HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2011-09-13Prepared: September 1, 2011
Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
9:00 a.m. - Board Room Town Hall
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT
Approval of minutes dated June 7, 2011
3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 1051 SUTTON LANE
Owner: Sara Kleiber
Applicant: Don Darling
Request: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which
requires a 25-foot setback from property lines in the E-1—
Estate zone district. Request to allow a 12-foot
encroachment into the side setback to construct a
proposed attached garage to the existing dwelling.
Staff Contact: Dave Shirk
4. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 1810 WINDHAM LANE
Owner: Harold and Ginnie Haunschild
Applicant: Steve Nickel/The Portfolio Group, Inc.
Request A: Appeal of staff decision in determining the proposed
structure: 1) Constitutes a detached accessory dwelling
unit; and, 2) The accessory structure is not clearly
incidental and customarily found in connection with the
principal use.
Request B: Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which
requires a 50-foot setback from property lines in the RE —
Rural Estate zone district. Request to allow a 33-foot
encroachment into the northwest setback and a 34-foot
encroachment into the southwest setback to construct a
proposed accessory structure.
Staff Contact: Dave Shirk
5. REPORTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
A meeting packet is available for review in the Community Development Department and the Estes Valley
Library two business days prior to the meeting.
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the
time the agenda was prepared.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
June 7, 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 Moreau, Lynch, Levine, Smith
Also Attending: Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Thompson
Absent: Member McCreery
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 May 3, 2011 meeting.
B. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, TBD HIGHWAY 66, RIPPLING RIVER
ESTATES.
This request was to re -approve a variance previously approved in November, 2009.
The approved variance was to Section 7.5.F.2b(6) "No Development in Street
Frontage Buffer Area" of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow
driveway access to be located within twelve feet of the property line, within the
mandated 25-foot arterial landscaping buffer zone. Due to economic conditions, the
owner has not initiated development. Staff recommended approval with the following
conditions:
Conditions:
1. District Buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial street
standards.
2. Variance approval shall not lapse in the standard one year timeframe. Instead,
variance approval shall be valid as long as the development plan approval does
not expire.
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed unanimously.
3. LOT 6 OF WEBSTERS SUBDIVISION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 10, TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, 170 BOYD LANE
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. Cydney Springer/Applicant requests a variance
from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires side yard setbacks of 10 feet in the
RM-Multi-Family Residential zone district. The applicant desires to encroach 5.5 feet into
the west setback for construction of a proposed storage shed. The proposed 192 square
foot shed would be located between the existing dwelling and existing outbuilding, and
would be used as a painting studio. Planner Shirk stated that staff found special
circumstances. The neighborhood is tightly built and the lots are very small. Staff found
the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. There were no comments received
from adjacent property owners, and no significant comments from reviewing agencies.
Planner Shirk recommended approval with two conditions, listed below.
Staff Discussion
Member Levine stated it would be helpful if more detailed directions to the site could be
included in the staff report when the site is difficult to locate. He also inquired about the
existing power pole, and Planner Shirk stated the Light & Power Department had no
significant comments concerning this variance request.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
June 7, 2011
Public Comment
Greg Rosener/Applicant Representative clarified that electricity to the proposed shed will
run underground from the north side of the existing dwelling.
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 (Smith/Moreau) to approve the variance request with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff.
Member Moreau recused himself from the Board.
4. LOT 41B, REPLAT OF TRACT 41 AND A PORTION OF TRACT 46, FALL RIVER
ADDITION, AND A PORTION OF TRACT 101, AL RESCO PLACE ADDITION, TBD BIG
KORN DRIVE
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant, Dal!man Construction Company,
requests a variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which limits structure height to 30
feet above natural grade in the E-1—Estate zone district. Specifically, the request is a
variance from the adjusted maximum height limit of 35'6" to allow a maximum height of
37'8", a two foot two inch variance. Planned Shirk explained the 30-foot height limit has
been in effect for at least 40 years. There was an amendment to the EVDC, approved in
2001, to allow a height adjustment on lots with slope; therefore, staff discourages height
variances because of this built-in flexibility for grade and topographical features.
Planner Shirk stated there have been very few approved height variances since the
amendment was approved. One approved variance was for a parapet around the top of a
building downtown to conceal the air conditioning unit on the roof of the structure. Another
approved variance was at the main building of the Good Samaritan facility, to allow for a
parking garage to be built underneath the structure. That variance minimized the site
footprint on the property.
