Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2017-09-12Prepared: September 5, 2017 * Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, September 12, 2017 9:00 a.m. — Board Room Town Hall 1. OPEN MEETING 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated July 11, 2017 5. LOT 31, BLOCK 1, FALL RIVER ESTATES AMENDED PLAT; TBD CRESTVIEW COURT; LIENEMANN RESIDENCE Owner: Delmar Lienemann, Jr. Applicant: Delmar Lienemann, Jr. Request: Variance from EVDC 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25-foot setbacks in the E-1—Estate zone district. Request to allow a 12-foot side variance for construction of a proposed single-family dwelling. Staff: Robin Becker 6. REPORTS 7. 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 July 11, 2017 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Vice-Chair John Lynch, Pete Smith, Jeff Moreau, Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Members Newsom, Lynch, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Audem Gonzales, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Moreau Chair Newsom 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. AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Smith) to approved the agenda as presented and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated June 6, 2017 It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Smith) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent. 4. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL; 953 RAMS HORN ROAD; PEAK RESIDENCE Planner Becker reviewed the staff report. The applicants Gary and Cynthia Peak, request a variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2 which requires 50-foot setbacks in the RE—Rural Estate zone district. The request is to establish a setback of approximately 24 feet on the west side and 43 feet on the north side to allow a recently built covered porch to remain in the north setback. Planner Becker stated the porch was initially built without proper building permits after the current owner purchased the property in 2011. The applicant has applied for a county building permit, of which approval is pending depending on the outcome of the variance request. Staff and Commission Discussion Staff findings can be viewed in the staff report. Staff did not recommend any conditions of approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 11, 2017 Member Poggenpohl stated the lot size is smaller than the required 2.5 acres for the RE zone district. He was not supportive of vacation home registration approvals prior to all building permits being in order. Public Comment Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated he and the applicant were in agreement with the staff findings. Gary Peak/applicant stated he has wanted to become compliant with everything on the property, and is currently using the home as a vacation home. He was told by the contractor that no building permit was needed. The home now meets or exceeds the county building codes. Staff and Member Discussion There was brief discussion regarding the location of the existing propane tank. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Smith) to approve the variance request according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings recommended by staff and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent. 5. REPORTS A. Director Hunt reported there was a Special Planning Commission meeting on June 30, 2017 to review Large Vacation Home applications. All were approved. Credit goes to Code Compliance Officer Linda Hardin and staff. There are approximately 670 total vacation homes operating in the Estes Valley. The cap of 588 applies only to those vacation homes in residential zone districts, and as of last week there were 72 openings remaining. The cap was based on information provided by Host Compliance. Director Hunt suspects they used the 80517 Zip Code as a basis for collecting data, and because the zip code extends outside of the Estes Valley, it could be the reason for the imbalance in the numbers. B. Member Poggenpohl stated the variances needed on nonconforming sites should be addressed as a group within the next couple of years so we don't have small setback issues needing to come before the Board of Adjustment on a regular basis. Another option would be giving staff the authority to approve these small variances. Director Hunt stated the 2000 rezoning established some substandard lot sizes and setbacks. The hesitation lies in the sheer volume of the task and staff time to address the issue. He recognizes there is a problem with the many nonconforming lots, and agrees the Board of Adjustment is the proper avenue for all variance requests. If staff can approve a 10% setback deviation, then the perception is that the setback can automatically be less than what the code states. There is the possibility that the amount of the setback is the issue rather than the nonconforming lot size. There was brief discussion regarding the history of properties and setbacks in the Estes Valley. Director Hunt stated a code amendment to address the nonconforming lots would be beneficial to all involved. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 July 11,2017 There being no other business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:34 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary C TBD Crestview Court — Building Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org EP ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: September 12th 2017; 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 12-foot setback in lieu of the 25-foot required setbacks in the E-1 (Estate 1) zone district. The purpose of the Variance is to allow construction of a building within an existing setback due to topography of the site. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: Crestview Court, within the unincorporated Estes Valley. VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Delmar Lienemann / Same as Applicant STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Variance would allow 12 foot setback in lieu of the 25-foot required setbacks in the E-1 (Estate 1) zone district. The E-1 Estate-1 zone district requires a 25-foot setback on all sides. The currently vacant lot has topography that restricts the placement of a driveway. Two options are presented for driveway access; (one) from Crestview Court (Char-del Lane) and (two) from Fall River Court. Historical access to Crestview Court has been provided in the form of an 40' access easement. In order to use this access a 12' in lieu of 25' setback variance would need to be granted to allow for building of the home and the driveway to be at 8.4' of drop in 74' of length. 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 9 surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department "Current Applications" webpage. The site has been posted with a "variance pending" sign (Attached). Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No significant comments/concerns were received by reviewing agency staff. Public Comments. Staff has received one public comment to date. It is provided below. Any written comments received after this date will be posted to the "Current Applications" webpage under public comment. 1. Charles Allison 1070 Crestview Ct- 8/26/17- Email (Attached). STAFF FINDINGS: 1) Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The property is approximately 1.074-acres in size and is zoned E-1 (Estate-1). There are two potential points of access for the site to the buildable location of the lot. The first from Fall River Court would result in a grade of 14.2%. The second from Crestview Court would be an 11.3% grade. The topography of the site inhibits where the driveway can be placed and remain within the code. The topography of the site also limits where a home could be built with an appropriately graded driveway. 2) In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a) Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: Without the Variance, there can be beneficial use of the property. This non-variance use would result in more environmental impacts to the lot which is detrimental as it borders Government land (Rocky Mountain National Park) to the west. Also without the variance development for future use is greatly limited due to the driveway access. b) Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance would establish a setback at 12' out of 25'. This is a 52% variation from the code. The overall proposed setback structure is substantial but the 12' requested where the house will be placed will be buffered by the bordering Government Land. This land has no roads or trails adjacent to the property. Staff does not find that granting this variance would be a substantial request. Crestview Court. — Building setback variance Page 2 of 4 c) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to drainage, migration corridors, etc). Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any detriment to nearby properties. d) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Upper Thompson Sanitation has provided a comment that states they "have no objection to the proposed variance request." Town Utilities did make a comment about the proximity to the Water Service Line and associated water pressures. The owner is aware and prepared of needing to boost water pressure if required. e) Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant has owned the property since 1988 and been aware of the setbacks since the purchase. Staff finds that granting the variance would help the applicant overcome the access hardship that the topography of the lot causes. f) Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Any building on other location on the site would be limited on where a code compliant access could be provided due to topography. Other options could be building lower on the lot or farther from the access point. These options would result in access being at a grade steeper than allowed in the Development 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: The conditions of this application are not general to the Estes Valley. It is not common to have structures located partially within a required setback. Although it can be argued that the zoning of this (and other) properties is wrong to begin with, any significant change in zoning is not likely to be accomplished quickly or easily. A variance is the only feasible alternative in the short term. 4) No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Crestview Court. - Building setback variance Page 3 of 4 Staff Finding: No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5) If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: A setback Variance as requested would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the proposed building to be located at this site. 6) Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7) In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff is not recommending any conditions be placed on this approval that a building permit/as built permit be applied for with the Town. This will ensure that the structure is built to Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Agency Comments 3. Public Comment 4. Statement of Intent 5. Application 6. Variance sign photos 7. Site plan Crestview Court. — Building setback variance Page 4 of 4 "G. Town of Estes Park Community Development ESTES PARK COLORADO Project Name: Crestview Court 1 in = 100 ft Printed: 9/5/2017 Project Description: Setback Variance Request Created By: Robin Becker Petitioner(s): Delmar Lienemann 50 100 Feet L.