Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2013-09-10 Prepared: August 29, 2013 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:00 a.m. – Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated August 6, 2013 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL located at 217 Big Horn Drive Owner: Mary Alice Lambert Applicant: Steve Randall Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 10- foot setbacks from the property line in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district. Request to encroach approximately five (5) feet into the side setback to construct a proposed deck. Staff Contact: Phil Kleisler 4. REPORTS 5. ADJOURNMENT A meeting packet is available for review in the Community Development Department and the Estes Valley Library two business days prior to the meeting. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 6, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Bob McCreery, Members John Lynch, Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Chris Christian Attending: Chair Moreau, Members McCreery, and Newsom Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Members Lynch and Smith Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. There were three people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT Approval of minutes of the July 2, 2013 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 978 Sutton Lane Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The property at issue is located outside the Town limits near Marys Lake. The surrounding neighborhood is low-density residential. The request is for a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the side property line in the E-1–Estate zone district. The applicant requests to encroach approximately 13 feet into the setback to enclose an existing deck and construct a new deck that would extend past the enclosure. Approximately 100 square feet of the proposed deck would be constructed in the front setback. The application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No comments or concerns were received. Staff Findings 1. Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist Staff found the home is partially located within the side setback. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the single-family home was built in 1920 and is legally nonconforming to current setback standards. The lot size is 0.7 acres, which is generally more compatible with the E–Estate zone district (1/2 acre minimum with side setbacks of ten feet). 2. Practical Difficulty a. Staff found the residential use may continue without the variance b. Staff found the variance was not substantial c. Staff found the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are generally the same size or larger, and many decks similar in scope to the one proposed. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance. The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 114 feet to the west. d. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. The applicant purchased the property in early 2013, after the adoption of the current setback requirements. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 2, 2013 f. The variance request is the only practical option to enclose the existing porch. The proposed deck could be constructed to meet setback requirements. g. The size of the proposed deck could be shortened and still meet the egress needs of the applicant. 3. Staff found they could determine compliance with the variance without an official setback certificate. Staff recommended approval of the variance, with conditions listed below. Staff and Board Member Discussion Member Newsom commented there was no notice nor staking of the site. There was brief discussion about the elevation drawings. It was determined the proposed deck would not extend further west on the property than the existing porch. Member McCreery stated the photos in the staff report were very helpful. Public Comment Steve Discher/applicant purchased the property out of bankruptcy and is in the process of renovating the property. He presented a slide show of the property and improvements made thus far. Mr. Discher has applied for the building permit, which is pending depending on the outcome of the variance request. He thanked the Board for their volunteer efforts. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery) to approve the variance request as presented with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. REPORTS Director Chilcott stated there were no reports. Member McCreery requested a study session prior to the anticipated hearing for a height variance request for the proposed performing arts center (EPIC). Director Chilcott stated a study session would take place, and Town Attorney White would be in attendance at the study session and subsequent Board of Adjustment meeting. Member McCreery is concerned the approval of the variance would create a new height standard. Director Chilcott shared her hopes that any future applications for this proposed project would be submitted concurrently as a package with coordinated meeting schedules. This would allow a full understanding of the entire proposal by all decision-making bodies. She understood the frustrations of the Board. Steve Nagl/Town resident requested the public be informed of the upcoming study session and Board of Adjustment meeting concerning the height variance. Director Chilcott stated the Community