Staff recommended disapproval of the variance request. There are options for the
property owner: including but not limited to additional blasting to lower the entire structure,
or reducing the 10-foot ceilings to nine feet. An adjacent property owner downhill from the
property was in favor of the variance so additional blasting could be avoided. She was
concerned that additional blasting could damage the foundation and/or walls of her
historic home. If the Board approves the variance request, staff recommends two
suggested conditions of approval, listed below.
Staff and Board Discussion
Member Lynch stated there was also a height variance approval for a building at the
YMCA of the Rockies. Planner Shirk explained that staff is allowed to grant variances of
10% or less, but height variances are not included in that authority.
Public Comment
Jeff Moreau/Applicant stated that given the topography of the property, a disapproval of
the variance would increase the steepness of the driveway. He stated the height of the
foundation, not the ceiling height, determined the elevation of the property. Surrounding
property owners have no objections to view obstruction. If the variance is approved, there
would be blasting to the north to lower the grade about five (5) feet, with just a scraping of
the topsoil on the south. Member Lynch asked if the applicant had considered having a
consultant do seismic testing on the property. Mr. Moreau stated it was not required, but
he would be willing to have it done if it was recommended by the Board. He stated the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
June 7, 2011
design of the dwelling could be altered, but the great room ceiling would need to be
lowered to less than eight feet to comply. He would rather not lower the foundation due to
the increased driveway slope.
Kelly Brown/adjacent property owner stated there was some negative impact from
previous blasting of another adjacent property owner. As the property owner of a historic
residence, she wants to minimize any impact to their dwelling. She stated the applicant
has already corrected other conflicts with neighbors prior to this variance request. Most of
the trees on her property grow out of the rocks, and could be seriously damaged by
blasting on the hillside. Mrs. Brown was in favor of the variance request. She stated the
applicant redesigned the drainage plan on the property to mitigate problems on the lower
properties. She discussed the blasting with Fairbanks Excavating, who indicated that
surface blasting would be conducted to lessen the impact on neighboring properties.
Member Levine stated he was initially opposed to the variance request, but after the
comments by Mrs. Brown, will support the request. Member Smith agreed with Member
Levine. Chair Newsom commented the neighborhood impact would be minimal, and he
would support the request.
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the variance request with
findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 4-0.
Member Moreau returned to the dies.
5. UNIT 1A, BUILDING 1, OLYMPUS VIEWS CONDOMINIUMS, 1690 BIG THOMPSON
AVENUE
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a variance from EVDC
Section 4.4, Table 4-5, which requires a 15-foot side yard setback in the CO —Commercial
Outlying zone district. The property is located at the eastern -most Town limit boundary,
and the patio is adjacent to the access road for the Marina and Lakeshore Lodge. The
request is to allow a side yard setback of eight feet from the east property line to allow an
existing fenced patio seating area to remain at the southeast corner of the building.
Planner Shirk stated the patio and access stairs were built without a building permit.
Based on this, If the variance is approved, staff recommends a condition of approval be
that all required permits for the patio and stairs, as well as other open permits, be finalized
no later than July 5, 2011.
Planner Shirk stated the patio is an amenity for customers. Other than the Division of
Building Safety, reviewing agencies had no significant issues, including the Estes Valley
Recreation and Parks District. The Division of Building Safety indicated there were
several unresolved issues concerning unpermitted work and unapproved work. Their
recommendation was to add a condition of approval to resolve all issues with outstanding
permits. The condominium association would need to resolve any issues with
maintenance, common elements, etc.
Planner Shirk stated staff recommended conditional approval, with issues to be resolved
prior to July 5, 2011. Specific conditions are listed below.
Staff and Board Discussion
Member Levine stated the variance request was not posted on site.
Public Comment
Don Hess/Business owner stated there was an existing patio that went up to the property
line, which was recently moved back 8.5 feet from the property line. He stated he was
under the impression that moving the patio away from the property would bring him into
compliance with the setback. The patio was slightly reconfigured to improve accessibility,
and also fenced and gated. Mr. Hess agreed to have the Division of Building Safety
issues resolved by the July 5th deadline.
Planner Shirk read the Conditions of Approval. Chair Newsom asked the applicant if he
was in agreement with the conditions of approval. Mr. Hess replied "Yes, I am."
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
June 7,2011
Member Levine suggested streamlining the permit issues as much as possible.
Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering representing the Olympus View Condominium
Association, stated the Board approved the location of the patio, with no objections.
Conditions
1. The patio shall not be used by customers until the access steps and patio have been
permitted and final inspection approved. This shall be completed on or before July 5,
2011.
2. Prior to issuance of the permit for the steps/patio, the applicant shall finalize all
outstanding building permits.
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Moreau) to approve the requested variance with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed
unanimously.
There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:56 a.m.
Wayne Newsom, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
IA4IMEA
COUNTY
1051 Sutton Lane Variance: Side Yard Setback
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
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE: September 13,
2011
REQUEST: Variance from the E-1
Estate 25-foot side yard setback
requirement.
LOCATION: 1051 Sutton Lane
How to get there:
• Turn west onto Sutton Lane off
Marys Lake Road.
• Follow Sutton Lane west and around
the bend toward the south.
• 1051 is located on the right side of the road.
• Sutton Lane is located just north of the dentist office.
• An aerial photo is attached.
APPLICANT: Don Darling (builder)
PROPERTY OWNER: Sara Kleiber
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk
SITE DATA TABLE:
Builder: Don Darling
www.estes.org
Parcel Number: 3402200063
r Existing Land Use: Single-family residential
Zoning Designation: E-1 Estate
Adjacent Zoning:
East: E-1 Estate
West: E-1 Estate
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: Single-family residential
West: Single-family residential
Development Area: .52 acres
Proposed Land Use: Same, with attached
two -car garage
North: E-1 Estate
South: RE Rural Estate
North: Single-family residential
South: Single-family residential
Services:
Water: Well
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 side yard setback of 13-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required.
The purpose of the variance request is to allow an attached two -car garage.
The 25-foot setbacks for the E-1 Estate district are intended for one -acre size lots, with
a minimum width of 100 feet. This lot is' an acre and 85-feet wide. The lot is closer to
the E Estate '/2 acre, which has a side yard setback of 10-feet, which this proposal
would comply with.
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.
REFFER L MMENTS AND OT R ISSUES: This request has been submitted to
all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this
report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to
code compliance or the provision of public services.
Neighboring Property Owners. Staff has received one phone call from a nearby
property owner, who expressed support for the proposed improvement in the
neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
1. This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes
Valley Development Code.
2. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with Code standards.
3. The variance is not substantial.
4. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor
would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment.
5. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services.
6. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
7. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by
reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
8. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so
general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of
a general regulation for such conditions or situations.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 13, 2011
Sutton Lane Side Yard Setback Variance Request
Page 2 of 3
9. Failure to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with
regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the
variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval conditional to:
1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide
to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that
specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall
include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a
surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the
approved variance.
SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff.
" ^ Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 13, 2011
Sutton Lane Side Yard Setback Variance Request
Page 3 of 3
9/7/2011
niacin IIl,,,,, m u+ Var
oIir Lane Ita^ rialnc*
lIN
1
Dave Shirk
Cliff Tedder
it: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Dave Shirk
Cc: Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten
Subject: 1051 Sutton Lane
Dave :
The water department has no comments as there is no town water in this area
Cliff Tedder
Town of Estes Park Water Department
Assistant Water Superintendent
(970)-577-3622
Dave Shirk
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd Steichen
Monday, August 15, 2011 2:26 PM
Karen Thompson; Reuben Bergsten; Susie Parker
Dave Shirk; Alison Chilcott
RE: Metes & Bounds parcel located at 1051 Sutton Lane - Variance Request - REFERRAL
FOR COMMENT
After a site visit L&P has no comments or concerns with this variance request.
Todd.
From: Karen Thompson
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:05 PM
To: Barbara Boyer Buck; Susie Parker; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Chris Bieker
Cc: Dave Shirk
Subject: Metes & Bounds parcel located at 1051 Sutton Lane - Variance Request - REFERRAL FOR COMMENT
REFFERAL FOR COMMENT
FINAL/PUBLIC REVIEW
1
Pre -Application
✓
Completeness Review
Flnal/Public Review (Planning Commission/Town Board/County Commission)
Building Permit
As-Builts
I)
This email is to notify you that Planning staff has accepted the below development application as complete and
scheduled it for review on the dates shown below. The application can be viewed by accessing the below links or by
visiting our website at ww .estes.micomdev/Curr�ntR .gspx.
• Please submit review comments as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 ts.m. on Friday. August 26,
2011.
• Does the application comply with applicable regulations? If not, please specify the ways in
which the application is non -compliant.
■ Do you need additional time to review the application? In some cases we can continue the
application to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
■ Do you recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial?
• Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code is required (www.estes.org/comdev/devcoden.
Dave Shirk
1m: Karen Thompson
nt: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:05 PM
To: Barbara Boyer Buck; Susie Parker; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Chris Bieker
(chris@utsd.org)
Cc: Dave Shirk
Subject: Metes & Bounds parcel located at 1051 Sutton Lane - Variance Request - REFERRAL FOR
COMMENT
REFFERAL FOR COMMENT
FINAL/PUBLIC REVIEW
1
Pre -Application
✓
Completeness Review
Final/Public Review (Planning Commission/Town Board/County Commission)
Building Permit
As-Builts
This email is to notify you that Planning staff has accepted the below development application as complete and
scheduled it for review on the dates shown below. The application can be viewed by accessing the below links or by
visiting our website at m ley Cur
• Please submit review comments as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday. August 26,
2Q11.
• Does the application comply with applicable regulations? If not, please specify the ways in
which the application is non -compliant.
• Do you need additional time to review the application? In some cases we can continue the
application to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
• Do you recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial?
• Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code is required(www.estes.org/comdev/devcode/).
iect
Klelber Residence Variance
Ad r s title tiu sat
1051 Sutton Lane
Within Unincorporated
Estes Valley
Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment
9/13/11
rat
Docururtion
sued.
Staff
Report
and
Comments
(PDF)
StatT Report
available 9/7/l 1
tt, uit:ontatt,
Send Comments to
Dave Shirk at
0W i MOMS MS
Sara Kleiber
Statement of Intent
Variance Request
7-27-20011
Requested Variance;
Existing setback is 25', requesting 12' variance into setback on east side of property
Property, 1051 Sutton Lane is long and narrow with a non conforming existing home without a garage.
The variance is being requested in order to add a two car garage attached to the home on the east side
with the garage access to the north. The total garage square footage is 624 sq ft. The size of the
variance request is 312 sq ft.
The owner is requesting a variance to the east side of the existing home.
Standards for Review
1. Special circumstances exist with the narrowness of the lot
2. The following factors should be considered in determining practical difficulty
• Can there be beneficial use of the property without the variance;
• Yes, the property is quite old and has been expanded over the years but has never
had a garage.
• Weather the variance is substantial
• The requested variance is 12' X 26' on a property that is non conforming to start
with. The setback is 25' and the variance request is 12'
• The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered
• The requested variance will not have any affect of public services
• The property owner did not know that a variance would be needed for a garage
• The addition of a garage would be difficult given the narrowness of the lot and the
existing non conforming condition of the home
JUL 2 7
Submittal Date:
•
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
Record Owner(s): 44,00c64).1419
Street Address of Lot:
Legal Description. Lot:
Subdivision: Ze,
Parcel ID # :
Lot Size Zia Zoning
Existing Land Use 121
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service r" Town jit Well r Other (Specify)
Proposed Water Service f"- Town IR Well r' Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD it UTSD i" Septic
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD r Septic
Existing Gas Service Xcel 14. Other r None
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site? I— Yes No
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):
isrEir
VA.r."01'1,9 N.,:f„!•;:3 [1'1 V'1; 11,;) Q'.;;; )
Name of Primary Contact Person MIM lir.
Complete Mailing Address
Prima Contact Person is r Owner Ao dicant ft Consultant/Enineer
hi
ii '11 1'
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 include intonation in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B VI1,5 (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 4, P.O. Box 1200 nt 170 MacGregor Avenue •ik Estes Park. CO 80617
Community Development Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 k Fax: (970) 586-0249 4. www.estes.org/ComDev
Revised 11/20/09
H1:11 11'„11,110,[1,11Hirc:Pd
Mailing Address
Phone e.
Cell Phone 9v
Fax
Email
Applicant
Mailing Address
9
Phone
Cell Phone -
Fax
Em • ° 0
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.
All requests for refunds must be made in wiling Ali fees are due at the time of submittal.
Revised 11/20/
Yiqtf
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
N. 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).
► 1 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:
► 1 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 appcation.
► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of
my property and the proposed building/structure comers must be field staked. i understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
► 1 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
Revised 11 /20/09
Zoning Districts
§ 4.3 ffesidential Zoning Districts
Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts
District
—MOO*
Dank,
(I QI QQf�]
1mc�t
u,VMil
orct 25.07' I:- 1)
1)'4'
rV
/mil
II
.
�C r
'u
yy��]
N �•
�
� 1
}
�p
�ea:.hu}
� j6
11�
C P,
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 i
•
26-
E
2
Y2 Ac. [31
75
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
15
30
20
25-
R
4
14 Ac.
60
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
15
30
20
R-1
8
5,000
50
15
10
15
30
20
Single-family
18,000;
2B-
R 2
4
-
Duplex =
27,000
80
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
10
30
20
Residential
Uses:
40,000,
5,400 sq.
ft,/unit
80;
RM
Max = 8 and
[4) (81 (Ord.
