Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2011-03-01r Prepared: February 16, 2011 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, March 1, 2011 9:00 a.m. - Board Room Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated February 1, 2011 3. REQUEST a. Lot 15, Windcliff Estates, 3rd filing, TBD Eaglecliff Drive Owner: Steven & Nancy Jacobs Applicant: Steve Nickel, The Portfolio Group, Inc. Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to construct a proposed garage 15 feet into the northeast front setback, and a proposed dwelling 11 feet into the southeast setback in lieu of the 25-foot required setbacks in the E-1 — Estate zone district. Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. REPORTS 5. ADJOURNMENT A meeting packet is available for review in the Community Development Department and the Estes Valley Library two business days prior to the meeting. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 1, 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, Levine, Smith, Moreau Also Attending: Interim Director Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Member Lynch, Planner Shirk 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 Approval of minutes of the January 4, 2011 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT A, CLATWORTH ESTATES (A PORTION OF LOT 22, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION), 255 CYTEWORTH ROAD Interim Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated the application was a request for a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires a 15-foot front setback from property lines in the R-Residential zone district. The request was to construct a proposed one -car garage, with additional living space above the garage. The lot size is 0.17 acres, which is undersized for the R zoning district. The variance would allow the southwest corner of the proposed addition to be six -feet from the front property line, and the southeast corner of the same proposed addition to be three feet from the property line. The applicant desires to be four feet from the property line, but given the nature of the property records and past surveying, the exact distance is questionable. The applicant requested three feet to allow for error in the final survey. Either way, the proposed garage would not exceed 17 feet in width. Interim Director Chilcott stated the design of the garage was unusual due to the tight turning radius coming off of the street into the garage. This tight turning radius was 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 determined that special circumstances exist. interim Director Chilcott stated the lot was small for the zone district, and was surrounded on three sides by Cyteworth Road. Therefore, the 15-foot front yard setback applied to three sides of the lot, and the 10-foot side yard setback applied to one side. The lot has a slope on the north side of the existing structure, which could create potential driveway slope, drainage, and site distance issues if a garage were located elsewhere on the lot. Staff reviewed the application to ensure compliance with EVDC Section 3.6.C, and found the application complies with the code, including special circumstances and practical difficulty. The request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Estes Valley Fire District reviewed the site and approved the design and location. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Public Comment: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 1, 2011 Jim Gunter/Applicant commended Interim Director Chilcott for her willingness to work with him on the design and location of the addition. Barbara Fisher/Adjacent property owner stated the neighborhood was in support of this variance. Staff and Member Discussion: None. Conditions: 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. It was moved and seconded (Levine/McCreery) to approve the variance request for Lot A, Clatworthy Estates (a portion of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision), with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 2 4. REPORTS interim Director Chilcott reported the document titled "Powers and Duties of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment" contained a reference to the Municipal Sign Code. The recently approved revisions to the Sign Code established a Creative Sign Design Review Board, which will review future sign code variances and applications for non -typical signs located within the Town limits. An amendment to the Powers and Duties would remove the reference to the Municipal Sign Code. Members were supportive of the amendment, stating that signs have become more specialized, and the newly -created Board would be a welcomed addition to the Town. The Board agreed to relinquish authority concerning signs to the new Creative Sign Design Review Board. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 8:17 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Jacobs 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: March 1, 2011 REQUEST: Variance from the "E- 1" Estate 25-foot front yard setback requirement. LOCATION: TBD Eagle Cliff Drive (Windcliff), within unincorporated Larimer County; see attached map for directions. APPLICANT: The Portfolio Group PROPERTY OWNER: Steve and Nancy Jacobs STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer/Surveyor/Consultant: The Portfolio Group (architect), Van Horn Engineering (surveyor) Parcel Number: 3403307015 Development Area: 1.33 acres +/- Existing Land Use: Undeveloped, platted for single family residential Proposed Land Use: Single family dwelling Zoning Designation: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Zoning: East: "E-1" Estate North: "E-1" Estate West: "E-1" Estate South: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Land Uses: East: Private open space North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services: water: Windcliff Sewer: UTSD 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 10-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required to build a new detached single family dwelling unit. The Windcliff Property Owners Association Architectural Control Committee has submitted a letter of support for this request; Planning Division staff has not received any other neighborhood correspondence regarding this matter. The lot is typical for a Windcliff lot, steeply sloping away from the road, with access from above. The variance is intended to keep the dwelling as close to the road as possible in order to minimize site disturbance. Side yard setbacks would be met, thus assuring adequate separation between houses. The site plan anticipates some grading work within platted right-of-way. The Larimer County Engineering Department is aware of this proposed encroachment, and has expressed no concerns. Staff suggests this variance request is similar to others granted in the Windcliff subdivision, and will minimize overall site disturbance without compromising the purpose and intent of the development code 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, and summarized below. The Board should keep these criteria in mind when reviewing the variance request. 1. 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. 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? Jr Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, March 1, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Jacobs Front Yard Variance Request 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 Applicant's 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. FINDINGS: 1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 2. The 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 variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief, 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 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 with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, March 1, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Jacobs Front Yard Variance Request 111111111111111111101 000000 0f i11 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l to l 000000llllllllollolllolol0000000lollllllllllllllll I11011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111110101101000010001111111111111111111 uuuu11llllll 1 rr 1%#/ ff/1d%%ii/7 100000100000101000101100001000000100000000010Iolol0000loloolo100IIII0I01IIp100111111II100IIIIIIIIIIIIII 101I01IIIIIIIIIIII Jacobs Front Yard Variance Request ppmrn 11 "1111!,11g!!!0,,Ilr, • % acatia Front Verd Variance rivres IIJg ex 11`1,1 riF . . . Amommr,voRFON;h94,5!$,110i,trlyffg,@, 2/22/2011 Jacobs Front Yard Variance Request Jacobs Front Yard Variance Request 2/22/2011 2 LWthdd14_ PROPERTYOWNERS SSN Architectural Control Committee 1740 Windcliff Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 970 586-3360 cofase@msn.com February 14, 2011 TO: Dave Shirk, Planner II (by e-mail dshirk(estes.org Planning Department -Town of Estes Park SUBJECT: Variance Request - Jacobs Residence Lot 15 Winddiff Estates Third Subdivision 2855 Eaglecliff Drive Dear Mr. Shirk, With reference to the subject request for a setback variance submitted by The Portfolio Group with supporting "Variance Site Plan" as prepared by Van Hom Engineering on behalf of owner Steven Jacobs, please be advised that the Windcliff Property Owners Association Architectural Control Committee and the Windcliff Operations Committee have reviewed the submitted information and have no objection to your granting the subject request. We feel the 15 ft. encroachment of the comer of the garage and the 11 ft. encroachment of the corner of the master bath and mechanical room into the west 25 ft. building setback along Eaglecliff Dr. is not unreasonable and should have no negative impact on any neighbor or our subdivision's infrastructure. Because of the curvature of the road, the corners of both of the sections of the proposed structures are at least 40 ft from the edge of Eaglecliff Dr. Respectfully, Charles Cofas, Chairman WPOA Architectural Control Committee CC: Steve Nickel - Portfolio Group - snickel@portfoliogroup.us Steven Jacobs - Property Owner - sja ll s d aeye irn ii m Jack Reed - Windcliff Operations Committee Chairman - pairojacks@q.com Craig Novak - Winddiff Operations - opmgr1902@yahoo.com Joe Adair - Winddiff ACC - AdairVideo@aol.com Bud Duryea - Chairman WPOA - aspenspringl@msn.com LARIMER VOlumNN COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 MEMORANDUM TO:Dave Shirk, Planner, Town of Estes Park FROM:Traci Shambo, Development Services Engineer 7-5 DATE:February 9, 2011 SUBJECT:Lot 15, Windcliff Estates Setback Variance— Estes Valley Planning Area (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 Prlect Description/Backeround: This is a request to from the 25 foot setback requirement for a single family residence on Eagle Cliff Drive in the Windcliff Estates subdivision in Estes Park. The closest point of the home will be 10 feet from Eagle Cliff Drive right-of-way. Comments: Minimizing the distance between the face of a garage and the road right-of-way can create an unsafe situation where vehicles have to back out into the right-of-way to enter the roadway. This is not an issue in this case because the layout of the proposed driveway provides space for vehicles to maneuver and pull forward into the road. In addition, given the terrain and the distance that the structure is from the right-of- way and edge of road, the request should not have an adverse impact on any future roadway improvements or maintenance needs. In addition to the above comments relating to the setback request, the following comments regarding drainage and erosion shall also be noted: • Staff assumes that any subsequent improvements on this site will not adversely impact the drainage patterns or create erosion problems in the area. The site has a drainage swale just to the south of the property. Flows are directed into this drainage by a culvert under Eaglecliff Drive. It appears that the proposed driveway as shown on the site plan may require modifications to the culvert under Eaglecliff Drive. Staff would prefer that the culvert and drainage are not altered. However, if fill or grading work is proposed in this area, a detailed drainage and grading plan shall be submitted for review. • The terrain in this area is steep and therefore there is an increased potential for erosion. Sediments and debris could also be washed downstream onto the property to the south if erosion and sediment control measures are not in place prior to the commencement of construction. • All disturbed areas shall be replaced and reestablished in a condition equal to or better than the historic condition. • For more information on erosion and sediment control best management practices, the applicant may call Scott Cornell with our office at (970) 498-5723 or Marc Lyons at (970) 498-5709. Recommendation: As long as the comments above are noted and will be considered during and after construction, the Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any concerns with the setback request. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or e-mail at tshambo@larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: file C:1Documents and Settings\Dave Shirk.ENGINEERINGILocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files10LK241Vacobs Lot 15 Windcliff setback Variance EVPA.docx Memo To: Project Planner Shirk From: Utilities & Public Works Staff Date: February 18, 2011 RE: VARIANCE: Windcliff Estates, 3rd filing, TBD Eaglecliff Drive Public Works: No comments or concerns with this rezoning as it is in the County. Liaht & Power: After a site visit L&P has no questions or concerns with this variance request. Water: Applicants need to talk to Windcliff Homeowner Association for any issues/impacts to their water system. Town of Estes Park Public Works and Utilities reserve the right to amend comments contained herein at any time prior to final approval. P.O. Box 568 • Estes Park, CO 80517 Ph: 970-588-4544 • Fax 970-586-1049 www.utsd.org February 10, 2011 Dave Shirk, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Variance Request Jacobs Residence Lot 15 Windcliff Estates TBD Eaglecliff Drive 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 farther assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, tddst, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Environmental Protection Through Wastewater Collection and Treatment Page 1 of 2 Dave Shirk From: Derek Rosenquist Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:36 AM To: Karen Thompson; Greg White; Jacqueline Halburnt; Barbara Boyer Buck; Tracy Feagans; Lowell Richardson; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Carolyn McEndaffer; Will Birchfield; 'Traci Shambo'; Chris Bieker(chris@utsd.org); 'steve@cpasj.com' Cc: Dave Shirk Subject: RE: Lot 15, Windcliff Estates, 3rd filing, TBD Eaglecliff Drive - Variance Application - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT No comment from the fire department Derek Rosenquist Training Captain Estes Valley Fire Protection District 970-577-3690 From: Karen Thompson Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:30 AM To: Greg White; Jacqueline Halbumt; Barbara Boyer Buck; Tracy Feagans; Lowell Richardson; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Derek Rosenquist; Carolyn McEndaffer; Will Birchfield; Traci Shambo; Chris Bieker (chris@utsd.org); steve@cpasj.com Cc: Dave Shirk Subject: Lot 15, Windcliff Estates, 3rd filing, TBD Eaglecliff Drive - Variance Application - 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.onecomdev/CurrentReouests.aspx. Project Name and Type Address Meeting Dates Project Documentation (PDF) Staff Rand Comments (PDF) gaff CO Jacobs Residence TBD Eaglecliff Drive (Lot 15) Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3/1/11 Statement of Intend Staff R rt available 2/24/i 1 Se comments to Dave Shirk at dehirk�estea.orp and Aoolkration Revised Site Plan 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 2/7/2011 Page 1 of 2 Dave Sh irk From: Greg White [greg@gawhite.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:08 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Sjacobs-iowaeye@msn.com; snickel@portfoliogroup.us; lonvhe@airbits.com Subject: FW: Lot 15, Windcliff Estates, 3rd filing, TBD Eaglecliff Drive - Variance Application - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT Dave: I have reviewed the Variance Request for the Jacob's Residence located on Eaglecliff Drive in Windcliff Estates. I have no comment regarding this matter. Thanks, Greg From: Karen Thompson [mallto:kthompson@estes.org] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:30 AM To: greg@gawhite.com; Jacqueline Halburnt; Barbara Boyer Buck; Tracy Feagans; Lowell Richardson; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Derek Rosenquist; Carolyn McEndaffer; Will Birchfield; Trad Shambo; chris@utsd.org; steve@cpasj.com Cc: Dave Shirk Subject: Lot 15, Windcliff Estates, 3rd filing, TBD Eaglecliff Drive - Variance Application - 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.oreconndev/CurrentRequests.aspx. Project. Name and Type Address Meeting Dates Project cumentation (PDF) Staff Report and Comments (PDF) Staff Contact Jacobs Residence Variance TBD Eaglecliff Drive (Lot 15) Estes Valley Board of Adjustmerv# 3/1/11 Statement of Intent Staff Report availab[a 2124/1 t Send Comments to Dave Shirk at dahirk®eatea,arp find Aoolicatiort Revised Site Plan 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 2/9/2011 STATEMENT OF INTENT This is a request for approval of a Variance from the 25 foot Building and Structure Setback required by Section 1.9.D of the EVDC for a single family residence. The residence is proposed for a site on Eaglecliff Drive, Windcliff Estates. The Owners and Applicant are requesting that a corner of the Garage be allowed a 10 foot setback versus the platted 25 foot setback, and that a corner of the Master Bath and the Lower Level Mechanical Room below be allowed a 14 foot setback versus the platted 25 foot setback. (See attached Site Plan and Floor Plans). The remainder of the structure is located within the required 25 foot setback. Compliance with the Standards for Review set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC is outlined below... 1. Special Circumstances. Two special circumstances and conditions exist here that are not common to other areas of the Estes Valley... a) The property has a slope of approximately 45%, an extremely severe topographical condition. In terms of driveway and access to the garage, the Applicant has addressed this condition by placing the garage closer to Eaglecliff Drive than the 25 foot setback would allow, and at a top -of -slab elevation of 8503. If the garage were required to be placed at a 25 foot setback, the top -of -slab elevation would be 7-10 feet lower. This would result in a far steeper driveway and considerably more site disturbance than what is proposed. An alternative solution would be to push the entire Structure down the 45% slope, and keep the proposed top -of -slab elevation of 8503. This would result in a Structure that would be 7-10 taller than what is proposed, and would require considerably more land fill than is necessary. Neither of these alternative solutions is considered prudent compared to the granting of a Setback Variance. b) The platting of the Lot Line is very unusual in that it does not follow the curve of Eaglediff Drive. (See again the attached Site Plan). At point A, the corner of the Lot Line is about 25 feet from Eaglecliff Drive. At point B, the turn in the Lot Line is 10 feet from Eaglecliff Drive. At point C, the Lot Line is located about 30 feet from Eaglecli Drive. Therefore, at Points A and C, the 25 foot setback is pushed far down the 45% slope of the Lot. This is not typical of existing Development standards, certainly beyond the control of the Owner of the Lot, and places an additional hardship on the Property Owner. In fact, if the Lot Line had been platted to follow the curve of Eaglecliff Drive at a distance of 10-15 feet away (as is Point B), this Variance Request would not be necessary. 2. Factors in considering practical difficulty. In evaluating the reasonableness of this Variance Request, we would ask the Board of Adjustment to consider the following factors... a) The Variance requested here is not considered substantial. The Variance is requested only for portions of the Structure and most of the Structure is located within the required Setbacks. In addition, no side yard setback Variances are being requested. b) As described above, the Applicant did consider other alternatives to mitigate the Owners' predicament other than a Setback Variance. Both alternatives are considered to be unwise compared to the granting of a Variance. c) From the standpoint of the neighborhood, the Applicant considers the distance between Eaglecliff Drive and the Structure to be the most relevant consideration. At the corner of the garage where the Variance is requested, the Structure is located about 40 feet from Eaglecliff Drive. At the corner of the Master Bath where the Variance is being requested, the Structure is also located about 40 feet from Eaglediff Drive. In contrast, the adjacent Structure to the Northwest is entirely located about 20 feet from Eaglecliff Drive. d) Respect and preservation of neighbors' "view corridors" are an important value for the Winddiff Community. This Variance Request is consistent with that value. 3. The special circumstances of a 45% Lot Slope and unusual platting of the Lot Line are not considered general or recurrent. 4. Not applicable. 5. As outlined above, the Owners and Applicant have strived to locate the great majority of the Structure within required setbacks, and were hampered only by the unusual platting of the Lot Line in being able to fully comply with the front yard setback. 6. Not applicable. III Submittal Date: atl "rir"a"lu:'rf, ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION t' 1-t)fif)? foil Record Owner(s): t,IN kw/ it cy TA vcit, StreetAdd of Lot:__ 4VP eit Lif Legal Description: Lot lc Block: A Tract: fJ Subdivision: al W GLIi'.f Parcel ID # : Lot Size I• 3 G1re5 Zoning Existing Land Use fiti6 + (, 1,0. Proposed Land Use !N E 'sting Water Service , Town r Well 4if Other (Specify) l �' GG , 1.11 Posed Water Service . Town r. Well ix' Other (Specify) 114 0 _G _ Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Ir' Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? EPSD UTSD 1.. Septic r EPSD �C UTSD "" Septic V Other f, 5Yrrdi None QOOK 4106 To St civ' Yes )1( No Variance Desired {Development Code Section #): P r'+I;'.'st:] @7,11 oronoIN::r1� Name of Primary Contact Persontint sIf Complete Mailing Address 0 `OM + rover roc. ro. For 2-t35 6 c% Prima Contact Person is " Owner Alicant Consultant/En. ineer „1.), �:I11on€^II11v mm'M Application fee (see attached fee schedule) lm.. Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) l" 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** fmm' 1 reduced copy of the site plan {11" X 17") **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park ,s: P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue . Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 .eE Fax: (9701 585-0249 -a www.estes.org/ComDev Revised 11/20/09 H rYil1 IuuY rprol�nr��7': o;� r ,' NAUuc( kp85 Record Owner(s) Mailing Address tf rjtiUi 1 Phone_ 1 — � � 1 .3 Cell Phone 11' - 3 60— 5 7 7 Fax 3(q — 3 t - 2q©fl?'TN: Email ' icitco `J..- i oum ¢ ye,@,, r> O. CO► Applicant f©i 1.10 G(Z()1' .rAvG. Mailing Address. r. 0. Y2 Oy......Z7.: & f Co 8 afl7 Phone 6 Cell Phone Fax .���»»�,� 5' Z -q 3 ..... . r. Email e,.. rr 1Q pox.'. Gt 5 Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address /042 off ,i t'R 6 CO Phone Cell Phone - 327( Fax Email 1403 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: Dev/ca1, Ail requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 11 /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, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions goveming the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: Prep t wecalt sralco 1l , ► I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► i acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the comers 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 PLEASE PRINT. Signatures: Record Owner Applicant 6-1 117 Date Date xour Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts tittthlrmurh tot k r sia its ' lsrertyl7arirer# IYIe L N ..25LF7 1) RE , 1 /2.5 Ac. E-1 1 R-2 4 10 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 1 Ac. [3] 200 200 100 14 Ac. [3] 75 Ac. 60 5,000 50 Single-family = 18,000; Duplex = 27,000 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 Ac. 60 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 Notes to Table 4-2: [1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allowe a reduction in minimum lot size (area) tor 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) See Chapter 7, §7.6, for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) 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 unh may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. 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°A. (Ord. 25-07 §1) Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development') are allowed for townhome develdpments. Minimum building width requirements shall ni-f apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f, and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-eite dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1) [10] See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an Increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 25 25- arterials; 10 15 15-other streets 25- arterials; 10 15 15-other streets 15 25- arterials; 15-other streets 25- arterials; 15-other streets 10 [6] 10 [2] (3] Supp• 8 4-7 as jaiTaw33 m „u n/iry� WM.'f!/2 ui� Ir�WN4 !1'u' 1 �,yn�� ro�m11�r1w.,. �wv�ue�alrun,. 1E7 7 E.., o nw II 1110110,1111V19.111,MEW qINYWEUM,,,,,Y ............ , JdWos rcesiaence Variance APO v m ^ '' 00 n - ^ N n tl ,1 N m o0I-q 4 It V) n A III en N m to Ln Ln t!) to $ tl) Q co 0 N CQO COO m co W co co co w =N Onr0ocriu 000001-r-1 RI t!)+ U Ne 4.0 U V U U U u u Z cila Y ^ Y - U - - ui 3 .Y N. + C X C 1- CO tri� a 0. a. a s= c O 0 ar O -Si r to .r .. • .., .r 3 ,1_+ U a Z w T L l lit > ula J i W W Q d CC C n p 'C o: aoc 7 a p O a '6 a it' Qi i = 10 at N '0 Y O p) 0) L tf1 C 7 C U C r00 T --t U a_c a 0 b d N G Z E to o CO LO f6 at d E G C ry (NIX V C v,,A X x 1 a° )' ¢ to U x 3 F_X x ,� Vt d f.! m m to m~ op 0 fb a -I m 'O V0) O 0 .-1 O n LO a O CO.'ter O O up a Q t.9 O_ d M N a .--1 .1 co O. .-i CO O_ 0. a1 N c 0 Jamie Packer Susan McHenry E ttl a Homeowners Association C 1- 0 a h 00 CO f° u O vi t° m c C C • v.J 13 vvi � co v a -C.'c 3 p ° C C C O. LG tl1 f° a) a cc 0 0 Ti 0 C' >- C a w t i d Q 'Q C LL a coL01 071 C C 6t 1 COE0 _a O t° 5'C C O T S..Lu T O J a .O = t''n r° u �. UJ G to >_ t`n °� 071 06 E u os t_ f0 _ a m ut a vi C a otl •C co LL Cg W 00 c i° u C 7 E 1° QJ u o c w u o�a0A' 4rcc0§zw3o°'cc a c `O V a c t9 NOISIFOO SITE PLAN 3,0 ONIA3ANNS CINV ONIN33NION3 NNON NVA o • Ao004 Wtz,< OD `>121Vd salsa `NOISIAIGIMS cIHC saIlasa ddrIDCENLYi .IO IVIdaH 'gT 497 NTH HITS aDNYRIVA s N01,925,,i 4414") 20 WIDE SEWER E SEMENT PEP REP, OF WIN CLIFF 3RD \ 3 \ 9,9 1 2010-10-10 Z [ 0 m 0 0o