Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2012-05-01
—Prepared:April 20,2012 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday,May 1,2012 9:00 a.m.—Board Room Town Hall 1.PUBLIC COMMENT 2.CONSENT Approval of minutes dated January 10,2012 3.LOT 3,NORTH PLATTE RESUBDIVISION,2130 UPPER HIGH DRIVE Owner:Dorothy Lehmkuhl Trust Applicant:Steven Lindberg Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires 25-foot setbacks in the E-l—Estate zone district. Request to allow a 16-foot encroachment into the 25-foot side setback to rebuild an existing deck constructed prior to setback regulations. Staff Contact:Dave Shirk 4.LOT 26,CARRIAGE HILLS 7TH FILING,1930 N SHARON COURT Owner:Lyle &Faith Zimmerman Applicant:Same as Owner Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires 15-foot setbacks in the R—Residential zone district.Request to encroach approximately four feet into the rear setback to allow expansion of an existing deck. Staff Contact:Dave Shirk QenUnudennext 5.METES &BOUNDS PARCEL,AKA TRACT 2,HYLAND EXEMPTION,918 CHRISTMAS TREE LANE Owner:William &Kay Miller Applicant:Same as Owner Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires 50-foot setbacks in the RE—Rural Estate zone district.Request to encroach approximately 40 feet into the rear setback for construction of a proposed detached garage. Staff Contact:Dave Shirk 6.REPORTS 7.ADJOURNMENT A meeting packet is available for review in the Community Development Department and the Estes Valley Library two business days prior to the meeting. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the ogenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estee Valley Board of Adjustment January 10,2012,9:00 a.m. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair Wayne Newsom,Members Bob McCreery,John Lynch,Chuck Levine,and Pete Smith;Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending:Chair Newsom,Members McCreery,Smith,Lynch,Levine Also Attending:Director Chilcott,Recording Secretary Thompson,Chief Building Official Birchtield Absent:None Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.There were five people in attendance. 1.PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2.CONSENT Approval of minutes of the November II,2011 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith)to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3.321 &325 KIOWA TRAIL,THE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report.The applicant,Marys Meadow Development (James Tawney)has requested a height variance for Units 5 &6 at Marys Meadow Condominiums.The application was reviewed in accordance with Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code.Staff received comments from reviewing agencies and adjacent property owners.On multiple occasions staff has met with two adjacent property owners;Mr.Tom Greslin and Mr.Dave Schultz.Both expressed concerns over numerous aspects of the Marys Meadow development.Concerns include,but are not limited to, processing of staff-level minor modifications to the Marys Meadow development plan,the height of the Unit 5/6 duplex,and height of luture buildings.Additionally,Estes Valley Planning Commissioners Betty Hull and Rex Poggenpohl submitted comments concerning this variance request.This was the first time staff was aware of Planning Commissioners providing written comments to the Estee Valley Board of Adjustment.This was prompted by public comment at Planning Commission meetings in November and December,2011.Town Attorney White also provided written comment. In reviewing the application,staff found special circumstances or conditions that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated.Director Chilcott staled building permit #9074 contained architectural elevations that demonstrated compliance with the maximum allowable height.The elevation certificate submitted March 18,2009,at the footing and foundation stage,indicated the building would comply with the maximum building height at 28.3 feet.Following the issuance of that certificate,the building plans changed to alter the trusses.The revised building plans did not account for a 12-inch tall energy heel contained in the truss plans.The engineer that prepared the construction plans did not prepare the truss systems and may not have been aware of the energy heel. The energy heel was not a Town code requirement.The duplex was built LEED Built Green certified,and could require additional energy conservation measures such as an energy heel. Director Chilcolt stated that due to ongoing neighbor concerns,an elevation certificate was requested at completion.The certificate submitted December 27,2011 shows the high point of the roof exceeds the maximum allowable height by .9 feet. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 10,2012 In determining practical difficulty,the Board of Adjustment should consider if there could be beneficial use of the property without the variance.The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the height issue is resolved,either by approval of the variance or by lowering of the roof. In the fall of 2011,staff met the general contractor,Frank Theis,on site to discuss the issue.At that point,staff indicated there were three options:flfletermine if it complies with the height regulations;2)lf the height does not comply with the code,a variance could be requested;or 3)lf the height does not comply,the roof could be lowered to comply with the code.The applicant chose to apply for the variance. Director Chilcott stated the Board must use its best judgment in determining whether the variance request is substantial,whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered,or whether adjacent property owners would suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance.Staff found the variance would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood;reducing the height would not significantly change the look of the building or off-site views.Adjacent property owners hold a different opinion.Mr.Schultz and Mr.Creslin have expressed concern to staff for many years over the height of this development. In determining practical difticulty,the height regulation was in place at the time construction began on the duplex.The applicant does have other another option to mitigate the problem rather than request a variance;the roof could be demolished and rebuilt at an allowable height.There has been ongoing discussion since September, 2011,shortly after the roof was installed.The Board shall use its best judgment in determining if the variance represents the least deviation from regulations that will afford relief. Director Chilcott explained if the Board chose to grant the variance,they could require conditions of approval.Planning Commissioner Poggenpohl provided written comment recommending additional requirements be placed on future buildings in the development. He stated industry standards have been modified in the last 50 years and it is now common practice not to check the truss fabricator’s design against the original design documents which indicate the desired height and slope.Director Chilcott stated it appears the engineer that submitted the plans did not review the truss design with the energy heel.In discussions with Chief Building Official Will Birchfield,an engineered truss system is commonly not submitted with the application for plan review.From this point forward,staff is considering requesting both footing and foundation certificates and ridgeline certificate when the height could exceed the maximum allowed. Director Chilcott stated when the original plan for units 5 and 6 was approved,it was designed to be the same height at units 7 and 8.When the design changed.the height also changed.The change in the truss caused the project to exceed the maximum allowable height. Chief Building Official Birchfield explained that trusses are designed for the structural loads for the community,e.g.wind speed,snow load,etc.Truss manufacturers are not typically concerned with development code regulations.An energy heel allows room to insulate the cold spot at the softit in an attic,while still allowing the required ventilation space over the top of the insulation.If the roof height is raised to accept a full level of insulation,the amount of insulation can be reduced by 22%,while still allowing for an increased B-value.There was discussion among staff and the Board concerning the design change of the unit and truss system.The contractor should be aware of any changes that could alter the plans.At the permit stage the building complied with the code for building height.The neighbors brought the issue to staff in the fall of 2011,after the roof was constructed.Staff then requested a new height certificate.Staff assumes the plans will be followed.Mr.Birchfield explained it is not uncommon for the truss companies to hold stamped drawings of the truss systems until the company has been paid.The building department does not have the stamped plans in hand at the building permit stage,but reviews the engineered components in the field.The framing inspections are completed after the stamped drawings have been submitted. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 January 10,2012 Member McCreery stated his disappointment with the applicant requesting a height variance after construction rather than stopping construction until the issue was resolved. He understood that the energy heel could raise the height,but thought the general contractor should have been aware of the height change.He expressed his frustration with post-construction variance requests in general,stating that at some point a request should be denied to set a precedent that post-construction variance requests would not be condoned. PUBLIC COMMENT Frank Theis/general contractor for Marys Meadow stated this was his first time before the Board of Adjustment requesting a height variance.He is a professional designer that has worked in the area for over 12 years,and admitted to making a mistake in this case.He explained the timeline of units 5 &6 beginning with the footing and foundation certificale. Due to the downturn in the economy,there was a two-year span between the laying of the foundation and the conceptual drawings of the units.The general concept of the architectural elevations changed in 2009,and was in compliance with the height limits at that time.Neighbors requested the cupolas be removed from the design,and the developer complied and removed them.On the drawings submitted for the building permit,the elevation complied with the development code. Mr.Theis explained the reason for changing the truss system,but was unaware an energy heel would be added to comply with the LEED requirements.The new truss system changed not only the heel height,but also the ridge line and the length of the ridge.He admitted he should have questioned that change.The framing contractor reviewed the plans,and found no issues that could prevent installation.Height was not verified at that point.Staff looked at the roof in the field,and discussion occurred for several months.Mr.Theis realized he was under intense scrutiny by the neighbors,and did not intentionally violate the height regulation.He apologized to alt involved,and stated this roof plan would not be used in the future. All members of the Board agreed that there needed to be accountability for height compliance and hoped similar requests would not be before the Board in the future. Contractors would want to be sure they are well under the height limit or pay close attention to the installation process if the height is close to the maximum allowed. Jim Tawneyldevelopment owner took offense to the scrutiny from the Kiowa Ridge property owners and also from Board member comments.He was disappointed the variance request had become overly complicated.He stated it was an inadvertent error, and future buildings will be well under the limit. Brian Simpson/framing contractor spoke in support ot the variance.He stated the violation came strictly from the energy heel.He and Mr.Theis take pride in their work and met with the neighbors prior to construction.He wanted the Board to realize it was an oversight. Contractors are not given the liberty to change the design without passing through the building department.Plans were resubmitted after the roofing design change. Dave Schultzladjacent property owner spoke in opposition of the variance request.He was also representing Mr.Greslin.Mr.Schultz stated Planner Shirk requested the first ridgeline certificate in August,2011.His primary view is to the north,overlooking the development.The garages of The Meadow Condominiums and the homes completely block the view to the north.Height has always been a concern to them.This additional foot completely takes away the view of Marys Lake for Mr.Greslin.View consists of the meadow,the lake,and the mountains to the north.This development has a huge impact for them.Unit 5 is the only one that exceeds the height,and the only one he’s concerned about.Mr.Schultz asked the Board to follow the Estes Valley Development Code when reviewing the variance request.He had two arguments:the required variance notice was not posted on the property;and the applicant did not allege unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty in the statement of intent.He disputed the validity of the application. Director Chilcott stated the sign request was added specifically at the request of a former Board member for properties that are difficult to locate in the Estes Valley.White the sign may not have been posted,the surrounding neighbors were notified by mail,the application was posted on the Town website,and a legal notice was published in the local RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 January 10,2012 newspaper.Historically,no application has been declared null and void because the notification sign was not posted. Mr.Schultz stated the applicant does not allege unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty in the statement of intent,which are part of the standards of review in Chapter 3.6 of the development code.He stated the condition was created,not pre-existing.Mr. Schultz stated the applicants predicament could be prevented and was strongly opposed to the approval of the variance request,based on the code.When asked by Chair Newsom if he had any solutions,Mr.Schultz stated he did not think he should remove the part of the roof at issue,but thought the applicant could be penalized in other ways.He suggested a monetary fine. Discussion occurred between staff and the Board.In conclusion,Director Chilcott stated in the future,more attention will be given to applications to ensure this issue does not arise again. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Lynch)to approve the requested variance to allow the building to remain as constructed at a height .9 feet over the maximum height allowed in the Estes Valley Development Code.The motion passed 4-1,with Member MeCreery voting against the motion. 4.REPORTS Director Chilcott report this will be Member Levine’s last Board of Adjustment meeting after serving on the Board for eight years.His service and insight have been greatly appreciated and he will be missed. Director Chilcolt stated on January 10,2012,the Town Board will consider the appointment of two members to the Board of Adjustment:Jeff Moreau and Wayne Newsom have been nominated by the Mayor to serve three-year terms. 5.ELECTIONS Chair Newsom reviewed the process of alternating between Town and County for the position of Chair.John Lynch (County)was nominated for Chairman.Vote was unanimous in favor. Member Smith (Town)was nominated br Vice-Chair.Vote was unanimous in bavor. The Administrative Assistant to the Community Development Department was nominated to serve as Recording Secretary for the Board.Vote was unanimous in favor. There being no further business,Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Wayne Newsom,Chair Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary Lemkuhl Variance Request (High Drive) Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division Room 230,Town Hall,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,Co 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 wwestes.org MEETING DATE:May 1,2012 REQUEST:Variance from the El Estate 25-foot side yard setback requirement. LOCATION:2130 Upper High Drive How to get there:Take High Drive all the way to the west end and turn right up the hill. This will take you to Upper High Drive (look for a house with a stone pillar at the drive). Then you will take Upper High Drive back east approximately ¼ mile until you get to 2130 Upper High Drive, which is a shared driveway. APPLICANT:Steve Lindberg (builder) PROPERTY OWNER:Dorothy J.Lemkuhl Trust PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard setback of 9.2-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow removal,replacement,and expansion of an existing deck. Surveyor:Van Horn Engineering [Parcel Number:3527306003 Development Area:.36 acre lot Existing Land Use:Single-family residential Proposed Land Use:Same j Zoning Designation:E-1 Estate ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . Adjacent Zoning: EdE EZ1 Estate North:F-I Estate West:E-1 Estate South:F-I Estate Adjacent Land Uses: East:Single-family residential ] North:Single-family residential West:Single-family residential South:Single-family residential Services: Water:Well Sewer:UTSD The property is zoned F-i,which has a one-acre minimum lot size,with corresponding 254oot setbacks.Typically,these setbacks are easy to comply with.However,this situation has a few factors to consider: 1)Lot size:the lot is about 113 of an acre,which means the lot is sized more toward the 10-foot side yard setbacks that go with the E Estate 1/z acre zone district. 2)Access Easement:There is an 8-foot wide unused access easement bordering the eastern lot line.The development code requires structure setbacks be measured from the edge of access easements.This means the 25-foot setback is not measured from the property line,but 81eet inside the property line.This means this lot is subject to a 33-foot setback. 