The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2017-01-10Prepared: December 28, 2016 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, January 10, 2017 9:00 a.m. — Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated December 6, 2016 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 3501 DEVILS GULCH ROAD Owner: Ed & Gisela Grueff Applicant: Ed Grueff Request: Variance from EVDC Section 5.1.6.1.c(3) which states no kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms. Request to allow existing kitchens to remain in detached dwelling units. Staff: Audem Gonzales 4. LOT 6, BLOCK 3, AMENDED PLAT OF WINDCLIFF 5TH FILING, 3225 EIGER TRAIL Owner: Thomas G. & Marcia E. Connard (Rev. Living Trust) Applicant: Thomas G. Connard Request: Amendment to a setback variance approved in 2004. Original approval allowed a 21-foot setback on the north and south sides of the lot, in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1—Estate zone district. Current request is to amend the previous variance approval to allow a 20-foot setback on the south side. Staff: Audem Gonzales 5. LOT 3 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 2, LOTS 3, 4, 5, & WEST 1/2 OF LOT 6, DEER MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS, 2231 Upper High Drive Owner: Tia Cottey Applicant: John Sullivan, Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4,4, Table 4-2, which requires 50-foot setbacks on all sides in the RE—Rural Estate zone district. Request to allow encroachment on three sides for construction of a proposed covered deck and detached garage. Staff: Carrie McCool Continued on next page 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2017 A Town resident must be elected as Chair. A County resident must be elected as Vice-Chair. NAME APPOINTED BY TERM EXPIRATION Pete Smith Town Board May 31, 2019 Rex Poggenpohl County Commission June 30, 2017 (completing Don Darling's term) Jeff Moreau Town Board February 28, 2018 Wayne Newsom Town Board February 28, 2018 John Lynch County Commission June 30, 2018 5. REPORTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 6, 2016 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lunch, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Members Lynch, Smith, Moreau, Newsom, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were three people in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that he was recently appointed to this Board, and during his site visits he has seen several without the required variance sign posted on the property. He stated this was an injustice to the public, as they are not aware of the application unless they are adjacent property owners and received the mailing. He asked staff to consider a better way to make the public aware of the application. Director Hunt stated the Town is required to publish a legal notice, while the sign posting has been the applicant's responsibility. If no sign is posted, the Board has the perogative to postpone the application review if they think it is appropriate; however, this would be an extreme measure. There was additional general discussion about the posting of the variance notice and staking of the property, which is also required by the applicant. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated November 1, 2016. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 1A, BEAVER POINT HEIGHTS; 915 MORAINE AVENUE; SUNDECK RESTAURANT LOT Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. This is a request for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-5, which requires a minimum lot RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 1, 2016 size of 40,000 square feet for all lots fronting an arterial in the CO—Commercial Outlying zone district. The applicant, Flatirons Hospitality, LLC requests to allow a lot size of 14,591 square feet to bring this lot and the adjacent lot more into compliance with the existing built environment, and to generally clean up the plat. He stated the one of the subject lot lines actually runs through an existing building, and the building is in two different zone districts. This is not good planning practice. The variance application is one of three applications undergoing review, the others being an amended plat and a rezoning request. Planner Gonzales stated a legal notice was published and notices were sent to adjacent property owners. No major comments or concerns were received. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found this particular area complicated, with lot lines running through buildings, and two different zone districts encompassing the six legally non- conforming lots. These issues make re-development very challenging, as building setbacks are measured from every platted lot line, and any addition to a building would require a setback variance. The unusual triangular shape of the lot and unique situation with the property lines create a special circumstance or condition. 2. In determining "practical difficulty": a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the property can remain with its current configuration of lots, but redevelopment would be extremely limited. Lots could not be sold off individually. The variance is a portion of the process that needs to occur to clean up the plat. The end result, if all applications are approved, would be two lots; one on the west zoned A—Accommodations and the lot on the east zoned CO—Commercial Outlying. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance is not substantial, considering the situation. The goal is to bring the area more into compliance with the existing built environment. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance: Staff found the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, as the property is already built out. Reducing the lot size has zero impact on the neighborhood. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 December 1, 2016 e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff found it unclear as to whether the applicant knew of the requirement when they purchased the property. The tax assessor shows the area as one parcel. It is unlikely any owner would have known that reducing a lot size would require a variance. f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; A Variance is the only method available to mitigate this predicament. The entire property could be amended to be one large lot; however, the restaurant could not be sold off separately from the hotel. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff found conditions of this application are not general in nature. It is common to find non-conforming lots in the Estes Valley, but not common to find property boundaries crossing through a building, especially with two different zone districts. 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 found the project is changing from six lots to two. The entire project is aimed at reducing non-conformities and cleaning up the plat. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found this variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the proposal, but other options do exist. One lot could be created from the six existing lots. This would require a rezoning and would rationalize the two businesses in one ownership. 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. The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff is not recommending any conditions at this time. Any easements, access agreements, etc. will be addressed through the Amended Plat and Rezoning processes. Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 December 1, 2016 Staff and Member Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: The existing situation with the lot lines is not a current practice. The building codes also have provisions for the prohibition of buildings across lot lines. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the variance would be one step in cleaning up the parcel and then allow for greater redevelopment opportunities. There are plans to grant a sewer easement and have a parking agreement between the two parcels to make the development practical. Conditions of Approval None. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Poggenpohl) to approve the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. LOT 1, LAKE ESTES ADDITION; 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE; ESTES PARK RESORT Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report. The request is for a variance from EVDC Section 7.6.E.2.b Wetland Setbacks. The applicant, Rocky Mountain Hotel Properties, LLC, requests a 25-foot setback in lieu of the 50-foot setback required from wetlands. Planner Gonzales stated the applicant has plans to develop the property as an extension of the current Estes Park Resort. The current plan is to construct 21 two-unit buildings. No proposed structure would be closer than 25 feet from the delineated edge of the existing wetland. If the variance is approved, a new 25-foot wetland setback would be established. Planner Gonzales stated the property owner had the opportunity to construct another large multi-story hotel, but chose to have a lower density development with the townhomes. A wetland study was completed and it was determined two separate wetland areas exist. Per the EVDC definition, these are wetlands, as they contain saturated soils that have the capability to support aquatic vegetation. The applicants provided information to staff showing wetlands on the "shelf", and the wetland study classifies these as a self- sustaining wetland community. They are non-jurisdictional and are not found on any official maps. Planner Gonzales stated a legal notice was published and adjacent property owners were notified. Environmental Planner Tina Kurtz commented, and staff received one public comment opposing the variance request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 December 1, 2016 Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: Staff found the property is zoned A—Accommodations and is approximately 9.1 acres in size. The project proposes 21 two-unit townhomes, with an open site concept with few roads, attractive landscape buffers and walking paths. Information provided to staff regarding the wetland study indicate the existing wetland areas to be non-jurisdictional, and are not found on the Town of Estes Park wetland map, National Wetland Inventory Map, or the USGS Survey map for the area. Staff found the proposed location for the townhome units is practical. A 25-foot setback area shall remain around the wetlands area. The applicant has proposed a designated open space in the wetland area during the development process. Staff is recommending the open space designation be a condition of approval of the variance. 2. In determining "practical difficulty": a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff found the property could still be developed with a 50-foot wetland setback; however, a greater density would have to be established for development. This would involve clustering development and potentially building upwards. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff found the variance is at a 50% reduction from code. This is not substantial in regards to the physical location, but is numerically substantial at 50%. Wetlands have been documented at this location for at least the last ten years. The intent of the project is to create low-profile development, and a variance like this would promote this type of development rather than building up. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance: Staff found the character would not be changed in regards to the physical location of the townhomes, as there are accommodations units to the north and east of the subject property. It is a change to the existing neighbor to the west, as this has been a vacant lot for many years. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff found approval of the variance would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff found the applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the 50- foot setback. This area has undergone several redevelopment proposals. The current iteration of a low density profile development requires the need for a variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6 December 1, 2016 f. Whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; A Variance is the only method available to accomplish the desired outcome. Staff is exploring the idea of amending the EVDC wetland setback requirements to be more aligned with federal regulations and reasonable development expectations in the Estes Valley. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff found it is not uncommon to find saturated soils throughout the Estes Valley, but it is uncommon to find such large wetland areas that are non-jurisdictional. Staff does not believe this situation is general or common in the valley. 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 found no reduction in lot size is proposed by this variance request. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff found the variance will represent the least deviation from the Code, but other options do exist. Proposed building locations could be moved, a less dense development could be built, or units could be stacked. 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. The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions that will, in its independent judgement, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff recommends a condition be placed on any future Development Plan or Subdivision for this property utilizing this setback variance to protect the wetlands and 25-foot setback by designating them as "private open space" or "no disturbance area". Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the variance request, with conditions. Staff and Member Discussion There was discussion regarding protecting the wetland area on the Development Plan, and it was suggested the Board of Adjustment impose a condition of approval for the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 7 December 1, 2016 variance to require the designation of open space or no disturbance area on the Development Plan. There was brief discussion regarding jurisdictional wetlands and the EVDC. Planner Gonzales stated staff is unsure where the 50-foot wetland setback originated. A code amendment may be proposed in the future, but additional research needs to occur prior to an amendment being drafted. Public Comment Darcy Tiglas/wetland specialist stated there is a topographic shelf just to the north of the wetland area. She conducted a wetland delineation on this area ten years ago, and there has been minimal change, even after the 2013 flood. She explained in detail how the wetland delineation is conducted. She stated leaving the natural feature is definitely beneficial to the wildlife. The proposed development is already surrounded by development, and this is considered an infill project, which is better than developing an open area in another part of the valley. Jes Reetz/applicant representative stated this project has been evolving for several years. No site disturbance is planned for the wetland area. Mike Mangleson/town resident was opposed to the variance request. He showed two videos of elk migrating through the proposed developed area. He stated the elk gravitate to the wetland area, where the grass is usually two to three feet tall. Water fowl are not there too often, but mammals are there all the time and stay for extended periods of time. He is concerned about large corporations that want to develop in the Estes Valley with no regards to wildlife. He appreciated the consideration of the Board to disapprove the variance request. Condition of Approval 1. Delineated wetlands and 25-foot setback areas shall be designated as a protected no-build area on future Development Plan or Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to approve the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 5. REPORTS A. Director Hunt explained to the Board if a motion to approve or disapprove was not made during the hearing, the application would be automatically continued to the next meeting. If the members do not make the motion, the chair can make the motion, though it is discouraged in Robert's rules of order. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 8 December 1, 2016 B. Director Hunt reported the Board of Adjustment will not have a direct role in reviews of Vacation Homes. There is an ordinance regarding Vacation Homes going through the hearing process, which states the Board of Adjustment is the Appeals board for staff decisions. C. Director Hunt reported the Estes Park Board of Appeals had a meeting in November to review the building code aspects of vacation rentals. Another meeting will be held December 8th at 4 p.m. to continue this discussion. It was clarified the Estes Park Board of Appeals has authority only within the Town limits, not the surrounding Estes Valley. D. Director Hunt reported there are several EVDC Revisions on the table, and the Board of Adjustment will be included in the review process. If there are too many variances for certain code provisions, then it is justified to take a hard look at the code and determine if changes need to be made. There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:08 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 3501 Devils Gulch Road — Kitchen Unit Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: January 10, 2017, 9:00AM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 5.1.B.1.C.(3) "Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home — Residential Character". The variance would allow full kitchen facilities in guest rooms or guest units. Currently, full kitchen facilities and cooking are prohibited in a guest room or guest unit associated with a B&B or Vacation Home. The purpose of the variance is to continue allowing two cabins to be rented as guest units in a multiple building vacation home situation, with each cabin containing a full kitchen facility. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 3501 Devils Gulch Road, within the unincorporated Estes Valley VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Ed and Gisela Grueff / same as applicant STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner li PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to grant a variance to allow full kitchen facilities in guest rooms or guest units. Currently, the EVDC contains a provision against guest rooms and guest units from having full kitchen facilities. Limited kitchen facilities are allowed under current code. The property is zoned RE-1 and is approximately 11.21 acres in size. It is developed with one single-family home and two small cabins. The property also contains several utility sheds. Limited Kitchen Facilities are defined as the following: Shall mean a kitchen that is not contained in a separate room and that may have a sink and only the following appliances: (a) a refrigerator no larger than three and a one-half (3 1/2 ) cubic feet; (b) a stove/oven no wider than twenty (20) inches; and/or (c) a microwave oven. This Variance request is to allow the full kitchen facilities in the two cabins to remain while the cabins are rented on a short term basis. Code allows the main home and two cabins to be rented to one party on a short term basis as long as the two cabins do not have a kitchen. The two cabins have had kitchens since before Code was adopted in 2000. The Variance request would allow the two cabins to be rented on a short term basis (i.e. vacation homes). The entire property would be rented as one vacation home to one party. The cabins cannot be rented to a separate party. 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 surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department "Current Applications" webpage. The site has been posted with a "variance pending" sign. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No major comments or concerns were received. Public Comments. Staff has received no written public comment in regards to this application. 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 has been developed with a single family home and small cabins since the early 1900s and maybe into the late 1800's. Regardless if they have been rented out short term since the adoption of this Code, current Code allows vacation home rentals to encompass properties with multiple units or structures if the entire property is rented to one party at a time. The issue lies with the two cabins having a full kitchen and not a limited kitchen as defined above. Code does not allow guest units or guest rooms to be rented short term if they contain kitchens. The variance request is to allow the two cabins to be rented as part of the vacation home while containing full kitchens. Staff finds that the circumstance is special in that the property has been used for rentals over the years and the strict application of the Code would render the two cabins as un- rentable for short term. Several properties in the valley have guest homes or guest units that are rented short term because they do not have kitchens. These two small cabins have had kitchens for years. It is impractical to have the applicant remove them. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: The property can remain to be used as a vacation home with only the single-family home being rented out to one party. The two small cabins would not be rented out short term in this scenario. Although not practical, the situation as mentioned above may exist. Another alternative would be to have the applicant remove the kitchens. This option would be very impractical. 3501 Devils Gulch Rd. — Kitchen Unit Variance Page 2 of 4 b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: Staff does not find this request to be substantial considering the situation. The cabins have had kitchens in them for years. It's just recently that Staff has found out that they have been rented. Staff has received zero complaints about this property and this specific operation as it exists. 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 property is already built out. The cabins have been rented for years without any complaints from the neighbors. Whether or not the entire property has been rented to one party (vacation home regulations) is unknown. Existing and future vacation home licenses shall regulate that provision. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The property is already built out. The property is on well and septic. Additional bathrooms and kitchens would require an analysis of the capacity but since nothing is proposed to change, Staff cannot find any adverse affects on the delivery of water and sewer. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: It is unclear whether the applicant purchased the property knowing that short term rentals are prohibited in guest rooms or guest units containing a full kitchen. The applicant stated that they did not know this was an issue when purchasing the property. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: If the applicant wishes to rent the cabins short term there are only two options to achieve this; The first option being to remove the full kitchens from the buildings and the second option is to obtain a variance to the kitchen provision in Code. 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: It is common to find properties in the Estes Valley developed with multiple structures on a single-family zoned parcel. It is even common to find these structures rented out short term with limited kitchens. It is not common to find the multiple buildings containing full kitchens. 3501 Devils Gulch Rd. — Kitchen Unit Variance Page 3 of 4 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: Not applicable 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: This variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the proposal but another option exists. It involves removing the kitchens from the cabins to a degree that classifies them as limited kitchens and not full or complete kitchens. 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. Vacation homes are allowed in the zone district and are allowed to encompass a property containing multiple buildings, if the entire property is rented to one party at a time. 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 at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested guest unit kitchen variance SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site Plan 3501 Devils Gulch Rd. — Kitchen Unit Variance Page 4 of 4 Town of Estes Park Community Development Vicinity Map Project Name: 3501 Devils Gulch Road Kitchen Unit Variance 1 in = 125 ft Printed: 1/4/2017 Created By: Audem Gonzales Project Description. Variance to allow full kitchens 0 60 120 Petitioner(s): Ed and Gisela Grueff Feet Parcels-taomer ESTES PARK COLORADO A Vicinity Map , - - 2/947L.701,/ svia_ , (V `/I 7L)S ,4- h / 17 - a k i dc- / 01 1710(y7 cuvOe ' A ja9G /w&i 3AL , _9(Y/77g5- .do swvavdi .91-1L CV/ off __Z_ ' Om/541 .L07 g&._. ..2-g ./ ..2..i 9 (Y 77/ ol s: / i 1 ga ss-r OW 5--frfoi 5-1-6.1 1 --2/0/// 7 1;>/iCZ .7- AL-at aeid pas*,yalv z: 0/a ' fi-La' a do-z_•_ I/ , 1 cli-a-- 0/0 P U-S-35 or y ty 773(21 n/090 -zind 9fi -17 ,1-/ :907 ' 5aog a,/ ----__Qo 7 0 '','L. (YO Of/0P g2 .9--Zr ' Q 0°i/3'0 2119/ - g Of .107 a'2L7b1,3110/ P 3.12LL- 171imi 77/01 5 1 7 ' / .V.i. _1.0(Y 1 - (1//t7 7 //7E ...7 57 g _ff_f__ 0 006/ gryv 9e9/,--7 poi <5. czaLS / -. ..7/h Y1-/ 5 YgliP ?/ '5-2 ?V 1 i (g-7.` — e:747E) 7 i4zoW 0/0 .6Li 91.7i0 a, 5 9 0//q 7/nE 9(wis../7 ry/ SnIgh / d-I-P/ a i " P n/Y / 2./P' 1 1 i I _L(Vg A-1/JF rtIi, f IN ,.. te.13 -Trti T. , " -,g J7 4,-__g45_, _fz_ 1 ,9voc-/w :/ 310Z 0 AoN 7Arr?:;a: i NQ 10 10 2016 COMMUNI L TY DEVELOPMENT ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 4 G!2 ES 73-sicleti -floc) dIrriok pan/a/ r Town r Town Ife/Well r Other (Specify) 1- Well r Other (Specify) UTSD UTSD None r r re7No PV Septic r Septic 3 EPSD 3 EPSD 17-0ther r Yes Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service r Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Variance Variance Desired (Development Code Section -5 -/, 3. i (1, (-9 Primary Contact Information /9RiA/tice LeS.. I7 Qz",1%1...3 L1.14 Name of Primary Contact Person eRoe-F;c• Complete Mailing Address 3aa5 be-v/L_s Ca tA [-CH £i E57E5 /'- i< SO. Prima Contact Person is ri%Owner r Applicant r Consultant/Engineer Submittal Date: General Information Record Owner(s): C> GROE-Fr-- &-7 /5 E-4,1 4-7A:We-CP' Street Address of Lot: 350/ DEI/Ii_ 5 act..ci/ Rd, Csrels Pibek 4 ..s77 Legal Description: Lot: Block: Tract: Subdivision: /17i/0.512- — 5 ,71 7275 R72.- Parcel ID #: 250 4300(4 7 Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 .6 170 MacGregor Avenue .6 Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 -.6 Fox: (970) 586-0249 www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2013.08.27 KT Site Information Lot Size //, Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service Attachments 17 Application fee (see attached fee schedule) 3 Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) 3 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** 3 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") r Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org ** The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Zoning Contact Information Record Owner(s) ci) AAR, a/6E1:A 620CFF Mailing Address 2,2a2 Devits GcAtzti EsTES PaRk ,eo g0 ,7 Phone 970 — 02 i - 0053 q7o -58L -8224 8 Cell Phone 970 — 9.4 s- O 0 53 Fax Email .ec/j k-a.e MA/ OD 714 Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: htto://www.estes.oro/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninqAoolicationFeeSchedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 KT APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). P. 1 acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: htto://www.estes.oro/ComDev/DevCode IP I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. IP- I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. IN- I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. 10. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. P. I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. 1 understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. O. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. ► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: I) /ND al.sELP OR0E -FF-- Applicant PLEASE PRINT: E D Fueff Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Date / - -10 / 6 Date / / - 7 - 2o/6 Revised 2013.08.27 KT Use Regulations § 5.1 Specific Use Standards CHAPTER 5. USE REGULATIONS § 5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS This Section contains regulations that apply to specific uses or classes of uses. A. Adult Business. All adult business uses shall be subject to special review and shall also comply with the following standards: 1. No adult business use shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of any residentially zoned or used property. 2. No adult business use shall be permitted within five hundred (500) feet of any school, place for religious assembly, public park, playground, other adult business use or liquor store. 3. Adult business use buildings, entries, windows and other openings shall be located, covered or screened to prevent a view into the interior from any public area, including sidewalks, bike/pedestrian paths and streets. B. Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home. (Ord. 02-10 §1) 1. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall be subject to the following (see §5.1.8.2 and §5.1.B.3 for additional regulations): a. Annual Operating Permit. (1) All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall obtain an operating permit on an annual basis. If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley, a permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office. (2) The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating permit shall be proof of a current sales tax license. b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20. c. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Except in the CD district, design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use. 5-1 Supp 10 Use Regulafrons § 5.1 Specific Use Standards (2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home. (3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms. (4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beyond a gazebo or similar outdoor room. (5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each bed and breakfast inn or vacation home, except that one (1) wall- mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (6) Vehicular traffic and noise levels shall not be out of character with residential use. d. Parking. (1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a bed and breakfast inn or a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than two (2). (2) Maximum Allowed Parking. No more than three (3) vehicles shall be parked outside at any one (1) time. Vehicles enclosed within a garage do not count towards this maximum. On-street parking shall be prohibited. Refer to §5.2.B.2.f, which may further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site. e. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §5.2.C.2.a). 1. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §11.4.E). g• Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also §5.2.B.2.a, which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length of tenancy). h. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. i. Density. Only one (1) vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit. 2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subject to the following: a. Occupancy. (1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) guests shall occupy a bed and breakfast inn at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two guests. 5-la Supp, 10 DevilsGulchRdVariance-Grueff-100Feet.xls Page 1 Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip William & Elsa Jennings 773 Sky Trail Rd Boulder CO 80302 John & Virginia Elder 3643 Overbrook Ln Houston TX 77027 James & Helen Northup 104 Cliff Dr Narragansett RI 2882 Green Backpack LLC 820 S Monaco Pkwy, #172 Denver CO 80224 Stutz-Heimatfels, Inc. 11971 Montreal Ct Woodbridge VA 22192 Ed & Gisela Grueff 3225 Devils Gulch Rd Estes Park CO 80517 Blackthorne USA Ventures, LLC 2111 Welch, #A309 Houston TX 77019 USA - Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest 2150 Centre Ave #e Ft. Collins CO 80526 N5422 '14"W 271.4,3? - • " 2 STORY LOG CAM, W/ WALKOUT BASEMENT S15'5820V, 118.14' N89 .34'22 ''E, 263.97 4' '71' 27' N89 .35 'E, 673.38' Jo/ /i / 524'0120'W, 3798 14- ?Jo , 52 7'03 '00V, 118.29' '-• FRAME , SHEDS \-5- ; • 5.5 yrL-)': 1 STORY -5' FRAME CABIN FRAME • GARAGE / _,;_x,0805 ,74 ir, ,5 Z.5' 534'51 '40 I'W, 208.10' 525'12'001W 101.93' N5758:37 'W, 47.90' 523'23'50"W, 79.94' s2, I, HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE WAS PREPARED FOR CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, THAT IT IS NOT A LAND SURVEY PLAT OR IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT AND THAT IT IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FENCE, BUILDING OR FUTURE IMPROVEMENT LINES. ENGLAND SURVEYING, INC., DID NO OTHER TITLE RESEARCH BESIDES WHAT WAS SUPPLIED BY THE TITLE COMPANY. I FURTHER STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE 11/5/2008, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN: THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART 0 PARCEL, EXCEPT AS INDICATED. --ORAD ‘‘‘ .. .. 7 v"- 4'1- RI ENGLA IteL-W. to . 29415 1.4.I 0_ ‘• 4/ 0 2 ;; 0 •4 1. ci.