Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2011-01-04kt Le) Prepared: December 27, 2010 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, January 4, 2011 9:00 a.m. — Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated December 7, 2010 b. Request to Continue Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision), 255 Cyteworth Road, James and Nancy Gunter/Applicants 3. REQUESTS a. Tract A, Joyner Amended Minor Land Division of the Broun Minor Land Division S-117-87, 251 Baker Drive Owner: Lorie Bond Applicant: Thomas Beck, TW Beck Architects Request: Variance from EVDC Table 4-2, which requires a 50-foot minimum building setback from all property lines. Request to allow a 20-foot encroachment into the minimum setback for construction of a proposed attached garage. Staff Contact: Dave Shirk b. Metes and Bounds (a portion of Block 10, Town of Estes Park), 230 Big Horn Drive Owner: Thomas and Kathleen Hochstetler Applicant: Celine LeBeau, Van Horn Engineering Request: Variance from EVDC Table 4-2, requiring 15-foot setbacks from front property lines and 10-foot setbacks from rear property lines in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district. Request to allow a 9.7-foot encroachment into the front setback and a 3.5-foot encroachment into the rear setback to construct a proposed attached garage. Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. REPORTS 5. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 7, 2010, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Bob McCreery, Members John Lynch, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair McCreery, Members Levine, Newsom, Smith Also Attending: Interim Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Lynch Chair McCreery 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. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chair McCreery welcomed Alison Chilcott as the Interim Community Development Director. 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes of the November 2, 2010 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. LOT A, CLATWORTHY ESTATES (A PORTION OF LOT 22, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION), 255 CYTEWORTH ROAD. Request for variance from EVDC Section 403, Table 4-2, which requires a 15-foot front setback from property lines In the R—Presidential zone district. Request to allow a 2-foot setback from the front property line to construct a proposed addition to the existing dwelling. Interim Director Chilcott stated the applicant requested a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow time to address concerns of the Fire District and Public Works Department. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to continue the variance request for Lot A, Clatworthy Estates to the next regularly scheduled meeting and the motion passed unanimously, with one absent. 4. REPORTS Interim Director Chilcott reported there is a pre -application meeting scheduled for December 8, 2010 for a development plan for the Park Theatre Mall. Multiple variance requests may be submitted at a later date. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to nominate Member Newsom to serve as Chair for 2011, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to nominate Member McCreery to serve as Vice -Chair for 2011, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 7, 2010 It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Smith) to nominate the Administrative Assistant of the Community Development Department or a designee to serve as Recording Secretary, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. There being no further business, Chair McCreery adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m. Bob McCreery, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 11111114 Bond Side Yard Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org DATE: January 4, 2011 REOUEST: Variance from the "RE" Rural Estate 50-foot side yard setback requirement. LOCATION: 251 Baker Drive, within unincorporated Larimer County APPLICANT: Thomas Beck PROPERTY OWNER: Lori Bond STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Architect: Thomas Beck Parcel Number: 3411107701 Number of Lots: One Proposed Land Use: Same Adjacent Zoning - Development Area: 1.64 acre Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Existing Zoning: "RE" Rural Estate (2.5 acre) East: "RE" Rural Estate West: "A-1" Accommodations North: "A-1" Accommodations South: "RE" Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses - East: Hwy 7; single-family dwelling West: Single-family dwelling Services - Water: Town of Estes Park North: Hwy 7; undeveloped lot South: Single-family dwelling Sewer: Septic Fire Protection: Estes Park 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 30-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow an attached garage. 21 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 set forth below: 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 and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. Specifically: • At 1.6 acre, the lot is small for the "RE" Rural Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5-acres (which the 50-foot setbacks were created). This lot Page #2 Bond Setback Request is closer to the "E-1" Estate district, which has setbacks of 25-feet, which this proposal would meet. The existing house was built in 1957, prior to the establishment of setback requirements. As a result of the older house and the newer setbacks, most all of the existing structure is located within the required building setbacks. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property. The existing single-family dwelling may continue it's use. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance is not substantial, as it would comply with setback standards for a typical one -acre lot. 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, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The current owner acquired the property in January 2010. The setback requirements have not changed since. f Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance, though building north of the existing house where Page #3 Bond Setback Request the structure would comply with setback standards would require moving a water line and could impact the septic field. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 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 has provided suggested conditions of approval at the end of the Staff report. REFFERAL"OMMENTS AND THER 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. Kimberly Ackelson, 266 Baker Drive, has submitted an email stating "no issue with the addition." STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 2. The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property. 3. The requested 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 Applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 7. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 8. 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. Page #4 Bond Setback Request 9. 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. 10. Approval of the variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 11. Approval of the variance would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought; 12. 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. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a side yard setback of 20-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required 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 of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #5 -Bond Setback Request 31015 N33 3,0 L 15080 222M,k,,,') tldi53153"22,1 � ',",5jd£VOl ONIA3A21f1S ONV 9NI833NI9N3 NSOH NYA Ni2 Y\�� OQV2IOIO0 'ALNf100 2I3NiI2IV'I Q'IPI NR02IH NH.L .IO 0II^I 21 NAOf 'V ,LOV21.1, HONVI?IYA GNOH 2I0d NV'Id�,LIS 33335 1-1 Page 1 of 2 Dave Shirk From: Todd Steichen Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:43 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Tracy Feagans Subject: RE: Tract A, Joyner Amd MLD, Broun MLD S-117-87 - Bond Residence Variance - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT Oops sorry I got my comments mixed up these are for the one on 230 Bighorn. We have no comments or concerns with the one at 151 Baker Dr. Todd. From: Todd Steichen Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:40 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Tracy Feagans Subject: RE: Tract A, Joyner Amd MLD, Broun MLD S-117-87 - Bond Residence Variance - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT Dave, after a site visit with L&P & Qwest we are ok with the variance as long as they dedicate a property line easement as mentioned in the requested variance. Todd. From: Karen Thompson Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:03 PM To: Greg White; Jacqueline Halbumt; Barbara Boyer Buck; Tracy Feagans; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Carolyn McEndaffer; etracy@larlmer.org; Chrls Bieker (chris@utsd.org); thomas©twbeckarchltects.com; Amy Plummer Cc: Dave Shirk Subject: Tract A, Joyner Amd MLD, Broun MLD 5-117-87 - Bond Residence Variance - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT REFERRAL FOR COMMENT This email is to notify you that staff has received a variance application, which can be viewed by accessing the following Links or by visiting our website at htto://www.estes.oralcomdev/CurrentReauests.aspx. Proje a e and Ty Addre Addre ©Documentation ting es Project (PDF) Staff Report and Comments (PDF) Staff Contact ll II 12/ 1 6/2010 P.O. 8ox 568 • Elites Park, CO 80517 Plc 970-586.4544 • Fac 970-586.1049 December 15, 2010 Dave Shirk Town of Estes Park F.Q. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Variance Request The Lorie L. Bond Trust Tract A of the Joyner Amended Minor Land Division 251 Baker Dr. 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 request. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Xate— Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Environmental Protection Through Wastewater Collection and Treatment Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: AckelsonG@aol.com Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 7:42 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Comment on Bond addition We have no issue with the addition on the Bond residence proposal for variance. Kimberlee Ackeison 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Traci Shambo [shambotlaco.larimer.co.usj Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:53 AM To: Alison ChiIcott; Dave Shirk Subject: Bond Residence Variance, 251 Baker Drive Dave and Allison, This request does not seem to pose any issues for the adjacent roads and rights -of -ways. It does appear that the contours are sloping directly into the proposed garage. I am wondering how they will route drainage away from the structure and if there are "cuts" into the hill necessary to place the garage at this location, how steep will they be. Thanks, Traci Traci Shambo, P.E. Larimer County Engineering Department 200 West Oak St, Suite 3000 P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 498-5701 tshambo@larimer.org 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Greg White [greg®gawhite.comj Sent: Monday, November 28, 2010 11:05 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Thomas®twbckarchitects.com; amyvhe®airbits.com Subject: Bond Residence Variance Dave: I have reviewed the Statement of Intent and Site Plan for the Bond Residence Variance. I have no comment regarding this matter. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Greg 11/29/2010 pig Hochstetler Variance Requests Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org DATE: January 4, 2011 REOUEST: Variance from the "RM" Multi -family 15-foot front yard and 10-foot rear yard setback requirements. LOCATION: 230 Bighorn Drive, within the Town of Estes Park APPLICANT: Van Horn Engineering (Celine LeBeau) PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas and Kathleen Hochstetler STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Surveyor: Van Horn Engineering Parcel Number: 3525216001 Development Area: .19-acre Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: "RM" Multi -family Adjacent Zoning - East: "RM" Multi -family North: "RM" Multi -family West: "RM" Multi -family South: "RM" Multi -family Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services - Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Estes Park Sanitation District 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 northern front yard setback of 5-feet in lieu of the 15-feet required, and an eastern rear lot line of 6-feet in lieu of the 10-feet required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow an attached 22' x 22' garage. ger irrfc »u, VOW 1,111 0)11 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 set forth below: 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 and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. Specifically: The lot is small and does not meet the minimum lot size for any zone district. The lot has a triangular shape that minimizes the buildable area (no area to build to the south, west, north, or east). Page #2 Hochstetler Setback Request • The existing house was built in 1963. The house was located legally at the time it was built. With the present setback requirements, it is difficult to do any expansion of the house without a variance. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property. The current driveway/garage design presents a traffic hazard for vehicles backing onto Big Horn Drive. The proposed garage configuration would provide principal access via an alleyway, and allow the property owner to enter Big Horn Drive facing forward instead of backing out. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance is not substantial. The request is to build an attached two -car attached. The garage size would be 22' x 22', which is smaller than a typical 24' x 24' two -car garage size. 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, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. Specifically: The proposed addition would be "behind" the house away from the street. Greg Rosener/Cydney Springer, 170 Boyd Lane, have submitted a letter of support. 170 Boyd Lane is located adjacent to the Hochstetler residence, immediately to the east. This is the property that would be most affected by the garage location. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. The Light and Power Department has requested an easement be dedicated for the overhead electric line near the east property line. The property owner and applicant have agreed to this request. Page #3 Hochstetler Setback Request e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The property owner purchased the property in 2007 (per County records), with a remodel in 2009 (this request would provide for a continuation of the remodel). The setback requirements have not changed since. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The proposed garage is 22'x 22', which is smaller than a typical 24' x 24'. Also, the applicant revised the submittal to increase the setback from the edge of pavement. 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 has provided suggested conditions of approval at the end of the Staff report, including removal of fencing located along the north property line in order to comply with sight visibility triangle requirements. Not Buildable -I AN. Not Buildable Front Lot y Parkway&. 8ft. orless Street 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. Page #4 Hochstetler Setback Request Neighboring Property Owners. Staff has received one piece of correspondence, an email, from the adjoining property owner to the east. Greg Rosener and Cydney Springer, stated "we ask the Board of Adjustment to grant the Hochstetler's request." A copy of the email is attached. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 2. The requested variance is not substantial. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 4. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 5. The Applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 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. 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. Approval of the variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 1 D. Approval of the variance would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought; 11. 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. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a north setback 5-feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required and an eastern rear yard setback of 6-feet in lieu of the 10-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Easement. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall dedicate a 5-foot overhead public utility easement. The property owner/applicant should contact the Light and Power Department (Reuben Bergsten) to discuss easement dedication procedure. Page #5 Hochstetler Setback Request 3. Sight Visibility. Prior to final inspection, the fence located along the northern property line shall be brought into compliance with sight visibility standards set forth in Appendix D of the EVDC. 4. 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 of the requested variances with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #6 Hochstetler Setback Request Page 1 of 2 Dave Shirk From: Todd Steichen Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:40 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Tracy Feagans Subject: RE: Tract A, Joyner Amd MLD, Broun MUDS 117.87 - Bond Residence Variance - REFERRAL FOR have, after a site visit with L&P & Qwest we are ok with the variance as long as they dedicate a property line easement as mentioned in the requested variance. Todd. From: Karen Thompson Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:03 PM To: Greg White; Jacqueline Halbumt; Barbara Boyer Buck; Tracy Feagans; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Stelchen; Carolyn McEndaffer; etracy@larimer.org; Chris Biker (chris8Dutsd.org); thomas@twbeckarchitects.com; Amy Plummer Cc: Dave Shirk Subject: Tract A, Joyner Amd MLD, Broun MLD S-117-87 - Bond Residence Variance - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT REFERRAL FOR COMMENT This email is to notify you that staff has received a variance application, which can be viewed by accessing the following links or by visiting our website at http://www.estes.oru/comdev/CurrentReauests,asox. ProjectrName Tocumentation ype Address Meeting Dates Project Dd (PDF) Staff Report and Comments (PDF) Staff Contact Bond Residence Vanance 25"� Baker Drive Estes Valley Board of AO 'anent 1' 4/11 allitragglIfillni Staff R • «rt available 12/30°10 Send Comments to Have Shirk at dehlrkmeetee ore ad Aoollcatron filaZion If you prefer paper copies of documents, please email me. Thank you for your help in our effort to reduce the need for paper copies. Please submit any comments you may have regarding this request as soon as possible, but no later than December 28, 2010. Comments can be sent via mail, email (dshirk@estes.ore), or fax (970.586.0249). 