Development Department had not yet received an application for the project. The public is welcome to attend all public meetings. She stated residents that want to be included on the mailing list can contact the Planning Department with their name and address and they will be included on the list. Member Moreau stated it would be very important for any required notices to be posted as directed. Director Chilcott stated public comment is not taken at study sessions, although the public is welcome to attend. All public comment is taken during the public hearings. Written comments would be included in the meeting packets to the Board, and also posted on the Town website. There being no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m. ___________________________________ Jeff Moreau, Chair __________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 July 16, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Joe Wise, Kathy Bowers, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, one vacancy Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Wise, Murphree, and Hills Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Senior Planner Shirk, Code Compliance Officer/Planner Kleisler, Town Board Liaison Elrod, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioners Bowers and Klink The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 34 people in attendance. Chair Hull explained the purpose of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and stated public comment is invaluable. Each Commissioner introduced him/herself. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, June 18, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. B. Lake Pines Amended Plat, 625 Community Drive It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda and the motion passed unanimously (4-0) with two absent and one vacancy. 3. ZONING AMENDMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013-02; TRACT 2, HILLERY PARRACK EXEMPTION PLAT, 1753 Wildfire Road Commissioner Wise recused himself from the review of this project and left the dais. Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant has requested to remove the existing restrictions on the CH–Commercial Heavy zoning, which were put in place with the Nytes Rezoning in 2005. At that time the property was rezoned from E–Estate to CH-Commercial Heavy, with restrictions. The current request is not to rezone, but to remove the restrictions placed on the property in 2005. The applicant has also submitted an associated development plan. Director Chilcott stated staff has continued the application due to the complexity of various issues with proposed use, the intensity of the use, neighborhood compatibility, etc. Staff will conduct more research and will have a recommendation at the August Planning Commission meeting. No action was taken by the Commission; however, public comment was accepted. Public Comment Corinne Dyer/Town resident distributed copies of her comments (dated July 16, 2013), which were posted on the Town website following the meeting. Her comments related directly to the existing restrictions on the property. The restrictions were placed on the property because the full range of uses allowed under the CH–Commercial Heavy zoning classification would not be appropriate at that location. She stated the intent of the County Commissioner’s decision was to allow limited use of the property while promoting growth of the community as a whole. One of the restrictions placed stated no outside storage of business or construction materials would be allowed on the property. She was disappointed no enforcement of the restrictions had taken place, and was opposed to the removal of the restrictions. Gayle Tiejtens/Town resident was concerned about possible fire issues. She was opposed to the waiver to allow delay of installation of the water main extension and fire hydrant, as well as the waiver to extend the amount of time to abandon the water well. She was concerned about the high fire danger with lumber and lumber mill debris stored on site. She was aware that limiting RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 16, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall the height of the pole barns would eliminate the need for an automatic sprinkler system. She thought this may be in conflict with the Estes Valley Fire Protection Districts requirements. Bob Umscheid/Town resident was opposed to expanded development in a residential area. Director Chilcott and Town Attorney White answered questions concerning the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Dionna Patterson/Town resident was opposed to the development. She was concerned about traffic, pollution, and potential for fire. She encouraged the Commission to consider the neighbors on all sides of the property. She was opposed to the waivers delaying installation of the infrastructure. Public Comment Closed. Chair Hull stated the review of this proposal would be heard by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 20, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. 