Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2014-09-09Prepared: August 26, 2014 ** Revised: August 28, 2014 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9:00 a.m. — Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes dated July 1, 2014 3. PORTION OF LOT 9, MOUNT VIEW PARK; 831 Big Horn Drive Owner: Applicant: Request: Staff Contact: 4. LOT 5, REPLAT OF Owner: Applicant: Request: Staff Contact: Leisl Laurienti Mike Todd, Cornerstone Engineering Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25 foot setbacks from all property lines in the E-1—Estate zone district. Request to replace an existing concrete patio with a wood frame deck, with the existing structure being entirely in the setback. Proposed deck would allow a two -foot side setback. Dave Shirk LOT 26, BLOCK 1, FALL RIVER ESTATES; 1255 Fall River Court Mark McAndrew Jason Buresh, Colorado Custom Decks Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25 foot setbacks from all property lines in the E-1—Estate zone district. Request to allow a rear setback of approximately 14 feet to replace an existing deck. Dave Shirk 5. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH OF 1895 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, Sombrero Ranch Owner: Yakutat Land Corporation Applicant: Cody Rex Walker Request: Variance from EVDC Section 6.3.C.2, which regulates nonconforming uses. Request to allow approximately 18,000 cubic yards of imported silt & gravel to be stockpiled on the property and redistributed over the next 10 to 12 years. Area affected would be approximately two acres in size, six feet in height, Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 6. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS — Formal Adoption See reverse page for additional information 7. REPORTS A. Silo update B. Upcoming Amendments to Estes Park Municipal Code — Sign Code C. Job Description of Board of Adjustment Members D. ** Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan & Development Code 8. 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 Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 1, 2014 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Vice -Chair Jeff Moreau, Members Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Chris Christian Attending: Chair Lynch, Members Moreau and Smith Also Attending: Senior Planner Shirk, Planner Kleisler, Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Newsom and one vacant position Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There was a quorum in attendance. He introduced the Board members and staff. 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 May 6, 2014 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed 3-0, with one absent and one vacant position. 3. LOT 32, VENNER RANCH ESTATES, 2ND REPLAT, 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicants, Thomas Jaster & Deb Carpenter, have requested a variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a maximum height of thirty (30) feet in all zone districts. The request is to allow an additional story to an existing single-family home. A portion of the proposed roof ridge would protrude approximately three feet above the slope -adjusted height limit. Staff reviewed the application according to EVDC Section 3.6.0 "Standards for Review," and routed it to all affected agencies and adjacent property owners. No concerns were expressed. One neighbor commented in support of the project. Planner Kleisler stated the lot in question is of typical size for the area, but the shape is irregular, which makes expansion difficult. The most logical solution is to go up. While the property is near the ridgeline, staff determined it was not in the designated Ridgeline Protection Area and visual impact would not be an issue. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 6, 2014 2 Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances exist as the parcel is shallow and triangular in shape. The site is 4.4 acres. The average acreage of properties within 500 feet is 13.5 acres; however, the average lot size is reduced to 3.7 acres if the large lot (#1435) is excluded. Therefore, while the lot size is adequate and generally consistent with neighboring properties, the shape appears prohibitive. There are constraints that prevent an expansion from the sides; septic system, driveway, setback, and rock. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, this single-family home was built in 1979. 2. In determining practical difficulty, staff found the residential use may continue without the variance. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. The project site is close to a mapped Ridgeline Protection Area, defined in the EVDC as the "ground line located at the highest elevation of and running parallel to the long axis of the ridge." Staff requested photo simulations from the applicant, demonstrating the proposed addition would not be seen from the public right-of-way below. Upon a site visit and review of the Estes Valley Ridgeline Protection Areas map, staff determined the home was not within the Ridgeline Protection Area. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are generally the same size, with some being directly on the ridgeline. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance. The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 280 feet to the south. 5. Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. 6. The applicant purchased the property in 1998, prior to the adoption of the current setback requirements. The height limit in 1998 was forty (40) feet. The height limit was lowered to thirty (30) feet with the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. 7. A variance appears to be the only practical option to construct a second story living space, as proposed. 8. The second story roof angle could possibly be rotated 180 degrees to meet the height standards. This would move the location of the deck and windows to the back of the lot. 9. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends a Surveyor Certificate be required to confirm compliance. Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval, with conditions listed below. Public Comment Steve Lane/Applicant representative stated the property was designed upward due to the constraints. The proposed project would include an eight foot ceiling height, with a roof slope as low as possible to lessen the height. The maximum height is thirty feet tall, but the slope is what makes it exceed the height limit. He stated photo simulations were done from Park RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 6, 2014 3 River West Condominiums and also from Elm Road. The house could not be seen from either location, and it was determined visual impact would be minimal. He stated the maximum height would not be more than three feet over the thirty-foot height limit, and the requested height certificate would be measured from the lowest floor elevation. Conditions of Approval 1. Compliance with the approved site plan; and 2. Height (elevation) certificate shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request for the Lot 32, Venner Ranch Estates, 2"d Replat, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-0, with one absent and one vacancy. 4. LOT 1, LITTLE PROSPECT ADDITION (PORTION OF STANLEY PARK), 1125 Rooftop Way, Stanley Park Fairgrounds Multi -Purpose Event Center. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This request is for a variance from EVDC section 4.4, Table 4-5, which has a maximum height limit of thirty (30) feet in all zone districts. The owner/applicant is the Town of Estes Park. The request is to increase the height of the silo portion of the Multi -Purpose Event Center currently under construction at the fairgrounds. The silo is located at the southwest comer of the building. Planner Shirk stated the request was to increase the height from 30 to 34 feet. If approved, the proposed roof elevation would align with the height of the main part of the building (the clerestory), which was granted a variance in 2012. The clerestory is 37-feet tall. The difference in building heights is due to the floor of the silo area being higher than the floor of the main building. Planner Shirk stated the height issues were not realized until construction began, when it was determined the proposed height would create maintenance issues related to protection from the elements. The current design includes a roof overhang that would be connected to the silo roof with fasteners through the silo roof. These fasteners would penetrate the silo roof and increase potential for water leaking into the building. He stated height limits are often hard to comply with when the building is very large, as is the case here. Staff Findings 1. Special circumstances are related to the building, not the lot. Strict adherence to the standards may result in practical difficulty related to maintenance of the building. Approval would not nullify the intent and purpose of the height limit and would not impact nearby properties. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 6, 2014 4 2. The current design may continue, though it would likely void warranty of the silo roof and increase Tong -term maintenance costs. 3. The variance is not substantial. The proposed height would not be taller than the main portion of the building. Additionally, the conical narrows at the top, minimizing the amount of roof structure that would extend above the height limit. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. The roof elevation would not extend above the main portion of the building. The nearest houses are over 300 feet away. 5. The variance would not affect the delivery of public services. 6. The Town has owned the property for several decades. The property was deeded to the Town from F.O. Stanley for use a fairgrounds. 7. The design team explored many options and determined this is the most economical to alleviate the condition. 8. The conical roof narrows at the top, which minimizes the amount of roof above the height limit. 9. Should the variance be approved, staff recommends a surveyor confirm compliance. Planner Shirk stated staff recommended approval of the requested variance, with conditions listed below. Public comment Ginny McFarland/applicant representative the original design called for an overbuild over the silo roof. The change came when it was determined the warranty may be voided on the silo if holes were placed in the roof. The variance request was the simplest, clearest, long-term solution to resolve the problem. Member Moreau, a local builder, suggested a way to elevate the roof without penetrating the membrane of the silo roof. He disagreed with the method of construction being used to solve the problem. Special Events Director Bo Winslow indicated Mr. Moreau was correct; however, the project designers were hoping to move forward with the minimum height variance possible, since one variance had already been approved. He stated the design had to meet wind and snow loads, and this was the minimum amount of variance that could be completed without completing an extensive change order. Member Moreau offered a few other construction tips for the applicant. The Board discussed the possibility of granting a variance higher than requested. There was general consensus among the Board to allow the project to be built correctly, with reduced risk for maintenance issues. Chair Lynch recommended granting a six foot variance instead of the four feet requested. A six foot allowance would greatly improve the drainage in the area of concern. Planner Kleisler stated he spoke with Town Attorney Greg White, who said the Board of Adjustment does have the authority to grant a variance greater than what was requested and advertised. This authority comes from the change being initiated by the Board rather than the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 6, 2014 5 applicant coming to the hearing and requesting a greater variance than what was advertised and noticed to adjacent property owners. After brief discussion between the applicant and the Board, it was determined an eight -foot variance would be enough to revise the construction plans to solve all maintenance and drainage issues; the best option possible. Ms. McFarland assured the Board the plans would not exceed the maximum height required to solve the issues. Mr. Winslow and Ms. McFarland expressed their appreciation to the Board for recognizing the need for a greater variance than the absolute minimum, and using their authority to proposed a greater height variance. Conditions of Approval 1. A surveyor shall verify compliance with the approved variance prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Smith) to approve the variance request for the Multi -Purpose Event Center, not to exceed forty-one feet six inches (41'6") from existing grade to allow the Town of Estes Park to properly build the silo and roof to resolve construction issues, and with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 3-0 with one absent and one vacant position. Planner Shirk requested a post -construction report from the applicants to inform the Board of the final result. 5. REPORTS A. Senior Planner Shirk expressed appreciation to Member Moreau for being on the Board and sharing his expertise on construction methods. B. Senior Planner Shirk reported there would not be a meeting in August. There being no other business before Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary uu�1111 831 Big Horn Drive 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 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: September 9, 2014 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which sets a minimum building and structure setback distance of 25 feet in the E-1 Estate zone district. The Applicant requests a variance to replace an existing unsafe concrete patio with a wood frame deck. Approximately eight feet of the existing residence and the entire patio is within the 25-foot setback. The proposed deck will be two (2) feet from the property line. LOCATION: 831 Big Horn Drive (Town) APPLICANT/OWNER: Lisa Lauienti/Owner, Michael Todd/Engineer 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. Ili i IIIII IIIIIII°IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWNIIIIIIIIINIf� 11' View from Big Horn Drive The Board of Adjustment is the decision -making body for this application. REFERRAL 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 were expressed during review. Public. As of August 3, 2014 no public comments have been received; comments received after this date will be posted at wvww.estes.or„,,g//CurrentApp!I! cation§ for the Board's 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: Staff finds that special circumstances and conditions exist relating to lot size and topographic conditions. The lot is 0.39 acres. The minimum lot size in the E-1 Estate district is 1.0 acre. The average acreage of properties within 500 feet is one acre (excluding two very large parcels to the north and west). The unique scattered rock outcroppings throughout the site present exceptional difficulties in locating the deck to the north. These topographic conditions were the likely reason for the location of the house (far southeast partially in the setbacks). View of neighboring property from patio. 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 varib ; 831 Big Horn Drive Page 2 of 4 Setback Variance Request Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are similar in size and character, with many containing similar patios/decks. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance. The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 66 feet to the northeast along Granite Lane. It appears that the view of the deck would remain the same from this property, while the area below the deck would be naturally screened by rocks. Furthermore, replacing the concrete patio with a wood frame deck would eliminate the concrete wall of the existing patio along Big Horn Drive. 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; Staff Finding: According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the home was built in 1940, before the adoption of setback requirements. The applicant purchased the home in 2002, after the adoption of the current setback standards. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A variance is the only option to replace any portion of the existing patio, given that it is entirely in the side setback. 