-1 Town Boundary VAL44,k--- ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PREVENT PREPARE PERFORM PREVENTION DIVISION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Date: August 7, 2017 Project Identification: Crestview Court Location: TBD Crestview Ct. Referral: Lot 31 Blk 1, Fall River Estates Amended Plant Variance Request-PID 35222 13 031 The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the submitted material describing the proposed project referenced above, and has no comments or concerns regarding those plans. However, when future developments and / or changes are made to this area, the Fire District shall require new plans for review. All construction and processes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the International Fire Code (2015 Edition), the International Building Code (2015 Edition) and the Town of Estes Park Codes and Standards. Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve any aspect of this project that does not strictly comply with all applicable codes and standards. Any change made to the plans will require additional review and comments by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marc W. Robinson Fire Marshal / Division Chief Estes Valley Fire Protection District Phone: 970.577.0900 Fax: 970.577.0923 mrobinsonestesvalleyfire.orq Serving the Residents and Visitors of the Estes Valley with Superior Fire and Safety Services 901 N. SAINT VRAIN AVE. ESTES PARK CO 80517 970-577-0900 FAX 970-577-0923 COMMENT LETTER Page 11 August 1, 2017 Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 Ph: 970-586-5331 RE: Crestview Court Lot 31 Variance Request, Estes Park, CO Comment Letter Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc. Dated July 2017 Dear Karen, We have the following comments regarding the Crestview Court Lot 31 Variance Request, Estes Park, CO. dated July 2017 We have reviewed the variance request and have the following comments and observations. The zoning for the site, E-1, requires a 25-foot setback. The landowner would like that setback to be reduced to 12-feet. Section 2.e of the application states that the homeowner has been aware of this 25 foot setback since 1988. To more fully understand the site parameters that are driving the variance request, the following information would be helpful in determining the need for this variance. 1. The applicant states that the landowner has a hardship due to access. Can the applicant explain more fully what the hardship will be? A graphic, cost estimate or other means of explanation would be helpful for the city to assess the hardship. 2. To understand the grading issues impacting this site, additional existing grading and proposed grading would be helpful. 3. A comparison exhibit showing the driveway outside of the 25' setback with proposed grading, will be helpful to understand the need for a variance. 4. The applicant states that in both cases (inside the setback and outside the setback) that there is an 8.4' difference in elevation. Showing proposed grading will help clarify this statement. 5. In item 1B, the applicant states that due to this variance there will be an ability to lower the finish floor. By providing those finished floor elevations for both scenarios, this statement can be assessed. 6. The applicant states that the utilities will not be adversely affected by the grading. However, the applicant does not state the depth of utilities for either setback condition. Showing the driveway profile with utilities will give an indication of utility depths. 7. The applicant discusses driveway lengths. Additional dimensions to the plan for the house & driveway would be beneficial. ROSCOE ENGINEERING, LLC 720-934-7735 bruceroscoe@roscoeengineering.com COMMENT LETTER Page 12 8. The applicant states that this building area is "the flattest building site." Showing some grades around the site will demonstrate that this is the case. 9. The applicant states that there is an "indication of historic access." Since the applicant is referencing the historic access and putting the driveway in this historical access location, it would be helpful to see the general location of that access on the graphic. 10. Contours are mislabeled (there is a 15' difference between 8050 & 8040). Thank you for your time on these matters. Sincerely, Bruce Roscoe ROSCOE ENGINEERING, LLC 720-934-7735 bruceroscoe roscoeengineering.com TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum To: Community Development From: Steve Rusch Date: 7/28/2017 Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: Crestview Court, TBD - Variance request - PID 35222 13 031 The Utilities Department has the following review comments for the above application: The Utilities Department has no objections to this variance request. The Water Division would like to point out that there may be a requirement to install a pumping station due to proposed location of the new home and its proximity to the blue line elevation. Low water pressure may be a concern. P.O. Box 568 • Estes Park, CO 80517 Ph: 970-586-4544 • Fax: 970-586-1049 www.utsd.org July 25, 2017 Audem Gonzales, Planner Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Lot 31, BIk 1, Fall River Estates Amended Plat, Crestview Ct. Variance Request Dear Audem: The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1. The District has no objection to the proposed variance request. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Environmental Protection Through IVastewater Collection and Treatment P.O. Box 568 • Estes Park, CO 80517 Ph: 970-586-4544 • Fax 970-586-1049 www.utsd.org July 25, 2017 Audem Gonzales, Planner Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Lot 31, Blk 1, Fall River Estates Amended Plat, Crestview Ct. Variance Request Dear Audem: The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1. The District has no objection to the proposed variance request. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Environmental Protection Through Wastewater Collection and Treatment 8128/2017 Town of Estes Park Mail - objection to variance request Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> objection to variance request 2 messages Jerry Allison <coyoteclown@frontier.com> Reply-To: Jerry Allison <coyoteclown@frontier.com> To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> To: Board of Adjustment. Wayne Newsom. Chair Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 3:04 PM We, residents of Fall River Estates Condominium, 1070 Crestview Court, building 1, unit 2 wish to go on record as objecting to any variance in setback from the National Park boundary for a planned single family house adjacent the North end of Building One of our development. We will be attending the Board of Adjustment meeting on September 12, 2017 to formally register this objection. We intend to seek a letter of proxy from our entire HOA at our annual meeting on September 9, 2017, objecting to this variance request. We learned of this impending appeal for variance from a chance meeting with the civil engineer, Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering, who was verifying the property lines with the intent of re-staking out the location of the proposed house. He informed us that the owner planned to ask for a halving of the required setback from the National Park boundary, from 25' to 12.5'. And that he also planned to move the currently staked out location (to which we have no objection) to a 25' setback from our side property line. He has posted the intent to ask for a variance on the property border. Certainly this individual has every right to build whatever he wishes on his own property, so long as he abides by code. No one disputes this. We feel that the location of this house, if the variance were granted, would greatly infringe on the views from Building One, and to a lesser extent, from Building Two. And we feel this would have a negative affect on the property values of all our twelve units in three buildings. In addition we feel this would set a very bad precedent for all of Estes Park, as others who might wish to encroach on National Park boundaries would be sure to cite this example. Charles G. Allison Caltha A. Crowe 1070 Crestview CT Unit 2 (building one) Estes Park, CO Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:52 AM To: Jerry Allison <coyoteclown@frontier.com> Cc: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Jerry, Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Board of Adjustment members. Please let me know if you have any questions. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 https://mail.google.cornimailiu/Onui=2&ik=a1a80c521a&jsver=PX1Y7GgZjW4.en_&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15e29540eecf4d63&sim1=15e205d49bb. 112 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: A3815 (ROMO) Estes Valley Board of Adjustment P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 AUG 3 0 2017 PThl . --, 1, - 5 20 - 1 II 1,11 comitniTypEyELENTI United States Department of the Interior RE: Variance Request, Delmar Lienemann, Jr., Crestview Court Dear Members of the Board: We have reviewed the subject request seeking a variance from the 25 foot required setback from the west property line. If granted, the variance would reduce the setback to 12 feet. Rocky Mountain National Park is contiguous to the west property line of the subject property. We are not in favor of the granting of a variance for several reasons: 1. We do not believe that enforcing the required setback will result in an unnecessary and undue hardship as the lot can be developed with the required 25 foot setback by moving the house and/or reducing the 2,200 sq. ft. footprint by approximately 416 sq. ft. 2. If the variance is granted, the drainage swale on the west side of the house will result in a cut slope on the park boundary. We foresee future issues related to soil erosion and tree loss as the entire boundary is forested. The Park System Resource Protection Act (PSRPA) gives the National Park Service the authority to assess the damage caused to park resources by others, and to recover the costs associated with the damage. 