1909 Silversage Court Owner: Gerald Lohse/Virginia Ferrer Applicant: Paul Brown, Concept Design Build Request: Two Variances from Estes Valley Development Code 1) Section 4.3 (C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards of Residential Zoning Districts; to permit a one (1) foot side setback from the west property line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District. 2) Section 4.3 (C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards of Residential Zoning Disctricts; to permit a zero (0) foot side setback from the south property line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District. Staff: Robin Becker, Planner I 6. 840 Ramshorn Drive Owner: Kay Evans Applicant: Nathan Kinley, Kinley Built Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3 Table 4-2.C.4 which requires 15-foot setbacks in the E1-Estate zone district. Request to allow a setback of approximately 5 feet on the property line for a proposed new front entry deck to replace existing structure. Staff: Robin Becker, Planner I 7. REPORTS 8. ADJOURN 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 April 3, 2018 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Rex Poggenpohl, Vice-Chair Jeff Moreau, Wayne Newsom, Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, John Lynch Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, Smith, Moreau, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner I Robin Becker, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: None Chair Poggenpohl called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were six people in attendance. He introduced the Board Members and staff. 1. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Smith/Newsom) to approved the agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated March 6, 2018 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the minutes for March 6 as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 4. 260 STANLEY AVENUE-Stanley Avenue Townhomes Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The variance request is to allow parking in the required 15’ landscaping buffer and relocation of the landscaping buffer in RM-Multi Family Residential zoning district. Planner Becker reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There were no public comments received. Staff recommended approval of the variance request with no conditions. Staff and Board Member Discussion Board Members asked questions about: number of parking spaces required; if units would be rented or sold; what benefits did work force housing designation contribute to this project; is it possible to reduce units to meet landscaping requirements; parking in the power line easements (where Utilities doesn’t want landscaping); will all proposed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 April 3, 2018 landscaping fit; irrigation/watering of landscaping; why there is zero setback for Townhome Development on this project. Director Hunt answered that four of the eight units would have to be deed or covenant restricted and identified as such prior to sale; number of parking spaces depends on number of bedrooms; density bonus allows double the units to be built, as long as work force housing designation is followed; possible future code amendements regarding landscaping and irrigation and how it would pertain to fire hazards; zero setbacks are from the townhome, not the edge of the primary parcel. Applicant Tom Bergman, Van Horn Engineering, answered that the units are to be sold, however they could be rented after being sold; an alternative landscape plan was submitted to meet landscaping requirements. He stated that the current code was not written for double density; therefore, most projects would have to request variances no matter what the lot shape. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Poggenpohl) to approve the requested variance. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1051 SUTTON LANE-Owner: Dianne Richter Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report. The variance request is to allow a 13-foot setback on the east side of the property the E-1 zone district. The E-1 district requires 25- foot setbacks on all sides. The applicant desires to build a mudroom to the existing building. Staff recommended approval of the variance request. Planner Woeber reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There was no public comment received. Board/Staff/Applicant Discussion: Board asked if there is a variance request established for the south side of house and the shed that is sitting in the set-back on the south west side of lot. Finding that there is not, Director Hunt stated that the fee could be waived if another variance is applied for in this calendar year. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Moreau) to approve the variance to 13 feet on the east side of the property and a fee waiver for additional variances applied for within this calendar year. The motion passed unanimously. 6. CHELEY HIGH ROPES COURSE-Cheley Colorado Camps Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report. The variance is to allow a “High Ropes Structure” which needs a 43-foot height requirement in lieu of the maximum 30-foot height on the east property line of Cheley Camp, 3960 Fish Creek Road. Planner Woeber reviewed the staff findings. The application was routed to affected agencies. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper and adjacent property owners were notified by mail. There was no public comment received. Staff recommends approval of this variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 April 3, 2018 The height of the complete project was discussed. It was clarified by the applicant, Jeff Cheley, that there are two decks with dimensions of 10’x10’ at 23 feet and 33 feet high, and the poles between the decks going as high as 43’. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance to 43 feet. The motion passed unanimously. 7. REPORTS-Director Hunt A) Verbal acceptance of Planning II candidate Brittney Hathaway, set to start May 1, 2018. B) Two consulting firms (on call planning services) contracted to help with workload: RG & Associates in Golden and Ayres & Associates in Ft. Collins. C) Landscaping in Right of W ay is a work in progress, and meetings are being held with public works as a possible way to avoid certain variance requests in the future. D) Public Notice Requirements will be changing in the way of development signage, neighbor notification letters and the perimeter of neighbor notice area. E) Review of current development projects. F) Three board members are unavailable in early May causing the possibility of changing next meeting to the 3rd Tuesday in May or canceling May and meeting next on June 5. G) Discussion on Town Board’s decision to approve the Grand Estates project. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:06 a.m. ___________________________________ Jeff Moreau, Vice Chair __________________________________ Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: June 5, 2018, 9:00 a.m.; Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: The applicant requests two (2) Variances from the Estes Valley Development Code. 1. Variance #1: From Section 4.3(C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts; to permit a one (1) foot side setback from the west property line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District. 2. Variance #2: From Section 4.3(C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts; to permit a zero (0) foot side setback from the south property line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District. Staff is recommending approval of this variance. LOCATION: 1909 Silversage Ct., Estes Park, CO LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, the amended plat of Lots 1 & 2 of the amended plat of Lots 4 & 5, Windcliff Estates 6th Subdivision, a PUD, Larimer County, Colorado. EXISTING ZONING: E-1, Estate Zoning VICINITY AND SITE MAP: See attachments APPLICANT/OWNER: Gerald Lohse & Virginia Ferrer STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker Planner I, Brandon Howes & Ross Culbertson, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Variance request is to grant alternative side setbacks in lieu of the established 25-foot minimum side setbacks required by the E-1 Estate Zoning District. The applicant proposes three site improvements which require the setback variances. The first improvement will be construction of an accessory structure (private office) northwest of the existing home in the property’s rear yard yet within the existing 25-foot side setback area. The second improvement is to fully enclose the existing front yard deck (approximately 300 square feet) to create an attached sunroom also within the existing 25-foot side setback area. However, the new sunroom walls will be constructed within the existing deck area so as to not encroach past the original deck plane. The third improvement will be to add new concrete pylon footings along the western edge of the home to support a new master bedroom dormer window. The footings will be outside of the original building footprint yet be within the proposed 1-foot setback requested with this variance. 1909 Silversage Ct., Variance Request Side Setback Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org 1909 SILVERSAGE CT. VARIANCE REQUEST, SIDE SETBACK PAGE 2 OF 4 The existing home and front deck were built in 1984 prior to the Town’s rezoning efforts in February 2000, when the Estes Valley Development Code became effective. The established 25- foot zoning district side setbacks in the E-1 zoning district creates a non-conforming condition for the original residential structure and creates conflicts with the new building additions if not amended. The Variance Site Plan indicates the existing home’s footprint is 1.2 feet off the west property line and the existing front deck is 0.9 feet off the south property line. Thus, the request is to establish the new side setbacks as 1-foot on the west and zero (or none) on the south to accommodate the existing dimensions. A variance was recently approved in April 2018 for a residential home located at 1051 Sutton Lane which had a similar condition of setting new side setbacks due to its planned building expansions. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. The application is posted on the Town’s “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. This report includes attachments of pertinent memos and emails from the reviewing agencies regarding this review. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with the EVDC, Section 3.6 C., Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW (3.6)(C) 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Special circumstances exist on the property. The property contains 0.6 acres and was constructed in 1984 prior to the EVDC adoption in 2000 which rezoned the property to E-1, Estate. The established E-1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre and 25-foot side setbacks from all property lines (front, sides, and rear). The applicants state there is no other viable location to place the proposed accessory structure without causing additional variance conditions or requiring construction on steep slopes of 25%-40% grades. The attached Appendix F indicates the proposed location for the office has a gentler slope than the other potential locations on the property. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: There is beneficial use of the property under the current conditions. b. Whether the variance is substantial; 1909 SILVERSAGE CT. VARIANCE REQUEST, SIDE SETBACK PAGE 3 OF 4 Staff Finding: The variances are considered substantial. Allowing the decrease in setback widths from 25-feet to 1-foot on the west and zero on the south side are logical and reasonable to remedy the non-conforming conditions. Staff understands when the E-1 zoning was established in 2000 over the entire neighborhood, it potentially created hardships on existing properties by setting criteria for larger lot areas and larger setback. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: Staff does not find that the character of the neighborhood would be altered, and there would be no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties with approval of the proposed variance. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Approval would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The EVDC was adopted in the year 2000 and was readily available to the public. The current owner purchased the property in 2015. However, the applicant required the sellers of the property at the time to provide letters from Larimer County Building officials stating the home met all building codes and required setbacks. These letters are attached as a part of the review agency comments attachment and state that the home met all required setbacks. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: There is no other location on the property to construct an accessory structure that will meet the applicant’s needs without requesting a variance either for the setback or a separate variance for building in a steep slope. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The requested variances are the least deviation from the regulations and will afford the property owner the opportunity for property improvements in light of the existing conditions. There is no process that could provide a lesser deviation than the proposed variance. 4. 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. 1909 SILVERSAGE CT. VARIANCE REQUEST, SIDE SETBACK PAGE 4 OF 4 Staff Comment. Staff finds the variances requested are reasonable due to the existing site condition and do not foresee the need for additional conditions. The BOA is welcomed to review and consider additional conditions as needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance with no conditions. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE the following variances, allowing a side setback of no less than 1 foot, along the west side of the property and 0 feet on the south side of the property at 1909 Silversage Court, Estes Park, with findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report. I move to DENY the requested variances with the following findings (state reason/findings for Denial). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site plan 5. Review Agency Comments 6. Variance Sign B I G HOR N T R L SILVERSAGE CT0 30 60Feet 1 in = 67 ft ±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Printed: 5/31/2018Created By: Robin Becker Project Name: Project Description: Petitioner(s): 1909 Silversage Court Setback Variance Jerry Lohse E HIGHWAY 36 HIGHWAY 36 B E A R L A K E R D W HIGHWAY 34TUNNEL RDW ELKHORN AVE P E A K V I E W D R Site Vicinity MapSilversage Court0 1 2 Miles 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE 40 messages Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:43 AM To: Greg White <Greg@gawhite.com>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>, Chris Eshelman <ceshelman@estes.org>, Cliff Tedder <ctedder@estes.org>, Shane Krell <skrell@estes.org>, Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>, Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org>, Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, David Wolf <chief@estesvalleyfire.org>, Michael Whitley <mwhitley@larimer.org>, jhaag@larimer.org, Jennifer Infeld <jpettus@larimer.org>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>, Clint Jones <cdjones@larimer.org>, lschneider@larimer.org, helminbm@larimer.org, larry.rogstad@state.co.us Cc: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> 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: Lohse Setback Variance Type: Setback Variance Address: 1909 Silversage Court Legal: 6th Subdivision, Wndcliff Estates Project details can be found in the Statement of Intent & Application COMMENTS DUE ON OR BEFORE 5 P.M. FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2018 PLEASE "REPLY ALL" WITH YOUR COMMENTS. EMAIL COMMENTS TO: Owner/Applicants: Jerry Lohse jerry.lohse@comcast.net Consultant/Engineer(s): Jacob Scott paulbrownprodesign@msn.com Planner: Robin Becker rbecker@estes.org APPLICATION DOCUMENTS Documents are attached. Please let me know if you want a hard copy. 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea EXTENSION OF TIME FRAMES 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. Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3721 970-586-0249 - fax planning@estes.org 3 attachments Lohse Application.pdf 1183K Lohse Site Plan.pdf 823K Lohse Statement of Intent.pdf 193K Jennifer Infeld <infeldjd@co.larimer.co.us>Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:14 AM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> Cc: Greg White <Greg@gawhite.com>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>, Chris Eshelman <ceshelman@estes.org>, Cliff Tedder <ctedder@estes.org>, Shane Krell <skrell@estes.org>, Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>, Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org>, Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, David Wolf <chief@estesvalleyfire.org>, Michael Whitley <mwhitley@larimer.org>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>, Clint Jones <cdjones@larimer.org>, lschneider@larimer.org, helminbm@larimer.org, larry.rogstad@state.co.us, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Please update Jeannine Haag's email to jeanninehaag@larimer.org. Thank you! Jennifer Infeld Paralegal Larimer County Attorney's Office 224 Canyon Ave., Suite 200 P.O. Box 1606 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970) 498-7450 (970) 498-7445 direct line (970) 498-7430 fax [Quoted text hidden] Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:54 AM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> Cc: Greg White <Greg@gawhite.com>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, David Wolf <chief@estesvalleyfire.org>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> The Town of Estes Park Utilities Department has no objections to this setback variance. Thank you, 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Steve Rusch Utilities Coordinator Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. Suite 140 PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Office: (970)577-3625 Mobile: (970)481-8417 Please consider the environment before printing this email or any attachments On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] Lea Schneider <schneils@co.larimer.co.us>Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 11:04 AM To: Jennifer Infeld <infeldjd@co.larimer.co.us> Cc: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>, Greg White <Greg@gawhite.com>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>, Chris Eshelman <ceshelman@estes.org>, Cliff Tedder <ctedder@estes.org>, Shane Krell <skrell@estes.org>, Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>, Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org>, Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, David Wolf <chief@estesvalleyfire.org>, Michael Whitley <mwhitley@larimer.org>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>, Clint Jones <cdjones@larimer.org>, Lea Schneider <lschneider@larimer.org>, helminbm@larimer.org, larry.rogstad@state.co.us, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, jerry.lohse@comcast.net, paulbrownprodesign@msn.com The health dept has no comments on this referral. Thank you, Lea Lea Schneider Environmental Health Planner Larimer County Department of Health & Environment 1525 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 main office: 970.498.6776 direct line: 970.498.6777 fax: 970.498.6772 Website: http://www.larimer.org/health/ehs/ [Quoted text hidden] Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:37 PM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, jerry.lohse@comcast.net Cc: "Shambo, Traci" <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> The Site Plan provided with the setback variance shows the existing home at one point to be .1 feet from the south property line with the deck at its closest point .1 feet over the south property line. It is unclear how this situation came to be, since the home was built under county building permit 84-2397 and received a Certificate of Occupancy on 1-18-85. There was also a permit for an addition in 1995 (95-E0900) that received final inspection approval, which included an extension of the non-conforming deck. 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea The Building Department cannot legally issue a permit for a structure over a property line on someone else's property, whether for a new structure, an addition, or enclosing an existing structure. A setback variance could allow the enclosure of the building with zero feet to the property line, but cannot authorize encroachment onto another property. The choices seem to be: 1) cut back the deck so that the deck and the enclosure, including any architectural features and projections, are entirely within the Lohse property; AND/OR 2) obtain a boundary line adjustment to move the southern property line beyond the boundaries of the proposed enclosure. Once that issue is resolved, the second issue is that buildings or portions thereof built within the Fire Separation Distance to property lines need fire-rated walls, roofs and projections, and have limitations on openings such as doors and windows. Per the amended 2015 International Residential Code adopted by Larimer County, dwelling unit and residential accessory structure walls within three feet of a property line must be one hour fire rated in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263, tested for fire exposure from both sides, and cannot have any openings. Projections are prohibited within two feet of a property line, and must be one hour fire-rated on the underside if within two to three feet of the property line. Wall, roof or soffit penetrations within three feet of a property line must be fire-rated in compliance with 2015 International Residential Code section R302.4. (The unamended code requires a 5' distance to property lines.) The intent of this code section is to prevent the spread of fire from a building to the neighboring property, or from the neighboring property to the building. I note that the property to the south is open space owned by the Silversage Homeowners Association. If the applicant obtains written legal confirmation from this group that they will never build a structure within six feet of the proposed deck enclosure/sunroom and existing home, I would accept that as meeting the code intended Fire Separation Distance. An alternative is a property line adjustment so that no portion of the home including the proposed new construction is closer than three feet to the new property line. Since the proposed enclosure is a sunroom presumably consisting largely of glazing, the code requirement for 1-hour rated walls without openings cannot practically be met. The office and attached deck are shown as being 5' from the nearest property line, so they would not raise fire separation distance issues. Both the new office/deck structure and home addition/enclosure will need building permits, with structural plans stamped and sealed by a Colorado professional engineer due to location in the High Wind area. Eric FriedChief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:45 PM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> Cc: Greg White <Greg@gawhite.com>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>, Chris Eshelman <ceshelman@estes.org>, Cliff Tedder <ctedder@estes.org>, Shane Krell <skrell@estes.org>, Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>, Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org>, Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, David Wolf <chief@estesvalleyfire.org>, Michael Whitley <mwhitley@larimer.org>, 18 Jeannine Haag <jhaag@larimer.org>, Jennifer Infeld <jpettus@larimer.org>, Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>, Clint Jones <cdjones@larimer.org>, 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea lschneider@larimer.org, helminbm@larimer.org, larry.rogstad@state.co.us, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> [I originally sent these comments only to the listed emails below, instead of hitting Reply All. This will be a duplication for three recipients.] The Site Plan provided with the setback variance shows the existing home at one point to be .1 feet from the south property line with the deck at its closest point .1 feet over the south property line. It is unclear how this situation came to be, since the home was built under county building permit 84-2397 and received a Certificate of Occupancy on 1-18-85. There was also a permit for an addition in 1995 (95-E0900) that received final inspection approval, which included an extension of the non-conforming deck. The Building Department cannot legally issue a permit for a structure over a property line on someone else's property, whether for a new structure, an addition, or enclosing an existing structure. A setback variance could allow the enclosure of the building with zero feet to the property line, but cannot authorize encroachment onto another property. The choices seem to be: 1) cut back the deck so that the deck and the enclosure, including any architectural features and projections, are entirely within the Lohse property; AND/OR 2) obtain a boundary line adjustment to move