3. if authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to reduce the size of the deck to two (2) feet from the property line. The Board may, at its discretion, require that the deck be further shortened. 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. Should the variance be obtained, staff can verify the location of the deck without a surveyor certificate. 831 Big Horn Drive Setback Variance Request Page 3 of 4 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). 831 Big Horn Drive Page 4 of 4 Setback Variance Request 000 d13 N3A Nflu Emmummin 11SV3 1� Z N11S3 � W 0 0 • 0 a Om E sai o wA4-1 ¢ 4mo .0 rO 'a 1�1 g © 0 O c PAX c III U fi,R�� room 0 7a umo III J Nl1Sb9 6 Nl 153, LO t-- CO CO co 07 ca. cr, co ; co g 0 • i CO 0 Z. v 0 us co (1) 3 1 W Y w Y W Y W ) I— IX I— CC I— IX V) < CO < Cn < f V) < U.1 O. W O. , WO_ cn cc (0 (1) V) LU Y WYWY WY WY I- CC I- CC I- CL I- CC I- CL cn < u) < cn < u) < us < W CL MI 0- UJ 0_ LU O. W 0_ CO C ZC-1 03 6. c, 14.3 11-7 co co co co 0, C 0 a o 0 0 0 z c.) V cc v o cm en 5 (-1 (i) cn u) 1 co LIJ cn ui IA x ,Y Y Y , > :CI L)j .1 6 w w w > w Ix 1c7) 6 1._ fl O < LU 2 ; w 0. ± u) w a. w 0_ , Lu a. w a. c:) WO. in CO ▪ • co Zs; CO CO 3 CZ , 04 00 0 0 0 0 Ct) Ce a, a X Z 0 .c co CL aa 0 0 v 0 co CC -I x cc ct o yy, z z z < cc' 0 .c7, 2 ct 11. to co • Z 0 co 2 11 0_ ce) 10 1 , Co CL < 0_ cr _1 m1 i= < I- < < _ 0 (i) z 0 66' ‘,1) 0 .3 w Z E > p w 0 t w 0 z z cc w u. 0 LU 0 a Cr) Z Z CC mz2W LiJou)(/)< Z < 2 CL Z UJ (2 —wzx §a' 00 z 1 w w I- 1- v _ 2 vq- a z i7) c.i o to Z 0 -1 ni 0 _I co = N 0 -3 ' IS 0) O C71 • 0 0 0 0 to in c7 a co o co •%1* d• Nt CM rsi cv to to to co co co z cc 71 0 • vcr 1 i 8 tij Lii I- -J ey re i' CO W < CO CI Z ZCIO•sn>" LUZ< 52=1%±. so •r- w W < Ce 1- cr. .....--. D 0 < < > ix Y Y Y 12 0 ...I 0 5 (/) ....;• G1 Li- ..7A I- -fr- 4 U) 0 < 03 W CC a: Ce -i CL cc - o 5 0° (.91:1(.9c' x or3 o° Lu E _ coz Ei z itil z 5 z 6-3 z cc cc c‘ 0 0 _1 cc • 0 f.::, 0 —cr) 0 t'S n cl 8 0 g o com 0.0=01 0001.-I r- I 0 , 0 0 0 0 o i•-• 0 0 o 0 0 0, 0 0 c4 0.1 CV csi cO LO 11) to co co co CO of:1 0 (n2 E § .0. 2 0_ 1- N. cc) 1— z O (NI 0 LtD CO LO co CO *ct LO GO cf.) co co c+) co 1 to Go u) tr) co co c,..) .L1 w LIJ X W X W X W X ..44 (;) F.IC7) 07 I- CC 0) < )- U) < I 03 1 LIJ 0- IJJ 0- LLI 0- 1.1.1 CL LLI I3- W CL , co co cr) (Nu Le, c Lu rcti /(75 L.L.1 O. F. 0 Cf) 8 co 0 co co o 0 O 0 0 W LLI Ct.) X ..1 U. 0 O 1 L.. p) CI 0 < z Cs: CC < tt)) '2 LI- 0 CC 0 01 ILLI CZ aa r... 0 ... z _1 n E, 0 0 or; 2 M- r-- C./ w o- r- cr) 0 r•-• cf) Gco 1,- S 0 x CO -Cii ID -- — - , i < Lii n 0.) EI >-L 4; E . 0 0 Z n ce y Z I- w -J w LU E 5 Lesi z z 6 LIJ (I) 2 i z re 03 9 Ili CC LLI Z - 0 Z < 4 0 ul c g x I- 0-•',ZDce 0 a. u) 0 n 2 cr, I- 03 0- I CL CC CZ Ce y CL y O CI 0 CI z y3 z a z co • z a z re ix w ce cc 7, 0 g", 0 0 0 co G. 0 2 r-- = P-- I co 2 co 2 t- g 0 T 0 o 0 in r-- co o , o cr) , 3.0 If) If) c,7 C) Cf) (C) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 a- 0 CI M Cf) •rh ct ,:1- N N N If) to Lo co co , ,, July 23, 2014 Phil Kleisler Planner Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Co. 80517 RE: 831 Big Horn Drive, Request for Setback Variance Parcel Number 35243-05-020. Dear Phil, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES), on behalf of the owner Liesl Laurienti, is submitting a variance request for a deck setback for 831 Big Horn Dr., Este Park, Colorado. Legal Description The South 1 of the East 1 10 Feet of Lot 9, Mountain View Park, Estes Park Variance request: Table 4-2 Base Density Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts E-1, Minimum Building /Structural Setbacks, Side - 25 feet. Zoning Current zoning of the subject property is "E-1, Estate, 1 acre min." All adjacent properties are also zoned Eat, Estate. The Estes Valley Development Code list setbacks for E-1, Estate as 25 feet on all sides. Property Description: • Lot Size — 0.39 acres. • Access Big Horn Drive • Slope — 12 -14% to the south • Lot Coverage Ponderosa pine with rock outcropping. • House Construction Built 1940, Remodeled 1981 • Date of Existing Patio Construction Unknown (assumed prior to setback requirements) Project Description The project involves the replacement of an existing patio with a frame deck structure. The existing patio is located off the east side of the house and is constructed of CMU block with a concrete deck. Due to the rock outcropping and slope of the property the the patio varies from about 0 to 10 feet above existing grade (Photo 1). The area inside the CMU block appears to be backfilled with dirt. The patio was not adequately constructed 831 Big Horn Drive, Request for Variance Setback Parcel Number 35243-05-020 Page 2 of 2 July 23, 2014 to retain soil and is beginning to collapse (Photo 2). Cracking exist on the interior foundation wall with settlement of around the east door adjacent to the patio. The cracking in the foundation wall and settlement around the door is most likely attributed to the movement of the failure of the patio area. Approximately 8 feet of the existing residence and the entire patio area is located within the 25 foot setback from the east property line. The house and the patio were constructed prior to the E-1 zoning setback requirements. The Residence is cut into the hill side with the basement/ garage being walkout level at the street. The main floor on the north side of the residence is submerged approximately three feet below finished grade. Two doors provide access to the main house level. The front door is located on the south (street) side of the house with the second door located on the east side of the house and opens on to the patio. Relocating the patio northwest would impose exceptional topographical conditions; requiring either excavating a significant volume material from rock outcropping areas, raising the deck area requiring additional steps from the east door up to the patio area or a combination of the two. The existing patio already exists within the building setback and to the best of our knowledge was constructed prior to the setback requirements. With the existing patio requiring structural repair, the owner is allowed to obtain a permit to repair the patio in its current location in kind. The owner wishes to replace the concrete patio with a wood frame deck structure. The owner proposes to reduce the deck size to maintain a two foot setback of the property line. The proposed structure would improve conformance from the existing patio area. The deck structure would also reduce the continuous wall appearance improving the visual impact to the east property boundary. Sincerely, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Michael Todd, PE. Principal ff ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Date: 1 ecord Owner(s): t.11d reri Street Address of Lot. Hom Driv Legal Description: Lot: Patton of e Subdivision: �ttptt.�C Parcel ID # Lot Size 0.39 Acres Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service r Town Proposed Water Service r Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Ex Xcet R sidenclal Zoning r Well r Other (Specify) r well r Other (Specify) fx EPSD r UTSD r Septic fit EPSD r UTSD r Septic r Other r None Site Access (if not on public street) Big Hom Drive Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): Replace an existing concrete to located in the setback with Name of Primary Contact Person Michael Todd. Complete Mailing Address 1892 OW Thompson Ave, Estes Park,, Colon do 80517 Prim Contact Person is r Owner ll"" A cant Ix Consultant& •ineer 11 Application fee (see attached fee schedule) I"ii Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth In Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) fp 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20) " f x 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 171 f x Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format walled to pianning®estes.org The site plan shalt Include information In Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.V11.5 (attached). he 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. own o E1PortM P.Q. bar 112130 4 1 eQaf er►ue •e'kstuea lid CO .11�,1i,7 Community Development Deportment Phone i970) 577.3721 .a Fax: t970) S86-0249 .. www.e:tas.or4/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2013 0s.27 Kr Record Owner(e) Lies' Laudeft Mailing Address PO Box 3354, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Phone 970-586-0098 Ceti Phone Fax Email Laurientiehotrnall.com Applicant Lies! Laurier% Mailing Address PO Box 3354 Estes Park C. redo 80517 Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone, Fax Email Comrstone En ineerin Surve n Inc. Michael Tod 1892 Big Thompson Ave. Suite 200, Estes Park. Colorado 970-588-2458 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: itgl12424,Q,Qtattiglid " vidflo onEt Of Ail requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 2013.013.27 KT APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information end exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the beet of my knowledge and that In filing the application t 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 consul the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code le available online et: ► I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Perk 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 decayed In processing by a month or more If the information provided la Incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted attar 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. ► 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. ► 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 II is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed buridinglstnucture comers 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 ,ELEAsozwrArr Applicant PLEASEPIRINT Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Lies! Laurienti Lie& Laurientl Date 'Iri3 (Z01 Rerised 201308-27 KT 831 Big Horn Drive, Request for Variance Setback Parcel Number 35243-05-020 3uly 23, 2014 .„„ PHOTO I SOUTH & EAST SIDE EXISTING REAIDENCE/PATIO , 1:1h1: 4.4(r rt .,.„. 831 Big Horn Drive, Request for Variance Setback Parcel Number 35243-05-020 July 23, 2014 PHOTO 3, NORTH SIDE OF RESIDENCE PHOTO 4, EAST SIDE OF RESIDENCE Zoning Districts RE-1 RE E-1 R-2 AM I (Ord. 18-01 §14) § 4.3 Residential Zoning Distrcts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts 1110 Ao. Residential Uses: Max a 8 and Min =3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max 24 Mirilstudt Lot Standards [1] [4] (Ord. -S7 §1) single-family = 18,000; Duplex = 27,000 40,000, 6,400 eq. ftfunit (8) (Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15- 11 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: V2 Ao. 80; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 Mad Property Una Setbacks [21 (Ord. U•OT I1; Ord. 15-11 f1) 25-arterials: 15- other streets 25-arterials;15- other streets 8uNding Height (f•) [8] 25-arterials; 15- 10 10 30 other streets 25-arterials;15- 10 other streets (Ord. 15-11 §1) 20151 Notes to Table 4-2 (1) (a)See Chapter 4, §4.31), which allows a reduction:n minimum lot size (area) for single-family reeidentla: subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, 94.3,D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, 911.3, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for clustered rots In open space developments. (o) See Chapter 11, 911.4, which allows a reduction In minmum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an Increase In minimum 101 size (area) for deviopmant on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 §1) (2) See Chapter 7, 97.8, for required setbacks from stream/rivercorridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 95; Ord. 11-02 jt1) (3) It private wells or septic systems are used. the minfmum lot area shell be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in 97.12, '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 o160%. (Ord. 25-07 91) (5) Minimum buttdtng 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 a.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 §14) (7) Ab structures shall be set back Irani 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 budding/structure setback. (Ord.11.02 §1; Ord. 25-07 91) (8) Sae Chapter 1, §1.9.E. which allows an , orease in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 93) (Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord, 2-02 §5; Ord. 11.02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) 4-7 Supp. 12 II ; 4:<z ; ] :5 % Ak\§ . 2 f) _ _n —ffiBtw—m, err |[ ) 11114. IG°""""""""""""'°"" 1255 Fall River Court Setback Variance IIIVIIIIIIIIIII�IIII Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 rl Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax 970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: September 9, 2014 REQUEST: This is a for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which sets a minimum building setback of 25 feet in the E-1 Estate zone district. The request is to replace a nonconforming deck in the same location. Two corners of the deck are located in the 25-foot setbacks. The applicant has received a building permit to replace portions of the deck outside of the setbacks. The eastern corner of the deck is 20.4 feet from the property line and the south corner is 15.3 feet from the nearest property line. The single family home and accompanying deck was approved in 1999 through building permit #6517. Through the 1999 review staff informed the applicant that the deck could not built within the 25-foot setback. The deck permit and a Certificate of Occupancy were issued with the deck built in the setback. LOCATION: 1255 Fall River Court {Town) APPLICANT/OWNER: Mark McAndrew/Owner, Tom Jackson/Engineer STAFF CONTACT: Phil Kleisler a;9Nl 11,1,l1V Southern corner of deck Eastern corner of the deck 111111111111111111 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: 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 were expressed during review. The application was routed to the Rocky Mountain National Park, given that the Park land borders the project site. The National Park does not object to the requested variance. Public Comments. As of August 3, 2014 no public comments have been received; comments received after this date will be posted at www.estes.oro/CurrentAmlications for the Board's 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: Staff finds that special circumstances exist relating to lot shape and the location of the house. The long and narrow shape of the lot is due mainly to steep topography, street layout and the location of a Town water tank; for these reasons many Tots in the Fall River Estates subdivision are oddly shaped. The location and orientation of the house also prevents any reasonably sized deck from being constructed to the south and east. 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; 1255 Fall River Court Page 2 of 4 Setback Variance Request 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 similar in size and character. The nearest residential home is over 200 feet to the east. It appears that the portions of the deck related to this variance are not visible to other properties in the Valley. 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; Staff Finding: According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the home was built in 1999. The property was zoned RM Multi -Family in 1999, which also required 25-foot setbacks. The applicant purchased the home at the time of construction, which was after the adoption of the setback standards. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Normal repairs and maintenance can be performed on the non -conforming sections of the deck, but they cannot be fully replaced. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The applicant has received a permit to construct the deck portions outside of the setbacks. The applicant does not propose expanding the deck beyond the current location. 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. 1255 Fall River Court Setback Variance Request Page 3 of 4 Staff Comment. Should the variance be obtained, staff can verify the location of the deck without a surveyor 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). 