4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT & DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013-03, MOUNTAIN RIVER TOWNHOMES, 650 Moraine Avenue Planner Shirk stated the property owner requested continuance of this project to the August, 2013 meeting. The application proposes redevelopment of the Telemark property on Moraine Avenue, with the intent to construct 34 residential/accommodations units. The street design would extend Park River West from the east side of the proposed project, loop around through the development, and join Moraine at the intersection with Cedar Ridge Circle. Fifteen units would be located along the river, and the remainder of the units would be north of the road through the development. Staff still has research to conduct concerning limits of disturbance, wildlife habitat, right-of-way dedication, etc. Planner Shirk stated although the review will be continued to August, public comment would be accepted at the meeting. Gordon Ulrickson/Town resident and Secretary/Treasurer of Mountain Haven Condominiums, directly west of the proposed development. They have been working with the developer and the construction company, specifically to discuss relocation of the existing sewer line. There are still some questions about the new road into the Mountain Haven property. They want to know where the west property line and easement are located. Mr. Ulrickson was opposed to the removal of the large trees on the west side of the proposed development. Gail Shroyer/Town resident was concerned about impact on wildlife. She was concerned about the density of townhomes along the river, and shared Mr. Ulrickson’s opinion about removing the large trees, or possible damage to those trees due to trenching. Brian Maders/Town resident was concerned about the close proximity of the proposed road to his property, and also the increased traffic creating light pollution. He agreed with the concerns about the large trees. Stewart Squires/President of Park River West Condominiums Home Owners Association stated the association met with the developer to discuss concerns and present questions. They were impressed with the proposed development and thought it would complement Park River West and be supportive of property values in the area. They support the waiver request for the public trail easement that would adjoin the existing trail. Mr. Squires stated the developers have agreed that no construction traffic would go through Park River West, construction crew parking and materials storage would be confined to the west side of the property, and the road between Mountain River Townhomes and Park River West would remain closed until sales offices for the development are established on the property. They requested the Town enforce the code concerning dust control and code be enforced concerning dust control and mud on vehicles being RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 16, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall removed prior to leaving the property. After reviewing the Traffic Impact Study, his group did not think the study was of sufficient scope to address the impact to Park River West with a second entrance to the project. Mr. Squires suggested there would be a substantial increase in thru traffic from residents and non-residents alike. Impact on traffic at Park River West was not addressed in the study. The association objected to an entrance into Mountain River Townhomes from Park River West. If the road is built, they requested speed control ramps at least on the portion of road through Park River West, and signage at the entrance to Park River West to deter non-essential through traffic. They objected to access aprons running north/south along the fence line, and the entrance into the new development property. They requested a waiver be granted to allow removal of those required aprons. Vinton Arnett/Town resident was concerned about increased traffic. He asked the Commission to consider a turn lane into the proposed development. He was also concerned about the impact on wildlife, due to the close proximity of a conservation easement directly across Moraine Avenue from the property. Fletcher Shields/Town resident was also concerned about the impact on wildlife and increased traffic, especially during construction. Pat Blume/Town resident read the letter to the editor published July 12, 2013 in the local newspaper. Concerns included increased traffic congestion on Moraine and the impact on wildlife. She disagreed with the traffic impact study concerning the numbers of vehicles and potential noise. Chair Hull closed public comment. She stated the application would be reviewed at the August Planning Commission meeting. 5. REPORTS A. Comprehensive Plan – Director Chilcott 1. Director Chilcott stated staff continues to work on the modernization of the Comprehensive Plan. She showed several slides of the draft version. Planner Kleisler has reviewed the data tables in the land use section, simplifying the data for more clarity. Mr. Kleisler stated additional land uses would be added, e.g. religious and school uses. The Town’s GIS consultant would be improving the maps to include some physical features in the area. Director Chilcott stated time has been spent on the Action Plan section of the plan and updating charts created by the Planning Commission approximately one year ago. Estimated costs have been changed from actual dollars to symbols conveying approximate project costs. References to EPURA will be removed. Planner Shirk worked on the Mobility and Circulation section, stating the current plan (1996) used data from the 1980s. Several projects in the 1996 plan would be removed, having been completed. Planner Shirk stated it was interesting to see ideas in the 1996 plan for a parking lot at the fairgrounds and a possible parking structure at the visitor center. B. County Commission Reviews – Senior Planner Shirk 1. The Woodland Heights Fire Resolution was approved on June 17, 2013. 