3. If the variance is granted, the eaves will project 2 feet into the 12 foot setback. The remaining distance to the park boundary would be 10 feet. We are concerned that future maintenance of the home or drainage swale will encroach upon the park. 4. Firewise standards call for the removal of flammable material within 30 feet of a home's foundation, and pruning branches 6 to 10 feet from the ground. This goal is not attainable if the foundation of the home is located only 12 feet from the forested park boundary, and the eaves just 10 feet. The responsibility for maintaining an adequate Firewise buffer for the home should rest with the landowner, not the American public who own Rocky Mountain National Park. The Fall River Estates Condominiums East are located just south of the subject property and were developed by Del Lienemann, Sr. in the 1980s. They are setback only a short distance from the park boundary, and decks extend into the setback. Rocky Mountain National Park has used that development as an example of what not to do adjacent to a national park. We respectfully request that you not allow a repeat of what occurred in the 1980s. Sincerely, gilk_S-1d0/4 Darla Sidles Superintendent cc: Van Horn Engineering & Surveying Del Lienemann, Jr. Estes Park Community Development Department ) - LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING Delmar Lienemann Variance Narrative and Project Description July, 2017 Following Code Section 3.6 Required Items: I. The Special Circumstances of this Variance Application are that the currently vacant lot is steep and access will be challenging. The applicant would like to access the building site from the top access road (Crestview Court) as access from the lower road (Fall River Court) is very difficult and would be a very steep uphill grade to the flattest building site area near the Southwest corner of the lot. The lot has some indication of historic access and grading for a driveway. This variance application works toward using that already disturbed area where a historic access has been roughed out but is now vegetated and grown over some. Keeping with a rather short and realistic driveway, the access from Crestview Court is the most practical access point for the buildable portion of this lot. Granting a setback variance would allow the driveway to be 12 feet longer (about 15% longer) than the driveway would be if a variance is not granted. The difference in grade is significant for winter driving conditions when comparing these two driveway lengths: a. Driveway with variance is 8.4' of drop in 85' or 10% downhill. b. Driveway without variance is 8.4' of drop in 73' or 12% downhill (at the flattest). By granting the setback variance there is also the ability to lower the finish floor of the home as compared to the historic grade and thus reducing the height of the home above historic grade. The current zoning of the lot is E-I with a one acre minimum and the lot is 1.07 Acres according to the plat. Setbacks according to the current Code are 25' from all lot lines for E-1 zoning. 2. For the Board's determination of Practical Difficulty, we offer the following: a. There can be beneficial use of the property without the variance, however for the building site chosen, and the shortest practical driveway, the variance allows development of the lot with lesser impacts environmentally and for the future use (less cut and fill and easier profile grades for access). There are no plans to transfer, sell, or change ownership in the near future and the applicant has owned the lot since 1988. b. The house setback requested is substantial (12' out of 25' — or 52%; however, there is Government land (Rocky Mountain National Park) adjacent to the lot line that the requested variance is for. No foreseeable building on that National Park 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhe(LTairbits.com Land is likely, thus little or no impact to others. There are no roads or trails on the Park land behind the proposed house and variance location either. There is a platted easement of 10' width along the west line (where the setback variance is proposed) and the building is proposed at 12' minimum from that line which will allow the roof eaves to not encroach into that easement (Utility Easement dedicated by the Amended Plat that re-configured the lot). c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change, in fact, the apartments to the southwest will enjoy a more open view downhill if the variance is granted as the proposed home will be moved west and away from their principal view. The requested variance will not change the nature of the neighborhood or negatively affect the use, views, property values, or enjoyment of the adjoining properties. The property has been a single family residence since 1971 (date on the original plat and amended in 1976), and the current owner has owned it since 1988 with long term plans to eventually build a mountain home. d. The construction of this home in this location does not adversely affect any delivery of water, sewer or other utility. The proposed water, sewer and gas lines (conceptually for now) are shown on the attached Site Plan. e. The applicant has owned the property since 1988 and has been aware of the setbacks and has been planning this home for a long while. The granting of the variance will better facilitate his plans to build and will help overcome the hardship of access that this lot has. f. As described in #1 above, there are other means for mitigating this variance need (building lower on the lot or farther from the existing access point); however, all other options come with increased hardship to the current owner and his use of this lot as it is zoned (single family residential use). 3. This situation is not a general or recurrent situation. It is case specific and this application and materials are geared to this specific circumstance. This lot is steep and a longer driveway will result in greater impact to the lot (more tree loss and increased grading requirements, cut and fill). It is also unique that the entire lower frontage of this lot where it abuts the lower road (Fall River Court) has a significant cut bank (around 10' tall) which makes access from below more difficult than the "access from above" option related to the variance. 