1255 Fall River Court Page 4 of 4 Setback Variance Request 1 in 7200 ft , ft> < 0000° 04, Tar FALL RIVER RD ro Two ,fr fr ,kallHommimoo„os,,, ',mud oa.vor,,,,,,,,rom,00f000woOvommoO0000mooreOmg,O0 HoomohomooloormAyo,nonnol00000Loomosomolornmoomooloomi00000kooro094i 0 o t 0 110 4.4 t e , From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Phil & Dave, Gamble. Larry Re: McAndrew Residence Variance Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:43:25 AM After reviewing the variance request, RMNP does not object to the granting of a variance to rebuild the existing deck. We recognize that the existing deck encroaches 4.6 ft. into to required setback from the park boundary. Give me a call if you have any questions. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Phil Kleisler <pkleisler@estes.org> wrote: Larry, Thank you for the email. The site plan for this variance is attached. As background, the 1999 building permit was issued for the deck in its current location in error. The variance request is to build the deck 15.3' from the south and 20,4' from the west. They would like to remodel the existing deck in the same location and construct additional deck space outside of the setback. I've copied Dave Shirk on this email because I will likely be away from the office soon. Phil From: Gamble, Larry [mailto: Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 4:31 PM To: Phil Kleisler Subject: McAndrew Residence Variance Phil, We received a notice regarding the variance request to "replace an existing deck" with a setback of 14 ft. from the rear property line. The west boundary of the McAndrew's property is the park boundary. We would not be in favor of granting a variance if the setback variance is from the west property line. The residence was constructed in 1999. I don't know if the 25 ft. setback requirement was in effect at that time. If it was, then the original deck may have been constructed without conforming to the development code. Please let me know if the requested variance is from the west property line. Thanks! I ))))i)11)11) )1 )), I )).), Lawrence H. Gamble Chief, Branch of Planning & Compliance Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-1320 Fax: (970) 586-1359 lift/ ow wk. frixo Over a Quarter Century of Creating Extraordinary Decks. Landscapes and Outdoor Living Masterpieces July 16, 2014 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 To Whom It May Concern: This is a request for a variance at Lot 5, Reptat Lot 26, Block 1, Fall River Estates, commonly referred to as 1255 Delmar Dr., Estes Park, CO 80517. This variance would reduce the 25-foot rear setback requirement of Table 4-2 by approximately 9 feet for the purpose of replacing an existing deck. The reason for this variance is to allow the owner to replace an old and unsafe existing deck and reusing the existing caissons. Review Standards: Special circumstances or conditions exist: The existing deck already encroaches into the setback approximately 9 feet. The lot is oddly shaped and the location and orientation of the home on the lot means any reasonably -sized deck on that comer of the house will fall within the setback area. 2. Practical Difficulty: a. While a variance does not currently exist, a portion of the deck has encroached into the setback for years. The deck cannot be rebuilt in the same shape using the same caissons without obtaining a variance. b. The variance is not substantial. The vast majority of the new deck has been designed within the setbacks. c. The character of the neighborhood will not be altered as the existing deck is already over the setback line. Adjoining properties will not suffer any detriments as there are no neighbors close enough to see the deck. d. The variance would not affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. e. The owner purchased the home in January of 1999, before die Estes Valley Development Code was adopted. f. Without a variance, rebuilding the deck would require changing the shape of the existing deck, requiring additional expense as the existing caissons could not be reused. Changing the shape would additionally have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the home. Furthermore, failing to replace the existing deck could result in an unsafe environment for the homeowners. SHOWROOM • DENVER 1 r9290"0. 919.i.B 122 159.19230731. CO30 : 33107.709'9000 SHOWROOM • BOULDER COUNTY 122230 P.°n,i , , 10003793a7. 120.399902 9<<i,.. CO 30027 02 1119 929 SHOWROOM • COLORADO SPRINGS 3 ," 1E + EtICJ i ikvay, 9 . i0 213s13r2r 23;1 719 70292922.00 3. The conditions of this request are not general. They are specific to this home and its location and orientation on an oddly -shaped lot. 4. This request does not involve a reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots. 5. This request represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. k would merely allow the deck to encroach no further into the setbacks than it already does. 6. The variance would not allow a prohibited use. Please see applicable attachments. Sincerely, Jason Buresh Project Manager 720.312-0006 Jason@MosaicMasterpieces.com 01, ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Legal Description' Subdivision: Parcel ID* : Lot Size Existing Land Usew�"ar Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Town @'"" Weir ). Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service r Town r Well )""" Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service IX Xcel Site Access (If not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? i " EPSD 1r' UTSD ariance Desired (Development Code aer►inn #): ' Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Prim Contact Person is Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.0 C o1 the EVDC) P " 1 copy (folded) of site plan idrawn at a scat of 1" = 201" i"'"° 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 171 Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format wailed to planning®estes org • The site plan shall Include information in Estes Valley Development Code Append x 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 vanance application schedule). Copies must be folded. ''own of f oft l" a` w o° :OM er its', alaWl Corm rrtity Dove opment Dsparlmerl prone. 577172' rca. D970 586 0249 www.esles.org "CommunllyDeve opme^I Revised 20! 3.06.27 K" Record Owner(s) irc YY Mailing Address Phone: 114 CeII Phone Fax Email Ili 11 AIM Applicant bI 3rg Mailing Address D 4' Phone 701,1 Oat CL Cell Phor Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone CeII Phone Fax Email 5 =MIN Jo 1.1 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 Latte„„„beetsaa,RISSi. ItER nart 8 DAM ,) aitir • All requests for refunds must be made in wriling. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Rev sed 2013.08.27 KT APPLICANT CERTIFICATION P. 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 ► 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 comers 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 AIEASEPRINi M/+�tK �iQIJ1?1C1�I Applicant - EASE PRINT. Signatures: Record Owner Date ;;;Si W _ . 0/ Date Revised 201.08.27 KT Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts 1/10 M. RE 1/2.5 Ac, E-1 1 R-1 R-2 RM (Ord. 18.01 §14) Mlninwm Lot 8terldards (11141 (Ord, 28-07 11) 2.5 Ac. 2 Ac. (3) 4 Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Mtn-3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max a24 h,4 Ac 5,000 Single-family =18,000; Duplex 27,000 40,000, 5,400 sq. ftfunit (Sj (Ord. 25.07 §1; Ord. 15- 11 §1) Senior institutional Living Uses: 1 Ac. Minhtatnn Buildingliltructum Property Line Sslbsahe (2] [7] Mau. (Ord.26.07111; Ord.18.1t $1) Building; 8fde Rear Height Front OW (IL) 00 (IL) (e) 50 50 200 50 50 25 75 25-arterials; 15- other streets 25 10 50 25 30 16 30 Min. Width (fL) 20 20 20 25-arterials; 16- 10 15 30 20 other streets 60 15 80 I 25-artedale; 15- other streets 80; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 10 25-arterials; 15- 10 other streets (Ord. 15.11 §1) 15 10 30 30 20 10 30 20 [6) Notes to labia 4-2 (1) (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.1), which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas par Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for clustered tote In open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11,4, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See ithapter 7, §7.1, wh ch 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 systeme are used,, the minimum of area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, 'Adequate Public Facilit es.' (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) 01.30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord. 26-07 §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 mrntmum 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-srte dwellings or Iota. 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. 26-07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1, $1.9.E, which allows an ,ncreaee In the matdmum height of buildings on elopes. (Ord. 18.02 §3) (Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) 4-7 Supp. 12 E co 11.0 0 Col 0 l() cN PAU to to. , c). ,() to r— e— M < CO < LU CL. LU co 0 cS o co co co r- o C•1 0 kr) IN, 7c co Z0_ ID I- M () < 0I LU O. 0 Z _1 1- _.1 C.) 1 X U.I 0) 0 Z Lu 0 Z z a O co o , < _, 0 o 02 14..„, SP. W O. O 5 rc c w Lci1 0 u) z tU 0 tt, M LLI M t U. 0 oi -I Z t• id CO --I 0 0 I- • LU 0. M U. ce 111 o) CN to co Ct ce •L,; LC)j OW Lcc) w ce g 0 co (r) 0 to :0 U.3 0 0 Lu Ce cf) < L.LJ 0_ 00 Z CO ...I CO et ul Y 0 CO cf) ▪ < Z ILI 0_ n 1 Ci CO 11-• V" (.7 z CC a. co c0 1-1-. 0 (JD 1.1.1 CO 0 1-11 <0 > CL 0- CO 01 CO 00 CI) CD 8 1(7) LLI Z LLI ,Z ° Z O re ›- < < 0 < u) A z (/) < co z n a. `-'mpolz< -I < (") LL U.1 CD > N Cr> F:0 0 > -I -I 1_ O IL CY I'- 0 - ,- X co co to in o .- cv o o o 1. co co N . N N C74 N N ' N N N N O U" to co co co �p 1p i N r •1 ct r r r T 0 CD CD CO CO CO CO CO CO co co N Q co XCO < qI- Y Y H IX wa ufa �w0 wo. wo.. •:1- CO co co 1N- 0 U Z 0 Zi 0 co w tD w -4 0 U Z z 0 0 0 < 0_ 2 O a >-0 ❑WV z r I- QQ) D t~» w rd co ti a)_ �r �T O 1 00 t0 z 5 can. hCI Li 1U CC ❑ 0 : < �J I- 6- 0 cf1' -..j�c w CAU W Uo% oW w o r ,ci N N 2 J O ; N Q. Z r' N co 0 ct QW �, �wJ <0 o w cc,>— CC w � ❑ gZZ Lt o WO 0 >- ceoottecezo p ❑ w ao o z❑ LU CO w Lwp Z❑0 cn WoZwCI Cl o o o w X co 0 1- 0 0 (CI 111 CO 0 CO 10 N a- CO Cr) 1 ILO < U U. MW r a: V) w L W IM1 QUASI-JUDICIAL NOTIFICATION Estes Valley Board of Adjustment The following development application was received and is being reviewed by staff and affected agencies for completeness. This application is now considered a quasi-judicial item. Please refrain from ex-parte discussions about this application. If members of the public contact you and wish to comment, please encourage them to submit written comments to the appropriate review bodies listed below, or schedule an appointment with the designated Planner. SUBMITTAL DATE: July 23, 2014 PROJECT NAME: McAndrew Residence Variance ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1255 Fall River Court Lot 5, Replat of Lot 26, Block 1, Fall River Estates PROJECT TYPE: Setback Variance PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires 25 foot setbacks from all property lines in the E-1-Estate zone district. Request to allow a rear setback of approximately 14 feet to replace an existing deck. APPLICANT: Colorado Custom Decks OWNER: Mark McAndrew STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk TO BE REVIEWED BY: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment ANTICIPATED MEETING DATE(S): September 9, 2014 (Subject to change depending on circumstances): LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY: 1. Reviewing the application at .estes.ora/currentapplications and/or 2. Scheduling a meeting with the appropriate Planner to review the application. PUBLIC COMMENT CAN BE EMAILED OR SENT TO: F 80517 estes.org Community Development Department, Room 210, PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO Please direct questions about this notice to the Community Development Department at 577-3721. 7.7. 7 FFG f� tt 3,1 «6 • Eg 6 604 .a44 s" McANDREW DECK REMODEL PLAN LOT 5, REPLAT OF LOT 26, FALL RIVER EST ESTES PARK, COLORADO VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING YBONE:chi580 98_CMS �c70)599- 100517 arc a BY 1895 Big Thompson Avenue COINER COUNTY 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 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: September 9, 2014 REQUEST: This is a request to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 6.3.C.1 Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses Prohibited. The purpose of the variance to expand a non -conforming use to allow outdoor storage of fill materials for use on -site. The request is to store materials on the Sombrero Ranch property to maintain existing trails and roads. The application notes the stockpile would be redistributed over the course of 10-12 years. The materials are from the dredging of an existing pond located at 2153 McGraw Ranch Road. The stockpile would cover 2-acres of land approximately 6-feet deep. The stockpile would be located approximately 700-feet east of and 100 vertical feet above the Stonegate Drive/Dry Gulch Road intersection. There is a 400+ foot wide forested area between Dry Gulch Road and the proposed stockpile location. Due to the topography and vegetation of the site, the off -site visual impact would be minimal. A temporary road would be constructed to access the stockpile location. This road would utilize an existing access point on Dry Gulch Road, and the location would provide site access without need to cross the Dry Gulch drainage. Staff recommends approval of this request, with several conditions intended to mitigate the impact. These conditions address issues such as traffic control, dust mitigation, and erosion control. LOCATION: 1895 Big Thompson Avenue (county) APPLICANT/OWNER: Cody Walker, Yakutat Land Corporation. Jim Fletemeyer, ASLA, Consultant (Niwot). STAFF CONTACT: David Shirk 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 54 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 and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. The Larimer County Engineering Department submitted the following comments: 1. Mcgraw Ranch Road is a private road and the legal ability to use this road for the proposed use would be between the owners of the road and the person wanting to use the road. 2. The County road system is a public road system. The County does not have the ability to stop the hauling of the material as long as the applicant will be using legal load limits and trucks. 3. The requirement for traffic control and flaggers below should address safety concerns at the intersections. 1895 Big Thompson Avenue Page 2 of 7 Expansion of Non -conforming Use Variance The Engineering Department also submitted a list of recommended conditions to address hauling operations. These are included as recommended conditions of approval. Public Comments. This request has generated several comments from nearby residents; these are attached. Concerns include: impact on traffic, impact on roads, impact on wildlife, visual impact, and erosion control. 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 Sombrero Ranch consists of 288 acres. The stable operations are located at the corner of Big Thompson Avenue and Dry Gulch Road, and are zoned for commercial use (CO Commercial Outlying). The majority of the property, including the proposed storage area, is zoned for residential use (RE-1 Rural Estate). This area includes the horse trails and hay storage area. This renders the property non -conforming in terms of the development code, therefore necessitating the variance request to expand the commercial use of the property. Section 6.1.C.1 of the development code states that "a non -conforming use shall not be altered or extended." If located on the commercially zoned portion of the property, the proposed outdoor storage would be a use -by -right, and would have to comply with screening requirements outlined in Section 7.13 of the development code. 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 commercial use may continue. Section 6.3.B allows for repair and normal maintenance to keep a nonconforming use is a safe condition shall be permitted. The proposed stockpiling of material is intended to provide for Tong -term maintenance of the property. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is substantial in that it would allow a two -acre area with several feet of fill materials to be stockpiled for the next 10-12 year. The 1895 Big Thompson Avenue Page 3 of 7 Expansion of Non -conforming Use Variance stockpile area is not substantial in relation to the overall size of the property (nearly 300 acres). View to the southwest through the proposed stockpile area 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: Many residents of the North End feel the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, as demonstrated by the volume of written comments submitted for review and consideration by the Board. Staff finds the primary impact to the neighborhood would be temporary, during the hauling operations. If the variance is approved with the recommended conditions the long-term character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Neighborhood Concerns. As previously noted, the primary neighborhood concerns center on impact of traffic, visual impact of the stockpile, and potential environmental impacts such as erosion and weed infestation. 1895 Big Thompson Avenue Page 4 of 7 Expansion of Non -conforming Use Variance Visual Impact. The proposed storage site would be located behind mature trees (as viewed from Dry Gulch Road), approximately 100-vertical feet above Dry Gulch Road, and approximately 50-60 vertical feet above Stone Gate Drive. The site would be located approximately 700-feet east of Dry Gulch Road, with several hundred feet of vegetative buffer between the stockpile and road. Because of the long-term nature of the use, the storage pile should be vegetated with native grasses to mitigate visual impact, discourage invasive weeds, and prevent windblow and stormwater erosion. The temporary access should be reclaimed with native grasses after the hauling operations cease. mom °� muplw fo °, uJy I ir�ef%,' 6if; rat, itigkeilism Eger View from Dry Gulch Road up hill to proposed stockpile location (not visible through trees) Truck Traffic. The proposed use would generate approximately 1,500 truck trips over the course of several weeks. Once the hauling operations ceased and the access road reclaimed, the overall impact on the neighborhood would be minimal. 1895 Big Thompson Avenue Expansion of Non -conforming Use Variance Page 5 of 7 Approval of the variance would reduce additional hauling activities to the Sombrero property in the future because the materials would be available on -site. Disapproval of the variance would not eliminate the use of McGraw Ranch Road, Devils Gulch Road, or Dry Gulch Road during the dredging operations and hauling operation: the pond would still be dredged and materials removed from the McGraw Ranch Road site. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The proposed hauling operation could have a negative impact on both the privately maintained McGraw Ranch Road and the publicly maintained Devils Gulch and Dry Gulch Roads. The Larimer County Engineering Department has recommended conditions of approval to mitigate such impact. If approved, storing the materials on the Sombrero Ranch property would have the least overall impact on the county road system because it would minimize the travel distance; if disapproved, the materials would most likely need to be hauled out of the Valley, increasing the impact on the roads. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the property was purchased in 1995. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant could truck in construction materials as needed. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: If approved, EVDC Section 7.2.0 Restoration of Disturbed Areas and Section 7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical should apply. 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 recommends several conditions to mitigate the impact of the variance request. These conditions address traffic control, erosion control, site restoration, development agreement, and form of credit. 1895 Big Thompson Avenue Page 6 of 7 Expansion of Non -conforming Use Variance The variance request to deposit the materials on the Sombrero Ranch provides an opportunity to impose operational requirements on the overall dredging process; without the variance, there would be no opportunity for county engineering review of the dredging and hauling operations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Materials stored on Sombrero Ranches shall be used only on the Sombrero Ranch site for repairs and normal maintenance of the existing trails and roads. Approval of this variance does not provide approval for expansion of the existing trail and/or road system. 2. The stockpiled material and access road shall be restored in accordance with EVDC Section 7.2.0 Restoration of Disturbed Areas no later than May 31 2015. 3. A development agreement and form of credit to ensure site restoration shall be submitted for review and approval prior to any site work. 4. The modification of the access off of Dry Gulch Road shall require an Access Permit from the Larimer County Engineering Department. The issuance of the access permit shall include improving the access to meet the County access requirements and shall also include the requirement to reclaim the access to the pre -construction condition. 5. A detailed construction plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Larimer County Engineering Department. The plan shall detail the proposed access road on the site to the location where the materials will be deposited. The temporary access road shall be built to minimize disturbance and the potential for erosion. The plan shall also address screening, as required by EVDC Section 7.13 Outdoor Storage Areas, Activities and Mechanical Equipment. 6. A State Construction Activity Permit is required prior to commencement of the hauling operation. The detailed stormwater management plan required with the State permit shall also be submitted to the Larimer County Engineering Department and the Town of Estes Park Planning Department for review and approval. 7. A traffic control plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to commencing the hauling operations. 8. A haul plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Larimer County Engineering Department. The plan shall describe procedures for maintaining a safe and functional road for the residents during the hauling operations. For example, dust suppression may be needed, pull outs for passing, the requirement for only 1 truck at one time on the road, where equipment stored ovemight and during weekends, vehicle tracking pad, etc. 9. All other necessary State permits shall be issued prior to the commencement of the hauling operations. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENYthe requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). 1895 Big Thompson Avenue Page 7 of 7 Expansion of Non -conforming Use Variance ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE STATEMENT OF INTENT Parcel 2520000003 Sombrero Ranch Inc 1896 Big Thompson Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 This application is for a variance to grant Sombrero Ranch permission to locate a stockpile of imported silt and gravel (from a nearby flood debns site) to re- surface and stabilize horse trails and stable area operations at its Estes Park facility.. A neighboring ranch (within 5 driving miles) has an immediate need to relocate this material (-20,000 cu. yds. from an infllied private lake), which can now be transported this fall, given less traffic In the area, With Sombrero's RE-1 Rural Estate zoning, the size and placement requirements of this material, become an issue necessitating a variance. The size of the pile to be located on Sombrero Ranch property (to be redistributed over the next 10 to 12 years) would require two (2) acres, stockpiled six (8) feet high to contain-18,000 cu, yds, (-2000 yds. is to be used at the Moraine Stables in Rocky Mountain National Park) The nature of this project exceeds the minimum allowable footprint for development, given the duration of the stockpile. The reason for the variance is to facilitate Ig4 distinct needs„ ONE - reclamation export of flood debris from a 2.5-acre inundated lake (located 3 miles north of the town limits) to a site that, TWO - needs to establish a long term, on -site source of granullar material to mitigate dust, mud, soil erosion and soil migration conditions, associated with operating a commercial horse stable with riding trails. Review Standards 1. Special existing circumstances or conditions exist The proposed debris stockpile site (at the north end of the Sombrero Ranch property) Is conveniently accessed off Dry Gulch Road through an existing site entry gate. This approadi does not Interfere with any side road drainage, the Fringe Flood Area along Dry Gulch Is mapped some 1500 feet south of this access point (see attached map) The proposed debns stockpile site is hidden from view; An approximate 70' rise in topography occurs approximately 480 feet east of Dry Gulch Road behind which the debris stockpile will be located.. This ridge and the natural forestry on the parcel hide the stockpile site from common view from Dry Gulch Road and the property to the north. 2. Practical Difficulty a. The current use of the subject property area is undeveloped sloping meadow. The property has been in use without the variance, but the owners would like the opportunity to improve the overall quality of their properly by recycling locally evadable materials to stabilize migrating horse traffic soils. b. The variance could be considered substantial given the life of the project, however the lasting impact on the site and immediate Impact on surrounding properties is not substantial. The site will be returned to Its original meadow -like condition after depletion of stockpile materials and the soils will be preserved due to the debris stockpile hailing the migration and erosion patterns. c. The essential character of the neighborhood and/or adjacent properties will not be altered or negatively Impacted visually or operationally by this debris stockpile location See the site proximity map attached. ct The variance wdi have no effect on public utilities. Neither are there utilities within the proposed stockpile area or access circulation. e. Without a variance, both sites (the originating and receiving, Sombrero Ranch) will suffer from losing this unique opportunity to restore a natural lake (at the originating site) and establishing a natural 10+ -year silt and gravel stockpile to help stabilize disturbed site soils. If these operations are conducted independent of each other, the cost/benefit analysis is no longer feasible for either project 3. The conditions reflected in the application are not general. They are specific to this particular strategy, properly size and stockpile configuration per the proposed manner of installation and per the existing grading conditions. The manner of installation is a bulldozer which will push the dumped material into a pile approximately six (6) feet high. The existing grading condition is a consistent downhill slope at 5-B%. The edge of the stockpile will be lined with a three (3) foot high silt fence. 4. No reduction in the lot size or increase in the number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5. The plan proposed is not excessive: the original desire was to augment the site soils with granular material from conventional suppliers, but the logistics of standard deliveries does not integrate well with Sombrero Ranch's program dynamics, given fluctuating trail rides and varying maintenance needs. The addition of the large debris stockpile enables the owner to make multiple transports internally as well as externally, depending on individual site locations, whenever a need arises. Furthermore, the designated clearing is ideal In size and location for receiving, storing and distributing a sustainable, free draining and otherwise unattainable resource like this, due to the secluded nature of the site, as further Indicated by the photos and maps included with the application. 6. The variance does not propose a non -permitted or prohibited use. Prepared by: Jim Fletemeyer, ASLA Fletemeyer & Lee Associates, Inc. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date Record Owner(s):_c0 Street Address of Lot ialtig�HO Legal Descnption: Lot: NIA Block! NIA Tract: NIA Subdfvislon: #200572-920 TOS R72 Parcel iD # : 2 ; 20000003 pjunlr n, Lot Size 186.75 GROSS ACRES Zoning RE-1 RURAL ESTATE Existing Land Use AORICMI,TURAL GRAZINQIAND VII Proposed Land Use SJLT AND GRAVEL STOCKPILE ON 2 ACRES Existing Water Service 0 Town ® Welt ❑ Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service 0 Town ® Wall ❑ Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service ® EPSD 0 UTSD ❑ Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service I EPSD ❑ UTSD ❑ Septic ❑None PROPERTY Existing Gas Service DXcei ®other Y I8 CITY GAS Site Access Of not on public street) DRY GULCH NO.�....,�, Are there wetlands on the site? Yes w No: NOT IN SUBJECT AREA Variance Desired (Development Code Section #t): + „3.C.2 Name of Primary Contact Person M F Complete Mailing Address 1011 2ND,AVENME. QT.,'C 210144-0036 Prima Contact Person is ❑Owner ❑ scant Consuitan sneer ®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) ®1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" a 20') *" ®1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 1 T') IN Digital copies of plats/plans In TIFF or PDF format entailed to planningerestes org The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B,VI1.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies dew site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Pork, .n P O, Box 1203 4. 170 MacGregor Avenue 4‘ Estes Park CO 80517 Curnmvnty nevelopment Department Phone :9701577-372y +. Fax 1970) 58640249 4. www,estes.orglComr"7ev itr:vlsed I1/20/09 Consultant!Engineer 1M FLEE Mailing Address 1 .°",a'Yf;„r,":Y. IruNo;c,117dr;'n„4,111V Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax .....;_. Email CQDYRE XWALKEROGMAIL.COM Applicant CODY REX WALKER Mailing Address.1895 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, ESTES PARK, COLORADO.80517. Prone 970-586-3244 Cell Phone Fax Email CODYREXINALKERO MAIL.COM ASIA ED AV ...N .;, NI ! T Phone 303-443-3750 Cell Phone Fax Email JFLETEMEYER@FLABOULDERCOM_ 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; All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 1 t ,20/09 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I. I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true end 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 subplot to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estee 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 amine at ► 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 t=VDC. ► 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 resub mittal fee will be charged if my application le incomplete ► The Community Development Department wits notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. t► 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 ft is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the comers of my property and the proposed buddingfatnxture comers must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted end the staking completed no later than len (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 applleant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within ono (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 B D) Record Owner PLEASE' PRINT C ! ,s Y REX WALKER Applicant PLEASE Pr'unrr JIM FLETEMEYER ,Signatures: Record Owner Appbca Reined I 1 /20/09 "NI 01111111110111 Nonconforming Uses. Structures and Lots § 8.1 Applicability CHAPTER 6. NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES AND LOTS § 6.1 APPLICABILITY A. General. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to uses, structures (except signs) and lots that were legally existing as of the effective dateof this of Code, FCebruary ao 1, 2000,hem or but that become nonconforming as the result of the application om reclassification of the property under any subsequent amendments to this Code. B. Signs. For provisions applicable to nonconforming signs, see Chapter 8. § 6.2 PURPOSE It is the general policy under this Code to allow nonconforming uses, structures or lots to continue to exist and to be put to productive use. The limitations of this Chapter are Intended to recognize the interests of property owners in continuing to use their property but to reasonably control expansions, reestablishment of discontinued uses and the reestablishment of nonconforming buildings and structures that have been substantially destroyed. g 6.3CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES OR STRUCTURES uthority to Continue. Noncontormitles shall be allowed to continue in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. B. Repairs and Maintenance. Repairs and normal maintenance required to keep nonconforming uses and structures In a safe condition shall be permitted, provided that no alterations shall be made except those allowed by this Chapter or required by law or ordinance. C. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 1U�NNNNNNNNNNh�nnx 1 Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Uses Prohibited. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, except as allowed In §6.4 below, a nonconforming use shall not be altered or extended. The extension of a nonconforming use to a portion of a structure which was built for the nonconforming use at the time of adoption of this Code is not an extension of a nonconforming use. (Ord. 21.11 §1) pig„ 2. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforming Structures limited. Except as allowed in §3.6.0 am1, of this Code, a structure conforming as to use, but nonconforming as to height, setback or coverage, may be altered or extended, provided that the alteration or extension does not result in a new violation of this Code or increase the degree or extent of the existing nonconformity. (See §3.6, Variances; a variance may be sought to permit alterations or extensions to a nonconforming structure not otherwise allowed by this Chapter.) (Ord. 21-11 §1) D. Nonconforming as to Parking. 1. Nonconformity as to off-street parking or loading shall not subject the use to the conditions of this Chapter. 2. A use that is nonconforming as to off-street parking or loading shall not be changed to another use requiring more off-street parking or loading unless the additional required parking or loading is provided. Supp,. 12 6.1 IlIIhIIIIIIIpp�I lllll�lllwl1111111111� 111111111100004011,, ;J11 u ill illl° IL' o u,„'u,1o" iuull �'V���n ui,;,' ild II uwl" 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111J1111111111 .III!! Ilppuullllllllllll �li��uuuuliiii ! ;'q!urr hll� uuuuuuuuuuuuu10 ;;„1,, !!i ill!IIIIII'ii'�i6r m�l�illiiiillll!�'Ilw' i4sll!!;;!Iq!!�IliIiWIIV�w'i'r!IIIIII it ;°V,Vggl min �'ll!IIII��'lll, 1,iiiiiiiiiiiiiii IIIIIIIIIIIIIIlulp1ll��ll'I�i 111111,111, lm ''91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111W� 1111111111111,111,11119,11,11,11)), U'llhCiu 1'1I,P, j16 i11!,Il 11 1,�q li iih DATE: July, 2014 SCALE: 1 ` - 100' 400001),010000100, 1000100°' mamma 000 mq#ce. etefge dteetele0tt 100,. lkj S '64, mbrero ch : '11"1"1:07" Oroperty-tme 4007000000000 A or # 0,00,00004000, b < g (-) con 0,0#0000 f 0 ## 4 44, 1 4' 0004000, 000, 00000000000,00,00, '0000000,0004 014(110 4,00,11111W tt0 •.. x44,, 'MOWN A3JdOE1d 11,110,1 '°' °;00, '00,00000; 000000 0000000,0 n'd ululuoo11111111111111111111111111"' " Illii111111ll iliiii 1111" 111111111111111 View to East off Dry Gulch Road Photo Exhibit #1 1 11111,111 11 11111110, 0 LC) CO z Z (G co c) CNI co hCi) c) C `G? rr713 . 2 0 tU ~n a w a I GO r coLo in co c w w I.-W I� �' wn¢. wa or co C;2 H Z Z LLI °§awJ Z LLI w CN Cr) CO CO T T CD "ri:C3 co co co u)¢ W O. w a T 0 co co co Lc) 1� 1-* o o oN N cV oin hhh ti Oco co O 1.0 co i coo 0 N C` J C'7 v,Q U)i< u)¢ Q W d W a W 0- W n. T CO CO 00 o.v z � or, Z Z Z Z }^ QQ CO a T W W � I,l.1 CO I CO aa Cp%- co > colA 1 Zcc ri- W W Z W _ ~ cdceY Z Z J❑ W ga� �Q wt-OZ» 1 NI 0 0 N m 2 W III 0 �>w 09DQ co m a ,- F Z g IS M N co W W Y w CC CC_ CC1 < it L►- < I— W FZ cn 0) W Y re X 0 0 0 o co 0 co 0 0 , (i) t(i) < 0 N W a. J h- �J w 0_ 0 tY VwO }m =0 MOcn N (0 Lo it, N N N 0 wCL v, C/) W 0 trs r'X 0 M 0 Cin 0 4) m N. 03 Q a cov 0 W co a w jz a w a ❑ J LL W W 0 2 Q M0a0- Q U o U Z CO Q N L as az N O 0 0 0 ID Z 0 J � am Ure'U) �Y N 0 0 0 CO OD 0 O M M M M 0 co O r 8 0 0 0 00 N O 1 0 co cn< cia u0i Wa rWa }Wa CO ti 0 CO • H H • Wa re WO.. ce co Q m ti o � � Y Cl. w a a gre0 J 0 J❑ J N❑,',�uQ'5�Q� w�'J 0- s5 5J ❑� u) crs 0 CO 0 U 0 coO o CO ID Ca co co 1—a W a I W its its CO CO C1 a0 0 U z z 1� z w Y UZ W a 0 w- z Y D Y H W �¢] J `! m O J m o 0 _ < o rnYuFm- O 72_ 3,'❑ uFrsiC O. a' Q Q W �y mw a Z Qio c0 ceu' G. < >- -1 0 H - a W CC C C Z ❑ ❑ ,ID ❑ o > W III, § x', cc , Q 0 0 M 0 0 LO O ❑ U co 0 >. 0aui z o0ce H Q 0g 0 W Q 2 Q ZO• Z'QW—CCI-< >-UO2YIXt-CO0 M 0 0 0 0 N ID ti 0 0 0 0 ID ti 0 co co 0 O O G) r) (D 4�7 M N CO 0 ▪ 0 Cs./ coCO 0 0 O Ner) co.) mr r �(0 � � l! 0 (l N r M N N O (Q ram,.' (') M C) pV) C9 cts N cC) M c wJ Y W Y al SeW Y W Y w Y Iwil Y W Y W Y uwj cc WO. Wco a WQ W ct WO. Wa IC; W°d' Cd Wd0. Wa wa. Wa 0 0 z 0 iLE "u~i Q u~> °d 0 ,W ti N r 0c 0 v 1,o 0 000 c o0 0o 00 U z hh Oa. h LL� Q O O CVZZ C�a ID co 0 m m o3 ❑ O r CeiW W � O ,g Z 1F W° - ❑ J U CC 0 Zg I-O Ce - I1- 1 U_ "+ pCO O� WCI)LUL. Z� co a °z¢ t4iLLQJ0 WCO O0)- W 0 a Q 2 C Z • m 0 n >CC - W O U ocr)) OJ ❑ el c) 0 0 N CV CO CV CV CO I CV CNI CNI I CV J Ce ow0 0 12 o w, W Z J 1- W Q w< 2 W T.NaZ 1-Z i¢ c ¢ 000 Da0 o I CO G O p "' N N �N �N `N N pN N N �N N N N J W W W O ▪ o -J CI CI LIJ W apC¢J-J• 04 o � Zcv 26. Q N Lce) Uw Y w Y w V) iWO co w0- N 1-0 co -....-., F w Y W Y w `IW0 wa WQ ti r u7 GO () ri ..- le) � ..,- NG M 0 co hhUJ u) w Q M toro i , J, c..) N 1,8 p CO LIJ W Z Z z z z z .5 V3m t0 T W Wtr, W¢ W T W Q d cr, OG Q ca 0. W co _ z ' z w 00 �_ U w ❑ 2 cn U O. 5 ct z LL o m w W< LW < W LL W U J '>W (7, > W 11 `q> W . > W p J < , < f� Q ,- _ < fV co 0 0 0 O co A u) (0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N co co jai) v a W a N. h 0 co co Lu < w a Er- 0 u0 in co O d N ❑ w�0¢w 0 3 2 5>� 0 La U ? L.T. 1CI � Q UW T J 0'cv2Y ?-'� N in .r T Ioo in o CD O 0 in N �to ❑ < 0 2 U c00 �c0zc0= 0 w w 0aJF W J rT 0 in Co 40 cv cn co o N N M M ti 0 43) r 1 CG f+ CO Cpts N 03 hL (! ll! Y�naWCO W CL LL W 0_ cal i.117) ti I ti ti CO cO CO O U 0 fl w U H us 0,- co t12LL 00 Z to •v 0< C W❑ Ce UJ Z W Y Lei ❑ LLU 0. 0 to N 0 co to ti 0 ry0 0 0 �p CO 00 0 M co 04 �IN co 0 CO v~i< N< w 0 W @. I 8 0 U z oo CC$Wz w� ,...._,Q Q11> W00 LIJ L*J d Nm or NCw li Y wLLO U --I 0 uJ • U Q Z = UZ OUP O p �a��w� mZW UJW k03 F ii1LI O p w w • J w Q W w w p CC Et W ❑ o Q i— re `� W> W h _J N J P az....-aQ „..gg¢'X 'X 0 L() N N IN ur3 cn H 1w a. — J Y (NI CD , CO 07 0 . 4710 — it) (3) CD C•1 00 I,- 0 N cs, ix, -• 1*--^ 8 8 (c) ,8 8 CD N to o 0 8 0 0 1 = i to ' o i c) 0 o o Z u-, = l'- o c" cNi (NI . tv) 0 N co cal , c.) , (r) co ' , L —., — --•,,,,...., „„, .„, , „ • ,Z• 0) V) • til I— CC Lil 0 LU =‘ ul ILJ Lu co lco cr) 0) LLJ O. , , LI Li_ ill CL W 0_ col-- <IX ir) < ' ci)— <II • ' cr) to r-- CNI Cr, 0 Cr3 N CNI LO LC, 0 0 0 N ...... -..., C.1Z) I II 0 o N o cr, o •1*-- t-• t•-• r-- t•- Icl,to-)) ^cro- ,-L- t- i:i- -. L 3 ru- o o.0 o o k=qo co , co , co . . . . 4 1 CO CO A z 0 en 2 >- W LU W W W co ci •cl CC re CC CL CC -13 CD 1 LT. LT LT. LI izi co D • Tr re) CI 01 ca 0 ce, 0 (7) '-0 18 0'- Lo ci, c*/ co f CO co ce, o tcP) S Loo g i s 0 0 ^ C.) W u) < W 0- U.I UJ W W L. 1 11 LL LL re ii: cx ti 0 Cf) CI 01 CI CI) • ce,c2re,°23f:ci7-' re [ 4 to Ic(J) w Ct Ce cn < 111 LU CL X X 0 •0 03 co 103 to 0 '- Op :0 (Ili CL c) : a. ..zr §o } (^^D Z Z co 0 13- c.))- ,C4 W I— • co ma. ILIJ ILL4 Z = • 0 v) u) 0 2 E >- 2 0 Z,JLiir g.u.1 ce < Z 0 < < x Lu 0 0) 0 CC < CC u- —J (/) Q. 0 z < z < 2 0 --d) .3. 07 to to co co co c+1 c." 00 E1 E c‘l N N N N1. 0 9/4/2014 Town of Estes Park Mail - Sombrero Ranch Estates Variance Sombrero Ranch Estates Variance Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:03 PM To: "Shirk, Dave" <dshirk@estes.org>, Phil Kleisler <pkleisler@estes.org>, "Lyons, Marc" <Iyonsma@co.larimer.co.us> Cc: Clint Jones <jonescd@co.Iarimer.co.us> Dave: My comments are as follows with recommended condition below that: 1. Mcgraw Ranch Road is a private road and the legal ability to use this road for the proposed use would be between the owners of the road and the person wanting to use the road. 2. The County road system is a public road system. The County does not have the ability to stop the hauling of the material as long as the applicant will be using legal load limits and trucks. 3. The requirement for traffic control and flaggers below should address safety concerns at the intersections. Engineering recommends that the following conditions are attached to any approvals of this application: 1. The modification of the access off of Dry Gulch Road will require an Access Permit from our office. The issuance of the access permit will include improving the access to meet the County access requirements and it will also inlcude the requirement to reclaim the access to the pre -construction condition. 2. A detailed construction plan shall be submitted that details the proposed access road on the site to the location where the dirt will be deposited. The temporary access road shall be built to minimized disturbance and the potential for erosion. 3. A State Construction Activity Permit will be required prior to commencement of the hauling operation. The detailed stormwater management plan required with the State permit shall also be submitted to the Larimer County Engineering Department and the Town of Estes Park Planning Department for review and approval. 4. A traffic control plan will need to be submitted to, and approved by, the Larimer County Engineering Department prior to commencing the hauling operations. 5. A haul plan needs to be submitted that describes procedures for maintaining a safe and functional road for the residents during the hauling operations. For example, dust suppression may be needed, pull outs for passing, the requirement for only 1 truck at one time on the road, etc. 6. Ali other necessary State permits shall be issued prior to the commencement of the hauling operations. Traci Shambo, P.E. Latimer County Engineering Department 200 West Oak St, Suite 3000 P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 498-5701 tshambo •; larimer.org Dave Shirk <dshirk@estes.org> To: Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> Thank you. [Quoted text hidden] Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM httpsalmail.google.corn/maii/u/Onu€=2&€k=6ed2499adc&v€ew=pt&search=€nbox&th-1483dc33fdd8daeB&s€mi=1483dc33fdd8dae6&sim1=148415abf2fb.,, 112 [own of Estes Park Mail - Variance - Sombrero Ranch and Scott and ... https:/mail.google.comlmaillu/0/?ui=2&ik=ala80c521a&view=pt&s... �uu jl Karen Thompson ckthompson@estes.org> Variance - Sombrero Ranch and Scott and Teresa Beck 1 message sestespark@aol.com <sestespark@aoLcom> Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:14 PM To: kthompson@estes.org, frangrooters@frii.com, peterplaut@beyondbb.com, sestespark@aol.com August 22, 2014 Karen Thompson Executive Assistant for the Community Development Department We have been residents of McGraw Ranch Road Association since 1990 and the State of Colorado since 1933. The variance which was submitted by Sombrero Ranches does not reveal that the ranch submitting the 20,000 cubic yards of alluvial material is from the Lost Antler Ranch (owners Scott and Teresa Beck) located at the end of McGraw Ranch Road. The material would be hauled in large tandum dump trucks 1000 (plus or minus) ROUND trips across land owned by the Rocky Mountain National Park and along the McGraw Ranch Road controlled by the McGraw Ranch Road Association property owners. This is where we wish to register a major complaint based upon the following point which will cause: Interference with the fives of wildlife, walkers, hikers, runners, bicyclists, motorcyclists, automobile drivers, pickup drivers, and recreational vehicle drivers. Also, the requesting owners of both variance properties also must have the following: 1. Dust abatement for the entire McGraw Ranch Road. 2. Control the speed of their vehicles to 20 miles per hour. 3. Control turning radius of their vehicles at right and left hand turns. 4. Control full stops of their vehicles at stop signs. 5. Have their vehicles honor property signs. 6. Prevent further damage in areas of springs on the roadway by their vehicles. Thank you for your consideration of these important items. Donald K. and Sylvia E. Adams 2081 Puma Drive Estes Park, CO 80517. 1 o;f 1 8/22/2014 1:27 PM 8/20/2014 Tawn of Estes Park Mall - Sombrero Ranches Dirt Stockpiling Request Sombrero Ranches Dirt Stockpiling Request Peter Plaut <peterplaut@beyondbb.com> To: dshirk@estes.org Dave, Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM I am an Estes Valley resident and live at 2500 Puma Drive, just offMcGraw Ranch Road. I recently leamed ofthe variance request from Sombrero Ranches to stockpile a large amount of dirt on their property offDry Ciulch Road. I also learned that the dirt is to come from property owned by Scott Beck at the end of McGraw Ranch Road, which was not disclosed in the request. The request sounds reasonable to me and will solve problems for both properties. However, moving the dirt, estimated in the request at 20,000 cubic yards, will take at Least 1,500 trips by heavy dump trucks. Those trucks will have to pass over public land of Rocky Mountain National Park, private land owned by a number of people along McGraw Ranch Road, and Devils Gulch and Dry Gulch county roads. When you do your staff assessment ofthis project, could you please require an assessment of the impact and a plan for mitigation of damage ofthis truck traffic on these roads with respect to traffic management of vehicles on the narrow McGraw Ranch Road, impact of the added truck traffic on visitors to the Cow Creek Trail Head and McGraw Ranch, control of speeds ofthe trucks, cleaning of dirt that will fall from the trucks onto the paved roads, damage to the intersection of McGraw Ranch Road and Devils Gulch Road where the trucks tnust make a 130 degree turn, damage to all of the roads that will be caused by the concentrated heavy loads over a short time span and the attendant repairs, and other impacts as you may see. In other words, please do not consider this variance in isolation, as transporting that much dirt will have a significant impact other than just piling the dirt on the Sombrero property. Thank you. Peter Plaut 2500 Puma Drive Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dave Shirk <dshirk@estes.org> To: Peter Plaut <peterplaut@beyondbb.com> Thank you for the comments Peter. We are coordinating review with the Larimer County Engineering Department, and these are issues they are reviewing. We have been in contact with the Larimer County Access Coordinator, and additional information has been requested from the applicant. We will be finalizing review the first week of September, and the report will be posted on the Town website. [Quoted text hidden] David W. Shirk, AICP Senior Planner, Estes Park Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:56 PM .estes.org https://mail.google.comlmail/u/Ortuu=2&i1 6ed2499ade&uetiwpt&search=into th=147f00ca6ddoc2c6&sim1=147f00caeddcc2c6&simi=147f534c7162dca3 142 To: Members of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment RE: Sombrero Ranch storing 2 acres, 6 feet deep, of "silt and gravel" on a s side Gentlemen, This request is wrong on so many levels. We will briefly point out our concerns. Ecology Concerns-- Need to tear out significant number of trees; Loss of habitat for elk, deer, bobcats, bear; Bare dirt encourages growth of noxious weeds. Erosion Concerns-- Heavy rain washing silt & gravel down the steep slope and blocking the Stream flow; Frequent strong winds blowing silt creating a problem with dust for all neighboring properties. Problems with Aesthetics-- Visual Impact on Dry Gulch Road by replacing beautiful, mature trees with 2 acres, 6 feet deep of silt & gravel. Sombrero's Letter of intent declares minimal visual impact to the road and the homes to the north; however nothing is mentioned about the numerous homes to the west of Dry Gulch Road and Good Samaritan. Safety Concerns-- 20,000 cubic yards of material translates into 800 trips, loaded & 800 return trips empty. These heavily laden large semi -trucks will be competing with heavy vehicle traffic, bicycles, joggers, hikers and school busses. Narrow Dry Gulch Road has little or no shoulders and no turn lanes. In Opposition to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan The North End Key Issues: #3—"Abundant wildlife is found within the planning area, and design considerations should be given to maintaining and enhancing habitat, and minimizing disruption to migration routes." #4—"Steep slopes exist within the planning area. Development should not be allowed to negatively impact the visual sensitivity of these areas." Future Land Use: "Natural features such as drainage ways should provide a framework for future development..." Violation of the Estes Valley Development Code- 1) 10.5.A.5—Orientation of Land Uses: "Multiple land uses within subdivisions shall be properly oriented and situated within the subdivision to provide maximum convenience to the residents, PROTECT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES, PROVIDE ADEQUATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC ROADS AND PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND GENERAL COMMUNITY." 