3)Pre-existing:The existing house was built in the early 1960s,prior to setback requirements.Due to the historic nature of the deck,the replacement and small addition will have minimal impact of the neighborhood. Due to these factors,staff recommends special circumstances exist. 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.These standards are included in the Board notebooks. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES:This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.At the time of this report,no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighboring Property Owners.Staff has received one phone call from a notified property owner.This person expressed no objection’,and hoped they would not need a variance for any future projects or renovations of their own (an old park cabin). FINDINGS: 1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. Page 2 of 3 0 Estes valley Board of Adjustment,May 1,2012 Lemkuhl vadance Request 2.Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3.The variance is not substantial. 4.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered,nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 6.The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 8.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 9.Failure 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 shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval conditional to: I.Compliance with the site plan,as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2.Setback Certificate.Prior to final inspection,a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance,and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines.Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL (or disapproval)of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Estes valley Board of Adjustment,May 1,2012 Page 3 of 3 Lemkuhl Variance Request 4/24/2012 Neighborhood Lornkohl Skie Yarn Setback;EsEá IIeyaaTd ofAdjistment May ¶Ol2 - I March 27,2012 Dave Shirk,Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O.Box 1200 F’stes Park,CO 80517 P.O.Box 568 •FSa Pa,I CD 80517 P11:970-586-4544 •Fax:970-586-1049 Re:Variance Request 2130 Upper High Drive Lot 3 North Platte Resuhdivison Dear Dave: The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1.The District has no objection to the proposed variance requesL If you have any questions or need fiwther assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfiully, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent www.ulsd.org Eni’ironmentni Protection Through 1’astn9arer Coilealon and Treatment TOWN OF ESTES PARIç Inter-Office Memorandum To:Community Development From:Jeff Boles,Steve Rusch Date;0411312012 Re:Final/Public Review:Variance Request,Lot 3 North Platte Resubdivision,2130 Upper High Drive The Water Department has no Final/Public Review comments for the above application. Dave Shirk am:Stan Griep [sgriepIarimer.org] nt:Friday,April 06,2012 2:06 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:Lehmkuhl Variance Request. Hi Dave, I believe I have commented already on both of the projects that Tom Garton forwarded on to me today.As they look very familiar. It would appear that the proposed deck is far enough from property lines (according to 2nd plot plan) that it would not require fire rated construction or not be allowed based on distance to property lines, from the building code perspective.A building permit is required for the deck. I did not send these comments on to the applicant,please include them in your report on the project. Thank you, Stan Stan V.Griep Lead &Commercial Plans Examiner Larimer County Building Department Ft.Collins,CO 80522-1190 Phone:(970)498-7714 Fax:(970)498-7667 1 Dave Shirk Light &Power has the following comments in regards to this variance request. 1.They will need to check with State Electrical Inspector to make sure there are no electrical service conflicts or NEC code concerns that will need to be addressed. 2.If there is any relocation of existing electric facilities required for the deck replacement they will be at the owners expense. Todd. ffodd 3.SteicIwn Town of Estes Park Light &Power Dept. Line Superintendent 615 Elm Rd (Service Center) P.O.Box 1200 (mailing) Estes Park,Co.80517 (970)-577-3601 (office) (970)-586-3762 (fax)* tsteichentWestes.org Jeff Boles;Reuben Bergsten;Todd Steichen; (chrisutsd.ora);Melissa Duell (MelissaUTSD.ora);Todd From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Todd Steichen Thursday,March 22,2012 3:05 PM Karen Thompson;Lowell Richardson;Kevin Ash;Jen Imber;Susie Parker;Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten;‘rlegglarimer.org’;‘Matt Lafferty’;‘Tom Garton’;‘Chris Bieker (chrisutsd.org)’;‘Melissa Duell (Melissa@UTSD.org)’;‘Todd Krula (toddustd.org)’ Dave Shirk;Alison Chilcott;Reuben Bergsten;Susie Parker RE:VARIANCE REQUEST:Lot 3,North Platte Resubdivision,2130 Upper High Dr - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT From:Karen Thompson Sent:Thursday,March 22,2012 10:54 AM To:Lowell Richardson;Kevin Ash;Jen Imber;Susie Parker; rlegalarimer.org;Mat Lafferty;Tom Garton;Chris Bieker ___________________________ Krula (toddustd.org) Cc:Dave Shirk;Alison Chilcott Subject:VARIANCE REQUEST:Lot 3,North Platte Resubdivision,2130 Upper High Dr -REFERRAL FOR COMMENT REFFERAL FOR COMMENT :)J1PLETENESS V Ji 0 0 V Pre-Application Completeness Review I, Public Review (Planning Commission/Town Board/County CommissIon) Building Permit As-Builts 1. Le h m k u 3r i a n c e Ow n e r Ow n e r i l Ad d r e s s Ci t y ST Zi p 21 5 3 Hi g Dr i v e , LL C 86 7 7 Fa w n w o o d Dr Ca s t l e Ro c k CO 80 1 0 8 Ke n n e t h Un i t t 20 8 5 Mi d d l e Hi g h Dr Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ma r k & We n d y Ul f e r s Pa r i s 75 0 0 7 FR A N C E Je a n De F r a t i s Da n i e l & Ed w a r d Fe s s l e r P0 Bo x 22 9 1 Ch e y e n n e WY 82 0 0 3 Da r s t Mc N a i r y PC Bo x 51 6 Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ca r y n , El a i n , Pa t r i c k , Da l e , Wi l l i a m Ca h i l l 13 3 9 0 W 63 r d P1 Ar v a d a CO 80 0 0 4 Wa l l a c e & Fr e i d a Ry l e Co n n i e Ne u m a n n , Ly n n Ry 46 0 0 Ta f t Bl v d e # 4 2 3 Wi c h i t a Fa l l s DC 76 3 0 8 Ly n n e Pa x t o n PD Bo x 10 9 5 8 Be v e r l y Hi l l s CA 90 2 1 3 i/ & Ja n i c e Sa n b o r n Do n a l d & Ma r y Fe l l e r 19 3 5 Cr e s c e n t Dr Ma n h a t t a n KS 66 5 0 3 Ge o r g e Re e d e r , Be v e r l y We i s h e r Ju s t i n e Br o w n 44 0 3 W 93 r d Te r Pr a i r i e Vi l l a g e KS 66 2 0 7 Ma r v i n & Dw i g h t Ju d y 45 1 1 Si l v e r t h o r n e Dr Me s q u i t e TX 75 1 5 0 Ma r y Sa d l e r Mi c h a e l , Ba r r y , Di a n e St u l t 16 6 W 13 2 5 N, St u i e 35 0 Ce d a r Ci t y UT 84 7 2 0 Cy n t h i a & Ke n n e t h Fo r w a r d 20 1 6 Em e r s o n Ln Su p e r i o r CO 80 0 2 7 Do n Fe r g u s o n 15 0 5 N Wo o d r o w Av e Wi c h i t a KS 67 2 0 3 Ro t h Fa m i l y Tr u s t 57 1 1 Tr a i l r i d g e Dr Au s t i n TX 78 7 3 1 Je n s e n Fa m i l y Tr u s t Ca r o l e Sm i t h 13 8 0 Ga r n e t Ay e , Su i t e E3 1 0 Sa n Di e g o CA 92 1 0 9 Le h m k u h l Va r i a n c e S March 17.2Q12 Q Estes Valley Board of Adjustment A variance is requested in order to replace the deck at 2130 Upper High Drive in Laritner County outside the Town of Estes Park.The east wall of the residence (and the existing deck)on the south side are too close to the nor h/south property line. The owners of the property,Dorothy J.Lehmkuhl Trust (Dorothy and Bnice Lehmkuhl),feel that the deck in its existing condition is a safety hazard to their grandchildren.They want the structure torn down and rebuilt w current residential code requirements. The existing deck has several problems.First and most significant,the railing is a leaning ladder type that allows an easy climb over (lie top rail.Second,there are built in benches,which also allow access over the top rail.Third.the joist ends are nailed directly into the residence.There is no ledger board.Finally,the deck features a cantilever design that leads to upward stress on inadequately attached joist ends. The proposed new deck will be close to the same size and location as the existing.The width along the residence will renmin the same (110 closer to the lot line).We intend to increase the projection from the residence froiii (0 to 12 feet.The new design will be conventional not cantilever. Steven L.Lindberg on behalf of torothuy J.Lelunluthi Trnst Contractor License #CL0073 (Larimer County)Business License #761 Estes Park)970-215-9428 P0 Box 2654 Estes Park.CO 80517 ESTES VALLEY FCUVIBOARDOFADJUSTMENTMAR212012j APPLICATION _____________ LcouMuiinovgtoTt :p?!,rnh&-, 2’3O ,44.4 Dr Tract: .“/7SCsct’Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service F Town Proposed Water Service F Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service r Xcel Site Access (if not on public Street) Are there wetlan3s on the site9 F Other (Specify) r Other (Specify) EPSD UTSD EPSD V UTSD Other IR None Septic Septic [Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):7J1.4—.- ‘EJ’Lds4GaJc Name of Primary Contact Person•Se,zp Li ..-,ntCrc_ Complete Mailing Address Pc ,&&59 V.ctc,4 ai Cc’ Primary Contact Person is r—Application fee (see attached fee schedule)r Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code) ri—1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1 =20) F I reduced copy of the site plan (lix 17”) The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded. Applicant h-i Town of Estes Pork -P.O.Box 1200 .170 MacGregor Avenue e.Estes Pork,CO 80517 community Development Deportment Phone:l7O)577-3721 ..Fox:l0)586-0249 -e.www.sstes.org/ComDev Revisetttfl7t .. 5 Submittal Date. Record Owner(s): IStreet Address of Lot;, Legal Description:Lot:.3 “ Subdivision:t’jo ,—4k Parcel ID #:35c,22C76ZPC23 ±L....L.L/--it..-+44LiCL.fl\ P/n.j-Ic IR’esj,cj:,-;s ;‘‘n P9 zi Zoning t—, ix Well Well F r r r F r Yes r Owner F Consultant/Er ‘ U,>a, 4Nc- ) 0 0 0%00 Cl )wwUz0I0-J00-4 U,EC0Ia)00tCata, t0C-C4-0.0ata,C,CCCata,at>0a,U)wa) -CC-C4-004-atciaaata,CCIta-It>a—0U- Coa)CC0a, -Ua, -cC- , ci )a)a)a) -ca,0a,C)CoaC0Co0aaCoS04C0a,S0Ca,S-oa) -c0Coa, 41 ) a) -ca,a, C’ ) -UCII )S-Ca,0Coaa, LI .CCatCCCCCCCCa0C’ - )U)a, LJa)a,S-Ca, -C0Coa,CECC- )C0U, a)0I •03/20/201204:03 S20—525—544 SAFEWAY AZ 2044 PAGE 02 P’ APPLcMNT CEFrrInQAT;on P I rsc9ycedIry the th (pforrnatkri and exhibits r€i)wth sjinftteci are hue ar’s:correct 10 ItI beet c’my kncntede ar’t Itiel In fi!.g ma tipHoation I aui ac:rig wHh ne knowEciga arid eOnSStY Of the owners ot ih pro2srty P n thibniP.hg the aoIIcation IOWRJI&S and signing this 4cAication agiesrnent,cknowledgg and aea tha ih appflcttkr estzbfr’ot to the appkahla procesnç rd Dt!c hearmq reaufrrients 891 jçflh ii th EcEe&Va;hy Dev*pnla’i:Code (tbC), I zitkriowipdgs ¶hI I ve obiRinEd or have aosas3 f the EVDO and that.prbr tD fWnc this apjioat:cr.I ‘ave ‘3d trie opØflrtliniy Iii onsut the rekcsart r-ovlsicns governlg the çwocessnu ci Bit decision cr the aliczvcr. The ta;‘!aiey Deveb rien4 Z•e i vft1le crdine I urld#rani that aoceptwte ci this sp.kacn by the town of es:es Park IDr li!lnç arid rGcp 01 fle apc;ion lea by the towfl doss not reoessa’Iy rnMr thatthe a0iDa(cr a ccrrpI6!e urde’the avpkcabk caqu:t€nsrrs t Pta I tmct,tnd that this varIance requast w’ay be delayed jr prCOe6sinQ c a nonth o more It trio nlurrnaUon pjtyidcd is j nccmrDlete.lnacn’irSte,or !IJbntt9d &!.r mc*cJc,d ne chde. I understand titet a rjbrnItt&tee wIR 1w charqe my apIrtrv s inco’npiet. b The Community Cleweiopnient a’Inieit wiF r12$4y rie &j>iicar.V 1 o the tate ri whc’The oplah:’‘S dsinrrntnad lute cvnpi&te. P I gretit prrnistIon for town of Estee Park Eptoy aii3 MeniSers the 3oar t AcJstmeri win Ø:Qpr IcntltIcric’n acce o ‘n’t oitpartv4tnnq tie v:sw Of iIE a:aiu I’I eckitawiedc t?t •ve rooeiv tffi stes Va lay 5owcl at custmn ‘/anancc Appiati 3oIis jia t falturo to nct Ih ei,es ehow 1 e3I Eub4’ule sha:resu’ii m ppIlC3llQfl o se aporc’aI of rn apn’•rnu,n heoornlnj rt’nnd ‘i I rderfitnd ha Lii tees.iI 2e zhaqe 0’(eSuIrrVLfei 0’an R.PalkY,‘hc has :39or:e tiul:anti v oid. P undeeeriã thel I ar’i rqoIred co Obta:;g ‘Arian NoHc’Qñ ‘rorr kb Cc’rrri’urly D9ipwot DGpartria’rlt ert< li&this sq’i mutbe poatad 01 my rPeiw &t i riv vistle itom fl r$j jfl r5[that the re.s J my and the prtpo3ed buIdinqtrucIurs coitiers IL#ta {Ie staked.Jt1oerIan(1 mat li-ic ti ,uü’ce ‘D;ted rc ta sisklnç ccit,orrl n Icier ¶I’er ir :‘r tu&ntoeys oro:,e Este ly aci cAc)ust hetiming P I unDe&aii that if the Board of Adus:rietv arva m;‘9u’2St ‘FailUTR df au applicant to epp’tot:!btidirI9 pVfltIt mid commence coriat:uttlon or cttlofl with regard to the verlarioe approval withit’abe (1)year of teoeivlrtg provai of the vir:nnce may sutoniatically render the oecl&on of the BOA null and EsIe Valley Deveicpment Cøde Sechr 3D: Pvccf Ocn-Pti?SeCcV(r ‘.toa I 1123/0’ Zoning Districts . 5 4.3 Residential Zoning Distdcts Table 4-2BaseDensityandDimensionalStandards Residential Zoning Districts nliman ‘tJ:;y$__ (u4 tt ,Prent (IL)(R4 Rear (ft.)ht?1 ‘RE-i 1/lOAc,lOAc,200 50 50 50 30 20RE112.5 Ac.2.5 Ac.200 50 50 60 30 20E-1 1 lAcj3]100 25 25 25 30 20. .25- E 2 1/aAc.13]75 10 15 30 20 streets 25- 4 ¼A 10 15 30 20 streets R-i 8 5,000 50 15 10 IS 30 20 SIngle-family 25-18,000;R-2 4 60 ‘10 10 30 20Duplex=15-other 27,000 streets 40,000, Residential 5,400 sq.60;Uses:ft/unitAMMax=S and [4)(83 (Ord L.OtS 26-(Ord.Mm 2507 §1)Greater arterials; 10 [61 10 30 20 (7j180lSenior16-other#14)lnstftutional Senior 100,000 streets Living Uses:inatitiitionai sq.It.: Max =24 Living Uses:200 [ Notes to Table 4-2: (1)(a)See Chapter 4,§4,3.D,which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area)for aingie-famiiy resldentiaisubdivisionsthatarerequiredtosetasideprivateopenareasperChapter4,§4.3,D,1.(b)See Chapter 11,§11.31 which sHows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)(or clustered lots tn open spacedeveiopments. (a)See Chapter 11,§11.4,whIch shows a reduction in minimum id size (area)for attainable housing.(d)See Chapter 7,§7.1,whIch requires an increase In minimum lot size (area)for development on steep siopee,(3rd.2-02 §1) (21 See Chapter 7,§7,6,for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands.(3rd.2-02 #5;3rd.11.02 §1)(3]it private welts or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shaH be 2 acres.See also (he reguiations set forth in§7.12,“Adequate Public Faculties.” (4]Townhome deveicpmonts shaii be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet however,each lndividuaitownhomsunitmaybeconstructedonaminimum2,000 square foot lot at a mwdmum density of 8 dwelhng unIts per acre,(Sj All deveiopnienl,except development of one singie-famiiy dwelling on a single lot,shall aiso be subject to a maximum fioorarearatIo(FAR)of 30 and a maximum iot coverage of 50%.(3rd,26-07 I) 1(6]Zero sIde yard setbacks (known as ‘zero lot iine deveiopmenv’)are showed for townhome developments. 17]Minimum building width requirements shah apply to mobile homes located in a mobhe home park.(6)Singte-lamhy and duptexdeveiopments shah have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f.and 27.000 a,!.,respectiveiy.(3rd 18-01#14) (91 AU structures shah be set back corn pubitc or private roads that serve more than tour adjacent or oil-site dweflings orlots.The setback shalt be measured from the edge of public or private roads,the edge of the dedicated right-of-way orrecordedeasementorthepropertyline,whichever produces a greater selback,The setback shall be the same as theapplicableminimumbuilding/structure setback.(3rd.11-02 §1;3rd.25-07 §1) 1,1.9.E,which ahows an increaae in the maximum height of buIldings on slopes.(Ord.18-02 #3)j C 0 0 SITE PLANC LOT 3,WGH DRIVE HEIGHTS,COUNTY OF LARIMER,STATE POSTED ADDRESS:2130 UPPER HIGH DRIVE WALK DECK (ABOVE GROUND) LEGEND EXISTING HOUSE 25’SETBACK E—1 ZONING 00.00 MEASURED DIMENSIONS (00.00)PLATTED DIMENSIONS B’PLATTED (8’ON EACH SIDE OF PROPERTY LINE) SURVEYOR’S NOTES: 1.THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY.IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A LAND SURVEY NOR AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. ROADWAY 0 Zimmerman Variance Request (N.Sharon Ct.) Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division Room 230.Town Hall,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 vw.estes.org ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE:May 1,2012 REQUEST:Variance from the R Residential 15-foot rear yard setback requirement. LOCATION:1930 N.Sharon Court How to get there:Take Hwy 7 to Scott Avenue.Turn left on North Sharon Court. APPLICANT/OWNER:Lyle and Faith Zimmerman PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Vafley Development Code to allow a rear yard setback of 12-feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow a 5-foot addition to their existing deck, which was constructed at the same time as the rest of the house in 2010. Engineer/Surveyor/Consultant:N/A [NOTE:A surveyor will be required to document if approved] Parcel Number:3401125026 Development Area:.30 acre Existing Land Use:Single-family residential Proposed Land Use:Same Zoning Designation:R Residential Adjacent Zoning: East:R Residential North:R Residential West:R Residential South:R Residential Aajacent Land Uses: East:Single-family residential North:Carriage Hills outlot West:Single-family residential South:N.Sharon Court Services: Water:Town Sewer:UTSD The applicant built the house in 2010.The triangular shape of the lot pushed the house location toward the rear of the lot.The impact on the neighborhood would be minimal, with the primary impact being on the open space lot.The two neighbors adjoining the property have provided letters of support. 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.These standards are included in the Board notebooks. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES:This request has been submftted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.At the time of this report,no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighboring Property Owners.The two adjoining property owners have submitted letters of support. FINDINGS: 1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2.Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3.The variance is not substantial. 4.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered,nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 6.The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.(J r1Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,May 1,2012 Page 2 of 3 Zimmerman Variance Request 8.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 9.Failure 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 shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval conditional to: 1.Compliance with the site plan and building design,as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2.Prior to issuance of a building permit,applicant shall apply for inclusion in the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.This should be coordinated through the Water Department. 3.Setback Certificate.Prior to final inspection,a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance,and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines.Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL (or disapproval)of the requested variance(s)with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,May 1,2012 Page 3 of 3 Zimmerman Variance Request 4/24/2012 Neighborhood 1 ElesVaVev8oardo4A4nPnentI Zlnvp.nnaoRear Var;taeyBawdolAdjusPnen..ty 1 2042 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARIç Inter-Office Memorandum To:Community Development From:Jeff Boles,Steve Rusch Date:0411312012 Re:FinallPublic Review:Variance Request,Lot 26 Carriage Hills 7th Filing,1930 N.Sharon Court The Water Department has the following Final/Public Review comments for the above application: 1)The property is included in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD)but not the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Water Conservancy District.The property must also be included in the Municipal Subdistrict;an application for inclusion is attached for completion and submission to NCWCD.For questions regarding the submission process contact Marilyn Conley at 970-532-7700 or mconleyncwcd.org. Please submit the following inclusion form to: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Attn:Marilyn Conley,Inclusions Administrator 220 Water Avenue Berthoud,CO 80513 Dave Shirk From:Todd Steichen Sent:Thursday,March 22,2012 3:11 PM To:Karen Thompson;Lowell Richardson;Scott Zurn;Kevin Ash;Jen Imber;Susie Parker;Jeff Boles;Reuben Bergsten;‘cooksep@bajabb.com’;‘Chris Bieker (chrisutsd.org)’;‘Melissa Quell (MeHssaUTSD.org)’;‘Todd Krula (todd©ustd.org)’ Cc:Dave Shirk;Alison Chilcoti;Reuben Bergsten;Susie Parker Subject:RE:VARIANCE REQUEST:Lot 26,Carriage Hills 7th Filing,1930 N Sharon Ct -REFERRAL FOR COMMENT Light &Power has the following comments in regards to this variance request. 1.Call locates before any digging is done,811 from any land line, 2.They will need to check with State Electrical Inspector to make sure there are no electrical service conflicts or NEC code concerns that will need to be addressed. 3.If there is any relocation of existing electric facilities required for the deck replacement they will be at the owners expense. Todd. Sodd 3.Steidka Town of Estes Park Light &Power Dept. Line Superintendent 615 Elm Rd (Service Center) P.O.Box 1200 (mailing) Estes Park,Co.80517 (970)-577-3601 (office) (970)-586-3762 (fax) tsteichen @estes .0 rg From:Karen Thompson Sent:Thursday,March 22,2012 10:53 AM To:Lowell Richardson;Scott Zurn;Kevin Ash;Jen Imber;Susie Parker;Jeff Boles;Reuben Bergsten;Todd Steichen; cookserxbaiabb.com;Chris Bieker (chrisutsd.org);Melissa Duell (MeIissaUTSD.orci);Todd Krula (toddustd.org) Cc:Dave Shirk;Alison Chilcott Subject:VARIANCE REQUEST:Lot 26,Carriage Hills 7th Filing,1930 N Sharon Ct -REFERRAL FOR COMMENT REFFERAL FOR COMMENT :.$IEW V Pre-Application Completeness Review Public Review (Planning Commission/Town Board/County Commission) Building Permit As-Builts 0 1 J1 Nfarch 27,2012 Dave Shirk,Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park.CO 80517 Re:Variance Request 1930 N.Sharon Court Lot 26 7th Filing Dear Dave: like Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1.The District has no objection to the proposed variance request. If you have any questions or need further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent P.O.Box 568 •Est Park,Co 80517 Ph;970-586-4544 •Fax:970-586-1049 nw.vtsd.org Environmental Protection Through Wastewuter Collection and rreat,nenr Dave Shirk From:Melissa Duell [melissa@utsd.org] Tuesday,April 17,2012 11:25AM To:Dave Shirk Subject:1960 N.Sharon Cl. Hi Dave, Just letting you know UTSD has determined the deck expansion if clear of UTSD main. Thanks, Melissa Duell Customer Accounts Upper Thompson Sanitaiton District P.O.Box 568 Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:(970)586-4544 Fax:(970)586-1049 Sent: 1. March 19,2012 z2 (3 Statement of Intent for Variance Request for 1930 Sharon Court North r e ome of Lyle and Faith Zimmerman Variance Request to expand the existing 8 foot wide uncovered deck approximately 4¼ feet in width and this will extend the deck approximately 4 feet into the 15 foot setback at the closest point to the back lot line.The reasons for the request include: 1.This Carriage Hills property which we purchased in 1999 has a pie shaped lot with a narrow 50 foot wide front lot line.The house was built in 2010 and it was necessary to site the house far back on the lot in order to meet both the back and side yard setback requn ements Again,the width of the house and the narrow front dimensions of the lot requii ed that the house be sited to the rear part of the lot. 2.The existing 8 foot wide rear deck currently provides an outdoor living area for dining and relaxing and is naturally shaded by the house in the summer.The deck is immediately off our dining room and kitchen area and is a highly used area during spring,summer and fall.The additional width will allow easier access around the dining table which is very restricted at the time.The expansion will also accommodate some additional patio furnitlLre for seating other than at the small patio dining table. There will be no change to the existing steps. There are 110 plans for use of the deck other than that stated above. 3.This expansion does not significantly affect the character of the neighborhood. The next door neighbors on the east can currently see our deck from their deck and this will not change with the expansion.Please see the two attached letters from the neighbors on both sides of our lot indicating their support for this variance request and the expansion of our deck. Please note that the neighbors to the rear are homes on Acacia Avenue and that there is a wide public open space between our lot and theirs.There is over 200 feet between our home and the homes to the rear. 4.This request does not impact delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 5.This request complies with the standards set forth by the zoning requirements in Section 3.6.C C ‘Submittal Date: ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION .‘ftEWVE1 h MAR21 2W I I COMMUNITy DEVEOPIIEPif ‘Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):7-‘4 —t_L4-4—2- ‘t’$.4i _____________________ Name of Primary Contact Person I_._’qL.e flT I ni ni Compiete Maillng Address Primary Contact Person is (Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 36.C of the Estes Valley Development Code) 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”20) The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park.P.O.Box 200 4’170 MacGregor Avenue ..&.Estes Park.CO 80517 Comrnunily Development Deporiment Phone:577-3721 .Fax:19701 586-0249 .iw.esles.org/ComDev Revised-ttf2OIOr .Jwi & Record Owner(s):LyLE 3 4d FA L+&/7.-L71flçmk& lStreetAddress of Lot:J939 $hARow Ct AL Ejt PA-Itt,CV.evriy Legal Description:Lot:h Block:Tract: ________ Subdivision:1SItfJqE /-4LL5 1’!Diy Parcel lD#:_:_aJ’i ac ø’T.i. (D.SAS)IZ,wioning a aec:44.’.J -Lot Size Jq,CbS .c, Existing Land Use .,E..3 i rItt-rIve L Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service >CTown Proposed Water Service XTown Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service 35 Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands c the site? ,?a6 ;di 7¼1— r r Well Well F F F F Other F Other EPSD EPSD Other (Specify) (Specify) X UTSD 5 UTSO r None r Septic Septic r Yes K No 0 X Owner .-ffl142V 1E/hAie,ov t’l 4’.1asIt*CoJtciirApplicantConsultant/Engineer C :3 .I (0 CD CD CD CD CD (0 0 CDa C CD :3 0 C 0- CDa S 0 C CD 13 0 CD 0 S -oa)0 CD 0 C CD 5- CD CD CD C.0:3 - CDa C CD 0 S CD a) ‘1 0 a) :3 C, CD a)t C, a)0 :3 Ca :3 . :3 S. CD m C0 CD (a a)CD -U a)S :3 :3 C CD a)0 0 :3 .=OD a. CD 0, :3a 0 C -9 - (a CD -40 S 3 Ca -o -Ur C)>-I 0z ‘1 m Co 0 CD CD a 0-o S .. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION 0 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. 0 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 (EVOC). 0 I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC,and that,prior to (fling 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: hltp://www.estes,oraJComDev/DevCode 0 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. 