4. There is no change in lot size planned or proposed with this setback variance application. 5. If authorized and approved, the request for this variance would be the least deviation from existing regulations, least destructive, most economic, and may be the only realistic and practical option available to lessen the grade of the driveway for reasonable year- round access. 6. Granting this variance will be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, and the Master Plan. Namely, this proposal provides for the physical development of the County, while being harmonious with common land uses, maintaining property values, reducing density, protecting critical environmental areas, and protection from flooding. 7. Any conditions that the Board of Adjustment deems appropriate to the situation and circumstance will be considered by the applicant as related to this variance request. Thank you for your consideration of this Setback Variance Request. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhe@airbits.com 41 / 1 9 ;-)01:.' ,1, Icoieezetvi ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 3 R ,ver Ce57.4c1- Tract: Block: / foies -4 '2- Z.- -z_ 3 — a / Yes 6' No r i. .6 0 , t • Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Prima Contact Person is tic 5 Consultant/Engineer General Information R cord Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: Legal Description: Lot: Subdivision: Parcel ID # : Site Information Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Zoning 2e,s.d ; L . /• 07 /1-C, E Existing Water Service F Town Proposed Water Service Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Well p3' Other (Specify) r. Well r Other (Specify) r EPSD pc UTSD 3 EPSD j UTSD 3 Other )3( None ee// ei vev- 3 Septic 3 Septic Variance Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): at /2 Z;tzG-. a,g- e? 5 C vite c € V c _ Primary Contact Information Attachments Let7 ,7 ; e /o ( r Owner r Applicant e Idor‘ ifqn Warr) E etc 3; li lt V-) .---- Submittal Dateli--)Ls4 IN' Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Re Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') *" 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org e 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. „evo. 7' fk own o stes ark .0. Box 1 I ,s 70 Mac regor Avenue Estes Pork, CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 .6 Fox: 19701 586-0249 .6 www.esles.org/CommunityDevetopment Revised 2013.08.27 KT . • . t 4 " ,. •,,. 1' ;,• 4 ; . ,- 1, , ' " 1 A,'%, r : ';J i , 0 1 g ii. i ' P L i . ? Contact Information c 4 - zienerv-ailo j r Record Owner(s) .4,14,n„ Mailing Address 6..,6 / ,5-bi /7..1/2Pr- 5 f, I m6P/K 1 i jJ 6 5-(5-0(,:7 Phone .4-0 Z - I-36% 4 &J' Cell Phone Fax +0 0 -43- C.- +3 -2/ 1 ' .. Email G2 ;,0 czet,ic 174 f c. t i,,,,7 ' Applicant Mailing Address Phone -&6a/0-eje- Cell Phone Fax Email I .. ,..,_ Consultant/Engineer VicA.../ M2Aid Act)96/APIle-I — 0/2/he (-)62 (diti Mailing Address ji9 ,6,--A -/.5)e-i --'/,'-e_& 4,- Poe'r --,.31-el pevz,...4 6., gt.),S7 ? : Phone Q 70 •4t- s--ec,--1,3eo tr:Ky; 1 .7 Cell Phone q 70 4- 4-3 -- 2_ 7 1 Fax N/A- Email /en v 4 a& a i rb ,' 15---. cz;,-,--1 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: hltp://www.estes.orq/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.08.27 KT Applicant PLEASE PRIINT- die Signatures: Record Owner Applicant kel.-4..a.e.m. Date 2 - t Date ***7 F 17 Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: ut L4 Tie APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I:. I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. D 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. I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: http://www.estes.orq/CorriDev/DevCode le t 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. 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. le I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. P- The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. P. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access lo my property during the review of this application. te 1 acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. P. I understand that 1 am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department end 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 (t0) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. te.. 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: Revised 2013 08.21 K7 • \ - 4.1 LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING Xi VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING Delmar Lienemann Variance Second Submittal Response August, 2017 Following Referral Comments Received: 1. The Planning Department had three comments that we would like to address: a. There was a question as to the statement that, "without a variance, there is 8.4 feet of drop in 73 feet or 12% downhill into the garage". As this 12% meets the Lodi., the Mal-frier asks how they can support this variar.4.-.