12/16/2010 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: James Duell flldepad@gwestoffice.net] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:09 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Spam: RE: Variance Request 230 Bighorn Drive Hello Dave — as per review of the variance request for 230 Bighorn Drive (Hochstetler) we do not believe this would Impact the District or existing customers in this area. Properties to the north of this parcel drain to the main that connect to Virginia Drive. The property to the east of this lot drains to Boyd Lane. However it does cut across the southern corner of the lot before it connects In Boyd Lane. The proposed garage will not be in this area. The service line to the house at 230 Bighorn was replaced recently and connects to our main line in Bighorn Drive. We have no problem with the requested variance. Thanks — James Duell 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Derek Rosenquist Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:49 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: 230 Big Hom Drive No comments from the Fire Department Derek Rosenquist Training Captain Estes Valley Fire Protection District 970-577-3690 12/14/2010 From: Greg Rosene' Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 10:29 PM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: Letter to be read 01 12/7 Board of Adj Meeting-Hochstetier Hearing Ms. Alison This fetter is in regard to Tom & Katie Hochstetler's hearing concerning set back variances for their proposed residential garage on Lot 13, Bik 10, 2"d Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park. As the neighbor to the subject property that would be most affected by the construction of the proposed garage, we wish to give our 100% support of the Board of Adjustment giving a variance to the Hochstetler's. What the Hochstetler's have done to the property to date has improved the neighborhood, greatly. And they should be allowed to finish their updating process. This is an old subdivided area that has been cobbled together with re -subdivisions of subdivisions which makes it more difficult for neighborhoods such as ours to accommodate newer types of homes. In order for areas such as these to meet the changing needs that occurs over time, considerations need to be made for these neighborhoods to upgrade. We ask the Board of Adjustment to grant the Hochstetler's request. Greg Rosener & Cydney Springer 170 Boyd Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-2690 ISM DRSCRIPTION (PROM WARRANTY MED WITH RRCEPI7ON NUMBER 2769E E ); ALL THAT PART OF LOT 13, BLOCK 10, AS SHOWN BY SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE TOM OF ESTES PARK. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13, BLOCK 10; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST UNE OF SAID LOT 13, 157 FEET; THENCE WEST 54.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4714' WEST 23.4 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23'2' WEST 23.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHEASTERLY UNE OF ENG HORN DRIVE, FORMERLY ANDERSON LANE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EAST UNE OF BIG HORN DRIVE. FORMERLY ANDERSON UNE TO A POINT DIRECRY WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE EAST 26.5 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, TOGETHER WITH THE WEST 1 FOOT OF LOT 6, WEBSTER'S SUBOMSION OF LOT 14, BLOCS( 10, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COUNTY OF LARIMER,...STATE OF COLORADO. I..RCRND 0 POWER POLE :5 FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING SPRUCE TREES EXISTING PONDEROSA TREES EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES CHAT N—UNK FENCE WOOD FENCE —01A1— OVERHEAD UTILRY ONES PROPOSED DRIVE PROPOSED ADDIT✓.1N 0 FOUND MONUMENTATION 00.00 MEASURED OR CALCULATED DIMENSIONS (00.00) PLATTED DEEDED DIM QURVRRYOR'R NOTES; 1. THIS SITE PUN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE REUED UPON AS A BOUNDARY SURVEY NOR AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY. 2. THIS SIZE PLAN HAS BEEN CREATED FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ALONG THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE. 3. THIS LOT IS ZONED RM (MULTI —FAMILY) WITH A 10' UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG ALL LOT UNES, 10' BUILDING SETBACK ALONG SIDE AND REAR LOT UNES, AND 15' BUILDING SETBACK ALONG PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ROADS (NORTH AND EAST LOT UNES). 4. THE EAST PROPERTY UNE WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS, BEARING NORTH A DISTANCE OF 157'. 5. CONTOURS ARE AT 1 FOOT INTERVALS AND ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMED ELEVATION OF CONTROL POINT #1 (NAIL POINT) OF 7603' (INTERPOLATED FROM "'.,. TOWN TOPO). VARIANCE SITE PLAN 236 BIG HORN ROAD PARCEL #35252-16-003 PFBLIC • ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG 'ROAD " N�' l (BIG )PORN SUBDIVISIONPj{AT) d e' IOLY AMMO PAT OP T@ WIOBOWN AT BPWCS SUBDIVISION 230 BIG HORN DRIVE EOM PAM. COICRADO TRACT A (PART OF LOT 13, SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK) 0.20 ACRE FOUND TOWN OF ESTES PARK GP LIMA POPNON OF TOT DO, TOOLS I0, TOWN OP PSI® PAPS ,. PEBOiR WITH PC Awes 5' WOE UTILITY EISEIEM ALONG EAST LOT UNE TO BE DEDICATED BY SEPARATE DDCIAENI LOT 6 WEBSTER RESUBDIVISION G.51 UNE OP LOT B. WEBSER'S SUBDIVISION (EAST 130.05) NOTIVATIR z 0 z NOIIVATIH UJILVISHOOH R i I NOCIIRTITLZR GARAGE PLAN ... , ..,-.. tO „.., 290 BIG HORN DRIVE 151211 PDX COIARADO .1Iffialffflift. • F • 070 101