0’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. 0 t understand that a resubmiltsl fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 0 The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. 0’I grant permission [or 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. 0’I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Val!ey 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 appiication that has become null and void. 0 I understand that I am required to obtain a “Variance Notice”sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road.I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked.I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (IC)business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. 0 I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request,“Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1)year of receivIng approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.(Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:‘-, Applicant PLEASE PRINT;£y/e j tL’I4.74ç .4?-.-.,c1Th Signatures: Record OwneyJ4R..,iA__rL_1 de Date _______________ Applicant,g f-iJ’t.Date _______________ QevIed 11120/09 Zoning Districts 94.3 Residential Zoning Districts C) Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts -,£-itst1 MauaN’1,(01%2501 §1Y (It) ‘Daftly3 “Wrt ?4 8Mb Halqhtr ttW{wiftWaaW (t4ltti.4J FVcq*(ft)(It)Rear(lt)(IflhO RE-i 1/10 Ac.10 Ac.200 50 50 50 30 20 RE 1/,5 Ac.2.5 Ac.200 50 50 50 30 20i::i I lAo.[3]100 25 25 25 80 20 .26- E 2 Ac.[31 75 10 15 30 20 streets 26- R 4 14M.60 10 15 30 20 streets R-i 8 5,000 60 15 10 15 30 20 Single-famIly 25- =16,000;arterials; 2R-2 Duplex=60 15-other 10 10 30 0 27,000 streets 40,000, ResidentIal 5,400 sq.60;Uses:ft/unitRMMax8and[4)[81 (3rd,Lots 25-(rg.1 I ‘nro 25-07 §1)G:er 10 [6)10 30 20 [7] #14)Institutional Senior 1001000 streets i_Win Uses instItutional sq.It.: Max=24 Living Uses:200 ½Ac. I INotestoTable4-2: (a)See Chaoter 4,§4,3.0,which ahows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for single-family resldentlalsubdivisionsthatarerequiredtosetasideprivateopenareasperChapter4,§4.3.0.1.(b)See Chapter 11 •§11.3 which aitowa a reduction in mirtirnum tot size (area)for clustered lots In open spacedevelopments (c)See Chapter 11,§11.4,which shows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for attainable housing.(d)See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires an increase in m!nimum lot size (area)for dav&opment on steep slopes.(Ord.2-02 §1) See Chapter 7,§7.6,for required setbacks from stream/rivei’corridors and wetianda,(Ord.2-02 #5;3rd.11-02 §1) II private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations set forth in§7.12,“Adequate Pubito Fatuities.” Townhome developments shall be deveiopsd on parce’s no smaller than 40,000 square teet however,eaoh indMdualtownhomeunitmaybeconsbjotedonaminimum2,000 square foot lot at a maiimum density of 8 dwelling unfts per acre. All development,except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot,shall also be subject to a maximum floorarearatio(FAR)at .30 and a maxImum lot coverage of 50%.(3rd.25-07 §1) Zero side yard selbacks (known as “zero lot line development”)are allowed for townhonie developments. Minimum building width requirements shall apply to mobile homes located In a mobile home perk. Single-family and duplexcievelopmsnts shall have minimum tot areas of 10,000 s.f.and 27,000 s.f.,respectively.(Ord 18-01#14) [9j All structures shall be set back from public or prIvate roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings orlots.The setback ehall be measured from the edge of public or private roads,the edge of the dedicated right-of-way orrecordedeasementorthepropertyline,whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be the same as theapplicableminimumbuIlding/structure setback.(3rd.11-02 §1;3rd,25-07 §1) [10]See Chapter 1,§1.9.E,which allows an Increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes.(3rd.18-02 #3) ‘-S . (1] [2) [3) t41 (5] [6] [7] [83 C t C March 19,2012 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, We are the property owners and live at 1940 Sharon Court North which is immediately next door to the home of Lyle and Faith Zimmerman at 1930 Sharon Court North. We understand that the Zimmerman’s wish to expand their rear deck approximately 5 feet and that a portion of this expansion will encroach into the rear 15 foot setback which will require a variance. We support granting a variance to the Zimmerman’s so they can expand their rear deck approximately 5 feet in width.This proposed expansion will not have any effect on our property or our activities and the visual impact to the neighborhood will be minimal. If you have questions regarding this letter you may contact us at 970-586-8525. Sincerely, 2 c Charles C.and Barbara J.Slicker 1940 N.Sharon Court Estes Park,CO 80517 Marchl9,2012 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, I am the property owner and live at 1931 Sharon Court North which is immediately next door to the home of Lyle and Faith Zimmerman at 1930 Sharon Court North. I support granting a variance to the Zimmerman’s so they can expand their rear deck approximately 5 feet in width.I understand that the deck expansion will extend into the 15 foot backyard setback.This proposed expansion will not have any effect on my property or my activities and the visual impact to the neighborhood will be minimal. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, Leroy D.Woodall 1931 N.Sharon C0ILII Estes Park,CO 80517 Fm Zn —o2: £1 . — /1‘4 . C- ) —U? td j- i ;(ci‘4 t 41 , a 4 S. . ° c I ‘‘ I 3- :2 (.Si , 4I 09Li i wI __ _ _ _ _ _ _ r . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ A t_ _ _ _ r /r -‘1 0 .4’ 0’BUILDING SETBAcK AT SIDES CrrP) 0to I41 /IM to z 6..fec. -,a lop BOT LOCATION OF NEIGHBORING GAS SEFUE liNE —V€U.OStD csDs]UNEI A -e*s ø:-e• r%le.d;rna_c -€a---wA.t CONSTRUCTED O’t I 5L2€C—:C MIN O%OC!->x’. SECURELY KEC 4C Yt E MINTMTZE VOIDS.‘?‘C D%S t A SURFACE kS • BOND (co___7t Co . 5 tUT(EASEMENT ,AT PERIMETER (riP) ‘5’ 97o- OMMuN;n DEVELOPMENT OUTLOT C H 11.063 ACRES -C’ 25 RES 15’BUILDING SEtBACK AT FRONT AND BACK (TYP) INVERT ,;.1’ 4 REBA? 4? 10’SETBACX lop SOT 1O.09 OF W*U.ft a OF WALL ft - or wii a =7702 0c WALL a —7700, DRY STACK CII> lo EXCEED 4 “ A 71 0’ I A a1 go I- :1 ’ :7 : A’ — J Jr “- / ‘C c* —— it t ’ / I L/ - Y f / ? 3. 0 ,/ ir . s A r/ t , e” 1 2 , c. . c , — Qa /a c ’ - CO 7 2 . 7- ’ / -‘ - 7 K /° Sy ; > ’ I - ) fr : - 41 ‘( I i. . . (t n cC f ? ’ .c E x E 75 - -{ L - .- /7 KI T C E N H DU - 4 I N t \ ç ‘k ) 3N C, — >f ? 9 0 1 o /- a 4; - ’ 0’ so , 5 9 j i )i 2 t / -“ / / a \O 2 ‘% “ 1 W - 9 -“ _a t ‘t 1 / .4 ’ 7 — c1 5 0 c9 :) 6 - ” ; f r ’ “- 2 fl 2 n 2 y 7 0± 6 / t# i % . t l / 2 /1 ’ . . COMMUNIn DEVELOPMENT II Zi m m e r Va r i a n c e Ow n e r Ow n e r II Ad d r e s s Ci t y ST Zi p Ro n a l d & Su s a n Ha r r i s 19 7 1 N Sh a r o n Ct Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Le r o y Wo o d a l l 19 3 1 N Sh a r o n Ct Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ti m o t h y & Ma r i a n n Kr a l l P0 Bo x 10 So l o n IA 52 3 3 3 Gl e n e & Ro b e r t a Ri c h a r d s o n 79 5 2 Ea g l e Ra n c h Rd Ft Co l l i n s CO 80 5 2 8 St e p h e n & Ga r r e t t Fa i l l a c i 19 6 0 N Sh a r o n Ct Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ch a r l e s & Ba r b a r a Sl i c k e r 19 4 0 N Sh a r o n Ct Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Fr a n k & Ka r e n Jo h n k e 19 0 0 N Mo r r i s Ct Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ch u r l lm & K y o u n g Pa r k P0 Bo x 25 6 5 Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ka t h e r i n e & Ro b e r t Ma r a n o w i c z 19 5 1 Cr a g s Ct Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Da v i e & Cl a r a Ma e Ma r c i n i a k 18 9 0 N Mo r r i s Ct Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Sh e r r y We a k l i m PC Bo x 37 8 6 Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ch a r l e s & Ju l i e Va r i l e k 10 1 0 Ac a c i a Dr Es t e s Pa r k CC 80 5 1 7 Zi m m e r m a n Va r i a n c e 0 0 0 Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division _______________ Room 230,Town HaIl,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 ww.estesorg REQUEST:Variance from the “RE”Rural Estate requirement. LOCATION:918 Christmas Tree Lane 50-foot rear yard setback Hew to get there:Take Fish Creek Road to Rockwood Lane.Turn onto Christmas Tree Lane where Rockwood takes a sharp left.Turn left at fork in driveway. APPLICANTIOWNER:William and Deborah Miller PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards’of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a rear yard setback of 10-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow a detached 1,100 square foot garage. Engineer/Surveyor/Consultant:Van Horn Engineering (survey work only) Parcel Number:3412100038 Development Area:18-acre lot,area of disturbance less than 2,000 square feet. Existing Land Use:Single-family residential Proposed Land Use:Same,with detached .. Miller Variance Request (Christmas Tree Lane) ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE:May 1,2012 .. garage. Zoning Designation:RE Rural Estate Adjacent Zoning: East:RE Rural Estate North:RE Rural Estate West:RE Rural Estate South:RE Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses: East:Single-family residential North:Single-family residential West:Single-family residential South:Institutional (Cheley Camp) Services: Water:Well Sewer:Septic The lot is an 18-acre parcel.However,due to Christmas Tree Mountain the developable area is limited.The topography and the location of the existing house combine to direct the location of this structure to where the applicant proposes.This location would have no impact on the neighborhood,and the purpose of setback standards will not be compromised. 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.These standards are included in the Board notebooks. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES:This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.At the time of this report,no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. FINDINGS: 1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2.Specia(circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 3.The variance is not substantial. 4.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered,nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 5.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 6.The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 8.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,May 1,2012 Page 2 of 3 Miller variance Request . 9.Failure 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 shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval conditional to: 1.Compliance with the site plan and building design,as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2.Setback Certificate.Prior to final inspection,a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance,and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines.Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL (or disapproval)of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,May I,2012 Page 3 of 3 Miller Variance Request .4/24/2012 1 •. Dave Shirk C -om:Candace Phippen phippecIco.larimer.co.us} ant:Monday,March 26,2012 10:15 AM To:Dave Shirk Subject:Miller and Lehmkuhl Variance Requests No known building code issues. 1 S . Dave Shirk From:Stan Griep [sgrieplarimerorg) Sent:Friday,April 06,2012 1:54 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject;Miller Variance Request -918 Christmas Tree Lane Hi Dave, According to the site plan,the proposed garage is 50 feet from one side property line and appears to be 10 feet from a back propeity line.The closest point appears to be the 10 feet to property line per the plan.Thus it is okay as far as building code is concerned without fire rated wall assemblies.A building permit is required for the propose structure.Two sets of Engineered Foundation plans and structure construction plans are required for submittal for a building permit.Along with 4 sets of a plot/site plan showing dimensions to all property lines and other structures on the site. I did not send a copy of these comments to the applicant,will you please include them into your report on the project? Thank you, Stan Stan V.Griep Lead &Commercial Plans Examiner Larimer County Building Department Ft.Collins,CO 80522-1190 Phone:(970)498-7714 Fax:(970)498-7667 t Dave Shirk:- om:Todd Steichen :nt:Wednesday,March 28,2012 11:58AM To:Karen Thompson;Kevin Ash;Jen Imber;Susie Parker;Reuben Bergsten;rlegglarrner.org; ‘Matt Lafferty’;‘Tom Garton’ Cc:ImiIIer2emajgmjIcom!;Dave Shirk Subject:RE:VARIANCE REQUEST;Metes &Bounds parcel,AKA TR 2 Hyland Exemption -918 Christmas Tree Ln -REFERRAL FOR COMMENT After a site visit Light &Power has the following comments. 1.Utility Easements to remain intact and not be encroached upon. 2.If existing electrical service is large enough to sub-feed garage then L&P will not have to get involved it would all be electrician work, 3.If existing electrical service needs to be upgraded to sub-feed the garage or they want a separate electrical service &meter for the garage then a site visit with L&P is required to go over options,costs etc. Todd. if odd J.Stdcfwa Town of Estes Park Light &Power Dept. (ie superintendent olS Elm Rd (Service Center) P.O.Box 1200 (mailing) Estes Park,Co.80517 (970)-577-3601 (office) (970)-586-3762 (fax) tsteichenestes.org From:Karen Thompson Sent:Friday,March 23,2012 11:46 AM To:Kevin Ash;Jen Imber;Susie Parker;Reuben Bergsten;Todd Steichen;rIepolarimer.org;Matt Lafferty;Tom Gaston Cc:Dave Shirk Subject:VARIANCE REQUEST:Metes &Bounds parcel,AKA TR 2 Hyland Exemption -918 Christmas Tree Ln - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT REFFERAL FOR COMMENT COMPLETENESS REVLEW V Pre-Application Completeness Rev Public Review (Planning CommissIon/Town Board/county Commission) Building Permit As-Builts 1 InMarch20,2012 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment: We respectfully request a variance of the setback requirements affecting our property at 918 Christmas Tree Lane in Estes Park.Our desire is to enhance the value of our property by building a detached garage in a style to complement our home.While we have a 2-car attached garage we would like to add detached storage space for the protection of our RV,snow plow, boat,trailer,wood splitter,and other items.The proposed length of the garage is essential in order to meet our needs of enclosing these items. Special circumstances exist in that our Christmas Tree Mountain location consists of 18 very steep acres and severely limits our placement of this garage.The proposed site is directly behind the only vehicle turn-around we have at the house.Were we to move the new garage closer to the house)we would lose that turn-around space for cars,service and emergency vehicles.We have also consulted with a builder and excavator and all agree that the proposed site is the only feasible one based on accessibility,drainage,proximity to house,and cost effectiveness. There are no homes other than ours visible from the proposed building site—neither the garage itself nor planned subdued lighting would impact the nearest neighbor.We have made many improvements to our property and believe this garage will be an additional one because Q we will be able to enclose numerous implements and recreational items.We intend to design this structure as aesthetically pleasing as possible because it will be visible from our own kitchen window.Despite being located on unique acreage the home itself was also built at the most feasible location which is the very corner of the property.We are pleased that there is enough space for this beneficial addition and are very hopeful the variance will be approved considering the rural nature of our location. Thank you for your time and consideration.We would be pleased to provide further information if necessary. Respectfully, William G.and Deborah K.Miller Tract:a yzc ///1,4,cr) & Town of Esles Park .P.O.Box 1200 +170 MacGre9or Avenue ..Ems Park.CC 80517 Cornmunlly Development Department Phone:(970)577-3721 ..Fax:970)586•0249 .www.eses.crg/ComDev Submittal Date: ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Record Owner(s): 1Street Address of Lot: Legal Description:Lot: ___________ Subdivision: a flt6 A-hit 1C,j\1()Lt1cy i}t&vt k’AV M(LLrc Parcel ID # Block: f-Cc.:f4r5 F 1i 7_4*.C. ZoningLotSize 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 Xcel Site Access (if not on pubtic street)- Are there wetlands on the site? r—wel r Other (Specify)r Well V Other (Speci’) F EPSD F UTSD F EPSD F UTSD r Other F-None ‘—leptic Septic F Yes iVariance Desired (Development Code Section #): _____________________ -i)6 1(Lt4C V.k,-Ci YCT 7e%-ci Variance 2. Primaty Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Prmarq Contact Person is N-I (cLCk— c-6wr C///2,’rr,wk 7X tE L64iJc ac.57E5M tj< F Applicant Attachments F Consultant/Enaineer 1°’Application fee (see attached fee schedule) if Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code) F 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1 =20) rr 1 reduced copy of the site plan (1 IX 17) The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VIL5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded. Revised 11/20/09 IIIIIIDIMrrnmTumfu1 ll]II1D1llDI Record Owner(s)tL)/tL/,41t4 4.//)e[f?xp.41J /LfiLLEtC IIGINIiII MailingAddress C/fl CF/t/S17t-&’7c W&e-Liv IliPID1MI i5’71’4q33p3 CellPhone/fX)3 -&‘Io ocYK Fax!Email 144 ;/frC 2 t’jli.1jg /I Applicant 5cbu...a s ‘Ux—ztt Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email ConsultantlEngineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: http:llwww.estes orWCom Dev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal. 0 Rcvlsed 11/20/09 . APPLICANT CERTIFiCATION 0 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 lam acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. 0 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). 