2. Staff has been meeting on a monthly basis with the County Commissioners to keep them updated on the planning and development activities in the Estes Valley. C. Code Compliance – Code Compliance Officer Kleisler 1. An accommodations business has added some exterior lighting, drawing complaints about glare from adjacent property owners. The property owners are in the process of making adjustments to come into compliance with the EVDC. 2. There is an area in the Estes Valley with recreational vehicles (RVs) connected to water and sewer and being used as dwellings. These RVs are not in a zone district allowing such use. He has been working with those residents and property owners to remedy the situation. Social services has been contacted to help the residents find an alternative place to live. 3. The greatly improved Code Compliance database will help address issues in a more timely and efficient manner. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 16, 2013 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall D. Planning Commission Vacancies – Director Chilcott 1. The interviews for the Town representative for Planning Commission were taking place in the very near future. 2. The closing date for the County representative for Planning Commission is next week. 3. Commissioner Hills was reappointed for an additional term, expiring June 30, 2017. E. Introduction 1. Director Chilcott introduced Larimer County Community Development Director Terry Gilbert. He was interested in observing development in the Estes Valley, and looked forward to offering his assistance to staff and the Planning Commission, if needed. He stated the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County have been discussing the possibility of a partnership with a new land use software program, and details are being worked out. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:42 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary ____ 217 Big Horn Drive Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division I Room 230,Town HaIl,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estes.org EsTEs VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEEETING DATE: September 10,2013 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the side property line in the RM Multi-Family zone district. The Applicant requests to encroach five (5)feet into the setback to construct a new deck. LOCATION:217 Big Horn Drive APPLICANTIOWNER:Mary Lambert/Owner,Steve Randall,Contractor STAFF CONTACT:Phil Kleisler 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. REFFERAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment.A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies.No concerns expressed during review. Public.As of September 3,2013,staff has not received comments from the public.If comments are received they will be posted at www.estes.org/CurrentAIications for Planning Commission review. 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 home is partially located within the side setback. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor,this single-family home was built in 1939 and is legally nonconforming to current setback standards. 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:Residential use may continue. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The variance is not 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 essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance.Nearby homes are generally the same size or larger,with some having decks similar in scope to the one proposed.Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance.The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 23 feet to the south. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding:Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; 217 Big Horn Drive Setback Variance Request Page 2 of 3 Staff Finding:According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor,the applicant purchased the property in late 2011 after the adoption of the current setback requirements. f.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding:A variance appears to be the only practical option to construct a functional deck. 3.If authorized,a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The functionality of the proposed deck may be limited if built outside of required setbacks. 4.In granting such variances,the BOA may require such conditions as will,in its independent judgment,secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Comment.Staff can determine compliance with the variance without a setback certificate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1.Compliance with the approved site plan. 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). 217 Big Horn Drive Setback Variance Request Page 3 of 3 Front house view from Big Horn Drive. } Front house view. 217 Big Horn Drive Setback Variance Request Photo Attachment Site of proposed deck. View of northwest neighbor fr of proposed deck. 217 Big Horn Drive Setback Variance Request Photo Attachment View of southern neighbor from area of proposed deck. Site of proposed deck. 217 Big Horn Drive Setback Variance Request Photo Attachment Memo To: From: Date: RE: 217 Bi Horn Community Development Department. Joe Lockhart,Light &Power Superintendent July 31,2013 Referral for comment Light and Power approves the application,and has no comments. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ight &Power Department .. TOWN oi ESTES PARIç Inter-Office Memorandum To:Community Development From:Jeff Boles,Cliff Tedder and Steve Rusch Date:08/05/13 Re:217 Big Horn Drive Metes &Bounds,Variance Request The above application is not approved.The following additional information is required. Indicate water line locations on the Exhibit. 7/29/13 Town 01 Estes Park Mail -RE:217 Big horn,!lr .11. 5TES PA K RE:217 Bighorn Dr James Duell <jldepsdqwestoffice.net>Mon,Jul 29,2013 at 2:30 PM To:pkieisierestesorg Hello Phil, As per reAew of the variance request for 217 Bighorn Drive,the Estes Park Sanitation District has no comment on the request.The sewer service line for the property is not impacted by their request for the deck on the west side of their house. Thank you —Jim Duell,Estes Park Sanitation District 45D James Duell,Dtrict Manager Eses Park Sanation Dstr!ct (970)586-2866 httpsi/mail .google.co WmailPui=2&ik4a44O321e3&,eMpt&search=inbox&msg=1402c1f9129941 78 1/1 Letter of Intention for Deck Construction at 217 Big Horn Dr. Thank you for reviewing our deck project at 217 Big Horn Drive.We are applying for this variance because our home sits strangely close to the North edge of our property line,18”to be exact. We want to construct a cedar deck off our back door which would extent roughly 14 to 16 feet and be approximately 12 to 14 feet wide.We would like to know about the possibility of constructing our deck 60”from the property line.This would be considered a 50%variance from our current setback. We believe conditions exist with our house,lot and current project which when compared with surrounding areas are not common.Since these conditions exist practical difficulty may result from strict building set back compliance.Furthermore,the requested variance will not have any effect on the closest neighbor,but rather the approved variance will allow the deck to be closer to the ground and less visible.We strive to make this deck ascetic with the surroundings and complimentary to the neighborhood.Thank you for your help with our very unique building situation. Owner:Mary Alice Lam bert Builders:Steve Randall,U Davis lTY DEVELOPMENT .. ESTES VALLEY JUN 2 7 2013 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT : APPLICATION____“cA€i Submittal Date: [ii eIiI11Ili1(IIiiTh.]. { Record Owner(s):iY’t.ry t ‘c L’h )_\1 Legal Description:Lot:iiciQ ds f?D (Tract: ParcelID#:3 55—19Q9[_Subdivision: liriIri.JI Lot Size .).i Zoning Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service 5 Town F Well F Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service F Town F Well F Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD F Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service ‘EPSD F UTSD F Septic Existing Gas Service Xcel F Other F None Site Access (if not on public Street) 111111 11111 Are there wetlands on the site?F Yes ‘No IjjVThTI1[11:I Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):(_4.j3 9l.ø I_j j\-\-c c e-bo’. Name of Primary Contact Person S4 Complete Mailing Address jC cx i’-tD r k CO 51 Primary Contact Person is F Owner tZ Applicant Consultant/Engineer MTiitTh ‘Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) F 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1 =20)** F 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11 X 17) U PDF of site plan emailed to planningestes.org **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B,Vll.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.O.Box 1200 170 MacGregor Averue Estes Park,CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone:1970)577-3721 .Fax:1970)586-0249 .www.estes.org/ComDev Revsed 11/20/09 .0 Record Owner(s)YI’Lc’j 1\b(—4 i Mailing Address III1Ih Phone IlllhIlllDl Cell Phone 2-S.0 IIIlIIIllllluI Fax Il1Lll!llhIl1lIllhlI Email fl’”I Ej hm c3i rv c.: IIlllllh1flh11 Applicant i11 Mailing Address 0 G c lp E j) Phone Cell Phone ‘\10.i j C)1 C)H Fax Email ConsultantlEngineer 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: http://wwwestes.org/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf All reciuests for refunds must be made in writinq.All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 1 /20/09 .0 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). 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.org/ComDev/DevCode 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. I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. 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. 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. 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.rflc1 i y 4l,c —Cr>i her i Signatures: Record Owner Date Applicant Date b./Z./3 Applicant PLEASEPRINT S+eve )?q,-ic1c // Revised 11/20/09 Zoning Districts .§4.3 Residential Zoning Districts 0 Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Minimum BulldinglStructure Mm. Zoning Standards [1][5]Property Line Setbacks [2][4]Max.Building District (Ord.25-07*1)[91 (Ord.2507 §1)Building WIdth (ft.)Max.Net Density Area Width Side Height (unltslacre)(sq ft.)(ft.)Front (ft.)(ft.)Rear (ft.)(ft.)[10] RE-i 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-l 1 1 Ac.[3]100 25 25 25 30 20 25- arterials;E 2 ½Ac.