• 7 —19▪ - • , .., 1,1„,,,t Nikv............... DA ENGLAND surveying SCALE: 1" =200' O END. /4 REBAR 14// YELLOW CAP, LS/6499 • END. /4 REBAR IN CNC. re END. B.L.M. ALIQUOT CORNER 3501 DEVILS CULCH .1?0,41) CHICAGO TITLE OF COLORADO, INC.: 1452279, 11/3/2008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE PAGE J. JOB NO.: 177.77 LIIP_ROVEilEIVT LOCATION CERTIFICATE.. NORTH co L.5> • '-',10 ,-.1>'s ; ° • • — - N • o>, ' 0 /VOTES: © 527 .18'11"W, 235.85' 1. ITEM 7 OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT REFERS TO ALL WATER, WATER RIGHTS, OR CLAIMS THERETO, IN, ON OR UNDER THE LAND. 2. ITEM 8 REFERS TO THE RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT OR REMOVE HIS ORE, SHOULD THE SAME BE -OUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES THEREBY GRANTED AND BY ROWS FOR DITCHES AND CANALS AS RESERVED IN U.S. PATENTS, 2/5/1879, BOOK T, PAGE 73 AND 7/10/1907, BOOK 113, PAGE 409, AND ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTEREST THEREIN. 3. ITEM 9 REFERS TO OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED UNDER THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS RECORDED 8/5/1965, BOOK 1298, PAGE 535, DOCUMENT IS NOT LEGIBLE. 4. ITEM 10 REFERS TO OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED UNDER THE AGREEMENTS, WHICH WERE RECORDED 6/7/1982, BOOK 2170, PAGES 1445 & 1449. 5. ITEM 11 REFERS TO EASEMENTS, NOTES AND ALL OTHER ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE SURVEY RECORDED 6/24/1982, BOOK 2173, PAGE 522. 6. ITEM 12 REFERS TO OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED UNDER THE EASEMENT, WHICH WAS RECORDED 6/15/1983, BOOK 2224, PAGE 414, WITH REGARDS TO INGREE & EGRESS OVER EXISTING ROADWAYS, NOT SPECIFIC. 7. ITEM 13 REFERS TO EASEMENTS, NOTES AND ALL OTHER ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT OF HERNDON PROPERTY (DIVISION) RECORDED 3/7/1984, BOOK 2262, PAGE 609, REFERING TO A 24' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT, LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT LEGIBLE AND A POSSIBLE 10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG ALL SIDES EXCEPT FOR THE DEVILS GULCH ROW, DOCUMENT IS NOT LEGIBLE. PAGE 1 "(fp ,&- ,, .,0> / - ,.- ..9- 1 STORY .1.,--/ '11 iv, RAE .,..." • ‘ CABIN i> ^,.;17 (..",,,‘ s, ""te‘-' PAGE 2 3501 PEWS GULCH _ROAD CHICAGO TITLE OF COLOR4DO, INC.: 1452279, 11/3/2008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE PAGE 3. JOB NO.: 177 77 1 STORY FRAME CABIN 4 4t SCALE 1" =60' / 6,,,/ „, \, , , \s:..,, , P rr. /ENT, .23,?5,q84 <<, / 0 / / ,/ As A) / / ENGLAND sury eying 43' 9' ‘51'„ 12' 2 STORY FRAME BUILDINGS HOUSE DETAIL: ,30 , / 2 STORY LOG C4BIN W/ -WALKOUT BASEMENT • P v .,570, ••••••••••••••••......... 3225 Eiger Trail — Amended Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org EP ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: January 10, 2017, 9:00AM; 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 20-foot setback in lieu of the 21-foot setback that was approved in 2004. The purpose of the variance is to continue allowing the existing home to be built at 20-feet from the south property line. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 3225 Eiger Trail, within the unincorporated Estes Valley VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Thomas George and Marcia Ellen Connard / same as applicant STAFF CONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend a previously granted Variance for the above mentioned address. A setback Variance was granted in 2004 for a 21-foot setback. The property was developed with a single family home that went through the building permit process and setback certificate process. The home was approved to be built at 20-feet from the south property line, disregarding the 21-foot setback that was granted in 2004. Planning staff in 2004 signed off on the setback certificate and building permit plans at 20-feet. Because of this error, current planning staff have waived the Variance application fee for this application and are recommending approval of the proposed 20-foot setback Variance. 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 surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department "Current Applications" webpage. The site has been posted with a "variance pending" sign. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No major comments or concerns were received. Public Comments. Staff has received no written public comment in regards to this application. 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 original Variance was approved in 2004 which adjusted the setback to the north and south at 21-feet in lieu of the 25-foot requirement. The lot is zoned E-1 Estate which requires a 1-acre minimum lot size. The lot is approximately .33 acres in size. The 2004 Variance also took the steep slopes existing on the lot into account. The slopes on the property range between 25%-40%. Staff finds that the original Variance proved there was a unique circumstance associated with this lot. Staff also finds that the current Variance request contains a very unique circumstance, planning staff wrongly approved a building permit and setback certificate. This was at no fault of the applicant. It could have been caught by the project representative at the time but ultimately it was the duty of Community Development Staff. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: The property is built with a single-family home. The home has been in existence for 12 years. If the Variance is not granted, the building would need to be reduced by one foot. This is not practical by any means. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: Staff does not find that amending the Variance and granting a new Variance for a 1-foot deviation from the original Variance is substantial. The previous application proved the immense building difficulty with this site. A one foot change to that plan for an already built structure is not seen as substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The property has been built out for 12 years. Staff has received no complaints or concerns about how the home was built. The error in approval was only recently discovered. 3225 Eiger Trail — Amended Setback Variance Page 2 of 4 d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The property is already built out. Staff finds no adverse affects of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: According to the Statement of Intent, the applicant has only been aware of the 1-foot encroachment as of lately. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A Variance is the only mechanism that can mitigate this situation. 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: This situation is not common in the Estes Valley. It is rare that multiple levels of review miss an approved setback dimension and approve plans that conflict with an approve variance. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: Not applicable 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: This variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the proposal. 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 use is permitted. No change in use is proposed. 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. 3225 Eiger Trail — Amended Setback Variance Page 3 of 4 Staff Finding: Staff is not recommending any conditions at this time. A setback certificate was provided with the build of the home that confirmed it is in fact located at 20-feet from the south property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested setback variance SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site Plan 3225 Eiger Trail — Amended Setback Variance Page 4 of 4 Vicinity Map Town of Estes Park Community Development Vicinity Map Project Name: 3225 Eiger Trail Amended Setback Variance 1 in = 67 ft Printed: 1/4/2017 Created By: Audem Gonzales Project Description: Variance to allow existing setback 0 30 60 Thomas George and Marcia Ben Connard Petitioner(s): Rev. Living Trust Feet A fP ESTES PARK COLORADO Setback Variance Request for 3225 Eiger Trail, Estes Park, CO. The Connard Residence Lot 6, Block 3, Amended Plat of Windcliff 5 th Filing This request is for an existing structure (3225 Eiger Trail in the Windcliff Subdivision) to be allowed to exist at 20' from the south property line when the approved 2004 Setback Variance required the structure to be 21' from the south property line. The Code and Zoning required setback is 25' from all lot lines (for this El Zoned property). Here is a timeline of events and narrative of the historic and current situation: • In 2004, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying (VHE) was working with Westover Construction to plan, get permits for, and begin construction of the Connard House at 3225 Eiger Trail. We completed site topography and a Site Plan. The home was designed and a variance was pursued to allow the house as designed to encroach onto the 25' setbacks on each the north and south sides of the lot. The north setback was proposed at 21' from the north lot line and the south setback was proposed at a range of 15' to 22' from the south lot line. It is rare to request a range for a setback, but there were some proposed elevated stairs on the south side of the house which contributed to this request. An application was submitted and a variance hearing was conducted by the Board of Adjustment (BOA) on March 2, 2004. Westover Construction's staff, (Jamie and Bob) were present at the hearing representing the owner. In that hearing, the 15' to 22' south and 21' north was not approved. Rather, 21' on each the north and south lot lines was approved, VHE was not listed as being present at that hearing in the minutes, we were however, listed as being present at the next item on the agenda that day. • There was some communication (a note in the file) regarding the outcome of the variance and the desire to not build the stairs on the south side of the home. It also indicated that the 20' setback was the approved variance distance to the south lot line. The note stated, "Connards, 4' on north, 5' on south, lose the stairs on s. side". This note was written by VHE's Project Manager then (Drew Sartell — no longer an employee) and was apparently documenting a phone call related to the variance outcome (but now we know that it is/was incorrect). • VHE finalized the Building Permit Site Plan for the house at 20' (5) and 21' (N) setbacks, and removed the proposed stairs on the south side. A Building Permit was generated (by the Town) based on that Site Plan. VHE construction staked the house at those limits, and produced a setback certificate assuring those limits when only the concrete forms were in place (concrete had yet to be poured). All inspections were completed by the Town and a Certificate of Occupancy was also granted by the Town when the construction was complete. • The next 12 years passed. Within the past two weeks, VHE was completing an Improvement Survey on that same address and parcel of land for a potential sale and real estate transaction. VHE went to the field and found the external boundary markers of the lot (again) and performed a field survey of the improvements on the lot. During the drafting of the new survey information, VHE calculated the distance from the south side of the house (foundation) to the south lot line (from measured information) as 20.0' (no surprise to us). VHE made a note on the survey about the variance that was granted in 2004. The attorney for the potential buyers requested more information about the variance and VHE (in turn) requested an Open Records Request from the Town and obtained the written minutes from the 2004 variance hearing that stated that 21' was approved on both the north and south sides of the subject lot (big surprise to us). In the end, the house encroaches one foot into the approved setback variance on the south side of this lot. It has existed there for 12 years with no consequence or apparent awareness by the builder, the owner, the Town, the Windcliff HOA, the neighbor, or by VHE. None of those involved intended this encroachment to occur, and only now know (by reading the BOA Record of Proceedings) that there is an actual setback variance encroachment, We also know that the Town approved all items leading to this situation and that those items are accurate in comparison to what was constructed and are existing in the field. The Site Plan, and the Setback Certification are accurate (show 20' on the south side and 21' on the north setbacks and), yet do not agree with the south side setback that was approved in the 2004 variance of 21'. Standards for Review (as required on Variance Applications): 1. Special Circumstances: The above sequence of events is indeed unique and constitutes an unintended special circumstance. In addition to this, the lot itself is substandard in size for the E-1 zoning that exists. The lot is 0.33 Acres in size while the zoning requirement is 1 acre minimum. The lot is steep (with an average slope in the range of approximately 25% to 40%). The lot is bordered by a road on both the east and west sides. This lot was zoned for residential construction which was intended by the Code and the Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley. 2. Practical Difficulty (Submittal Factors): a) There is beneficial use of the property without the variance, however, a violation of the approved setback variance could cloud the title and could cause title and financial (mortgage) complications if left unresolved. b) This request of one foot as compared to 21' is not substantial (only 5%), The overall resultant setback variance of 5' out of 25' is more substantial (at 25%), however still a common percentage of requested setbacks in this neighborhood for undersized lots. c) The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered and the neighboring properties will not suffer a substantial detriment if this variance is approved. This situation has existed for 12 years without HOA, Town, or neighborhood awareness or objection. d) This requested variance has not affected the delivery of public services. The existing home is connected to Town water and Sanitary Sewer services. e) The applicant is the current owner of the property (the Connard Revocable Trust) and they were not aware of this one foot setback violation situation until less than two weeks ago. 1) The applicant's predicament is not easy to mitigate as the home and improvements are existing and long standing. A variance is the simplest form of mitigation for this unforeseen and unintended circumstance and is the least deviation from regulation that will afford relief. 3. General or Recurrent Circumstances: The conditions of this variance request are not general or recurrent in nature. They are very unique and circumstantial. The apparent miscommunication and subsequent submittal that included a one foot discrepancy was not noticed by several involved parties through several stages of development (the Builder, the HOA, the Town and the design engineer/construction surveyor (VHE)). 4. Increased Number of Lots: By granting this variance, there will be no additional lots created in the subdivision, nor will it allow the size of this long standing lot to be reduced (even though the existing lot does not meet the zoning lot size minimum at present). 5. Least Deviation to Afford Relief: If authorized, this variance will represent the least deviation from the existing regulations that will afford relief of this situation. 6. Permitted Use: Single Family Residential use is permitted and encouraged in E-1 zoning which has occurred and will continue to occur on this lot before and after any approved variance. No change in that use is proposed. 7. Conditions: Any conditions that the Board of Adjustment feels are appropriate for this situation and circumstance will be considered by the applicant as related to this variance request. Given the longstanding existence of this condition, no conditions are suggested by the applicant at this time. Conclusion: Thank you for your consideration of this variance request and VHE apologizes for their part in this situation that has been brought to light through the recent land survey and real estate transaction. We assure the Board that it was not intentional on our part, and we surely believe it was not intentional on the builder's part, nor the Town's part, nor was there collaboration by any parties involved. Prepared by: Lonnie Sheldon, Colorado PE & PLS, for Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION /0- /IL COMblinirn' iiivacwieta Submittal Date: 11-23-2016 Record Owner(s):. The Thomas George Connard and Marcia Ellen Connard Revocable Living Trust Street Address of Lot. 3225 EIGER TRAIL. ESTES PARK. CO 80517 Legal Description: Lot: 6 Block: 3 Tract: Subdivision: A/P WINDCLIFF 5TH FILING Parcel ID # : 34101-15-006 Site Information E-1 ESTATE Lot Size 0.35 ACRES Zoning Existing Land Use SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Proposed Land Use SAME Existing Water Service IX Town 1- Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service IX Town I Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD rX UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD IX UTSD 1 Septic Existing Gas Service fX Xcel f— Other None Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes EX No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): 4.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING SETBACKS Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is LONNIE SHELDON, VAN HORN ENGINEERING 1043 FISH CREEK ROAD, ESTES PARK, CO 80517 r Owner r Applicant 1% Consultant/En neer IX Application fee (see attached fee schedule) NOTE: FEE WAIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT fX Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) IX 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** IX 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") FX Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org ** The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park P.0, BOK 1200 -a, 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park. CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone' 19701 5773721 Fox' (970) 586.0249 www.estes argiCommtirityDevelopment Revised 2013.08-2/ #0 Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email THOMAS GEORGE/MARCIA ELLEN CONNARD REV. LIVING TRUST PO Box 131090, The Woodlands, TX 77393-1090 H 281-429-8735 C 832-610-0560 tgoonnard@gmail.corn Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Owner Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc. 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-9388 ext. 17 970-443-3271 N/A I!/7 V h e (1/ : r b APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: htto://www.estes.oro/Com Dev/Schedule s&F ees/PlanninoApelicationF eeSchedulesidf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013 08.27 Ki Date Date Applicant PLLASL PRA!! Signatures: Record Owner Applicant APPLICANT CERTIFICATION eio I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property Oo- In submitting the application materials and signing !his application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) acknowledge that have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing tho processing of and decision on the application The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at http liwww.estes.orq/ComOeviDevCode I- I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. Ie I understand that this variance request may be delayed In processing by a month or more if the information provided is . incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. P I understand that a resubmittal fee witl be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the dale on which the application is determined to be complete. le I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ▪ acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void i understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void, Po I understand that I am required to obtain a 'Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it Is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed buildingistructure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. le t understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, ''Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.0) 6'itfA/4400/4/0/4 Record Owner pck4St mkogo fegvooLeLg .4 /1,7A45- Names: Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts ti ... . , ,r,.. -.. .zoiono 6111111et • ,;-: .-i: , '.• , 4..,,P,40.: R. ,- • ' -r• Mai. Net - 001sitY . : (ingsfacTe0 .,?. ,iiiinlinktr. Lot .s.,, : St/Wards 11 [4] .', • - fOrd. W17 §1) „.N,114114161111113114.041fflaucti.int 1 -.? ' ,4 I. PropettpLifle Stew-16M in . : . •.. (Ord 25-07 ft, Ord. 1541 fl) • . - . . L' !.. VI ','.', ;- ;,.:./, , , funding HOW ' M181" ;:.- r.--:.;;;f1A, .06 ". .WM14 r, WOO* . tft4 % ' . • 1.1,041.,,..• ! OM ft-) " ' WOW.: P* (k) i;r1-4; • • *, - Franc (?-)'-• ' o 04 :. !. fltai' ") . RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 RE 1/2.5 Ac 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 E-1 1 1 Ac. 13) 100 25 25 25 30 20 i E 2 V2 Ac. (3) 75 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 _ 15 30 20 R 4 IA Ac 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 15 30 20 R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 R-2 4 Single-family = 18,000; Duplex = 27,000 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 10 30 20 RM (Ord. 18-01 §14) Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit 161 (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord §1 . ) 15- 1 Senior Institutional Living Uses: 1/2 Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 (Ord. 15-11 §1) 10 30 20 151 Notes to Table 4-2 (1) (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.0, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.0.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes, (Ord. 2.02 §1) (2) See Chapter 7, §7.6. for required setbacks from stream/rivet corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2.02 §5; Ord. 11.02 §1) (3) If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres, See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, 'Adequate Public Facilities.' (4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1) (5) Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. (6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s,f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. {Ord 18-01 §14) (7) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 §3) (Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) 4.7 Eiger TraiI-3325 - Connard Variance.xls Page 1 Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip GETCHELL MARJORIE E & EDWARD H 1531 SAINT MORITZ TRL ESTES PARK CO 80517 BYRD GENE P/MARCIA 1521 WEYBRIDGE CIR NAPLES FL 34110 MIRANDA JOSEPH/PATRICIA FAMILY TRUST 3175 EIGER TRL ESTES PARK CO 80517 BIBLE KEITH C & KASTEN MARY JO 778 UPPER MEADOW LN NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 CONNARD THOMAS GEORGE/MARCIA ELLEN 18 COTILLION CT THE WOODLANDS TX 77382 YALE DAVID P/LESLIE B 1521 SAINT MORITZ TRL ESTES PARK CO 80517 MILLER MARTHA E/EDSEL L 3107 LADYBANK LN NORMAN OK 73072 DRAWN 81 BOO SCALE 10 =10' DATE: 11/22/2016 VARIANCE SITE PLAN LOT 6, BLOCK 3, AMENDED PLAT OF WINDCLIFF ESTATES 5TH SUBDIVISION AND REPLAT OF LOT 41/2 WEBSTER BIGHORN SUBDIVISION STANDARD 25.0' 1311110160 SETBACK' LOT S (135 ACRES) UNDERGROUND PROPANE SOURCE 109' TO DWELLING 3243 EAGLE Cl/FF DRIVE .00X0000 21• s.cv UDE, EASEMENT crop.) I''.1-7•10 17/C STAMPED 4045' {NW LOT 6) Pc3 v-e •c.? L./ 154 53 ;51X1 DW'MORLITTGITOUL ▪ [3rt. 1"../ ROCK WALL 27.3' EXISTING 2--STORY FRAME HOUSE USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7 alp/DANE BONES No . 11.1' TO DWELLING BI' SAINT VERTU (RAIL • PRE-FAR \ RETANNC WALL VNOCA WALL \\ 21.0' (FOUNDATION WALL) \STANDARD 25.0' BUILDING SETBACK 4 APPROVED IBUILDBIC SETBACK REQUESTED 20 BUILDING SETBACK 200' (FoukciAno. ) ROOT MALL 20 0' (FINNOATION L) :4, FOUND P/C STAMM) (2 .L.5 4145. Em 0) 107' TO DWELLING 1521 SAINT MORITZ TRUE FLANK) /4 AlEsta MO LOT 10 112' TO DWELLING 3215 EAGLE curr DANE LZGEND (11 TELEPHONE PEDESUP • KIND MONUMENLITION P/C INMATES PI/515 CAP ▪ SOWER CLEAN OUT SET II KEN. MTN ▪ PU.STC CAP 126974 OATH UPCOMING IMPROVEMENT 5UNAT0 Tr..407` 0120.E0 61000 MEASURED CR CALCULATED DimENSIONs (00.001 PLATTED CRA(NNONS SCALE. I = 10' I0 20 (N4v0D'Baw 125.167 500,3!'550 120.30 LOT 7 VACANT LOT 5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12' TO DWELI[NG 3175 EIGER TRAIL BASIS or BEARN05 (001700.0716 12924') wuroo'0014 127.16' 1-01.0413 P/C STIOIP40 'LS 4845' {NE LOT 6) ABONT GUDE orcx 1/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TAKEN FROM TITLE COMMITMENT NO. RM4068-16 REVISION iffi) LOT 6, BLOCK 3, AMENDED PLAT OF WINDCLIFF ESTATES 5TH SUBDIVISION AND REPLAT OF LOT aka WEBSTER BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO SURVEYOR'S NOTES' I THE PURPOSE K 1011 Err, PLAN IS TO THOLATI A vANIANDI FIN TOO RNA APPROvED BIALD.ND sETRADK NANANcE FOR THE SOWN LOT LIVE REAANDS ARE EASED ON TOE N0610 LINE OF SUBJECT PROPENT, BEND mONLAAET.TED ON BOTH OLDS 00 A ROAR RT. PLAST4 CAP STOOPED /1045. ASSLITHD To 13.0. 1.19,00.00'er 3. DEEDED ovoyERERO AN0 FASEYENT INFONAATioN WAS TAKE, Eno THE TITLE COANATMENT PREPARED Br ROCKT•40.ANTAN ESCROW AND TIRE B.C.. rr-E f0000616‘16 DATED OCTOBER 6 2016. AS WELL AS PRON.'S VAN NON. ENONWING PROJECT #20E13-11-10 (DEALOPmENT SITE PL. 14.04 FOR TN. PROPERTY 00 01000 DEED OR OwNERSKR RESEARCH WAS PERFORMED A ROE LIEF.. 0)01 /5E0 100 71.15 5.1.1./e1 5 THE U S SURVEY FOOT CHECKED lAS SHEET 1 OF Vicinity Map SCALE 1.-1.000. 2231 Upper High Drive — Cottey Residence Variance Request Front Setback Requirement A IP Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2017 REQUESTS: Variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires a 50-foot front setback for buildings/structures in the (RE) Rural Estate Zoning District to accommodate an existing residence and building additions, including a proposed covered deck and garage. LOCATION: 2231 Upper High Drive OWNER: Tia L. Cottey APPLICANT/CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Primary Contact: John Sullivan, Van Horn Engineering STAFF CONTACT: Carrie McCool, Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing a variance in order to allow modifications to an existing legally, non- conforming residential home located at 2231 Upper High Drive, containing approximately 1.40 acres of land. Access is provided to the site from Upper High Drive right-of-way to the south and access easement via gravel drive to the north. The property is currently platted as Lot 3 of the Amended Deer Mountain Heights Subdivision and contains a single-family residential home. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front setback from the 50' required to 22.8' for the existing home, 25.6' for the proposed covered deck, and 32.5' for the proposed garage as illustrated on the Site Plan provided in Exhibit B. Pursuant to the EVDC Section 1.9 (D), building eaves and overhangs are allowed to encroach within setbacks by up to 3', for which this application complies. Due to the current layout of the existing residential home and site characteristics such as steep topography, adhering to the required setbacks is difficult to achieve. While an addition or modification may be possible within the required setbacks, the variance request would bring the existing home into conforming status, and allow for a 2-car garage addition and covered deck entry in keeping with the natural features of the site. SITE DATA MAP & TABLE: The project site is accessed directly from an access easement along the northern boundary of the site, an extension off of Upper High Drive right-of-way located to the south of the site which lies approximately 1,500 feet west of the Upper High Drive and Tanager Road intersection. The site borders similar rural estate, large lot residential uses along the north, west and east and low density residential along the south. The property is zoned RE (Rural Estate), a single-family residential zone district. Figure 1 depicts the vicinity of the project and surrounding residential land uses. SITE DATA TABLE: Figure 1 Parcel Number: 35273-10-003 Lot Area: 1.40 acres Existing Land Use: Rural Estate Residential Proposed Land Uses: No Change Setbacks: (Front) Maximum Allowed: 50' Proposed: • Existing Home — 22.8' (northwest) • Proposed Covered Deck — 25.6' (northeast), 28.1' (northwest) • Proposed Garage — 32.5' (northwest), 36.1' (northeast) (Side) Maximum Allowed: 50' Proposed: 150' (Rear) Maximum Allowed: 50' Proposed: 95' Services: Water: Well Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation District Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowed: 70% Proposed: <10% Hazards/Physical Features Mapped in the project vicinity? Wildfire Hazard No Geologic Hazard No Wetlands No Streams/Rivers No Ridgeline Protection No Wildlife Habitat No Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, January 10, 2017 Page 2 of 6 Cottey Setback Variance Request REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the Decision-Making Body for this application. Please refer to the "Statement of Intent" document received on December 30, 2016 for the Applicant's comments regarding the review standards. 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: A majority of the existing structure and existing deck are currently located within the 50' setback. The site is considered legal non-conforming because the parcel was originally developed prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code and does not meet current (RE) Rural Estate setback requirements. Any modification to the existing structure therefore requires a variance. To avoid significant grading and site disturbance due to the sloping nature of the site, the proposed garage has been located adjacent to the existing home, but no closer to the property line than the existing house. The sloping topography and non-conforming nature of the site create special circumstances that are unique to the site. Figures 2 and 3 below are provided to illustrate these existing conditions. Figure 2 Figure 3 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Staff Finding: The existing house was originally constructed in the current location in 1998. Due to the existing house's current non-conformity to the zoned building setbacks, any modification to the front portion of the home would require variance approval. The proposed deck will be located farther from the property line than currently situated. Complete demolition and significant grading would be required in order to construct a garage and front entry without a variance. Although the applicant can use Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, January 10, 2017 Page 3 of 6 EP Cottey Setback Variance Request the property without a variance, the proposal is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and preserves the site's natural features to the maximum extent feasible. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: The proposed garage has been strategically located adjacent (to the northeast) to the existing residential home to avoid the need to construct an additional driveway and further minimize grading associated with the sloping nature of the site. The proposed location also reduces disturbance related to the extension of utilities. Further, staff finds that variance requested in not substantial and minimizes slope impacts, site disturbance and tree removal. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Staff Finding: The house design associated with this proposal seeks to match the character of the surrounding neighborhood, where non-conformity with front setbacks is common due to the timing of development and latter code adoption. The applicant has noted that 3 of the 5 properties to the north of Upper High Drive, immediately near the subject property and zoned RE, have obvious setback non-conformities and another being close enough that only an accurate survey could confirm (see Exhibit B). Without a variance, it would not be possible to construct a residence that conforms to the surrounding neighborhood character. The natural slope and preservation of trees on the lot will minimize visual impact from development of this site. Staff finds that the proposed variance is in keeping with the aesthetics and character of the neighborhood. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: All necessary services are already extended to the property and house. Any additional requirements will be met by connecting to the existing house and will not adversely affect public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding: The existing house was constructed in 1998 and was permitted by Larimer County. The owner purchased the property without knowledge of this requirement since it was not yet in place. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Because the existing home was built prior to adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code, the home is legal non-conforming. While an addition or modification may be possible within the required setbacks, the variance will bring the existing home into conforming status and minimize site impacts associated with the proposed garage and deck additions. Without complete demolition of the existing home, a variance is unavoidable. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, January 10, 2017 Page 4 of 6 Cottey Setback Variance Request Staff Finding: Staff finds that the applicant's request for a variance is due to the existing use of the subject property and the unique topography, resulting in size and orientation challenges. As such, Staff finds that the circumstances are unique to the applicant's proposal, and are not of so general or recurrent of a nature as to make it reasonable for the regulation to be changed to accommodate similar circumstances. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: The variance requests will not result in a reduction in the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed garage cannot be located elsewhere without extensive site disturbance. The variance request represents the least deviation from the front setback that will afford relief. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The variances requested will not permit a use prohibited or not expressly permitted in the Rural Estate zone district. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff does not have any recommended conditions of approval for the Board's consideration; however, the Board is welcome to provide conditions of approval to address any concerns that arise during the public hearing. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: This variance request was routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. The public hearing for the variance request was publicly noticed in accordance with the applicable public notification requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. No formal written comments were received from the public or adjacent property owners. Any written comments will continue to be posted to www.estes.orq/currentapplications. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that the application for the proposed variance request would comply with the applicable review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 "Standards for Review" of the Estes Valley Development Code and advance goals, policies, and objectives adopted in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, January 10, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Cottey Setback Variance Request POTENTIAL MOTIONS: Below are the Board of Adjustment options related to the variance request: 1. I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of the variance request application with no conditions. 2. I find that the application substantially meets the criteria above, and move to recommend APPROVAL of the variance request application with conditions as determined by the Board of Adjustments. 3. I find that the application does not substantially meet the criteria above, and move to recommend DENIAL of the variance request application. 4. I find that the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application per the criteria above and recommend CONTINUING THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional materials. ENCLOSURES: Exhibit A — Statement of Intent & Application Exhibit B — Site Plan & Neighboring Parcel Zoning Information Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, January 10, 2017 Page 6 of 6 EP Cottey Setback Variance Request EXHIBIT A ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE STATEMENT OF INTENT 2231 Upper High Drive, Estes Park, Colorado •1. - — DEC 2 9 2016 1 Commi JA,, E114 ())p This application is a request for a variance from the setback requirements of Table 4-2, in RE-Rural Estate zoning of 50-feet to property lines. We are requesting a variance to be 18' into the required setback (or 32' from the property line) for the proposed garage, 25' (25' from the property line) for the proposed covered deck, and 29.1' (20.9' from the property line) for the existing house. These variances would allow for both a more environmentally friendly positioning of the proposed garage and covered deck, as well as allow for keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The intent of the project is to remodel the existing house and to add a garage. The proposed covered deck on the front of the existing house would be no closer than the existing deck and the proposed garage would be no closer than the existing house. Review Standards 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist; With the existing structure being constructed 22.8' from the property line and the existing deck being 20.9' from the property line, any modification to the majority of the existing house without a variance is virtually impossible as more than half of the structure is within the zoned building setback. Further, without the complete demolition of the existing house or re-zoning the subject parcel, there is no other option to bring the existing structure into compliance with the zoned building setback. Both the proposed remodel to the front entry and the proposed garage as planned will be no closer than the existing house and deck. 2. Practical Difficulty a. The existing house was originally constructed in the current location 1998. Due to the existing house's current nonconformity to the zoned building setbacks, any modification to the existing front entry would be impossible to do while conforming to the zoned setbacks of 50'. Further, the proposed covered deck will not only be no closer than the existing front deck, but will bring the front entry more into conformity with the zoned building setbacks (farther away). b. The proposed garage, while there are other locations on the subject lot where it is physically possible to build the garage, to do so would require an additional driveway to be constructed and extensive grading done. This is due to a general slope across the subject property of approximately 20%. In addition, any other location would be more difficult due to the need to maintain reasonable distances to the existing utilities and could result in placing the garage an unreasonable distance from existing house. In contrast, placing the garage in the proposed location would limit the amount of disturbance to the lot and greatly reduce the amount of grading needed and only require a small extension to the existing driveway. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer detriment as a result of the variance. All of the proposed variances are not only in keeping with the esthetics and character of the neighborhood but would increase the esthetics and character of the neighborhood. EXHIBIT A d. The variance would have no effect on public services. Due to the existing house, all necessary services are already extended to the property and house. As planned, any additional utility requirements will be met by connecting to the existing house. e. The existing house was constructed in 1998 and was permitted by Larimer County. 3. The conditions reflected in this application are not general in nature, but are specific to this particular property and the conditions which currently exist which include but are not limited to size and orientation. 4. No reduction in lot size or increase in non-conformity is created by this variance request. All requests are no closer to any property line than the existing structure. 5. The plan proposed is not excessive, particularly considering that every effort has been made to reduce the impact to the subject property and keep the proposed improvements as compliant as possible. Multiple factors influenced the layout proposed, including maintaining the driveway, keeping project cost to a minimum, maintain the current esthetics and character of the neighborhood, and minimizing the amount of variance necessary. 6. The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. While this predicament for the proposed improvements could potentially be mitigated by one other means, which is by rezoning the subject parcel to E-1 (which requires 25' building setbacks) as the neighboring parcels to the south (which are also of similar size to the subject parcel) are zoned. This would be a much more costly ($4,000+) and involved/extensive process which would work for the proposed improvements; however, it will still not bring the existing house into conformity and a variance would still be needed. Further, this solution would change the building setbacks along all property lines of the subject parcel and not just that specific portion needed for the proposed improvements. This could potentially create issues down the road as any future owner of the subject parcel could build closer than 50' to the property lines by right and without any consideration as to the impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. This is why a variance is being pursued as it is the only reasonable solution to bring the subject property and proposed improvements into conformity while preserving the essential essence of the area. Prepared by: John Sullivan Project Manager for Van Horn Engineering and Surveying REVISED 12/30/16 RY ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE STATEMENT OF INTENT 2231 Upper High Drive, Estes Park, Colorado EXHIBIT OVZ3 1 o : P 16 MENT I This application is a request for a variance from the setback requirements of Table 4-2, in RE-Rural Estate zoning of 50-feet to property lines. We are requesting a variance to be 18' into the required setback (or 32' from the property line) for the proposed garage, 25' (25' from the property line) for the proposed covered deck, and 29.1' (20.9' from the property line) for the existing house. These variances would allow for both a more environmentally friendly positioning of the proposed garage and covered deck, as well as allow for keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The intent of the project is to remodel the existing house and to add a garage. The proposed covered deck on the front of the existing house would be no closer than the existing deck and the proposed garage would be no closer than the existing house. Review Standards 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: With the existing structure being constructed 22.8' from the property line and the existing deck being 20.9' from the property line, any modification to the majority of the existing house without a variance is virtually impossible as more than half of the structure is within the zoned building setback. Both the proposed remodel to the front entry and the proposed garage as planned will be no closer than the existing house and deck. 2. Practical Difficulty a. The existing house was originally constructed in the current location 1998. Due to the existing house's current nonconformity to the zoned building setbacks, any modification to the existing front entry would be impossible to do while conforming to the zoned setbacks of 50'. Further, the proposed covered deck will not only be no closer than the existing front deck, but will bring the front entry more into conformity with the zoned building setbacks (farther away). b. The proposed garage, while there are other locations on the subject lot where it is physically possible to build the garage, to do so would require an additional driveway to be constructed and extensive grading done. This is due to a general slope across the subject property of approximately 20%. In addition, any other location would be more difficult due to the need to maintain reasonable distances to the existing utilities and could result in placing the garage an unreasonable distance from existing house. In contrast, placing the garage in the proposed location would limit the amount of disturbance to the lot and greatly reduce the amount of grading needed and only require a small extension to the existing driveway. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer detriment as a result of the variance. All of the proposed variances are not only in keeping with the esthetics and character of the neighborhood but would increase the esthetics and character of the neighborhood. d. The variance would have no effect on public services. Due to the existing house, all necessary services are already extended to the property and house. As planned, any additional utility requirements will be met by connecting to the existing house. EXHIBIT A e. The existing house was constructed in 1998 and was permitted by Larimer County. 3. The conditions reflected in this application are not general in nature, but are specific to this particular property and the conditions which currently exist which include but are not limited to size and orientation. 4. No reduction in lot size or increase in non-conformity is created by this variance request. All requests are no closer to any property line than the existing structure. 5. The plan proposed is not excessive, particularly considering that every effort has been made to reduce the impact to the subject property and keep the proposed improvements as compliant as possible. Multiple factors influenced the layout proposed, including maintaining the driveway, keeping project cost to a minimum, maintain the current esthetics and character of the neighborhood, and minimizing the amount of variance necessary. 6. The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. Prepared by: John Sullivan Project Manager for Van Horn Engineering and Surveying EXHIBIT A Submittal Date: ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION General Information Record Owner(s): TIA L. COTTEY Street Address of Lot: 2231 UPPER HIGH DRIVE Legal Description: Lot: 3 Block: NIA Tract: Subdivision: AMENDED PLAT OF THE E1/2 OF LOT 2, LOTS 3. 4. 5, & Wt/2 OF LOT 6, DEER MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS Parcel ID # : 35273-10-003 Site Information Lot Size 1.400 ACRES Zoning _RE_ Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL r Town r Town IX Well 15r Well 3 Other (Specify) 3 Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service r Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Variance Im EPSD bZ UTSD Septic 3 EPSD IX UTSD r Septic 3 Other 17 None N/A r Yes IK No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): 4.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (BUILDING SETBACKS) Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person John Sullivan for Van Horn Engineering Complete Mailing Address 1043 FISH CREEK ROAD, ESTES PARK, CO. 80517 Prima Contact Person is r Owner r A icant DC Consultant/Engineer Attachments If Application fee (see attached fee schedule) 3 Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) OK 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') " IX 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") yr Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org " The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII 5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park -a P.O. Box 1200 -a 170 MacGregor Avenue -a Estes Pork, CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 -a Fax: (970) 586-0249 www estes.org/CornrauniiyDevelopmenf Revised 2013.08 27 KT EXHIBIT A Contact Information Record Owner(s) Tia L. Cottev & Holly D. Deem Mailing Address 6508 M 25th Way Phoenix, AZ. 85016 Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Sa V1-1 C /715 e /ad Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer John Sullivan for Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO. 80517 Phone 970-586-9388 Cell Phone N/A Fax N/A Email sullivanvhe@airbits.com APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: htto://www.estes.oro/CornDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninqApolicalionFeeSchedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 20 13.08 27 KT EXHIBIT A APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. le In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). le I acknowledge that 1 have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, 1 have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: htto://www.estes.ora/ComDev/DevCode le i understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. II, I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. PP I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. le The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. Ie. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. Ile I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. Ito I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. Pi. I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: L 6-e '7 D L Applicant PLEASE PRINT . John Sullivan (for Van Horn Engineering) Signatures: Record Owner Applicant , ) Date Date C- Revssed 2013.08.27 Kr EXHIBIT A Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts '-' - -' ' 11'' !ok 7 il .c- I • ' • •,-. Ailing District , , ,-'.. ''' .- fl*t.,4P,.....- ` - • 4 Max. Net ' --' - OdneitY: '. • . (Unitaisdra) ' -7,„-, , . , • t ithannun Lot. - •,,,,., ..: •-• Standards (11(41...;,• . " Od.15.07 ft) , ; :::.: klinimuntliluildingiStrwlure 1'..,:h ! +- gropertyLitas tatbnctart4 in ''' 'z' : Pitt 2047 "; P'4 *It" ' • ! 4, ,, • '-i'' ? , Building ; HOW 'WM ,,,i ,,•.;•E:i:',..4,'" 1 min.... '> •• Widiti: 00,:', . . . • 1,400'.`-9-' :' -1 04 ft.) . .: -Width (ft.) . ': '. • ..ir"-N• -;" ; ' - , • -.I Mint (tt.) Y ' . : . :,.- floe' .. OW . RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 200 50 , 50 50 30 20 1 E-1 1 1 Ac. [3) 100 25 25 25 30 20 E 2 1/2 Ac. [3] 75 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 15 30 20 R 4 Ns Ac 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 15 30 20 R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 R-2 4 Single-family = 18,000; Duplex = 27,000 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 10 30 20 RM (Ord. 18-01 §14) Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [6] (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15- 11 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: 1/2 Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. tt.: 200 25-arterials; 15- other streets 10 (Ord. 15-11 §1) 10 30 20 [51 Notes to Table 4-2 (1) (a)See Chapter 4, §4.3.0, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 §1) (2) See Chapter 7, §7.6, for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1) (3) If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities.' (4) All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord 25-07 §1) (5) Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. (6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 §14) (7) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings or lots, The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be ihe same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 §3) (Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) a-7 Upper High Drive Variance -Cottey.xls Page 1 Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip Marilyn Irwin 2291 Upper High Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Don Ferguson 8302 E Old Mill St Wichita KS 67226 Wallace & Freida Ryle Connie Neumann & Lynn Ryle 4600 Taft Blvd #423 Wichita Falls TX 76308 Ulfers Family Trust 49 Rue de la Tour Paris France William Millis & Ruth Sowell 8600 Skyline Dr #1204 Dallas TX 75243 Charles Miller & Catherine Boand 4141 S Braeswood Blvd #620 Houston TX 77025 BA Cabin LP 10650 W 140th Terrace Overland Park KS 66221 Jacqueline Acers PO Box 4604 Estes Park CO 80517 Tia Cotty & Holly Deem 6508 M 25th Way Phoenix AZ 85016 James & Elizabeth Mackay 6505 SE Scott Dr Portland OR 97215 L A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. SITE 1 or 1 PRO/ NO. 2018-00-14 0 RE O GRADE INFORMATION ADDED SCAE r zo• Dm; 12/21/2015 SCALE: I'm 20. 0 20 40 Ho sto3V23'w 17aor (SSIT3S.53,15 779.071 FOUND HIDI DOLT IMNUTOVEUZ tgt SOS6 RIDGE E.4/1054.0 HEW TS AROSE (MISTING GRADE z LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PER FIDELITY IsLADONAr Tins INSURAWT COMPANY TM F FONNFLIAENT NO SRC—FFINN.5.30-38.110.0L slxv 441.0 . TWIST of Im ACCeSSAND UTILITIESz ALL NuNANLD Nun. FUR imPsaplORS TPLt C.4607 TO TAO OAST. HOAG SURVEYOR'S NOTES! 7HrS SEE PLAN IS REPRESENTA710... DULY. IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A 'INTO SUBLET NOR AN NoPRENEMEN7 SLONEY. 2. INURE ARE NUMEROUS FREES ON airs L07. ONLY ENDRE TREES LA IMB WWI? OF THE PROPOSED NOuSE HAVE BEEN LOCATED +NO SHORN HEREON, S. THE OASIS OF BEARINGS. THE BASIS Or BEARINGS IS A CALCULATED UNE WANG A CA.CHLATED PLATTED WREN. OF .77-22R6RY AND IS mON0LIENTED ON 00711 ENDS BY A REX ROLE. 4. TITS LOT IS 20NED RE RI THE ESTES NALTly 0EvELOPNEN7 CODE WTH ERONT, 00E. AND RE. SETBACKS OF 50% NOTE: A VARIANCE Or ISM IS REQUESTED AS THE LOCAToN SHORN rg THE ONLY PRACTFCAL AND HOST COMPLIANT LOCATOR M HITCH A MAPACE MAT RE CONStRUCT141 61111010 RATISPIC SEVERE RONDE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 5. PROPERTY ADDRESS, THE POSTED ADDRESS FOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 2231 UPPER NON ORME. FAN Howl clo No7 Car FOR UNDERGROUND LOCATES_ 0510 'AMBLE SURFACE PVIDENUT HAS USED TO SNOT, EXESTNIC UTILITIES ON THIS srtz PAN/SKETCH FLAN THE M.AVATOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUL, FOR oNTHREROuND LOKATCS PRIOR TO CONSTIMICLON 7. THIS SITE PLAN IS PRIMARILY EASED OFT OF PROMOS WORN PERFORMED BY INS DEFILE FOR AN IIARROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT IN 2016. TOPOGRAPHIC RIFORNATION WAS ADDED TO THE SOuNDART INTORFACRON 70 SNOW EXISTING CONDITTONS. B- DUE TO THE NEED FOR A VINIARCE AND THE ASSOC.O.11 TIMELINE NEEDED FOR APPROVAL THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN IN ENE CLOUDED AREAS ARE 'FANNED FORA LATER DATE AND ARE DEPENDENT ON APPROVAL BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ARE REFERRED 70 8, DINS SHE PLAN AS 'PHASE r _ - 56cr ur...rr 2.61 AI _ SECOND It ADDITION Oft CAR S 3Z6 11.14 50' ZONED WILDING SETBACK /./.. LOT 3 d?'" ce 11w INTA41 140 Arne 4 ▪ ------ DNI ------- OHO ----- CAW -------- Ohru Omo FOUND H ROAR FOUND FIFE BENNNG NsraTosT 7.71' FNMA LOT CORNER P.06) ry 8'8 0E04-- (TO RE CONSTRUCTED As PART OF PTIASE ..\LE55L-ENG • 40‘0- ▪ /4 ROAR LECRWL. GUY WIRE 0 VEIT ROLE WELL —ORLI— OVERHEAD MUTT ONE —› sToRm 005 ,0 O MIND MONLIMENTAIION 00.5 MEASURED OR DADIRATLI7 11.4000NN (HOAR) PLATTED OR DEEDED OILIETISNONS UPPER HIGH ,DRIVE. (GRAVEL) . FOUND 1' MK FOuff0 54 REBUT TORT30051 55.75. INOW35SVE 99511. OHM SITU gzi CHEESES HI: LAS SHEET DRAWN EY, S/LAS/21,5 2351 UPPER 03021 OR. 201100 eulpeoc SMACK UPPER RICH DRIVE (01tAVEL) 2269 UPPER 1-11611 OR. tr 6.71/C21 NO to4010 NgT"f2N 3527305024 ICE: E-1 (MORE I) DRAWN BY: JPS CHECKED BY: 0001 SCALE 30' DATE. 12/30/2026 SHEET EXHIBIT B NE GHBORING PARCEL ZONING INFORMATION PARCEL 140 3521206001 20060 24501E1. RE (RURAL LITAK) BUILDINC SETBACKS pRON1,50. SCA/E 1' A 30. 50 BE 2311 UPPER 14611 DR. 41000C. 1.10. 3527300005 MMHG OIS0IE7 RE (RUPN. 11574.11) 13u6.01HG XlINCKS. FRON7-50 6r6.52. PARCEL NO 3527205201 21314110 04000141: RE (RURAL ESTATEJ BALDING sreAcies. FRONT-50' 503-50 RFARAUT PARCEL No 0227205262 2.00300 0157061; Rf (AuRAL ESTATE) FAADING 5E7130010: FRONT-S2. 901.50' (1.40 Acres) 1.40 Acres r-_ 1 1 PARCEL NO 35271502.5 ZONING 0:STRICT: E-1 (E57190 1301006. SETINCKS. fRONTA25 SIDS-25" REARA25' 414AC£1. NO. 3527305025 ENING 0516I41: E-1 (ESTATE I) BURDING SMACKS: FRONT-2N 50E-31' PARCEL 110 3527305327 2074 DISTRICT: E-7 (07172 I) &JADING SETBACKS. 13614.20 5400.35' 00440.25' PARCEL NO. 3527300001 205410 05401011: E-1 (ESTATE 1) BUILDING SC/HACKS: 554 0.25' 05725 PEAR-25 SURVEYOR'S NOTES: RAS (201411 IS A RERKSER1A11DRAL ILLASTRATKoN WA, 1T 15 NOT 10 BE O04437111X2 AS A LORD SURVEY NOR AN IMPROVEMENT 520100. 2. 14.5 Dena sAs CONEKED PROM vARIOuS SOuRCES OP 440017741071 AmCm INCLUDE 7.28114 .1010016416N.TNI0T0CRAMEoN -1.R.071 MC70RE1117 :14TER46710714, MARC ATORmADON FRON 114E 557123 PAR, 207652 731P WIRCH IS POSTED ON ME INN Of ESTES PARK 6701 NTE, PARCEL PeacacAnoe FROM 90176TY ASAFASORS WE-I3 SITE, MD 1104 KASURVIAENTS WADE 50 075 oroOR 3 41 OF DIE 5URROUN0045 PRISPERTIES ARE RESIDENT, USE ONLY. • MOS EfoultoT FRS CREATED SOLELY FOR A KURANCE REOUEST f35 THE SuRECT tol 5 200 PARONAARLT FOP THE 0034059. DEPARTmENTS REVIEW COMMEANS/REOLESTS. 1 OF 1 PRO21, 110. 2018-08-14