0 acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC,and that,prior to filing this application,I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: http://www.estes.org/ComDev/DevCode 0 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. 0 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. 0 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 0 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. 0 I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Appiicaton Schedule ano 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. 0 I understand that lam required to obtain a “Variance Nolice”sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road.I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked.I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10)business days prior to the Estes Valfey Board of Adjustment hearing. 0 I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request,‘Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1)year of receiving approval of the variance may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.”(Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6 D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT H,ctc% Applicant PLEASE PRINT c.,41,’ttA. Signatures:—, Record Owner Date Applicant Date 3/a/& Revised 11/20/09 Zoning Districts . §4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2BaseDensityandDimensionalStandards Residential Zoning Districts Ent oenWIy fleer4”.SMS ‘[“(icwkWscre).‘.qfttc ‘tk Proqt(ft)L)Rear$:;rTftJ(1a) .-f114 1/lOAc.l0Ac.200 50 50 50 30 20rRE1/.5 Ac.2.5 Ac,209 50 50 50 30 20LElAcj3)100 25 25 26 30 20 S 2 ‘1/gAo.[3]76 10 15 30 20 streets R 4 %Ac.80 15 30 20 streets B-i 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 SIngle-family 25-=18,000;arterlalsR-2 4 60 ‘10 10 30 20Duplex=I 5-other 27,000 streets 40,000 ResidentIal 5400 sq.60;Uses:ft.!unitAMMax=S and (43 (83 (Ord.°‘26-(Did.Mm 3 2507 §1)arterials; 10 (6j 10 30 20 (7)16-01 Senior 15-other#14)InstItutional Senior 100,000 streets Living Uses:Institutional sq.it.: Max —4 Uving Uses:aoo ,-½Ac. Notes to Table 4-2: (11 (a)See Chapter 4,§4.3.0,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for single-family residentialsubdivisionsthatarerequiredtosetasideprivateopenareasperChapter4,§4.S.D.1.(b)See Chapter ii §11.3,which allows a reduction in minimum tot size (area)tar clustered tots In open spacedevelopments. (c)See Chapter Ii,§11.4,which allows a reduction ri minImum lot size (area)for attainable housing.(ci)See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires en increase In mInimum lot size (area)for develooment on steep slopes.(Ord.2-02 §1) (23 See Chapter 7,§7.6,for required setbacks from stresm/rPser corridors and wetlands,(Ord.2-02 5;Ord.11-02 §1)(S It private wells or septic systems are used,the mlnhijum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations set forth in§7.12,“Adequate Public FaclUties.” (4)Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet;however,each individualtownhomeunItmaybeconstructedonaminimum2,000 square toot lot at a mejilmum density of 8 dwelling unlts per acre.[5]All development,except development of one slngis4amily dwellIng on a single lot,shall also be subject to a maximum floorarearatio(FAR)of .30 and a maxImum lot coverage of 60%.(Ord.25-07 §1) 1(6]Zero sIde yard setbacks (known as “zero lot line development”)are atowed for townhome developments,(7)MinImum building width requirements shall p apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. I(s)Single-family and dupiexdeveicpments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,009 s.f.and 27,000 s.f.,respectively.(Ord 18-01#14) (91 All structures shall be set back Iront pubic or private roads that serve more than tour adjacent or oil-site dwellings orlots.The setback shall be measured from the edge of pubNc or private roads,the edge of the dedIcated right-of-way orrecordedeasementorthepropertyline,whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be the same as theapplicableminimumbufldlng!struoture setback.(Ord.11-02 §1;Did 25-07 l) Chapter 1,’I.9.E,which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on siopee.(Ord.18-02 ItS)J C 0 0 few‘I I;t. I’1r. i‘t,7*, .‘.1‘a;, •1 Th:•:tt.. I’ LA L R I M E R \\ C O U W CO M M I T T E D TO EX C E L L E N C E Le g e n d fl T a x Pa r c e l s To p o Th Pl a t t e d L c — 10 0 Ft T o 9 r a p F i t Co n t o u r 20 Fo r t Ta p o g r a p h t Co n t o u r Ro c k y Mo u n t a i n Na t i o f l i Pa r k (L a m e r Po r t o n ) — Pa d < s an d Re c r e a b o n I. Sc l t O O l P r O P f l P Na t u r a l Re s o u r c e Ne a s Ir s o r p o r a t e d Ar e a s Cr e a t e d by La r i m e r Co i a t y GI S r. e i n g da t a fr o m mu t t i p t e so u r c e s . La r i m e r Co u n t y ma k e s no wa r r a n t y as to Th e ao c u r a t y . Th i s pi o d u c t ma y tt t re f c t re n t up d a t pr i o r to tt e da t e of 0. 0 4 0. 0 6 Mu l e la n c e Ow n e r Ow n e r N Ad d r e s s Ci t y ST Zi p Ch e l e y Co l o r a d o Ca m p s , In c . PC Bo x 65 2 5 De n v e r CO 80 2 0 6 Br u c e & Co r i n n e Gr a n t 10 8 5 Pi n e Kn o l l Dr Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Le l a n d & Li n d a Sc h l i t t 95 1 Ro c k w o o d Ln Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ma r k & Mi c h e l l e Pu r d y 90 0 Ro c k w o o d Ln Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Po w e l l & La u r i e Tr o t m a n 91 0 Ro c k w o o d Ln Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Be n & Pa t r i c i a Fl i n t 23 7 9 Va n G o r d o n St La k e w o o d CO 80 2 1 5 Ku r t & Na d i n e St r e i b 92 6 Ro c k w o o d Ln Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 Ra y m o n d Am o s 28 0 6 Ai n t r e e Ln , Un i t 20 2 Na p l e s FL 34 1 1 2 Ch a r l e s Am m Ho e k w i l 65 8 0 SO U T H AF R I C A Jo h n & Ju a n i t a Fo r d 16 9 7 0 Da l l a s Pk w y #6 0 1 Da l l a s TX 75 2 4 8 Li s a Vo n B a r g e n Ke n n e t h Sc h w a r z 33 4 1 Ro c k w o o d Ln S Es t e s Pa r k CO 80 5 1 7 . Mi l l e r Va r i a n c e Th(PROVPARNT LOCATION CERTIFICATE FOUND WITNESS CORNER ,rNOl’04’09E 91.27’FROM TRUE CORNER GARAGE — N (777.79’)777.50 BEARING REFERENCE S69’15’04’E 1.34671’ ECTION 12,1 1/2”PIPE W/METAL CAP f6499 lEGAL DESCRWflON:TRACT No.2,ThE I4Y1.ANDS EXEMP11ON ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 15,1979 AT 9001<1961 AT PAGE316,OF THE OFTICLAI.RECORDS OF L.ARIMER COUNTY. ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL IN THE HE 1/4 OF SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTh.RANGE 73 WEST Of THE 6TH P.M.,DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST 260 FEET FROM ThE NE CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 OF TIlE NE 1/4 OF SPJD SECTiON. THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 01 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST 1,068 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 15 MINUTES WEST 777.7 FEET, THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 09 SECOND: EAST 946.2 FEET,THENCE NORTH 82 DEGREES EAST787.63 FEET TO ThE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF [PRIMER.STATE OF COLORADO. NOTES: 1.ThE TITLE COMMITMENT EXCEPTS A RESERVATiONorRIGHTorPROPRIETOROFMWPENETRATING VEIN OR LOVE TO EXTRACT HIS ORE AS RECORDED IN BOOK T PAtE 152. 2.ThE TITLE COMMITMENT EXCEPTS TERMS. AGREEMENTS,PROViSIONS,CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATiONS AS CONTAiNED IN AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT RECORDED AT RECEPTION No.95034636. SAID ASREEMENT HAS ONLY GENERAL GEOMETRY WHICH IS NOT SHOWN HEREON.EASEMENT FOLLOWS ROAD ACCESSTO 1016 CHRISTMAS TREE LME. Q S p p •• e FOUND IY&”PIPC —.——— •F p CUL—DE—SAC AS Sk4O’Ol “TO DEOtCATED’ON ThE NYWdD CCDWTTON flAT ± TRACT II 18.0 ACRES SCALE 1”.=200’ a,’ Salz LECEND C FVLWL IDJM4CCAT)ON *LWJOT hNUk4D4TRlIOti 00.00 MFASIRW CIT CAWAATW DWD1OIG (00.00)PlATTED Off 0W DIbCISlOiG 2 STORY WOOl) FRAME HOUSE I) LENDER:ESTES PARK MORTGAGES,LLC RR0%Th TODD GERARD BETNEI(&UN PHI 9NX TiTLE CO.:TRANSNAT1ON TIRE INSURANCE CO. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT This IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE WAS TITLE COMMITMENT No.61-0002062PREPAREDFORTRANSNATIONTITLEINSURANCECO.,THAT IT IS NOT A LAND DATED AUGUST 30,2007 SURVEY PLAT OR IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT,AND THAT IT IS NOT TO BERELIEDUPONFORTHEESTABLISHMENTOFFENCE.BUILDING,OR OTHER FUTURE IMPROVEMENT LINES. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON ThE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE,SEPTEMBER 17.2007,EXCEPT UTILrrr CONNECTIONS,ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL,EXCEPT AS SHOWN,THATTHEREARENOENCROACHMENTSUPONTHEDESCRIBEDPREMISESBYIMPROVEMENTSONANYADJOININGPREMISES.EXCEPT AS INDICATED,AND THATTHEREISNOAPPARENTEVIDENCEORSIGNOFANYEASEMENTCROSSINGOR LONNIE A.SHELDON BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL,EXCEPT AS NOTED.CO PE.&LS.#26974 DRAWN DATE VAN HORN ENGINEERING SCALE PROJ.NO.1043 Fish Creek Road —Estes Park,CO 80517ZSH9/17/2007 Phone:(970)586—9388 —FoX:(970)586—8101 AS SHOWN 99/05/08 I C t C 1: ca ‘4 ) -2C cJ a ’a I Iz1 N - r U 0 ‘ n a I - Q 4 N Iii ‘3 .7;. 0