[3]75 10 15 30 20 15-other streets 25- artorials;R 4 ¼Ac.60 10 15 30 20 15-other streets R-1 8 5000 50 15 10 15 30 20 Single-family 25- =18,000;arterials;R-2 4 60 10 10 30 20 Duplex =15-other 27,000 streets 40,000, Residential 5,400 sq.60; Uses:ft/unit Lots 25-RM Max =8 and [4][8](Ord.Greater arterials:(Ord.Mm =3 25-07 §1)than 15-other 10 [6]10 30 20 [7]18-01 Senior #14)Institutional Senior 100,000 streets Institutional sq.ft.:Living Uses: Max =24 Living Uses:200 ½Ac. Notes to Table 4-2: [1](a)See Chapter 4,§4.3.D,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 n 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) [31 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]Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet:however,each individual townhome unt may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5]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) [61 Zero side yard setbacks (known as “zero lot line development”)are allowed for townhome developments. [7]Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8]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) [9]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) [10]See Chapter 1,§1.9.E,which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes.(Ord.18-02 #3) Supp.8 4-7 tJ I’)m mm S89’E]/”’ 56.82’ zu COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N\5o-,. EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25,TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE ‘TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF ESTES PARK.COUNTY OF LARIMER,STATE OF COLORADO 0. p., 0 (‘1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (provided by LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR) BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 22,BLOCK 10,ESTES PARK,THENCE NORTH 154 FEET;THENCE S 8914’E 56.82 FEET,WHICH POINT IS MARKED BY A CROSS ON A ROCK;THENCE 5 50’E 61.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;THE’iCE S 89’17’ E 84.85 FEET;ThENCE N 7216’E 89.1 FEET TO A POINT ON WESTERLY LINE OF ANDERSON LANE;ThENCE ALONG ANDE?SON LANE S 31’21’E 15 FEET;THENCE S 5944 W 99 FEET;THENCE S 83 10’W 50.05 FEET;THENCE S 87’26’W 42.6 FEET;THEN(:E N 43’E 44.5 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Notes: 1—THIS IS NOT A “LAND SURVEY PLAT”OR “IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT’AND THIS EXHIBIT IS NOT INTENDED FOR PURHOSES OF TRANSFER OF 11TLE OR SUBDIViSIONS OF LAND.RECORD INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON INFORMATION PR)VIDED BY CLIENT. 2—AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT IS RECOMMENDED TO DEPICT MORE PRECISELY ThE LOCATION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREON. 3—THE LAST CALL OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OBTAINED FROM THE LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR APPEARS TO BE INCORI’ECT BASED ON FIELD WORK AND RESEARCH.FOR PURPOSES OF ThIS CERTIFICATE CLOSURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS FOR.ED. 4—THE DIRT DRIVE STRADDLES ThE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE AS SHOWN HEREON. Surveyor’s Certificate I,JOHN B.GUYTON,A LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE OF COLORADO,HEREBY STATE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FLATIRONS,INC.,TO MARY ALICE LAMBERT,THAT THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE;THAT SAID EXHIBIT IS ACCURATE TO ThE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,INFORMATION AND BELIEF. SHEET 1 OF 1 LOT 3A BICHORN AT SPRUCE SUB. AMENDED 0-i 01 S89’l 7’E 84.85’ 0cz0 0z -U -om C’) P1 P1 z0 —1 P1 z040 (D4-co m INCLUDED PORTION LOT 22 \ S53’lO’W S87’26’W 42.6’ .‘ K. EXCLUDED PORTION LOT 22 JOHN B.GUYTON COLORADO P.L.S.#16406 CHAIRMAN &CEO,FLATIRONS,INC. JOB NUMBER:13—61,889 DRAWN BY:CRC DATE:JULY 1,2013 F!atirons,Inc. Surveying,Engineering &Geo,n alley 3825 IRIS AVE.STE 395 BOULDER,CO 80301 —g PH:(303)443—7001 FAX:(303)443—9830 ,wiv.Flatiron sinctorn - O\J \IIE ) .C)2\ \rOUSE b Larmbert Residence Variance.xls Mark &Pam Foster Larmbert Residence Variance.xls d Owner Owner II Address City ST Zip Lindsay Lamson 191 University Blvd 1*844 Denver CO 80206 Garth &Catherine Lewis 537 S St Vram Ave Estes Park CO 80517 Matthew &Trisha Biggio 3626 Rocky Stream Dr Ft Collins CO 80528 Sue Ash by PC Box 3773 Estes Park CO 80517 Lucas Buxman Arie Singer 8 Murray St San Fransisco CA 94112 Brenda Graves-Blevins 509 Laurel Dr Columbia MC 65203 Whimsical,Inc.P0 Box 3223 Estes Park CO 80517 SML Holdings,LLC 734 Kittitas St Wenatchee WA 98801 John &Margaret Kacergis 221 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Wayne &Kathryn Clark P0 Box 36328 Tucson AZ 85740 Janet &Roger Christensen 30230 lsenberg Ln Evergreen CO 80439 Theresa Schindel P0 Box 1355 Estes Park CC 80517 Karol &Dennis Mack 307 Ridgecrest Ave Los Alamos NM 87544 Estes Park Housing Authority P0 Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 Dennis &Susan Hoppenworth 600 Balltown Rd Sherrill IA 52073 Mowed Lawn,LLC 300 Center Dr,Suite G-182 Superior CO 80027 John &Mary Smithson P0 Box 1795 Estes Park CO 80517 Debbie Blair 213 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Thomas &Kathleen Hochstetler 175 Spruce Dr Estes Park CO 80517 Ralph &Alegra Haber Trust 3208 Ardsley Dr Orlando FL 32804 Paul Van Horn Trust PC Box 456 Estes Park CO 80517 Nancy Belknap PC Box 4007 Estes Park CO 80517 Vincent &Karen Gerber 223 Big Horn Dr Estes Park CO 80517 David &June Boon 2306 Cotswold Ct Ft Collins CC 80526 .