the southern property line beyond the boundaries of the proposed enclosure. Once that issue is resolved, the second issue is that buildings or portions thereof built within the Fire Separation Distance to property lines need fire-rated walls, roofs and projections, and have limitations on openings such as doors and windows. Per the amended 2015 International Residential Code adopted by Larimer County, dwelling unit and residential accessory structure walls within three feet of a property line must be one hour fire rated in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263, tested for fire exposure from both sides, and cannot have any openings. Projections are prohibited within two feet of a property line, and must be one hour fire-rated on the underside if within two to three feet of the property line. Wall, roof or soffit penetrations within three feet of a property line must be fire-rated in compliance with 2015 International Residential Code section R302.4. (The unamended code requires a 5' distance to property lines.) The intent of this code section is to prevent the spread of fire from a building to the neighboring property, or from the neighboring property to the building. I note that the property to the south is open space owned by the Silversage Homeowners Association. If the applicant obtains written legal confirmation from this group that they will never build a structure within six feet of the proposed deck enclosure/sunroom and existing home, I would accept that as meeting the code intended Fire Separation Distance. An alternative is a property line adjustment so that no portion of the home including the proposed new construction is closer than three feet to the new property line. Since the proposed enclosure is a sunroom presumably consisting largely of glazing, the code requirement for 1-hour rated walls without openings cannot practically be met. The office and attached deck are shown as being 5' from the nearest property line, so they would not raise fire separation distance issues. Both the new office/deck structure and home addition/enclosure will need building permits, with structural plans stamped and sealed by a Colorado professional engineer due to location in the High Wind area. Eric FriedChief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:08 PM To: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Cc: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>, Greg White <Greg@gawhite.com>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>, Chris Eshelman <ceshelman@estes.org>, Cliff Tedder <ctedder@estes.org>, Shane Krell <skrell@estes.org>, Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>, Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org>, Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, David Wolf <chief@estesvalleyfire.org>, Michael Whitley <mwhitley@larimer.org>, 18 Jeannine Haag <jhaag@larimer.org>, Jennifer Infeld <jpettus@larimer.org>, Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>, Clint Jones <cdjones@larimer.org>, lschneider@larimer.org, helminbm@larimer.org, "Rogstad - DNR, Larry" <larry.rogstad@state.co.us>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org> Eric, Thank you for the detailed review. I followed up with Robin and Jeff. It looks like their variance application did not address the south property setback aspect at all. That seems curious, as it's very clear on the site plan, even including labeling. In addition, and separately from the variance, they will have to address the encroachment onto the neighbor's property. I think your two choices are the only ones they've got for the encroachment. We'll transmit your comments and point out that the current variance application, even if processed and approved, is not going to resolve issues in a way that allows them to build as shown on the site plan. Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt, AICP Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org [Quoted text hidden] jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 5:17 PM To: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Jamin Rucker <jaminvhe@airbits.com> Cc: "Shambo, Traci" <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> Eric- I am out of country until April 10th. See page 7 of the attached file. I have a similar letter from you on the 1994 addition as well. Making sure the property meet the setback variance was a condition for sale or I would not have purchased. what happened between 2015 and now? jerry lohse Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone [Quoted text hidden] SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST - Gerald Lohse 1909 Silver Sage Court (v2).pdf 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea 2976K Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:13 AM To: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Jamin Rucker <jaminvhe@airbits.com>, "Shambo, Traci" <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> Look at page 14-18 of the attached. It shows a different setback for the deck from the property line than the information submitted with this request, which shows the deck over the adjacent property line. That is one changed. The other change is you are now proposing to enclose the deck. While the existing house is nonconforming, and can remain nonconforming, the proposed work would increase the nonconformity and extend the home further across the property line, especially any roof projections. As I stated previously, I cannot legally issue a permit to property owner A to do work on the property of property owner B, and any permit that presumed to give such authority is legally null and void. If I were you I would investigate why the survey information being presented now differs from what was presented previously, see which one is correct, and then take appropriate action as needed. Eric FriedChief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 5:17 PM, jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> wrote: Eric- I am out of country until April 10th. See page 7 of the attached file. I have a similar letter from you on the 1994 addition as well. Making sure the property meet the setback variance was a condition for sale or I would not have purchased. what happened between 2015 and now? jerry lohse Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Date: 3/30/18 5:37 PM (GMT-03:00) To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, jerry.lohse@comcast.net Cc: "Shambo, Traci" <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> Subject: Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE [Quoted text hidden] SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST - Gerald Lohse 1909 Silver Sage Court (v2).pdf 2976K Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:31 AM 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Date: Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:13 AM Subject: Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE [Quoted text hidden] -- Robin Becker Planner I Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3720 SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST - Gerald Lohse 1909 Silver Sage Court (v2).pdf 2976K PAUL F. BROWN <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:53 AM To: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, "jerry.lohse@comcast.net" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> The intent of the building codes in both 1984 and 1995, when permits # 84-2397 and 95- E0900 were issued by Larimer County, were also to provide a Fire Separation Distance to property lines. The approved building plans clearly show a living room,master bedroom and game room with non-rated walls, doors, windows and eave projections. The approved site plan for permit # 95- E0900 shows the game room on the south property line and 20' from the property line (boundary line) of the common grounds of Windcliff Estates. Clearly, Larimer County could not legally issue the two permits if It didn't consider the 20' setback as the Fire Separation Distance at the time. A similar Fire Seperation Distance would have also applied along the West property line to legally allow the master bedroom, original living room and living room addition. To maintain consistency and conformity, Larimer County should continue using the original 20' Fire Separation Distance and recommend approval for the proposed sun room enclosure, master bed addition/alteration and detached office. From: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 8:13:18 AM To: jerry.lohse Cc: Robin Becker; PAUL F. BROWN; Jamin Rucker; Shambo, Traci [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:43 AM To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Randy, Because the applicant and consultant is going back and forth with Larimer County Building on this do we need to sit down with both parties and have a meeting. Here is the latest email from Paul Brown to Larimer County. Or do we let 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea them the applicant and consultant suss it out with Larimer County? Thanks, Robin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: PAUL F. BROWN <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com> Date: Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:53 AM Subject: Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE [Quoted text hidden] -- Robin Becker Planner I Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3720 Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:58 AM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> If either party asks us to meet or help resolve, we'll consider it. But otherwise, no. It's not our issue. Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt, AICP Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org [Quoted text hidden] Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:58 AM To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Okay sounds good. [Quoted text hidden] Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:02 AM To: "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, shambotl@co.larimer.co.us Good morning all - Here are my thoughts on this matter. 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea According to our site plan and field surveying (with limited survey control), the existing home is over the south property line by 0.1' as Eric has stated. However, the southern deck is within the property by 1.2' on the southeast side, and 0.9' on the southwest side. We understood that the deck could be enclosed without a variance. Granted, there will be almost no room for any eaves/overhangs, etc, and perhaps the sunroom designs Jerry is working with will need to be changed to reflect this and be in conformance with the fire code Eric has mentioned. The dimensions from the deck to the property line were not shown on the site plan submitted with the variance package, as we believed it to be a separate matter from the variance. The encroaching dimensions shown there are only for the building corners. Also, if a setback certification had been obtained for the house, that dimension is typically measured to the stem wall before concrete is poured. So any siding, trim, etc. would easily push that dimension to/over the property line if this was not accounted for in 1984. I'm not sure of the difference Eric is referring to between the rough sketch included with the application, and the actual site plan included as part of the variance submittal. My numbers for the southern deck and house from the property line don't change between the two documents. I've attached the site plan here in case we are referring to different documents. Regarding the difference between what I show on the site plan and what was approved in 1984 and re-verified in 2015 - I would not know how to obtain survey data on the historic construction without a copy of that site plan, or knowing what company did the work then. Is the building permit the only document on record for this property, or is there a site plan as well? I do know that most of the monumentation for Jerry's lot is currently missing (probably demolished during construction and never replaced). It is very possible that any survey data from 1984 would have found the corners that no longer exist now, and if they were used for construction layout, they must have obtained the southwest property corner, as the alignment of the house very nearly follows the bearing of the south property line. It seems to me that it was done intentionally (and also at a time when this lot was actually a building envelope within a larger lot, allowing such construction to take place legally). If that corner still existed, chances are good that we would be seeing a slight change in the property line and I doubt the encroachment there would exist. This change would also possibly kick the west line further to the west and show the western deck to also be within the property. If this southwest property corner still existed, it would only have to be about 0.5' off from deeded location to make these changes, and our firm knows property corners in Windcliff to occasionally be off well more than that (5-10' in some cases). All of this may be water under the bridge, but my point is that the property lines I show are only projections from the two corners I did manage to find for this property, and if the other corners had still been in, we would be looking at a different situation. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about any of that since the corners are gone. If any changes are required to the property lines, that will take an Amended Plat that would need approval from the Windcliff homeowners association along with the letter Eric has mentioned that would state their intentions to not place a building in the outlot per fire codes. This would likely take us into June or July with this project. It is my belief that all improvement proposals are within the scope of the setback variance we applied for, except the deck enclosure since it is modifying the existing footprint, which we show to be no closer than 0.9' to the property line. No part of this submittal package shows proposed improvements over the south or west property lines. Jamin Rucker, Project Manager Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Cell: (970) 699-6788 Office: (970) 586-9388 EXT. 12 [Quoted text hidden] Lohse Variance Site Plan 3-21-18.pdf 483K Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:48 AM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Hi Robin, did you send reviewing agency comments on this e-mail chain, or were they in a separate e-mail? Aside from the conversation going on with Eric Fried, I thought I saw another one with revisions I would need to make by tomorrow 5pm. But I can't find it. Let me know! 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Thanks, Jamin [Quoted text hidden] Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:23 PM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> Cc: Greg White <Greg@gawhite.com>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>, Chris Eshelman <ceshelman@estes.org>, Cliff Tedder <ctedder@estes.org>, Shane Krell <skrell@estes.org>, Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>, Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org>, Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, David Wolf <chief@estesvalleyfire.org>, Michael Whitley <mwhitley@larimer.org>, haagj haagj <jhaag@larimer.org>, Jennifer Infeld <jpettus@larimer.org>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Clint Jones <cdjones@larimer.org>, Lea Schneider <lschneider@larimer.org>, Brian Helminiak <helminbm@larimer.org>, larry.rogstad@state.co.us, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Larimer County Engineering has reviewed the request for reduced setbacks along the lot lines. We do not have concerns with the setback from the lots lines. However, we do have concerns with the note that the existing drainage will need to be relocated for the proposed office. We are concerned that relocating the drainage is this type of steep and rocky terrain is difficult and may have an adverse impact on downstream properties. In addition, there appears to be a sizable area contributing flows to this drainage and the close proximity of the office to the center of the drainage may put the structure at risk. Also, re-vegetating and establishing the terrain to a pre-construction condition may also be challenging. Because of these reasons, it is preferred to leave natural channels in place and maintain reasonable setbacks from them when building. A reasonable setback is typically considered to be outside of the expected flows limits in a 100 year rain event. If the applicant chooses to proceed with the office at this location, we would recommend that a detailed drainage and geotechnical analysis be done that evaluates these concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] -- 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 Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:45 PM To: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, "Shambo, Traci" <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> I think perhaps Mr. Rucker has hit on how this situation came to be when he notes at a time when this lot was actually a building envelope within a larger lot, allowing such construction to take place legally If what is now a property line was once a building envelope, so long as the entire home was within the building envelope, that would have been in compliance. When the property lines changed, I believe that gave approval to the house, deck and any other structures at that time, in their current location. In any case, I am not arguing that anything need be done about the house, whether it is within, at, or over what is now the property line. However, the new work proposed to be done must meet code. Any work within the property can be handled with a setback variance and construction features (rated walls/projections with no openings, or legal definition of a Fire 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Separation Distance on the south side of the property line). Any work proposed to cross the property line, I have no authority to approve. The deck enclosure will need to be designed to be entirely within the property, or the property line adjusted. Eric FriedChief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building [Quoted text hidden] jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:40 AM To: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, "Shambo, Traci" <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>, jerry.lohse@comcast.net To be absolutely clear, the original deck where the sunroom is located is already 8 inches back on the south side and over 3 feet back from the property line on the west side. The roof of the sunroom will not extend out from the sunroom wall. The posts for making the dormer window in our master bedroom are 3x3 inches or 4x4 inches and will be attached to existing framing. The location for those posts is 1 or 2 feet back from the west property line. So we need to update the BOA request fir a zero foot setback for the master bedroom posts and sunroom to match the original building envelope that was the property line. Jamin will update the BOA application. The office will be 5 feet back from the property line per the request in the application. The surprise in all of this was that a deck post that is about 10 inches in diameter allegedly extends beyond the property line. Eric you would like me to move that post and a few inches of stair landing to get it inside the property line. Unfortunately to my detriment, I relied on your letters saying that the 1984 and 1994 building permits met all county set back etc. as a basis for my decision to purchase the home. The cost to fix that should have been paid by the sellers in July 2015. In fact, that permit was not finalized until October 2015. I am shocked that the county did not catch it then. The survey used for that deck permit was done by green mountain survey out of boulder for the site improvement plan for the decks - see page 17 of my application to BOA setback variance. It shows that post to be at least 2 or 3 feet away from the property line. That is probably why you approved the 1994 permit. Van Horn engineering and surveying shows it to be over the line. I certainly understand that surveying on steep terrain is not an exact science. A difference of a few feet would not be uncommon. But this whole process seems to rely on survey work accuracy for a site improvement plan thinking it is exact to the inch when in fact it is not. Those surveys have a clear disclaimer that they are not accurate enough for property lines. They have some sort of disclaimer saying this site plan is representational only and should not be used as a boundary line survey or a land survey plat. As such, unless you change the entire site improvement process for all of Larimer County to require the higher accurcy of a boundary line survey that costs at least $8,000 to $10,000 or more, my deck post is close enough and I should not be required to move it. This was not part of current remodeling project and it already has an approved building permit. On top of that, the land the post allegedly encroaches upon is Windcliff homeowner common land. I am a Windcliff homeowner. I am in the 6th subdivision. The 6th subdivision governs the use of the common land. Since, there are no specify rules in the this subdivision, I could just ask my 4 neighbors if they care that my post is ten inches over the line ( or within 3 feet of the property line depending upon whose site improvement plan survey I use - the original building permit from 1994 or the new one). I applaud your intentions to not allow anyone in the County to build over their property line. It protects everyone. However, my estoppel argument is that the permit process does not require the accuracy of a boundary line survey. As 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea such and given the County already approved the 1994 non-conforming deck, i request that I not be required to move the deck post and shorten the stair landing. Respectfully, Jerry Lohse 561-704-9443 Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:12 AM To: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Cc: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> As you noted, The survey used for that deck permit was done by green mountain survey out of boulder for the site improvement plan for the decks - see page 17 of my application to BOA setback variance. It shows that post to be at least 2 or 3 feet away from the property line. That is probably why you approved the 1994 permit. The approvals that were issued over the years, by me and others from the county were based on information supplied to us. Neither I nor anyone else at the county building dept. go out and perform surveys ourselves. I am not requiring anything currently existing to be moved. But you are asking me to issue a permit to build over a property line, which I have no authority to do. If you want to make a legal argument of estoppel, that becomes a legal matter not a building code issue. Eric Fried Chief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building [Quoted text hidden] Brian Helminiak <bhelminiak@larimer.org>Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:19 AM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> Cc: Greg White <Greg@gawhite.com>, Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>, Steven Rusch <srusch@estes.org>, Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>, Chris Eshelman <ceshelman@estes.org>, Cliff Tedder <ctedder@estes.org>, Shane Krell <skrell@estes.org>, Tyler Boles <tboles@estes.org>, Joe Lockhart <jlockhart@estes.org>, Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>, Todd Krula <todd@utsd.org>, Melissa Mason <Melissa@utsd.org>, Matt Allen <matt@utsd.org>, David Wolf <chief@estesvalleyfire.org>, Michael Whitley <mwhitley@larimer.org>, jhaag@larimer.org, Jennifer Infeld <jpettus@larimer.org>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>, Clint Jones <cdjones@larimer.org>, Lea Schneider <lschneider@larimer.org>, helminbm@larimer.org, larry.rogstad@state.co.us, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jeff Woeber <jwoeber@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Larimer County Surveying does not have any comments on this application. On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea -- Brian HelminiakSenior Surveyor Engineering 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 1st Floor W: (970)498-5704 | M: (970) 215-5298 bhelminiak@larimer.org | www.larimer.org Jamin Rucker <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:57 AM To: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Cc: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> BVZ Architects site plan and drawings.PDF Thorp Associates Architectural and Structural D... Thorp Associates Architectural Drawing A2 - col... Good morning, please find attached the plans sets that Paul Brown received from Windcliff Owners Association. These include architectural and structural drawings from 1984 and 1994. I'll let Paul speak about their contents. Concerning the site plan provided by Green Mountain Surveying - that is simply an Improvement Location Certificate, typically done for real estate transactions. The survey requirements for those are quite loose and I can't speak to the accuracy of that ILC, except that there is a possibility that nothing