2) 7.12.H.1.am-mm Transportation- Levels of Service: All developments shall be required to demonstrate THAT THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT on existing levels of service, ACCESS VEHICULAR MOVEMENT ON ANY ARTERIAL COLLECTOR STREET OR INTERSECTION WITHIN %a MILE OF THE SITE..." 3) Definition #12—Adverse Impact: SHALL MEAN A CONDITION THAT CREATES, IMPOSES, AGGRAVATES OR LEADS TO INADEQUATE, IMPRACTICAL, UNSAFE OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS ON A SITE PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT..." Therefore, we sincerely implore you to deny this variance request. am-0(72 /7a 3 S7-oy6-4't, 4( Robert D. and Candace J. Gordon 1844 Stonegate Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 577-0134 August 20, 2014 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Subject: Response to Sombrero Ranch Request for Variance To Members of the Board of Adjustment: As 12 year residents of Stonegate Dr., we do not want the variance granted for the following reasons which include some unanswered questions: • We have not seen the results of any independent study validating the claims made by the applicant in the application for the variance such as "the proposed debris stockpile site is hidden from view" and addressing potential environmental health risks associated with the project. • We also are concerned about the potential negative environmental impact to the adjacent area to the proposed site as our neighbors Stanley and Judith Schaffer have articulated in a letter to the Board of Adjustment. • Is it known that the debris in the proposed stockpile will be free of toxicity? • We are concerned that the truck traffic required to haul the 18,000 cu. yards of debris will damage Dry Gulch Road and make travel on Dry Gulch less safe. • Is Sombrero Ranch, Inc. being paid to receive the relocated material? In summary, we ask that the variance not be granted. Sincerely yours, kWPA-44/v Robert D. and Candace J. Gordon August 21, 2014 Estes Park Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Sombrero Ranch Request for Variance I am a Stonegate Drive resident and wish to express my misgivings about the subject Variance. Imagine a cubic box with 1-foot dimensions for height, depth and width. Now fill that cubic foot box with fine particles of silt and clay along with larger particles of sand and gravel. This Variance requests the right to store an equivalent of 522,720 boxes with no lids in an apparent open area for 10-12 years. That seems excessive for what the Adjustment Request acknowledges in Review Standard 1 is a "debris stockpile". What guarantees are being offered for the next 12 years? Perhaps if a cash bond in the amount of $25 million is posted to ensure the local residents' property can be restored due to extreme weather conditions or the stockpile is either covered or in an enclosed space my concerns would be mitigated to some degree, but I do not see either of these ideas in the Request. As currently stated, I have no choice but to oppose this Variance. 1856 Stonegate Drive Estes Park, CO Fuh 1882 Devils Gulch Road Estes Park, CO 80517 August 20, 2014 The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment: Re: the REQUEST FOR VARIANCE STATEMENT OF INTENT for parcel 2520000003 Sombrero Ranch, Inc., 1895 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 (received July 23, 2014) Please record our opposition at the upcoming meeting of the Board of Adjustment regarding the above mentioned Variance request. Our concerns are as follows: 1. The stockpile of silt and gravel ought not to be visible from any portion of Dry Gulch Road or Devils Gulch Road. Additionally, with the 6' 2 acre pile being located on the side of a hill, it is likely that any drainage from the site will flow directly into Dry Gulch and onto Dry Gulch Road. This happened recently, in September, 2013. Furthermore, 3' of silt fence will be ineffective in containing any drainage and run off. Further, large stands of trees will need to be cut down to make room for this pile. 2. Heavier truck traffic on Devils Gulch, H Bar G, and Dry Gulch Roads to the entrance of this suggested stockpile will further degrade the already damaged roads that continue to be heavily used with the rebuilding of the Glen Haven area that is still wrecked from the September 2013 flood. 3. Blowing dust is a major concern from not only our perspective but also presents a large health concern. This site is directly across from a large senior citizen community the Good Samaritan Village. We make daily wind and precipitation reports to both our state climatologist Nolan Doeskin at CSU and also to NOAA in Boulder. The fact is that this area is subject to high winds. 4. This proposal does not seem to be essential for the operation of Sombrero Stables. We have been informed that the Sombrero Ranch is being compensated monetarily for storing this flood debris. Please consider our concerns as well as the concerns of the surrounding neighbors to this intrusive and unnecessary nuisance. Respectfully, hn R and 1<eborah K Edwards G L 2=Gc, Lec.,,%sL August 22, 2014 Estes Park Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 To whom it may concern, As an Estes Park resident, I take pride in our community and the surrounding area, and therefore feel compelled to respond to the recent request by the Sombrero Ranch for a variance of land use. Specifically the request is to allow two acres of land to be stockpiled with 6 feet of imported silt and gravel to be used to resurface and stabilize horse trails and the stables. It is also to serve as source of material for a "neighboring ranch" five miles away. In the variance statement, the amount of material was said to contain 18,000 cubic yards, but I think the correct number is (43,560 square feet per acre X 2 acres = 87,120 square feet. 87,120 square feet X 6 feet deep = 261,360 cubic feet. 261,360 cubic feet/27 cubic feet per cubic yard =19,360 cubic yards of material). This is obviously a minor difference, and depending upon soil density could be correct. However, it does raise issues about the accuracy of the variance request. How will this much material be moved, without large volumes of traffic, i.e. large trucks, and without significant damage to an already damaged road, i.e. Dry Gulch, and surrounding roads? How will the excess traffic impact existing traffic patterns, and pedestrian use of the road? I see no provisions to eliminate or even minimize effluent runoff from the proposed pile of material into the nearby creek and subsequently into the Big Thompson River. Has EPA been contacted to addresses the current use of material to fill in soil washed away by the September 2013 flood? How will the increase in material impact neighboring homes due to particulate matter being blown about during our high winds? Will the wildlife habit be impacted? Has this been addressed? 1 realize property owners have the right to use their land to the best of their ability, but stockpiling silt and gravel in an unsightly manner should be considered by the local authorities, especially when 3 feet of soil will exist above the proposed 3 foot retaining wall. Likewise greater detail should be provided on the actual use of the material, means of distribution and public impact. Thanks for your consideration of my comments. Respectfully, Russ Schneider 1680 Ptarmigan Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 303/807-1817 To the Board of Adjustment: V LOP I am a resident of Larimer County and live at 2148 McGraw Ranch Road, in Estes Park. I am president of the McGraw Ranch Road Association. McGraw Ranch Road is a private road that runs approximately three miles from the paved Devils Gulch Road to the original McGraw Ranch and approximately one half mile beyond. The road provides access to approximately 20 residences and to Rocky Mountain National Park at the Cow Creek trailhead. The road crosses about a mile of National Park property. On behalf of the association, I submit these comments pertaining to the Request for Variance filed by Sombrero Ranch to locate a stockpile of imported silt and gravel on Sombrero property off Dry Gulch Road. The variance request proposes to move some 20,000 cubic yards of dirt from a neighboring ranch where alluvial soil was deposited during last September's flood. The ranch where the dirt would be taken from is located at the north end of McGraw Ranch Road. The proposed variance would aid the owners of both properties by facilitating a clean-up of the originating site and provision of soil for trail maintenance at the other. We respect the rights of property owners to make reasonable use of their land, and acknowledge that this project could be a win -win for both owners. However, this is a request for a variance from established code provisions. Approval requires making an exception from established norms. Such approval must recognize that the impacts of the project go beyond the two properties. Moving that amount of dirt will interfere with residential traffic on McGraw Ranch Road and will impede visitor access to the Cow Creek section of Rocky Mountain National Park. The trucks will cause damage to the road. The high volume of loaded trucks may damage the county roads in the north end of the Estes Valley and have an adverse effect on vehicle traffic in this area. The owner of the ranch where the soil would be removed has indicated to our association that he plans to use 18 cubic yard tandem dump trucks to haul the dirt to the Sombrero location. He estimates there would be between 600 and 1100 round trips for the removal of up to 20,000 cubic yards of material. Our calculation calls for at least 1100 loads for trucks that size. Those are round trip numbers, meaning that there would be twice that number of trips each way across the road. This many trucks, traversing McGraw Ranch Road over a concentrated period, would be the heaviest use the road has ever experienced. Our primary concerns are safety of persons traveling McGraw Ranch Road and insuring that McGraw Ranch Road not be damaged by transport of the soil out of the originating site, and if it is damaged, that the road be repaired and restored. The road is a narrow (one to one and one half lanes wide) dirt road. Management of traffic on the road during the transport of the soil will be a serious safety problem. Based on the ranch owner's proposed schedule and the hauling requirements, during the times when hauling is in progress, there will always be at least one truck on the road. Anyone who uses the road during these times will always encounter a truck. We request that any approval of the variance be conditioned on receipt and review of a traffic control plan that addresses at least the following issues: Size and configuration of the trucks used for hauling the material Load limits Load covers Number of trucks that may be on the road at any one time Speed limits for the trucks Pull off points and procedures for passing Avoidance of blocking driveways and parking areas at McGraw Ranch Signage type and locations Flaggers Road closure to other traffic if deemed appropriate Suspension of hauling due to weather Communication Use of exhaust or Jake brakes Days of the week and times of the day for operations Retrieval of trucks and other vehicles that become stuck or disabled Dust control Temporary repairs to maintain safe passage Daily removal of debris The ranch owner indicated that he is flexible on when the work would be done (the time of day, the day of the week, the season of the year), but proposes that the hauling be done over a six -week period this fall. He stated he would repair any damage to McGraw Ranch Road, making it better when he is finished than it was when he started. He has also indicated he will manage the road condition aggressively during the process. If this variance is approved, we will work with him to develop a mutually satisfactory agreement, with appropriate bonding and insurance, to govern his use of the road for transport of the soil, but we have not begun the drafting or negotiation. We do not know whether we can agree on the terms for this agreement. We request that any approval of the variance request be conditioned on execution of an agreement that is satisfactory to our association. McGraw Ranch Road is a private road that is maintained by the owners of the land that the road crosses, including the National Park. The property owners along the road, including the National Park, assume the responsibility for maintaining the road. Use of the road is by permission. The property owners along McGraw Ranch Road and other property owners in the North End Ranches development have given each other easements to use the road for customary non-commercial residential access. The proposed use far exceeds the scope of those easements and the historical use of the road. Because of that, the ranch owner will need a license from owners of the private properties that the road crosses that gives him the authority to use the road for this exceptional purpose. Our association has the authority to maintain the road, but does not have the authority to act for the owners to permit crossing their properties with this amount of traffic. Additionally, we are a voluntary association, and not all of the property owners are members. Any agreement that we reach for management of the traffic, mitigation of damage, and repair of the road cannot satisfy the requirement that he obtain permission from the individual property owners for using the road as he proposes. Such a license cannot be assumed from publication or approval of the variance request, which does not identify where the alluvial soil will come from. The license needs to be obtained individually from each property owner. We request that any approval of the variance be conditioned on presentation to the board by the ranch owner of documented approval for passage granted by each property owner. We also request that any approval of the variance be conditioned on documented approval from the National Park for hauling the material across the portion of the road that is owned by the Park. Rebuilding the road may be a more extensive and costly endeavor than either we or the ranch owner anticipate. We are thus concerned that we may enter into an arrangement that could damage the road to the extent that we cannot afford to rebuild it if the ranch owner does not accomplish the repairs he currently states he will make. The association board and the owners of the property who give approval to use the road for this project must thus assume an unquantified risk. This is not our project, and we and the property owners should not assume any additional risk if the project goes ahead. We will need to have a credible indemnification from the ranch owner. We request that any approval of the variance be conditioned on confirmation from the association that we have obtained such an agreement to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the association and all property owners. We will work with the ranch owner to manage the transportation across McGraw Ranch Road should the project be approved. However, we also have concerns that thousands of truck trips will also damage the paved roads in the north end of the Estes Valley and will present safety issues for other users of the roads. We recommend that you obtain the review and concurrence of Larimer County on an appropriate traffic control plan before you act on this request for variance. The request for variance states that the soil will be removed to restore a natural lake (page I, numbered paragraph 2e). However, there was no natural lake in that area. The pond that the soil washed into was created by a man-made dam. This was originally a meadow with a stream running through it. Any alteration of the watercourse that results from this project will likely have to be reviewed by the Corps of Engineers and possibly the Colorado Division of Water Resources, because whatever is done other than to restore the original stream may fall in the jurisdiction of those agencies. We recommend that you notify both of these agencies of this request for variance and identify the originating site for their review. Any approval of this variance should be conditioned on completion of applicable reviews by these governmental authorities. In conclusion, we believe that the project can be accomplished without imposing an undue burden on public and private property only if all of the conditions described in this comment are met. If those conditions can be met, we do not object. But if the variance is not conditioned on all of the requirements noted above, we do object, and recommend that the variance be denied. Tha k you for yopj attention to this matter. Fran Grooters President, McGraw Ranch Road Association Board Town of Estes Park Mail - Variance Statement https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0nui.2&ik.a1a800521a&view,---pt&s Variance Statement of Intent 1 message Suzanne and Alan Miller <asmillerco©gmail.com> To: kthompson@estes.org aren Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at g:05 PM To the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment: This letter is in reference to the REQUEST FOR VARIANCE STATEMENT OF INTENT for Parcel 2520000003 Sombrero Ranch Inc., 1895 Big Thompson Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 received July 23, 2014. We wish to have our comments recorded at the upcoming meeting of the Board of Adjustment regarding the stated variance request. Our concerns are as follows: 1. The truck traffic with regard to the impact on Devils Gulch, the H Bar G and Dry Gulch Roads to the entrance of the proposed site for the stockpile are of a major concern. These roads are already under duress due to the September 2013 flood and the amount of heavy truck traffic that has been experienced with respect to the rehabilitation of Glen Haven. 2. The stockpile of silt and gravel should not be visible from any portion of Dry Gulch Road. As a free draining stockpile, it is also highly likely that any drainage of the site will flow directly into Dry Gulch as has happened in the past. It is highly doubtful that a 3' silt fence will have much of an effect in mitigating any drainage and run off concerns given the 6' high stockpile. Indeed a silt fence will not contain such a stockpile for 10 - 12 years as is the proposed duration of the stockpile. 3. Blowing dust is another major concern from our perspective. Given our winds throughout the year plus high winds of up to 80+ mph, it will be impossible to keep the debris, especially the silt, from blowing northward impacting the entire North End. 4. Finally, this proposal does not seem to be essential for the operation of Sombrero Stables and is certainly not fundamental in the success of the of 2 R/22/2014 11.10 AM town of Estes Park Mail - Variance Statement of tent https://mail.google.comlmai1lu101?uf^ 2&ik,,a1a80c521a&viewz::pt&s... property/business. It is our understanding that the Sombrero Ranch is actually being compensated monetarily for reclaiming this flood debris. Finally, with the stated impacts to the surrounding area and the lack of an actual need to acquire the silt and gravel, it would seem the negative impacts out weigh the need for a requested variance. Suzanne and Alan Miller 2700 Eagle Rock Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 «`0f 2 R/72/701411,19 AM August 20, 2014 Dear Members of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, I have recently been made aware of a request for variance by the Sombrero Ranch to establish a "silt and gravel" stockpile on the Ranch property just off Dry Gulch Road. As the acting president of Myers Estes Park LLC, which represents four families and five properties in the North End, I am writing to express our concerns and questions regarding this proposal. 1. We question whether the nature of the material to be moved and stockpiled is appropriate to the stated intended use, and whether the way it is proposed to be stored will really keep it in place. As a resident with a partial gravel driveway, I am personally very familiar with the fact that even the best recommended materials which are professionally built and maintained actively wash away in our intense rain storms as well as blow away in the very powerful Estes Valley winds. This magnitude of material moving downhill into the Dry Gulch area could create numerous problems with seasonal stream flow, regular rain runoff, and damage to the Dry Gulch Road. 2. The variance request indicates a lifespan of approximately 10-12 years. This makes the installation essentially permanent, and hence any potential problems of debris movement and appearance of the debris field are also essentially permanent. 3. We have heard estimates of 1000 plus truck trips will be required to move the debris from McGraw Ranch Road to Dry Gulch. We will leave it to the residents of McGraw Ranch Road to comment on what this load -bearing traffic may do to their private road. But many vary large trucks making the very tight turn from McGraw Road onto Devils Gulch at what is already a "blind curve" corner will pose a serious traffic hazard. Also that volume of very heavy trucks will likely damage the paved roads they must travel, which are already in a weakened and patched state from last fall's floods. As residents of the area to be impacted, we respectfully request that you give serious consideration to these concerns as you make your decision regarding this variance request. Sincerely, ine Myers Clark President, Myers Estes Park LLC 0,441,) Laura Davis 2781 Devils Gulch Rd Estes Park, CO 80517 720/231-6027 L3;rai59, 3 mill-. August 20, 2014 Estes Park Community Development Department P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Estes Park Community Development Department: As a year round resident of the North End of Estes Park I am writing to express my concern about the proposed Sombrero Ranch variance. The proposed project would create a 2 acre pile of silt and granular materials, the stated purpose to be used by Sombrero Ranch over the course of 10 to 12 years to improve their trails. How silt could possibly be considered an appropriate material to improve trails is beyond mei What is not stated are a number of Issues which will greatly impact not only the residents of the North End, but also users of Rocky Mountain National Park, as well as users of Dry Gulch, Devils Gulch, and McGraw Ranch roads. Since the site of the silt materials in the privately held lake does not appear to be a part of the public record, I can only comment based on hearsay as to where the materials are being transported from, and the route by which a purported 1000 truckloads will travel. The very lack of this information smacks of intentionally vague disclosure. While the destination of the silt, to a specific location out of sight on the Sombrero Ranch property, is well documented on the variance application, there is no mention whatsoever about how that giant pile of silt gets there, and from wherel Based on what I have heard, large semi -trucks will be traveling on McGraw Ranch Road, which is very likely to trash that road, Devils Gulch Rd and Dry Gulch Rd, all of which are already rife with potholes. It seems that the only winners in this scenario are a private land owner who has a lake full of silt, and Sombrero Ranch, who gets a new driveway, and payment for their removal of the materials. The rest of us will be dealing with considerably worsened road conditions, big truck traffic noise, and a big tax bill for repair of the damaged roads caused by this activity. I encourage the Community Development Department to reject this variance request unless much more detailed information is made public, and financial responsibility for the impact on the roads is taken by the private parties involved in this deal. Sincerely, August 20, 2014 Board of Adjustment Estes Park Community Development Dept. R.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Board Members, This letter is to address concerns of a request fora variance submitted by Sombrero Ranch to stockpile silt and gravel on their property. Silt and gravel piled six feet deep over two acres (two football fields) presents issues I would like you to consider before reaching a decision. As a neighbor who lives west of the project, here are my concerns: 1. The area proposed to contain that pile is in a small clearing and would require the removal of trees. 2. The entire ridge from the Sombrero Stables north to Eagle Rock is a VERY large wildlife habitat. It is a daily event to see elk, coyote, bobcat and deer in that area. Two acres of dirt, six feet tall, would greatly impact their activity and migration. 3. The proposal claims the six foot mountain of dirt would be contained by a three foot silt fence. Really? Because the dirt would be piled on a slope, what would keep all that dirt from becoming sludge during our rains, running down to the creek and creating further environmental issues to be dealt with. An Environmental Impact Study would be a MUST! 4. Another environmental factor you may be familiar with is wind. That amount of exposed dirt, which is not contained, will Not stay where it's put. The open meadows west of Dry Gulch experience extreme wind that has an effect on all things not bolted down. Good luck with loose silt piled six feet high. 5. A stockpile of dirt of that proportion will be an eyesore for any driver on Dry Gulch heading north. 6. Lastly, the noise required to: A) cut down and remove the trees, B) the trucks delivering and removing the dirt (for 10-12 years), and C) the bulldozer loading and packing the pile will greatly impact the quality of life for Good Sam residents and those living in the North End. Thank you for giving this issue serious consideration before making your decision. Sincerely, Nancy Hills 18 August 2014 Community Development Department Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 RE: Variance from EVDC 6.3.C2 —1895 Big Thompson Avenue Ms. Thompson, I (along with my nieces and nephew) own the acreage (including Lake Adrian/Adrian Pond) directly opposite the roadway (the ingress/egress) point where hundreds of truckloads of material would be delivered and removed. I am writing to formally object to the aforementioned variance. Per the application, the redistribution of stockpiled material would occur over a period of 10 to 12 years. As such, the variance would in effect permanently convert the subject property to an official dump site. Such a drastic change is use will surely degrade the entire residential area. Regardless, I also have several basic questions. Has the proposed material been analyzed for contamination? If material dumped there now (and or in the future) contaminates surrounding property would the applicant (the landowner) have the wherewithal to pay for damages (and clean up the site) and or would those expenses be borne by the City? I am sure the City is aware of the term "superfund sites". jJ In other words, by approving the variance, will the town of Estes Park assume financial responsibility for any/all contamination that might occur on our property, in our lake and stream or downstream from the proposed stockpile? At the hearing on the Sept 9th, I would like the aforementioned questions (and answers to said inquires) read into the official record so that there can be no question of lack of prior knowledge of these concerns. So long as the City has the financial wherewithal to deal with any and all future contamination in our lake, stream or property, I will be able to rest with the knowledge that the City acknowledged that they were aware of said concerns and that they willingly and officially accepting all responsibility. Thank you for your time and consideration. Terri Adrian Hardy for the Dry Gulch Adrian Family LLC PO Box 3427, Carefree AZ 85377 602-684-5747 or email: azbb@swlink.net ri& /64a4z, adde6Jr/nat-/- 17/&n. �,� aW, tuAirvw8-ro ycru) a.01_ ,ems o-wt, cix.ermAw Rge-u61- tau OiriltAAAkeb 46 a..Qfim.O a'".d- p-o-u-e-E GQ.c""e A1-tA. m(- PaAtd, asa 00 ocOoyrt, OAXi tA;r1L( MAXAVV±d 3 . ox. Rof /mA-61446Ak9 66-AavtAA.0 t,o _fro-faad wichtte..e26aivd aAka u-vict 6-teimei )4-0-e-tA J eP1 ai.ovicf .Ro,6.0znA . a ate, :t M4iZ24o 41-0-,1--- Cpa ()A -elm-E, uktia fisLa640 aplut Pao qALIAd_ aAitd AaJ /k(.6-1- ,e,(14t tiLte.4 QtAAA .6J2.0.mt mA)-i7 fixotta-Km+ fit42) 0143,0 • "))A4- aAjltd tOtAita (Au mo-v-tuf v) wLe• a„,4 0J4,e6/ titAAA-0,73 chAAltpokAt2, ScrA 6A1A0 ketu4At-, ha -AIL 6641A-°32d it/7 IALcuAvizeOth+ AL p 64-&-dAte- etrua --hactemj Atkei tAAA.4_., Jitio 1 /0 4a v� �, u h o.eo & � c wunvKi . vKiNALted -2)(Ates0- i-GehAl_ .19/10/q A7(olO AC0Mt -% _. ,es-Fea d5idtie, COsJ7 8-14-14 Estes Park Community Development Dept. P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 In the matter of Sombrero Stables ...owner Cody Rex Walker Please be advised that, as residents of Stonegate Dr. we DO NOT want the 'variance granted... "to dump 2 acres of silt & debris directly across from our neighborhood". The environmentally disastrous impact is unacceptable. Debris from the bottom of a silted in lake, as described, more than likely contains organic material that will become airborne. Similarly the fines represented by the silt are susceptible to blowing in many directions, one of which is onto our property... bringing unwanted weeds let alone noxious weeds. The silt is a very fine uniformly graded material that is susceptible to blowing. A granular material such as peas gravel or even crushed rock may be acceptable assuming, there is a minimum size; this material is not. Please DO NOT grant this variance. Stanley G. Schaffer Judith A. Schaffer 1722 Stonegate Dr. Estes Park, CO FLETEMEYER & LEE ASSOCIdri A r E s, 1 N C.. Memorandum To: Whom it May Concern From: Cody Walker - Vice President, Sombrero Ranch Inc Project: Sombrero Ranch Project #: 1335 Date: 09/09/2014 Re: Public Questions and Comments Please note the answers to the following questions and comments we have received from the public. Answers have been given by property owner, Cody Walker. 1. The proposal does not seem to be essential for the operations of Sombrero Stables. A. Everything seems easy until you do it. B. Sombrero has always purchased and placed fill in its corrals and trails on year round continuous basis. C. Replacement of surface fill is a basic part of any properly run livestock operation a. In corrals - otherwise you have unsanitary conditions and your fencing erosion causes your posts to be above ground. b. Anywhere live animals are tied (rail) - if you have witnessed where we tie horses and put people on, without regular fill that would be a giant trough. c. Trails where the horses travel - it's not easy in an eroding system to have trails, you add water like we saw 11 months ago and it takes a lot of fill and repair to move on. We still do not have some of our longer rides but we are working on it. We have purchased and hauled in fill dirt by pack horses and opened some of our rides but we still have work to get done. 2505 walnut street, suite 200 boulder, colorado 80302 (p) 303 443.3750 (f) 303 443 3903 www flaboulder com September 8, 2014 2. Likewise greater detail should be provided on the actual use of the materials, means of distribution and the public impact. A. Use of the fill is for replenishing corrals where the flood has washed away the surface levels. a. We plan on using 4,000 to 6,000 yards almost immediately at the Estes location i. The flood has lowered our corral level to the culvert that runs under the corrals b. We plan on placing 2,000 to 5,000 yards In the locations inside the Rocky Mountain National Park i. Flood conditions have prevented us from proper dry cleaning pens last fall and the gravel and materiai placed in that system by the park surface is exposed. We are unable to properly address those pens after the September evacuation. The corrals have large almost boulders on the base, covered with gravel topped with a black netting, and then a 2 foot Illayer of this type material is placed over it. As we scrape and rake the manure out of those pends that layer diminishes. The waters of last year have taken 3 years of that layer down to the netting and exposed the gravel. We need to replace that layer. Generally we spot fill but with this event it needs to be resurfaced. B. The public impact is being good neighbors and helping all of get back to pre -flood conditions. Being good neighbors and good stewards is important to us. This proposal lets us be both. 3. This proposal does not seem too essential for the operation of the Sombrero Stables and is certainly not fundamental to the success of the property/business. Please refer back to number one. I completely deny the accuracy of the statement that this is not fundamental to the success of the business. 