‘.s. if ..vc already meets Code. Response: Yes, 12% is the Code maximum, and that drove the initial design and placement of the house and driveway design. The numbers mentioned in the original Statement of Intent were 12% "at the flattest-. The placement of the driveway and the house, now with the 8.5' wide back deck (which is above grade and required to also meet setbacks) have been re-reviewed and the numbers have changed some. Without the Variance, the driveway grade would be 8.4' of drop in 59' of length (or 14.2%) and with the. Varianet, the driveway grade would be. 8.4' of drop in 74' of length (or 11.3%). Both calculations allow for one foot of drop in grade away from the garage finish floor elevation to allow positive drainage away from the structure. We are asking for the variance in order to meet Code and to be below the maximum allowed grade of 12%, and to utilize the flattest portion of this steep lot for the house site. Sec the attached driveway profile for a visual explanation of this. b. Provide dimensions of the proposed house with the exact location and or a survey. Response: The house as designed is shown on the attached Site Plan. It has a footprint of 1,425 s.f. per level. The upper deck is a setback feature, therefore it is shown meeting the proposed variance of 12' from the lot line. The eaves hang over the building and deck edges, so 12' is requested so that the eaves do not overhang the easement line (they are allowed in the setback per Code). c. Provide proof of access and documentation to Crestview Court. Response: The actual name of the access road is Char-del Lane (which is now correctly shown on the Site Plan). The. ao.:ess, rights are within a 40' access easement shown on the Site Plan and the legal information for that access is included as a copy of the 1987 Reception Number 87045198 (attached). 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park_ CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhegairbiLs_com -- - our continents and if additional clarification is needed please let me know. Thank yo The Upper Thompson and the Town Utility Departments did not have any objection to the proposed variance, however, the Town Utility Department warned about the proximity of the Water "Blueline" (serviceability line) and associated water pressures. The owner is ate are of this and prepared to boost lie pressure if needed. 3. The Public Works/Engineering Department had several comments (10). They are abbreviated and addressed below: a. Explain the hardship more fully. Response: Tice hardship is the extreme slope of the lot and the most — and access casement provided access point off of Char-del Lane. There is no realistic possibility to access from Fall River Court, and the most viable and flattest building area is where the house is proposed. Access needs to be reasonable in Rah' fro- year around access. h. Additional grading would be helpful. Response: The attached driveway profile is included and the' existing and proposed contours are shown on the Site Plan. c. A comparison exhibit would be helpful with the two locations of the house shown. Response: The attached driveway profile shows this for comparison. d. In both cases there is 8.4 feet of difference in elevation — clarify this. Response: The finish floor elevation of the house is set (to meet height regulations) and the low point in front of the garage is one fool lower. The match point in the driveway is set and the same for beth scenarios (reasonable grade, fits the easement, and reasonable fill on downhill i side of drive). The difference in these two elevations (no matter the location of the house) is 8.4'. e. There is an ability with the variance to lower the finish floor. Provide the finish floor elevations of both scenarios for assessment of the statement. Response: Both finish floor elevations are the suimie (to keep the home below the height limit). The applicant has planned a three level home, has designed the roof with two different slopes to meet the height limit of the Code (as shown on the attached -calculations). f. State the depth of utilities for both scenatios and the driveway profile. Response: See the attached driveway profile. The utilities are proposed at normal — usual Este.s Park depths (2' on power, 5' on water, 3' on sewer). g. Additional dimensions on driveway lengths would he beneficial. Response: See the attached driveway profile drawing. h. Show grades around the site to demonstrate the building site is the flattest area. Response: See the included existing contours and note where they are the farthest apart (flattest portion of the lot) is where the building is proposed to be situated (generally). i. Show the location of the historic access. Response: This is again shown with the existing contours and visible, notable, on site. A label has been added to point this out on the Site Plan. j. Contours arc mislabeled. Response: The existing and proposed contours are labeled. The text style has been changed to more clearly and easily distinguish the difference. C Cootie held it, Colorado PE and PLS 4/26974 "for Van Horn Engineering and Surveying (and for the applicant, Mr. Lienemann). 1042, Fish Creek Road • EMI:A Pa& CO 805 i 7 • 970-586-9386 • E-mail: vileCi:airbits.com RCPTA 4 87045198 08/0081 11:08:00 4 OF PA.:1ES - 4 FEE - M. RODE4BER3ER, RECORDER - LARIMER COI.HTY CO STATE DOC FEE- $12.00 $.00 EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement, entered into this 31st day of July, 1987, between Fall River Estates Condominiums East Association, Inc., a Colorado non- Delmar A. profit corporation (Grantor), and Lic•nemano, Jr. and Mary leth Liepann, joint tenants, (Grantees), is as follows; 1. Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantees. their heirs and assigns, a permanent, nonexclusive ingress and egress road eaeement across Lot 35, Block 1, Fall River Estates Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (being an amended plat of Lots 12 through 16 said 23 through 35, Block 1, Fall River Estates, a subdivision of a portion of Sections 15 and 22, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado), which easement is specifically described on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Grantor, on its behalf and on behalf of the owners of all condominium units in Fall River Estate Condominiums East hereby reserves the right to use the land across which this easement is granted so long as such use does not interfere with the rights herein granted, and reserves the right to use the easement itself. 3. Grantor agrees to maintain the road within this easement; provided, however, to the extent that said maintenance (excluding snow removal) exceeds a cost of 5500.00 in any one calendar year, Grantees agree to pay their prorate share (with the then owners of condominium units in Fall River Estate Condominiums East of the total maintenance costs for that calendar year (excluding snow removal). 4. In further consideration for the grant of this easement, Grantees agree to pay the sum of $750.00 to Grantor upon the date of the signing of this agreement, the receipt of Which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor; provided, however, that said $750.00 shall be returned to Grantees if Grantor dedicates the roadway, across which this easement is granted, to the Town of Estes Park or conveys the roadway to said Town. within one year subsequent to the date of this agreement. 5. Grantees. hereby acknowledge and agree that this easement shall be limited to .perve that certain property owned by them, which is Lot 31, D. A. LIENEMANN, SR CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT SUITE C LIENEMANN BUILDING O BOX 5407 LIN( 01.N. NEBRASKA 6+511 Block 1 of said Fall River Estates Addition, for inereSs and egress from sate' preperty to Fall liver Carr; and that the use of said easement may not be expanded, by Grantees or their assigns or successors in title, to either any other tract of land or for the purpose of serving any use other than for ingress and egress to said Lot 31 for single-family residential purposes. 6, Grantees shell repair any damage to the surface of the roadway, across which this easement is granted, caused as a result of the construc- tion of their residence on said Lot 31 , at their sole expense, and restore the same to its condition prior to said damage. 7. Grantees agree to pay all reasonable attorney tees and costs incurred by Grantor sho,ld Grantees fail to perform the agreement contained in paragraph number 3 or number 6 hereof, thereby causing Grantor to incur such fees and costs to enforce the same. 8. Grantees shall assign their interest in this easement to their successors in title to said Lot 31, 9. This agreement shall he banding, upon an.d inuce to the benefit of the parties hereto, their personal representatives, heirs, devisees, successors in title and assigns, and shall run with the lands (Lots 31 and 35, Block 1, Fall River Estates Addition). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: Fall River Estates Condominiums East Association, Inc. -C-2 (";);C: 1. D. A. Liene ann, President ATTEST: Secretary, Cheri tie Lienemann BY: 9E41 'it 121 bq wo) 41 3 v gaitri ,,,] nsuigo MO -aCtj°d# Notary Public Address: Notary Public Address: STA2E OF NEBRASKA ) ) S3 COUNTY OF LANCASTER) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31 rt day of Jt.L1 1957 O.A. Lienemann, President are Charlotte Lienemann, Secretary, of Fall River Estates Condominiums East Association, Inc. WITTNESS NY hand and official seal. My commission expires: sq?0 GRANTEES: elmar A. Lienemann, Jr. Mary Bet4Lienemann STATE OF NEBRASKA ) SS COUNTY OF LANCASTER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this list day of Tt.f_cy , 1987 by DelTaK. A. Lienemann, Jr. sad Mary Ueth Lienemann. WITTNESS MT hand and official seal. My commission expires: 02i, 1990 vi•Th can? •• 8:FrIcr , L•StiO C•52 SI' 460°00.00.2 LOT 6 LOT 33 k r:rigt. t g C • 92 41 . . 409 444.09 41 --I; 1109.37.0214 174.05 40' W IDE ..---'.--1 ,. 1 Virtgr R :WO 8 0 4Te4fS(41 SCALE I ...ICC 0 20 4,71;11 710:, DRAW'. fit LAP. 11 9.4 , L.118 39 ACCESS .44.1 C•05.02. EASEMENT I ''' ii,S3qite`to voroz../ CHAR-DEL LANE It r LOT r Ittyi 34 i e L • : • .ti v c a/244C4•W 844 77' , 99494.99"E i3Au.26 1/11 LINE Cr Sic. 22-1-79 0471-1 CDR SLOG{ V \‘ LOT 35 Clem( SEC. 22.5.14 40' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT - EXHIBIT 'Al CHAR-DEL LANE PREPARED BY: ESTES PARK SURVEYORS PO RCN 3047 ESTES PARK, COLCTIADO 80E17 3031-58e—sCP.3 80 4 2 - 0.50 80rE.. PROP RTY IN 50' 3C •S GUS: TS VAIRIANC 7 Tiiii 90' H in zs' I OW PON 15C. 1 :0' DEL LIENEMANN DRIVEWAY PROFILE EXHIBIT FOR PROPOSED SETBACK VARIANCE AUGUST, 2017 x ,S NC G 0 .•..L? GRAD' CT DRro-_wAy D PRoPes - w vAR,,,,jc; GRAD, 0- DRN.: wAY vAR.ANC: s • L' CrestviewCtVariance-Lienemann-100.xIs Page 1 Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip CUBBISON RICHARD JAMES JR EILEEN BETH 10287 JULIAN ST WESTMINSTER CO 80031 CROWE CALTHA ALLISON CHARLES G 1070 CRESTVIEW CT UNIT 2 ESTES PARK CO 80517 SMITH GLEN A/THERESE M 1079 FALL RIVER CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 FALL RIVER ESTATES COMMUNIT NP CORP PO BOX 2241 1080 FALL RIVER CT ESTES PARK CO 80517 ACCURSO FRANK J/TANYA L 1119 SUMMIT VIEW DR LOUISVILLE CO 80027 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK 1000 HWY 36 ESTES PARK CO 80517 MCLAUGHLIN DAVID H/LUZONA K 18714 CAMPBELL RD DALLAS TX 75252 MITCHELL RICHARD F REVOCABLE TRUST 630 PINEWOOD LN ESTES PARK CO 80517 UENEMANN DELMAR A JR MARY BETH 6621 SUMNER ST LINCOLN NE 68506 RECEIVED AUGUST 22, 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT