Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2011-02-01Prepared: January 24, 2011 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, February 1, 2011 9:00 a.m. — Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated January 4, 2011 3. REQUESTS a. Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision), 255 Cyteworth Road Owner/Applicant: James & Nancy Gunter Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a 15-foot front -yard setback from property lines in the R—Residential zone district. Request to allow a four - foot setback from the front property line to construct a proposed addition to the existing dwelling. Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWERS AND DUTIES a. Remove reference to the Estes Park Municipal Sign Code 5. ADJOURNMENT 6. REPORTS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 4, 2011, 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, Lynch, Smith Also Attending: Interim Director Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Levine 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. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes of the December 7, 2010 meeting. It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Smith) to approve the minutes with the typographical error corrected, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. b. Request to continue the variance request for Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision), 255 Cyteworth Road, James and Nancy Gunter/Applicants It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Lynch) to continue the variance request for Lot A, Clatworthy Estates, 255 Cyteworth Road, to the next regularly scheduled meeting and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. TRACT A, JOYNER AMENDED MINOR LAND DIVISION OF THE BROUN MINOR LAND DIVISION S-117-87, 251 BAKER DRIVE, PID 34111-07-701 Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property owner is Lorie Bond. The applicant, Thomas Beck, has requested a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard setback of 30-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE —Rural Estate zone district for construction of a proposed attached garage. This property is adjacent to parcels zoned A-1--Accommodationon the north and west, and RE —Rural Estate on the east and south. In determining whether special circumstances or conditions exist that are not common to other areas of buildings similarly situated, staff finds that at 1.6 acre, the lot is small for the RE —Rural Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This lot is closer to the E-1—Estate district, which has setbacks of 25-feet, If this property were zoned E-1, the proposed garage would not require a variance. The dwelling was built in 1957, and is located entirely within the 50-foot setback. There is an access easement, and the current setback is 50-feet from that easement. The existing water line and septic field restricts building locations. Staff has determined that the proposed location for the attached garage is the best placement for the structure. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 4, 2011 in looking at whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, staff suggested the neighborhood and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment. Staff routed the application to reviewing agencies and adjacent property owners. No significant issues or concerns were expressed. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. Staff received correspondence from one property owner to the south, who supported the variance request. Planner Shirk stated the appllicant acquired the property in January 2010 with the current setback requirements. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff and Board Member Discussion Member Smith inquired about the drainage design that would prevent water from going into the proposed garage. Public Comment Thomas Beck/Applicant stated a half -height concrete wall would be built on the west side of the addition to deter drainage. An area drain under a portion of the garage would also provide for adequate drainage. He displayed construction plans that show a shorter garage than originally proposed. The existing garage would be converted into a game room, and the existing driveway would be used. Phil Bond, representing the owner, reviewed the history of the properly, stating the improvement would allow them to better utilize the property now and for future generations. Conditions 1. Compliance with the submitted site plan and building design 2. Submittal of a signed and stamped setback certificate from a registered land surveyor prior to final inspection. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch) to approve the variance request for Tract A, Joyner Amended Minor Land Division of the Broun Minor Land Division S-117-87, with the findings and conditions recommended by Staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. METES AND BOUNDS (A PORTION OF BLOCK 10, TOWN OF ESTES PARK), 230 BIG HORN DRIVE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The property owners are Tom and Katie Hochstetier. The applicant has requested a variance from EVDC Section 4-3, Table 4-2, which requires 15-foot front setbacks and 10-foot rear setbacks from property lines in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district. The original request was 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 22-foot by 22-foot garage on the northeast corner of the existing dwelling. Since the application was submitted, the applicant revised the plan in order to increase the setback from the edge of the pavement. The revised setback variance request stated a 5-foot encroachment into the front setback and a 6-foot encroachment into the rear setback. The property is located at 230 Big Horn Drive, just north of Boyd Lane. In determining whether special circumstances or conditions exist, Staff has determined the lot the lot size is 0.19 acres, which does not meet the minimum lot size for the FIM zone district. The shape of the lot does not allow for construction on the southern end, making any expansion difficult. The existing 9-foot wide garage would be converted to a workshop. Planner Shirk also noted the proposed garage is two feet shorter and two feet narrower than the typical two -car garage size. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 4, 2011 In determining practical difficulty, Staff suggested the current garage is somewhat of a traffic hazard because it backs out directly onto Big Flom Drive. The proposed garage would access off of the alley on the north, alleviating the traffic hazard. Planner Shirk stated that staff has determined there would be no substantial detriment or alteration to the neighborhood. The neighbors most affected by the proposal are supportive of the request. The application was routed to reviewing agencies and adjacent property owners for comment. It was determined there would be no adverse affect on public services and water. Estes Park Light and Power requested an easement for the overhead power line. Staff would request that this easement be granted prior to the issuance of the building permit. Staff determined that existing fencing along the north property line would need to be removed to comply with sight visibility triangle requirements. Staff received correspondence from two property owners. One specifically stated support for the project, while the other was an inquiry about the application. Staff recommended approval to allow a north setback of 5-feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required, and an eastern rear yard setback of 6-feet in Ileu of the 10-foot setback required, with four conditions. Planner Shirk stated there was a current violation of an approved development plan at a location owned by Mr. Hochstetler, and the building permit for the proposed garage would not be issued until that code violation was resolved. Staff and Board Member Discussion When asked by Member McCreery, Planner Shirk stated the utility easement could be altered or abandoned if the power line was buried; however, he did not believe the applicant had plans to do this. Member Lynch inquired about floor area ratio (FAR) as it pertains to a lot. Planner Shirk stated that while the RM zone district does require FAR, it does not apply to single-family dwellings. Public Comment Celine LeBeau/Applicant stated she met on site with Light and Power employees, who requested a five-foot easement along the east property line. She stated the applicant has agreed to dedicate the new easement. The applicant desires to construct the garage due to the small size of the existing garage. The proposed size and location was submitted due to grading and setback issues at the location of the existing garage. Ms. LeBeau has discussed the visibility triangle requirements with the Hochstetlers. Ms. LeBeau stated the existing driveway on Big Horn Drive would not be regularly used as a parking space. Greg Rosener/Adjacent property owner was supportive of the variance request. He commended the Hochstetlers for what they have done with their property. Mr. Rosener disagreed with the code compliance issue preventing the issuance of the building permit. Member McCreery was supportive of the request, and encouraged other similar projects that improve neighborhoods in Estes Park. Lonnie SheldonNan Horn Engineering inquired about the resolution of the code violation. Planner Shirk mentioned the code violation as a reminder to the property owner that it would need to be resolved prior to the issuance of the building permit for the proposed garage. For clarification, it was not a condition of approval for the variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 4, 2011 Conditions 1. Compliance with site plan and building design. 2. Dedicated 5-foot overhead utility easement prior to issuance of a building permit. The properly owner/applicant was directed to contact the Light and Power Department to resolve this issue. 3. Prior to final inspection, all site visibility standards shall be met. 4. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide a signed and stamped setback certificate. It was moved and seconded (McCreerylSmith) to approve the variance request tor the Metes and Bounds parcel (a portion of Block 10, Town of Estes Park) located at 230 Big Horn Drive with the findings and conditions recommended by Staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4 5. REPORTS The Board members requested to have the Information Technology Department determine and fix the problem with the monitors on the dais. There being no further business, Chair McCreery adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Gunter Front Yard Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org DATE: February 1, 2011 REQUEST: Variance from the "R" Residential 15-foot front yard setback requirement. LOCATION: 255 Cyteworth Road, within the Town of Estes Park OWNER/APPLICANT: James and Nancy Gunter STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer/Surveyor/Consultant: None Parcel Number: 3525121077 Development Area: .17 acre +/- Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land Use: Same Zoning Designation: "R" Residential (1/4 acre minimum lot size Adjacent Zoning: East: "R" Residential North: "R" Residential West: "R" Residential South: "R" Residential 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 1 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 a front yard setback of six -feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required. The specific variance would allow the southwest corner of the addition to be six feet from the front property line, and the southeast corner to be four feet from the property line. The lower level of the addition would serve as a one -car garage with storage area, and the second level would be an expansion of the living room. The design of the garage is unusual due to the tight turning radius coming off of the street into the garage. This tight turning radius is a result of the proposed garage location (close to the road). Because of this, vehicles would have to enter the garage at an angle. Staff suggests special circumstances apply to this lot. The lot is small for the zone district, and is surrounded on three sides by the road. This means the 15-foot front yard setback applies on three sides of the lot, and the 10-foot side yard setback applies on one side. The lot also has slope on the north side of the existing structure, which could create potential driveway slope, drainage and site distance issues if a garage were to be located elsewhere on the lot. Finally, the tight turning radius of the driveway indicates special circumstances. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, aFI applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein, and summarized below: 7. Special circumstances or conditions exist and practical difficulty would result from strict compliance with this Code's standards. The requested variance cannot nullify or impair the intent and purposes of either the specific standard, the development code or the Comprehensive Plan. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, February 1, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Gunter Variance Request, 255 Cyteworth Rd 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Can there be any beneficial use of the property without the variance? b. Is the variance substantial? c. Would the character of the neighborhood suffer a substantial detriment? d. Would the variance adversely affect public services? e. Was the Applicant aware of the requirement when purchasing the property? (Staff comment: this applies mainly to undeveloped lots, not additions) f. Could the Applicants situation be solved through some other method? 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 4. The BOA may require conditions that will secure substantially the objectives of the standard varied. 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. As of January 27, Staff has had contact from on neighbor. Gene Kohler, 250 Cyteworth, phoned and stated "I see no reason I should object." FINDINGS: 1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 2. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 3. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 4. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, February 1, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Gunter Variance Request, 255 Cyteworth Rd 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 of the requested variance(s) with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, F ebruarry1, 1 Gunter Variance Request, 255 Cyteworth Rd Page 4 of 4 Page 1 of 2 Dave Shirk From: Karen Thompson Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:44 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: FW: Gunter Residence REVISED Variance - Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision) - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT From: Will Birchfield Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:24 PM To: Karen Thompson Subject: RE: Gunter Residence REVISED Variance - Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision) - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT Karen, No comment. Will Birchfield, CBO, CFM Chief Building Official Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3728 (P) 970-586-0249 (F) www.estesnet.com From: Karen Thompson Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:34 PM To: Greg White; Jacqueline Halburnt; Scott Zurn; Greg Sievers; Barbara Boyer Buck; Tracy Feagans; Lowell Richardson; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Will Birchfield; Derek Rosenquist; Carolyn McEndaffer; Rick Spowart (rick.spowart@state.co.us); Len Hilderbrand (lenhiiderbrand@xcelenergy.com); Donna Mastriona (donna.mastriona@gwest.com); Rod Patterson (rpatterson@bajabbtv); Jim Duell (jldepsd@gwestoffice.net) Cc: Alison Chilcott; Dave Shirk Subject: Gunter Residence REVISED Variance - Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision) - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT REFFERAL FOR COMMENT FINAL/PUBLIC REVIEW ✓ Pre -Application ✓ Completeness Review Final/Public Review (Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission/Town Board/County Commission) Building Permit This email is to notify you that staff has received a revised variance application, which can be viewed by accessing the following links or by visiting our website at 1/24/2011 TOWN OF ESTES PAID Memo To: Planner Shirk From: Utilities & Public Works Staff Date: January 21, 2011 RE: VARIANCE: Gunter Residence LotA & Portion Lot22 Clatworthy Estates Public Works: No comments. Liaht & Power: No comments. Water: No comments. Town of Estes Park Public Works and Utilities reserve the right to amend comments contained herein at any time prior to final approval. Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Alison Chilcott Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:14 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: FW: 255 Cyteworth From: James Duell [mailto:jldepsd©gwestoffice.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:09 AM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: Hello Dave — the proposed variance request for Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision) does not impact the District or our sewer mains. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request. James Duell, Estes Park Sanitation District James Duel, District Manager Estes Pak Sanitation District (970) 586-2866 1/19/2011 Alison Chilcott From: Derek Rosenquist Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:27 AM To: Alison Chilcott Cc: jimcoll99@gmail.com Subject: 255 Cyteworth variance request Alison, Regarding the variance request for 255 Cyteworth, the Fire Department has no objections at this time. 1 walked the property with the designer and owner today and was able to look at some rough plans. Based on where the ground markers for construction are there will be no impact on fire apparatus access to the property in the event of an incident there or further up the road. Derek Rosenquist Training Captain Estes Valley Fire Protection District 970-577-3690 Alison Chilcott om: Greg White [greg@gawhite.com] went: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:29 PM To: Alison Chilcott Cc: Karen Thompson Subject: BoA variance request Alison I have reviewed the Gunter Residence variance request which is on the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 7, 2010 agenda. I have no comments concerning this variance request. Greg White t Z I Jhcr,n,4-01 CLAra-Lgett_.- -4-c7 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: 6"eherldrif.-)rmatori. Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot Legal Description: Lot: 21 Block: Tract: Sutxiivision: 30 3 Parcel ID #: 3-r2-S-/ (- 0 7 Lot Size 7 2_1.1 o SQ tc---r Existing Land Use iar I Des) Proposed Land Use i a Existing Water Service X Town Well Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service X Town Well Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service X EPSD UTSD Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service X EPSD UTSD Septic Existing Gas Service X Xcel , Other None Site Access (if not on public street) cy-re-r A R 0 i0+4 Are there wetlands on the site? Yes Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): E Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primer Contact Person is Attacrwrient:: Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code " 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20')*1 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") The site plan shall inciude 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 folded. Zoning cla3 (-7 A licant Consultant/En ineer 1:150TrAs-- "11 frn"nrurr"' Innnnn,„„1,11nnr""'":..niN „,,r1rrr M1111111111111111 1111 1111 11 MP1 Town of !Bier; Pork rek, r11,131, BQX. 1200 r<f, 170 MacGregor Avenue .err, Eri1ef Park, CO 80,517 <7.3:rromurrity Oever'apnienf Deportment Phorfrrfr (1'9701 577,3721 •efr Fox: 9,701 886,0249 r.re• www...estre3,orgIComeDev trised 1/20/09 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, 1 acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: htto://www. estes. ora/ComDev/DevCode ► I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► 1 acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is dearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. ► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request„ "'Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT.: Applicant PLEAS EPRINT; Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Date , 0. ''2. Date Revised II /4/09 • Coritct 1nformatun . Record Owner(s) Mailing Address pe, 11,0 Y /03 Pa2K Co 7 Phone 9 10 922/, , Cell Phone MY. Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer 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 it,Andwv estes orci/CornneviSchedules&Fees/PlanninqApplicationFeeSchedule pdf requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revd T1,(20/09 Zoning Districts Table 4-2 § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential ZoningDistricts leaning * DeuRAY ,, (imitrgems) II] 151 , PevolityogOothacro 121 KJ' MoWhlth 010 A*(ft.)1 , 014 Rear (R4 • RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. ,..,. 