onsite was actually measured at that time as it is not technically a requirement. It looks as though the only corner found on that ILC is the southeast corner of the property. Personally, I think it is likely that the house dimensions were measured but the location of the house on the lot was probably not verified....maybe assumptions were made that it was well within the property. The entire product could have also been based on aerial imagery. I will get a hold of them and dig for some more info if you all think it may be worth it. On the BVZ Architects drawings, on the first page in the lower left corner, is a site plan stated to have been drawn by Landmark Engineering, with a project number. I will be contacting them to see what they have on file for that. It is almost identical to the property lines I am showing, however it does appear to have been made before several of the amended plats in this cul-de-sac. I will also be looking for the proper plat to reference for the time frame of the Landmark site plan. Jamin Rucker, Project Manager Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Cell: (970) 699-6788 Office: (970) 586-9388 EXT. 12 [Quoted text hidden] -- Jamin Rucker, Project Manager Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 1043 Fish Creek Road 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Estes Park, CO 80517 Cell: (970) 699-6788 Office: (970) 586-9388 EXT. 12 jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:50 PM To: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, jerry.lohse@comcast.net Cc: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Eric I am not asking to build anything over the property line. What new construction am I proposing that you think will be over the line? When you say "I am not requiring anything currently existing to be moved." The deck post was there when I bought the house. It is currently existing. Does that mean i don't have to move it? jerry Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:27 PM To: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> This is a preliminary inquiry for which no building construction plans were required or submitted. As a head's up, I have been saying no permit can be issued for any construction over a property line. If some of the existing deck is over the line, I presume any walls built to enclose that deck, as well the roof over those walls and possibly projecting outward, will be over the property line as well. If that is not the case - if all construction to enclose the deck over the property line, stays on your side of the property line - then this will not be an issue. As far as existing items, for my part I would take no action to require remediation. I am not sure where Estes Valley is at this point on "curing" any possible encroachment of property lines. Eric FriedChief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building [Quoted text hidden] jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:18 AM To: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Cc: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, jerry.lohse@comcast.net 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Eric Thanks for this wonderful clarification. I have two decks: south and north. the south deck will be enclosed. Everything would be inside the property line for that sunroom enclosure. The north deck has a deck post that might be 10 inches over the property line. There is no new construction in that area. That is existing deck since 1994 building permit. So if you don't require remediation of that existing deck post and Estes Valley BOA is Ok with that, then i dont need to change current building plans. That would be good news. "As far as existing items, for my part I (Eric) would take no action to require remediation. I (Eric) am not sure where Estes Valley is at this point on "curing" any possible encroachment of property lines". Robin and Randy what are your thoughts? Will Estes Valley require remediation? Recall the property line in question is Windcliff common ground. Also I have email into our HOA leadership to get their opinion. best jerry Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Date: 4/9/18 5:27 PM (GMT-03:00) To: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:08 AM To: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Mr. Lohse, Per the email I sent to Jamin and you on April 4th. Jamin, I checked with Randy and we need to have the encroachment issue addressed before resolving the south side setback. The variance can go forward with the west setback proposal but not the encroachment. Thanks, Robin [Quoted text hidden] -- Robin Becker Planner I Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3720 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:33 PM To: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Jamin, Please let me know how you would like to proceed? Are you still going to go forward with the review for this variance minus the encroachment issue? Thank you, Robin [Quoted text hidden] Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:31 AM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, rhunt@estes.org Yes, let's go ahead with the west side setback for now. The best we can ask for is a zero foot setback on the south side to accommodate all portions of the house except the 0.1' encroachment of the one house corner. Given that this house was constructed at a time when the current property line was just a building envelope, I would wish that it could be resolved by the variance board. However we were told that the deck enclosure on the south side would go forward without a variance as it is limited to the existing footprint, is NOT over the property line, and will not make any non- conforming feature of this lot any worse. Can Jerry proceed with those plans without resolving the encroachment issue, or is he limited to the west side request for the accessory office? I've attached another drawing to this e-mail showing a site plan from Thorp Associates for the house's original construction in 1984. A building envelope is shown with no dimensions, and the house location is the same as what we are showing in the variance submittal. There is one more drawing that Paul showed me but I did not scan, that shows what appears to be someone's ideas of replatting the subdivision yet again in this area. They drew new culdesacs and lots that I have not seen on any recorded plats. And this sheet was not included with any official application for a building permit. Jamin [Quoted text hidden] Thorp Associates Architectural Drawing A1 - Site Plan.PDF 6477K Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:06 AM To: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Jamin, Can you resend through the site plan in this chain for which you have updated plans (from the comments) and what we can present to the BOA. Quite a few email chains going on a bit confusing. Thanks. Robin [Quoted text hidden] Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:02 PM To: "Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>" <rhunt@estes.org>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Cc: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, David Yale <dpyale@icloud.com>, Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, "friedeb@co.larimer.co.us" <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Randy and Robin – Since Eric Fried, Chief Building Officer Larimer County, is OK with my BOA variance request as long as all new construction is entirely within my property lines, I’d like to fully understand Estes Valley Planning Board concerns with my request. It seems, that Robin and Randy are OK with the west side (same as Eric) but have concerns on the south side. Robin’s email is below Eric’s on this email chain. Jamin Rucker, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, found additional corners earlier this week to show the south side of my property is 0.2 feet inside the property line on the south side. He will update the Site Improvement plan to show that and add distances of the proposed enclosure for the hot tub on the south deck to show nothing will extend over the property line. In addition, I am adding David Yale to the email discussion. David is the Chairman of the Architectural Building Committee for Windcliff HOA. He can add more detail to the Tract A and Tract B common land and how this has been addressed in other construction in Windcliff. For example, most of my driveway is entirely on Tract A common land. This is true for other property owners in Windcliff Subdivision #6. I am a Windcliff homeowner in the 6th subdivision. The Common land ‘labeled Tract B” on the Site Improvement plan submitted in my Estes Valley BOA request is Windcliff homeowner common land for only the 6th subdivision (This is shown on Larimer County property owners website as well). It is not owned by any property owner in Windcliff. Only, the 6th subdivision governs the use of the common land in the 6th subdivision. According to the covenants, a 2/3rds majority vote can determine usage of the common land in the 6th subdivision. QUESTION: Would an email from David Yale, saying 4 of the 6 property owners in the 6th Subdivision accept tiny 0.4 feet (4.8 inches) alleged encroachment of the deck post be sufficient for the Estes Valley Planning Board to not require action to remediate the possible encroachment on the west side? -OR- Since Robin’s email says Robin and Randy are OK with the West side AND the new information for Jamin Rucker from Van Horn Engineering & Surveying found the south side is entirely within the property line, is the Estes Valley Planning Board OK to approve the setback request? David – please feel free to clarify on behalf of the Windcliff HOA . . . Respectfully, Jerry Lohse Jerry.lohse@cocmast.net 561-704-9443 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea From: Eric Fried Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:28 PM To: jerry.lohse Cc: Jamin; PAUL F. BROWN; Robin Becker; Randy Hunt Subject: Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE This is a preliminary inquiry for which no building construction plans were required or submitted. As a head's up, I have been saying no permit can be issued for any construction over a property line. If some of the existing deck is over the line, I presume any walls built to enclose that deck, as well the roof over those walls and possibly projecting outward, will be over the property line as well. If that is not the case - if all construction to enclose the deck over the property line, stays on your side of the property line - then this will not be an issue. As far as existing items, for my part I would take no action to require remediation. I am not sure where Estes Valley is at this point on "curing" any possible encroachment of property lines. Eric Fried Chief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building From: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 12:53 PM To: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>; Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Subject: Re: Fwd: Final Round Comments 1909 Silver Sage Court -Lohse Setback Variance Comments Jamin, I checked with Randy and we need to have the encroachment issue addressed before resolving the south side setback. The variance can go forward with the west setback proposal but not the encroachment. Thanks, Robin 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea David Yale <dpyale@icloud.com>Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM To: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: "Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>" <rhunt@estes.org>, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "friedeb@co.larimer.co.us" <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Randy and Robin, As the Chair of the Architectural Controls Committee (ACC) of the Windcliff Property Owners Association (WPOA), Jerry has asked me to weigh in on this discussion since the ACC deals with all the construction and remodeling within the six subdivisions that make up the WPOA. Here is a bit of history about Windcliff that pertains to this discussion. Windcliff was originally developed as six separate, smaller subdivisions which joined together in the mid-1980s to form the WPOA in order to take advantage of shared infrastructure needs (roads, water, sewer). Each subdivision did not cede to the WPOA the common land owned jointly by each owner of each of the six subdivisions. As Jerry points out, all the tracts A and B as described on his and others’ plats within the Windcliff 6th Subdivision are owned by the “Silversage Homeowners Association”, as per Larimar County records, of which only Jerry and his wife Virgina Ferrer, and his 5 nearest neighbors are members. As pertains to the WPOA ACC’s perspective on the current issue between Jerry and the town, Windcliff has many areas similar to the area around the Lohse/Ferrer home where the owner’s lot is surrounded on at least a couple of sides by common land and the building envelope is right up to the edge of the lot. As such there are several homes in Windcliff where the home or decks go right up to the property line as allowed. I am sure there are likely other instances of minor, accidental encroachments of a few inches here and there, but as the land is common area, these have never raised any red flags before. From my perspective as the WPOA ACC Chair, this encroachment is likely within the error of the survey measurement and should not be taken as ground truth. But if the Estes Park Community Development Department requires resolution of this issue before a building permit can be issued, I can in my capacity as WPOA ACC Chair request an email vote of the 6 members of the Silversage Homeowners Association that they take no exception to the Lohse/Ferrer’s deck’s 4.8 inch encroachment onto the jointly owned land. As per CCIOA rules pertaining to homeowner association votes, I believe only 4 out of the 6 homeowners (2/3rds) are needed to vote in the affirmative. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Regards, David P. Yale, PhD WPOA ACC Chair Consulting Engineer, Yale Geomechanics Consulting, LLC Sent from my iPad On Apr 11, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> wrote: Randy and Robin – Since Eric Fried, Chief Building Officer Larimer County, is OK with my BOA variance request as long as all new construction is entirely within my property lines, I’d like to fully understand Estes Valley Planning Board concerns with my request. It seems, that Robin and Randy are OK with the west side (same as Eric) but have concerns on the south side. Robin’s email is below Eric’s on this email chain. Jamin Rucker, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, found additional corners earlier this week to show the south side of my property is 0.2 feet inside the property line on the south side. He will update the Site Improvement plan to show that and add distances of the proposed enclosure for the hot tub on the south deck to show nothing will extend over the property line. 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea In addition, I am adding David Yale to the email discussion. David is the Chairman of the Architectural Building Committee for Windcliff HOA. He can add more detail to the Tract A and Tract B common land and how this has been addressed in other construction in Windcliff. For example, most of my driveway is entirely on Tract A common land. This is true for other property owners in Windcliff Subdivision #6. I am a Windcliff homeowner in the 6th subdivision. The Common land ‘labeled Tract B” on the Site Improvement plan submitted in my Estes Valley BOA request is Windcliff homeowner common land for only the 6th subdivision (This is shown on Larimer County property owners website as well). It is not owned by any property owner in Windcliff. Only, the 6th subdivision governs the use of the common land in the 6th subdivision. According to the covenants, a 2/3rds majority vote can determine usage of the common land in the 6th subdivision. QUESTION: Would an email from David Yale, saying 4 of the 6 property owners in the 6th Subdivision accept tiny 0.4 feet (4.8 inches) alleged encroachment of the deck post be sufficient for the Estes Valley Planning Board to not require action to remediate the possible encroachment on the west side? -OR- Since Robin’s email says Robin and Randy are OK with the West side AND the new information for Jamin Rucker from Van Horn Engineering & Surveying found the south side is entirely within the property line, is the Estes Valley Planning Board OK to approve the setback request? David – please feel free to clarify on behalf of the Windcliff HOA . . . Respectfully, Jerry Lohse Jerry.lohse@cocmast.net 561-704-9443 From: Eric Fried Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:28 PM To: jerry.lohse Cc: Jamin; PAUL F. BROWN; Robin Becker; Randy Hunt Subject: Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE This is a preliminary inquiry for which no building construction plans were required or submitted. As a head's up, I have been saying no permit can be issued for any construction over a property line. If some of the existing deck is over the line, I presume any walls built to enclose that deck, as well the roof over those walls and possibly projecting outward, will be over the property line as well. If that is not the case - if all construction to enclose the deck over the property line, stays on your side of the property line - then this will not be an issue. 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea As far as existing items, for my part I would take no action to require remediation. I am not sure where Estes Valley is at this point on "curing" any possible encroachment of property lines. Eric Fried Chief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building From: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 12:53 PM To: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>; Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Subject: Re: Fwd: Final Round Comments 1909 Silver Sage Court -Lohse Setback Variance Comments Jamin, I checked with Randy and we need to have the encroachment issue addressed before resolving the south side setback. The variance can go forward with the west setback proposal but not the encroachment. Thanks, Robin Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:24 AM To: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, rhunt@estes.org, Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Cc: "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, David Yale <dpyale@icloud.com>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Here is the updated site plan. There is approximately 0.2' of siding and exterior material on the house that extends beyond the CMU construction you can see in the field. It would be standard for me to locate a house on a property by measuring the corners/siding, and not necessarily look at foundation construction, unless given special circumstances such as the one we are in now. Since CMU or concrete construction is what would typically be measured had there been a setback certificate during construction, I am showing the new dimensions from the house to the property line as measured to the CMU block. Also attached is supplemental sheet to the original 1984 permitted drawings. After consulting with Thorp Associates and Paul Brown, this sheet was requested by the county in 1984 to show proper fire separation distance. When scaled, the existing house is shown thereon to be plus/minus 20' from the southern property line which was, at the time, the actual southern boundary of the original Lot 4, Windcliff 6th. Today, that line is the southern boundary of the WOA tract now shared by Jerry and his neighbors. 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Jamin On 4/11/2018 6:02:02 PM, Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> wrote: Randy and Robin – Since Eric Fried, Chief Building Officer Larimer County, is OK with my BOA variance request as long as all new construction is entirely within my property lines, I’d like to fully understand Estes Valley Planning Board concerns with my request. It seems, that Robin and Randy are OK with the west side (same as Eric) but have concerns on the south side. Robin’s email is below Eric’s on this email chain. Jamin Rucker, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, found additional corners earlier this week to show the south side of my property is 0.2 feet inside the property line on the south side. He will update the Site Improvement plan to show that and add distances of the proposed enclosure for the hot tub on the south deck to show nothing will extend over the property line. In addition, I am adding David Yale to the email discussion. David is the Chairman of the Architectural Building Committee for Windcliff HOA. He can add more detail to the Tract A and Tract B common land and how this has been addressed in other construction in Windcliff. For example, most of my driveway is entirely on Tract A common land. This is true for other property owners in Windcliff Subdivision #6. I am a Windcliff homeowner in the 6th subdivision. The Common land ‘labeled Tract B” on the Site Improvement plan submitted in my Estes Valley BOA request is Windcliff homeowner common land for only the 6th subdivision (This is shown on Larimer County property owners website as well). It is not owned by any property owner in Windcliff. Only, the 6th subdivision governs the use of the common land in the 6th subdivision. According to the covenants, a 2/3rds majority vote can determine usage of the common land in the 6th subdivision. QUESTION: Would an email from David Yale, saying 4 of the 6 property owners in the 6th Subdivision accept tiny 0.4 feet (4.8 inches) alleged encroachment of the deck post be sufficient for the Estes Valley Planning Board to not require action to remediate the possible encroachment on the west side? -OR- Since Robin’s email says Robin and Randy are OK with the West side AND the new information for Jamin Rucker from Van Horn Engineering & Surveying found the south side is entirely within the property line, is the Estes Valley Planning Board OK to approve the setback request? David – please feel free to clarify on behalf of the Windcliff HOA . . . Respectfully, Jerry Lohse 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Jerry.lohse@cocmast.net 561-704-9443 From: Eric Fried Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:28 PM To: jerry.lohse Cc: Jamin; PAUL F. BROWN; Robin Becker; Randy Hunt Subject: Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE This is a preliminary inquiry for which no building construction plans were required or submitted. As a head's up, I have been saying no permit can be issued for any construction over a property line. If some of the existing deck is over the line, I presume any walls built to enclose that deck, as well the roof over those walls and possibly projecting outward, will be over the property line as well. If that is not the case - if all construction to enclose the deck over the property line, stays on your side of the property line - then this will not be an issue. As far as existing items, for my part I would take no action to require remediation. I am not sure where Estes Valley is at this point on "curing" any possible encroachment of property lines. Eric Fried Chief Building Official Community Development/Building Services 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80522 | 3rd Floor Phone: (970) 498-7705 | Fax: (970) 498-7667 efried@larimer.org | www.larimer.org/building From: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 12:53 PM To: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>; Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Subject: Re: Fwd: Final Round Comments 1909 Silver Sage Court -Lohse Setback Variance Comments Jamin, I checked with Randy and we need to have the encroachment issue addressed before resolving the south side setback. The variance can go forward with the west setback proposal but not the encroachment. Thanks, 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Robin 2 attachments Thorp Associates Architectural Drawing A1A - Subdivision Map.PDF 1482K Lohse Variance Site Plan 4-12-18.pdf 519K Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:08 AM To: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, jhenninger@rgengineers.com, Ross Culbertson <rculbertson@rgengineers.com> Jamin, This is an email just to update you on the BOA hearing date for this project. As there are not enough members present for a quorum in May, June 5th will be the hearing date for this setback variance. Randy will be following up with you on this project as well. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Thanks, Robin [Quoted text hidden] -- Robin Becker Planner I Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3720 Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:38 AM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "jhenninger@rgengineers.com" <jhenninger@rgengineers.com>, Ross Culbertson <rculbertson@rgengineers.com> This is highly unusual as the bylaws of the Estes Valley Board of Planning only permit cancellation of a meeting in the event that no applications are scheduled for review. Only 3 of the 5 members are needed for a quorum. Who can not attend? Regards, Jerry Lohse 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Robin Becker Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 11:08 AM To: Jamin Cc: Jerry; Randy Hunt; PAUL F. BROWN; jhenninger@rgengineers.com; Ross Culbertson [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:14 AM To: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "jhenninger@rgengineers.com" <jhenninger@rgengineers.com>, Ross Culbertson <rculbertson@rgengineers.com>, Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Jerry, During the April meeting, Board Chair Poggenpohl asked other Board members about potential conflicts for May and determined that only two of the five members could attend on the scheduled date, May 1. As you note, the BoA requires three of five in order to have a quorum - hence the continuance of May items to June 5. I'm attached a copy of the draft April 3 minutes; see p. 3, item 7.F. I don't recall which three are unavailable, but the audio of the April meeting may provide more info. I understand this delays your hearing. I'm sorry it can't be held on the planned date. We need to discuss the south property line complications. There may be option(s), but we'll want to explore that with you and your team. I am leaving town for a conference in about an hour and will be out until Wednesday, 04-25. We can plan time to review the south boundary circumstances with you when I'm back. 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt, AICP Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> wrote: This is highly unusual as the bylaws of the Estes Valley Board of Planning only permit cancellation of a meeting in the event that no applications are scheduled for review. Only 3 of the 5 members are needed for a quorum. Who can not attend? Regards, Jerry Lohse Sent from Mail for Windows 10 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea From: Robin Becker Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 11:08 AM To: Jamin Cc: Jerry; Randy Hunt; PAUL F. BROWN; jhenninger@rgengineers.com; Ross Culbertson [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] BOA Minutes 2018-04-03.pdf 38K Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:12 AM To: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org> Cc: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "jhenninger@rgengineers.com" <jhenninger@rgengineers.com>, Ross Culbertson <rculbertson@rgengineers.com>, Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>, Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> The bylaws should be amended to either change the date when a quorum is not available or conduct an offline approval process. This 5 week plus 1 day delay pushes me into the peak of the building season for a permit from Larimer County. The County is already 6+ weeks to process a permit. I could miss most of the building season now . . . . This is extremely disappointing!!! Let’s schedule time to talk by phone April 25th when you return. Jerry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Randy Hunt Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:19 AM To: Jerry Cc: Robin Becker; Jamin; PAUL F. BROWN; jhenninger@rgengineers.com; Ross Culbertson; Karin Swanlund [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 35CE55E1BA1741608868CA36716926BD.png 18K 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:01 PM To: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "jhenninger@rgengineers.com" <jhenninger@rgengineers.com>, Ross Culbertson <rculbertson@rgengineers.com>, Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Mr. Lohse, I am following up on the meeting request from last weeks email. Does this Friday at 3:30 pm work for a phone call or in office meeting? Thanks, Robin [Quoted text hidden] Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:22 AM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Cc: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "jhenninger@rgengineers.com" <jhenninger@rgengineers.com>, Ross Culbertson <rculbertson@rgengineers.com>, Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Friday April 27 I begin driving from Florida to Colorado. I will be there Sunday April 29th. I could do phone and just plan to be somewhere were I have reception. Let’s be call Randy this morning around 9am MST. --Jerry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Robin Becker Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:01 PM To: Jerry Cc: Randy Hunt; Jamin; PAUL F. BROWN; jhenninger@rgengineers.com; Ross Culbertson; Karin Swanlund 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Sent from Mail for Windows 10 [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:57 AM To: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "jhenninger@rgengineers.com" <jhenninger@rgengineers.com>, Ross Culbertson <rculbertson@rgengineers.com>, Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Jerry, If you meant 9:00 am today (Thu.), I'm sorry to say that doesn't work for me - I have meetings and commitments from 7:30 am to 2:30 pm today. I usually need at least 24 hours to arrnage a meeting or discussion time. I wish that weren't so, but it is. If you are on the road tomorrow, Monday might be the earliest time for both of us. I have Mon. afternoon open after 3:45 pm, or Mon. morning before 9:00 am. Thanks, RAH ----- Randy Hunt, AICP Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 direct: 970-577-3719 main: 970-577-3721 email: rhunt@estes.org http://www.estes.org On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:22 AM, Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> wrote: Friday April 27 I begin driving from Florida to Colorado. 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea I will be there Sunday April 29th. I could do phone and just plan to be somewhere were I have reception. Let’s be call Randy this morning around 9am MST. --Jerry Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Robin Becker Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:01 PM To: Jerry Cc: Randy Hunt; Jamin; PAUL F. BROWN; jhenninger@rgengineers.com; Ross Culbertson; Karin Swanlund [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Sent from Mail for Windows 10 [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:21 AM To: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Cc: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>, "PAUL F. BROWN" <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com>, "jhenninger@rgengineers.com" <jhenninger@rgengineers.com>, Ross Culbertson 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: LOHSE SETBACK VARIANCE https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=first%20comments%20lohse&qs=true&sea <rculbertson@rgengineers.com>, Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Mr. Lohse, Randy has a meeting at 9 am this morning. I will check with him when he is free next. Thanks, Robin On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:22 AM, Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Final Round Comments 1909 Silver Sage Court -Lohse Setback Variance Comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=comments%20lohse&qs=true&search=que Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Final Round Comments 1909 Silver Sage Court -Lohse Setback Variance Comments 5 messages Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:17 PM To: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Paul Brown <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com> Cc: Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Dear Paul, Here is the final round comments for the Variance Application Planning Division: Please address the south setback as well as the building encroachment on the south property line. The current variance application does not cover this setback. The setback on the south could be addressed via a variance and the building encroachment could be addressed via a Boundary Line Adjustment. Utilities: The Town of Estes Park Utilities Department has no objection to this setback variance Thank you, Larimer County Engineering: The Site Plan provided with the setback variance shows the existing home at one point to be .1 feet from the south property line with the deck at its closest point .1 feet over the south property line. It is unclear how this situation came to be, since the home was built under county building permit 84-2397 and received a Certificate of Occupancy on 1-18-85. There was also a permit for an addition in 1995 (95-E0900) that received final inspection approval, which included an extension of the non-conforming deck. The Building Department cannot legally issue a permit for a structure over a property line on someone else's property, whether for a new structure, an addition, or enclosing an existing structure. A setback variance could allow the enclosure of the building with zero feet to the property line, but cannot authorize encroachment onto another property. The choices seem to be: 1) cut back the deck so that the deck and the enclosure, including any architectural features and projections, are entirely within the Lohse property; AND/OR 2) obtain a boundary line adjustment to move the southern property line beyond the boundaries of the proposed enclosure. Once that issue is resolved, the second issue is that buildings or portions thereof built within the Fire Separation Distance to property lines need fire-rated walls, roofs and projections, and have limitations on openings such as doors and windows. Per the amended 2015 International Residential Code adopted by Larimer County, dwelling unit and residential accessory structure walls within three feet of a property line must be one hour fire rated in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263, tested for fire exposure from both sides, and cannot have any openings. Projections are prohibited within two feet of a property line, and must be one hour fire-rated on the underside if within two to three feet of the property line. Wall, roof or soffit penetrations within three feet of a property line must be fire-rated in compliance with 2015 International Residential Code section R302.4. (The unamended code requires a 5' distance to property lines.) The intent of this code section is to prevent the spread of fire from a building to the neighboring property, or from the neighboring property to the building. I note that the property to the south is open space owned by the Silversage Homeowners Association. If the applicant obtains written legal confirmation from this group that they will never build a structure within six feet of the proposed deck enclosure/sunroom and existing home, I would accept that as meeting the code intended Fire Separation Distance. An alternative is a property line adjustment so that no portion of the home including the proposed new construction is closer than three feet to the new property line. Since the proposed enclosure is 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Final Round Comments 1909 Silver Sage Court -Lohse Setback Variance Comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=comments%20lohse&qs=true&search=que a sunroom presumably consisting largely of glazing, the code requirement for 1-hour rated walls without openings cannot practically be met. The office and attached deck are shown as being 5' from the nearest property line, so they would not raise fire separation distance issues. Both the new office/deck structure and home addition/enclosure will need building permits, with structural plans stamped and sealed by a Colorado professional engineer due to location in the High Wind area. Larimer County Health: Upon reviewing the referral, the health dept does not have comments. Please provide updated plans by Friday 5pm April 6th 2018. Please update the application accordingly. Please contact me if you have any questions. -- Robin Becker Planner I Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3720 jerry.lohse <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:32 PM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, Paul Brown <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com> Cc: Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> robin I am out of the country so I don't have access to two pdf letters from Eric freid say the 1984 addition and 1994 additions met all county regulatory rules - including setback. This was a condition for buying the home prior to closing. Odd that he is saying something different now. Paul can you forward that email to Eric? I will see if I can find it on my phone. jerry Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone [Quoted text hidden] Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:55 AM To: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> 5/31/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Final Round Comments 1909 Silver Sage Court -Lohse Setback Variance Comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=comments%20lohse&qs=true&search=que Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:17 