4. We question whether the nature of the material to be moved and stockpiled is appropriate to the stated intended use, and whether the way it is proposed to be stored will really keep it in the place. The material that is moved is exactly the type of material that is best suited for the intended use. It is native to the Estes Valley. Gravel, sand and rock is exactly the material you use when placing this layer in a corral system. • Page 2 September 8, 2014 5. The entire ridge from the Sombrero Stables north to Eagle Rock is a very large wildlife habitat. It is a daily event to see elk, coyote, bobcat deer in that area. Two acres of dirt, six feet tall, would greatly impact their activity and migration. We are excited that our property can support so much wildlife. We are not a wildlife reserve, but our efforts in the past to maintain what we do, has provided this opportunity. There will be a temporary disruption in the area that will affect some wildlife. Our success in continuing to operate a quality operation has a much longer term benefit to wildlife than a temporary disruption. We have all suffered a 500 year event. We are recovering by helping one another. Both parties involved have created things that promote wildlife. I really don't think this fill is going to be in place long enough to cause concern, but it will be seeded. 6. Per the application, the redistribution of stockpiled material would occur over a period of 10 to 12 years. As such, the variance would in effect permanently convert the subject property to an official dump site. We are placing fill dirt from a flood, then moving it to fill in damage from the same flood. think that is restoration in and of itself. We take our commitment to our land seriously so we have placed a long term horizon on when the fill will be moved. We think it will be much sooner but we will not make commitments we will not keep. 7. Why now does Sombrero require a 2 acre dump site? They operated for years without one. Sombrero has always had a dump site to hold material. This is just the first time is has been located on the property. Since 1959 we have used fill from other dump sites like that yards owned by Kitchens, Fairbanks and Keeter trucking. Every construction project in this town that involved replacing a bridge, or putting in buildings we have taken that fill and used it on our corrals and around our property. We now have had a 500 year event. We need fill dirt like never before. We get a chance to be a good neighbor. We get a chance to be part of an extraordinary effort by a community so focused on recovery that in less than 12 months many have had the privilege of forgetting it happened. • Page 3 Additional conditions for granting the variance requested by Sombrero Ranches Add to item 7: This plan shall include management of traffic on McGraw Ranch Road. 11-1146. ad. Add item 10: The applicant and/or the owner of the originating site shall maintain McGraw Ranch Road during the hauling, and shall repair the road upon completion of the hauling. TC Memo ooi00000000000000ioio To: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment From: David Shirk, Senior Planner Date: September 9, 2014 RE: Amendment to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Bylaws Objective: Reformat the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Bylaws to be consistent with other Board/Committee bylaws. Present Situation: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment was created in the year 2000 with the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Board serves the entire Estes Valley, and includes five members: three are appointed by the Town Board, and two are appointed by the County Commission. The existing bylaws were created at that time and did not follow any specific format. Proposal: Reformat the bylaws so they are consistent with other bylaws. This proposal also includes minor revisions to align the bylaws with the Inter -Governmental Agreement that created the Board. Examples include specifying that the Chair and Co -Chair alternate between Town and County appointees and clarification about attendance. The bylaws presented for review have been reviewed by Director Chilcott, Town Attorney White, and Town Administrator Lancaster. The bylaws have been approved by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners, and are now forwarded to the Board of Adjustment adoption. Advantages: • Will provide consistent format of bylaws. • Will ensure the bylaws are consistent with the Inter-govemmental agreement. Disadvantages: • Staff is not aware of any disadvantages. Action Recommended: Approve bylaws as presented and recommend approval to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. Budget: Not applicable Level of Public Interest: ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY-LAWS I. ROLE The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (the Board) was jointly established by the Larimer Board of County Commissioners and the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees in 2000. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment exercises the authority given to it by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners, as described in the 2000 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and County, as summarized below. The Board shall: 1. Perform the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and perform the statutory responsibilities of the Town and County Board of Adjustment within the Planning Area. 2. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall hear all variance requests pursuant to the terms and conditions of the EVDC (from IGA Section IV.A Authority). In addition to these bylaws, the Board operates under the terms of the Town of Estes Park operating policy 102 and the terms of the Larimer County operating policy 100.1. A copy of those procedures, along with these bylaws, shall be provided to each member at the time of their appointment. II. MEETINGS A. Regular Meetings shall be held at least monthly. Any item on the agenda which cannot be heard and considered by the conclusion of the meeting may be continued until and heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting or a specially scheduled meeting and shall have priority over any other matters to be heard and considered, provided the applicant agrees to such continuance B. Special Meetings may be held at any time upon call by the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall call a special meeting upon request by the Town Board, County Commission, Community Development Director, Town Administrator, or County Manager, or upon request by three of the members of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. C. Cancellation of Meetings Regularly scheduled meetings of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment may be canceled or rescheduled upon: 1, Approval by two-thirds of the members of the Board, provided no applications are scheduled for review at the meeting; or, 2. By the Estes Park Community Development Director in the event that no applications have been submitted for Board review at the meeting to be cancelled. D. Meeting Procedures for matters requiring action by the Board, parliamentary procedure shall be followed in moving, discussion, and acting on such matters. 6. Represent the Board in dealings with the Town Board or other organizations. 7. The Chairperson has the same right as any other member of the Board to vote on matters before the Board and to speak for or against proposals, provided, however, that if the Chairperson desires to speak for or against a proposal which has been formally moved and seconded at a public meeting, the Chairperson shall relinquish the chair to the Vice -Chairperson while he or she is speaking. D. Vice -Chairperson responsibilities: 1. Assist the Chairperson as requested. 2. Accept and undertake duties delegated by the Chairperson. 3. Preside over meetings or perform other duties of the Chairperson in the event the Chairperson is absent or unable to act. E. Chair Pro Tem responsibilities: 1. In the event the Chairperson and the Vice -Chairperson are both absent or unable to act, a member shall be elected to perform the responsibilities of the Chairperson. F. Recording Secretary responsibilities: 1. Sign or attest the signature of the Chair or Vice -Chair on the documents of the Board. 2. Prepare and keep the minutes of all meetings of the Board in an appropriate and designated file. 3. Give and serve all notices required by State Statute, Town or County regulations or the bylaws. 4. Prepare the agenda in consultation with Chair, or designee, for all meetings of the Board. 5. Be custodian of Board records. 6. Inform the Board of correspondence relating to business of the Board and attend to such correspondence. G. Removal from Office Any officer may be removed from office by a majority vote of the members of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment in attendance at a meeting provided that at least thirty days notice has been given to all members that removal of the officer will be considered at such meeting. H. Officer Vacancies If any office is vacant, the members of the Board shall elect a member to fill the office for the remainder of the year. V. ATTENDANCE A. All members shall attend all meetings of the EVBOA, if possible. In the event any member misses three (3) consecutive regular meetings or a total of four (4) regular meetings in a calendar year, the Town or the County may remove its appointed member for neglect of duty and designate a new member to fill the vacancy. VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. These by-laws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment by a majority of the membership of the Board provided that notice of such possible amendments is given to all members at least 20 days prior to the meeting at which action is to be taken. Any amendments shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JOB DESCRIPTION 0000000000 IARIMER COUNTY GENERAL: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment consists of five volunteer members who serve staggered three-year terms. Two members are appointed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners; three by the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees. AUTHORITY: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment was jointly established by the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Trustees in 2000. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment exercises the authority given to it by the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners, as described in the 2000 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and County, as summarized below. The Board shall: 1. Perform the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC); and perform the statutory responsibilities of the Town and County Board of Adjustment within the Planning Area. 2. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment shall hear all variance requests pursuant to the terms and conditions of the EVDC. (IGA Section IV.A Authority) 3. Follow procedures outlined in the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment bylaws. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: The primary functions of the Board of Adjustment are: 1. Functions a. To hear requests for variances where it is alleged that the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code inflict unnecessary hardship and practical difficulties upon the applicant's property (EVDC Section 3.6.A Variances — Applicability). b. To hear appeals of staff decisions made in administering or interpreting the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC Section 12.1.0 Enforcement and Penalties — Appeals of Final Decisions by Staff). c. To hear appeals from the owner of any sign who believes a decision, ruling or order of the Building Inspector is factually or legally contrary to the provisions of the Estes Park Sign Code (EPMC Section 17.66.220(a)). d. To hear requests for variances from the requirements of the Estes Park Sign Code (EPMC Section 17.66.220(b)). 2. Quasi -Judicial The Board acts in a quasi-judicial manner. This means the Board acts in a manner similar to a judge and makes formal ruling. This requires the Board adopt findings of fact for each case they hear. Appeals to Board decisions are made to District Court. DUTIES: 1. Be prepared for, attend, and participate in Board of Adjustment meetings, including work sessions. 2. Conduct site visits to view property proposed for development. 3. Have a general knowledge of the 2000 Intergovernmental Agreement, Board of Adjustment bylaws, Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. Have an awareness of, and willingness to understand, community values, the role of local government, and the social and economic characteristics of the Estes Valley. 5. Provide open public processes that respect due process for all stakeholders. 6. Represent and serve the Estes Valley. ADDITIONAL DUTIES: 1. May serve as chair or vice -chair and fulfill roles described in the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment bylaws. 2. May attend conferences and/or training sessions to develop in the role of a Board of Adjustment member. 3. May attend other public meetings as deemed necessary. SKILLS AND ABILITIES: There are no minimum skills and abilities that an applicant must have to be appointed as a Board of Adjustment; however, the following list has been identified as those skills and abilities that make a quality Board of Adjustment. 1. Open mindedness, respect, and patience. 2. Willingness to listen and learn. 3. Ability to think in abstract terms. 4. Willingness to contribute, e.g., to speak in a public forum. 5. Ability to compromise and work within a team framework. 6. Ability to balance private benefit with public good. 7. Ability to consider facts related to an individual parcel and the effect of a development on the surrounding area and community as a whole. Revised: September 2014 8. A rudimentary understanding of the development process. 9. Ability to read drawings, blueprints, and architectural plans. 10. The ability to sustain harmonious working relationships with other Board of Adjustment members, the Town Board, the Board of County Commissioners, residents, and the public. WORKING CONDITIONS/PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EFFORT: This position primarily conducts business indoors (80%) completing tasks such as reading and reviewing applications, participating in public meetings and hearings. This position requires a lengthy attention span and involves sitting (80%), walking and standing (20%). Site visits can involve inclement weather conditions and inspecting unimproved land with mountainous terrain. MINIMUM TIME REQUIREMENTS: The Board of Adjustment meets on an as needed basis. The Board typically meets once per month for approximately one hour. Meeting preparation time typically takes at least one hour, including site visits. MEETINGS: Meetings are typically the first Tuesday of the month, beginning at 9:00 AM. When the first Tuesday follows a holiday weekend (such a Labor Day), the meeting is moved to the second Tuesday of the month. Meeting typically last less than an hour. TERM: Each member shall serve a three-year term (IGA III.B Membership). RESIDENCY: 1. All appointees of the Town shall be residents of the Town for at least one year prior to their appointment. 2. All County appointees shall be residents of the unincorporated portion of the Estes Valley Planning Area for at least one year prior to their appointment. 3. All members shall continue to be residents of their respective areas during their entire term. A County appointee of the Board of Adjustment residing in the area annexed by the Town may continue to serve the remainder of that member's term. (IGA III.0 Residency) RESTRICTIONS: No member of the Town Board or Board of County Commissioners may also serve as a member of the Board of Adjustment. Revised: September 2014 I understand the description of this position, including the essential functions and duties. Signature: Printed Name: Date: Revised: September 2014