200 50 50 50 30 20 E-1 1 1 Ac. [3] 100 25 25 25 30 20 E 2 Y2 Ac. [3] 75 26- arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 30 20 R 4 Ws Ac. 60 25- arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 30 20 R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 R-2 4 Single-family = 18,000; Duplex = 27,000 6010 25- arterials; 15-other streets 10 30 20 RM (Ord. 18-01 #14) Residential Uses; Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior institutional Living Uses: Max =24 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [4] [8] (Ord. 25-07 §1) Senior Institutional Living Uses: Y2 M. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 26- arterials; 15-other streets 10 [6] 10 30 20 [7] Notes to Table 4-2: 01 (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an Increase In minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 §1) [2] See Chapter 7, §7.6, for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) [3] If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, 'Adequate Public Facilities." [4] Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual townhome unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1) [6] Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for townhome develcipments. M Minimum building width requirements shall ngl apply to mobile homes located In a mobile home park. [8] Single-family and duplexdevelopments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14) [9] Alt structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than tour adjacent or off -site dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum buildInWstructure setback. (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1) [10] See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) Supp. 8 4-7 8 ' Iwo nrn�Ki uM 8 �:^� � � � N ✓V S N "�N �i aryM �' v�°mom irrv� uu� f� `A UP C!.Irn �Y N N .rwN ./ , lc; ..:n $ w 'bu !R o Lfi N N 8 ti �2 2 Jk %�tv tw- \ 8§=4 45 S 2 ▪ = o § § 4-4 ▪ - O. c. E 2 in ,ni_i 2 0 0 0# G « 0 k ( 0 Robert & Monica Kahn Gunter Variance APO by Weyerhaeuser KEN NOREYKO Strategic Sales Represen 9115 f 90th Ave Henderson, CO 80640 Phone. 30343345371 • Fax: 303 977- 284 Wei iLevel.com 1-888-iLevel8 (1.888-4s3°8358) haeuser J ra- �+IaNInJ we N �1 dower a r 1 Zdj 51srr Ur) E o 4141 c� 3 v04 Iv i by Weyerhaeuser �� KEN NOREYKO I Strategic Sales Represe ��� 9115 E 90t5 Ave Henderson, CO 80640 mom 303-433-8571 • Fze 303477-2254 Leveicorr 1-888-iLe el (1-Bee-ass-e35 A ,01 rRjV41 `K04D ;FB'';y,^;a.,^888.1) 'Ian81!-888-1 30319A91! 6eZZ-LLPC1F ail • LL68•EF1rEBF .11e044 0179OB 03'uasiapueH 8AV 4306 3 S t 16 annetuaseJdea sales ojEamts O)IA38ON N3k aasnaetpaAam Aq ra} BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Powers and Duties I. The Board of Adjustment is charged with hearing appeals from decisions of the officials charged with administration of building codes, subdivision provisions, and zoning provisions of the Municipal Code. Appeals from decisions of such officials are made where the person affected by the decision disagrees with the decision for some reason. The duty of the Board of Adjustment is to look at the decision that was made, examine the language or other provisions in the Code in question, and to decide whether or not the official was correct. In reaching its decision, the Board of Adjustment should examine the language of the Code, determine the intent of the Code, the effect a decision will have on the person who was affected initially, and any other matters which are presented in evidence by the aggrieved party and the official. If an aggrieved party is still dissatisfied with the decision, or if the official feels dissatisfied with the decision, either party may then appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment to the District Court. II. The other area of concern to the Board of Adjustment is the granting of variances from the zoning provisions rot—the-....tttgtf .., te...pheteittehe of the Municipal Code. The Board is authorized to grant a variance where the strict application of the ordinance in question will result in unnecessary hardship and a variance can be granted without harm to other landowners in the vicinity, and without doing violence to the purposes of the Code provisions and the overall planning scheme. In order for an applicant to be granted a variance, he must show that, by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or slope of his property, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or another extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of his property, he will be denied the use of his property for any economic use. The fact that the variance, if granted, will allow him to make more money or make a property more valuable is not sufficient in and of itself to sustain the variance where he can make a lawful use of the property in compliance with the Code provisions of the same character as other lawful uses within his zoning district. The Board of Adjustment cannot, by its decision, allow a use in a zoning district which is not otherwise allowable or otherwise change the zoning provisions. The Board of Adjustment cannot, by its decision, change the provisions of any applicable building codes. Revised June 29, 1998