PM Subject: Final Round Comments 1909 Silver Sage Court -Lohse Setback Variance Comments To: Jerry <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Paul Brown <paulbrownprodesign@msn.com> Cc: Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com>Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:28 AM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>, "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net> Robin, see attached for adjustments I made on the Variance Site Plan to address the south property line setback and building encroachments. We recommend an Amended Plat in the future to clean up the encroachments. I'm a bit confused about the south property line setback as we are not proposing any changes in that area besides the enclosure of the deck, which we were told by Audem I believe, that it would not be required to be a part of the variance application for modifying the existing footprint of that deck. Thanks, Jamin [Quoted text hidden] Lohse Variance Site Plan 4-6-18.pdf 506K Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:52 AM To: Jamin <jamin@vanhornengineering.com> Cc: "jerry.lohse" <jerry.lohse@comcast.net>, Eric Fried <friedeb@co.larimer.co.us> Jamin, I checked with Randy and we need to have the encroachment issue addressed before resolving the south side setback. The variance can go forward with the west setback proposal but not the encroachment. Thanks, Robin [Quoted text hidden] ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: June 5th 2018; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3.C.4 Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. The Variance would allow a 5-foot front setback in lieu of the 15-foot required setbacks in the E (Estate) zone district. The purpose of the Variance is to allow an existing deck to remain, adjust an existing setback to allow for future replacement and deck addition. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 840 Ramshorn Dr. Estes Park, CO 80517 (County) VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Nathan Kinley, Kay Evans STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Variance would allow 5-foot setback in lieu of the 15-foot required setbacks in the E (Estate) zone district. The E Estate zone district requires a 15-foot front setback. The lot has an existing house with a deck that already extends roughly 11 feet into the front setback or roughly 4 feet from the property line. It is unknown when this encroachment occurred and the owner was unaware of the non-conformity until an inspector was looking into the deck replacement. By correcting this non-conformity this would also allow the owners to make improvements to the deck and ultimately the house. 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 10 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 (Attached). 840 Ramshorn Dr.– Building Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org 840 Ramshorn Dr. – Building setback variance Page 2 of 4 Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No significant comments/concerns were received by reviewing agency staff. Public Comments. Staff has received no public comment to date. Any written comments received after May 31, 2018 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: The property is approximately .42-acres in size and is zoned E (Estate). The setbacks for E are 15 from the the front on a local street, 10 from the side and 15 from the rear setbacks. The existing house and primarily the deck is placed within the setback on the north front by 11.6 feet. In order to safely update the deck the nonconformity variance will be expanded through the enclosure of the deck. Staff believes that the special circumstances of both the house existing in the setback and that the enclosure of the deck is technically expanding the nonconformity is not common and will not nullify the intent and purposes of the specific standards the code or the comprehensive plan. 2) In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a) Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: Without the Variance, there can be beneficial use of the property. This variance would clean up the non-conforming structure already in the setback. The applicant could just replace the deck and not enclose it but the reasoning for the enclosure is to make the deck safe and more weather resistant. Also, without the variance, replacement and enclosure of the deck, for safety reasons, would be limited. b) W hether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance would establish a setback at 5’ out of 15’. This is an 66.7% reduction from the code. The overall proposed setback is substantial but the 11.6’ requested where the house is currently located will be minimal as the house has been located in its current location for quite some time. It is unknown when the nonconformity occurred. Staff does not find that granting this variance would be a substantial request. 840 Ramshorn Dr. – Building setback variance Page 3 of 4 c) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to drainage, migration corridors, etc). Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any detriment to nearby properties. d) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Upper Thompson Sanitation has provided two comments that states they,”1. The district has an existing sewer main on the edge of the property line. Proposed deck must be at least 7.5 feet away from the sewer main. 2. Per district rules and regulations, additional system development fees are due for the fourth bedroom.” As of May 31, 2018 these requests are being worked on with the applicant. Town Utilities did not have any comments. Larimer County Building stated they have no comment on the variance request. Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any detriment to the delivery of public services. e) Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property and was not aware of the building being within the setbacks. Staff finds that granting the variance would help the applicant overcome the hardship of making sure the home is within compliance and allow for the building of a compliant deck addition. f) Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The house is already built within the setback; short of tearing down the deck the applicant’s predicament is pretty limited outside of granting the variance. One option is to allow the house to remain within the setback and continue to be a nonconforming structure and not allow the building of the addition or other elements requiring permits. Staff finds this inappropriate for the applicant as the house was already within the setback when the property was bought. Furthermore the deck is the primary entrance into the home and staff finds it inappropriate for the applicant to not improve this addition/enclosure for more entrance safety. 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: The conditions of this application are not general to the Estes Valley. It is not common to have structures located partially within a required setback. Although it can be argued that 840 Ramshorn Dr. – Building setback variance Page 4 of 4 the zoning of this (and other) properties is wrong to begin with, any significant change in zoning is not likely to be accomplished quickly or easily. A variance is the only feasible alternative in the short term. 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: No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5) If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: A setback Variance as requested would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the existing building to continue to be located at this site. 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 variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 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: Staff is not recommending any conditions be placed on this approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings for denial). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Agency Comments 3. Public Comment 4. Statement of Intent 5. Application 6. Variance sign photos 7. Site plan RAMSHORN DR RAMBLING DR0 25 50Feet 1 in = 50 ft ±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development Printed: 5/30/2018Created By: Robin Becker Project Name: Project Description: Petitioner(s): 840 R amshorn Dr. Setback Variance Kay Evans E HIGHWAY 36W HIGHWAY 34HIGHWAY 36 TUNNEL RDW ELKHORN AVE P E A K V I E W D R Site Vicinity Map Ramshorn Dr. 0 1 2 Miles 5/30/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Fwd: First Round Comments 840 Ramshorn Dr. Setback Variance https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=840&search=query&th=1636a1b3fa127a7 Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Fwd: First Round Comments 840 Ramshorn Dr. Setback Variance 3 messages Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:40 AM To: Cory Berg <cory@vanhornengineering.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> Date: Mon, May 7, 2018 at 4:08 PM Subject: First Round Comments 840 Ramshorn Dr. Setback Variance To: kaywevans@sbcglobal.net, Nathan Kinley <nathan@kinleybuilt.com> Here are the first round comments for the Setback Variance Planning Division: Per the EVDC the statement of intent must comply with the standards of Section 3.6 of the Code. Please address these questions and update the statement of intent. Please add surrounding property owner names and addresses. Distance between the existing deck and proposed along with distances and arrows is confusing please make more legible. 4.5 feet ?of what ? 5.6 feet ? of what ? Where is the proposed setback via the site plan? Town Attorney: No Comment Utilities: The Town of Estes Park Utilities Department has no objection to this setback variance Estes Valley Fire: Fire has no comment and will accept as stated in the application documents. Division of Water Resources: The Division of Water Resources has no comments or concerns regarding the subject proposal. Larimer County Building: Larimer County Building Services has no objection to a setback variance for the proposed new front entry porch and steps, which would still fall well outside the minimum required Fire Separation Distance to property line. A building permit is required for the addition. Larimer County is currently under the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) for one -family dwellings. Plans must be designed and stamped by an engineer to comply with site wind and snow loads (171 mph Ultimate Design Wind Speed, 70 psf ground snow load). Stairs, landings and handrails must comply with IRC Section 311, and guards with Section 312. Since this site is in the Wildfire Hazard Area, any roof coverings must be minimum Class B fire-rated. Larimer County Health Department: 5/30/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Fwd: First Round Comments 840 Ramshorn Dr. Setback Variance https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=840&search=query&th=1636a1b3fa127a7 It was noted that the property is served by public water and sewer, therefore the Health Dept has no comments. Larimer County Engineering Comments: See Attached. Please provide updated plans by Monday 5pm May 14th 2018. Please update the application accordingly. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Robin -- Robin Becker Planner I Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3720 -- Robin Becker Planner I Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3720 Larimer County Engineering Comments.pdf 449K Cory Berg <cory@vanhornengineering.com>Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:09 AM To: Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org> I should have asked, do you have a copy of his statement of intent? I didn't write it and I don't have a copy. [Quoted text hidden] -- Cory Berg, Project Manager | Van Horn Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 1043 Fish Creek Road | Estes Park, CO 80517 | coryvhe@airbits.com TEL 970.586.9388 | CELL 408.903.3317| OFFICE www.vanhornengineering.com 5/30/2018 Town of Estes Park Mail - Fwd: First Round Comments 840 Ramshorn Dr. Setback Variance https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d3b99e8aaa&jsver=-dxVNc9Y02g.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180516.06_p8&view=pt&q=840&search=query&th=1636a1b3fa127a7 Robin Becker <rbecker@estes.org>Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:59 AM To: Cory Berg <cory@vanhornengineering.com> Cory, I attached the original statement of intent and the advised letter he sent through. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Robin [Quoted text hidden] 2 attachments Statement of Intent.pdf 450K Evans variance letter (1).pdf 141K