Lots
25-
(Ord.
Min = 3
25-07 §1 )
Greater
arterials;
18-01
Senior
than
15-other
10 [8]
10
30
20 [7]
#14)
institutional
Living rises:
Senior
Institutional
'Uses:
100,000
sq. ft.:
streets
Max = 24
wing
200
Yx Ac.
Notes to Table 4-2:
[1 ] (a) Sea 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 apace
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)
[21 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.
[51 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 developments,
(7) Minimum building width requirements shall 04i apply to mobile homes located In a mobile home park,
[8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 eland 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01
#14)
[9] All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off -site dwellings or
lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or
recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the
applicabte minimum buttdinglstructure 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)
rvNOESEMEEEVIEIIEWEE4rvmlEEWN.wDm hlmMwe µmIPmMMwoW,WWmFW
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.
IN.am.VWW'n'NdmNMYNW u'MµhINIIIIEFEWERE111.01 E%
!JIiI1IOI•••• II
111111101/4.
Kleiber Variance APO
N oh n o m N N N 1
a - - - w - m - -
8 o N (N L
g 0 0 0 u 00 p 0 0 0 0 0
■■ 00¥¥ CO CO CO CO 00 CO
S S E g k S SEE S
0 . 2 i ± ' Ng
& k a a 0 CO 0.
_ •ƒ 2 k §
r$ a £ k kvs ±. k
Q w R a<4 o us, 3 UJ
41
2
�
0
PO Box 3347
Warren & E'en Donahue
137 W Mor Dr
PO Box 613
I
t
0
\
.0
d
9hOZ I-9
GAlzQ4C._ APDITICJ}J
G%i`�T11JC gItif�tCE
Okvt.. g... hAR.A kLEIPL .
1051 SU'(lb}J L}J.
EST ES PAJZ K, CO 30517
Cow-rizAc. c' - bARLIIAG 6FJ'G� IiJ G' 1
born DA1ZLIN
%-rE4 PAkk1 co 150517......- f
CEL 970-2.17-567I
jll
0
°"-.714e1K-r
At1 C71,4
)(.1/9-1-
IT
6 E 4
;
P
-Mtig:L=
)051 Slrtr0Q 1-%•-1 •
a.z..-r M4, rtatc.15 c-o epsr7
C.OKFTRA,..C71-01Z1
DC71,1
Palz1‹., c. 0 8C,51-7
Ca L. 9'7 0 - 515 I
(((I'lllllllNr'.'I�;Iw 't
1810 Windham Lane Variance:
Appeal of Staff Determination and Side Yard Setback
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: 970-588-0249 www.estes.org
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE: September 13, 2011
REQUEST: This request is two -pronged:
1. Appeal of staff determination that a proposed
structure is a detached accessory dwelling
unit; and,
2. Side yard setback variance for the proposed
structure.
This report is organized into two parts: Appeal
and Setback variance.
LOCATION: 1810 Windham Lane "/":111r7>
(part of the unplatted Dunraven Heights subdivision)
PAW
How to get there:
• Turn east onto Windham Drive off Fish Creek Road.
• Windham Drive is located just south of the 18-hole golf course.
• Follow Windham Drive past Windham Court until you get to Windham Lane; turn
right.
• Windham Lane is near the top of Dunraven Heights. Go slow, there are several
turns on this steep dirt road.
• An aerial photo is attached.
APPLICANT: The Portfolio Group
PROPERTY OWNER: Harold and Ginnie Haunschild
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk
SITE DATA TABLE:
Consultant: The Portfolio Group
Parcel Number: 2532300027
Existing Land Use: Single-family residential
Zoning Designation: RE Rural Estate
Development Area: 3.1 acres
Proposed Land Use: Same, divided into two
structures
Adjacent Zoning:
East:,., RE Rural Estate
Eststate
West: RE Rural Estate
North: RE Rural Estate
South: RE Rural Estate
Adjacent Land Uses:
East: Single-family residential
North: Single-family residential
West: Undeveloped (conservation easement)
Services:
South: Undeveloped ( Forest Service)
Water: Well (part of Dunraven Heights private
water system)
Overview.
Sewer: Septic
(this request was routed to the Larimer County
Health Department; no comments were
received)
The Structure. The proposed structure would be approximately 1,500 square feet, two
levels, and would include the following, as labeled on the floorplan:
1. Billiards room,
2. Four decks,
3. Media room,
4. Shower room,
5. Powder room,
6. Music room/library,
7. Two offices,
8. Kitchenette (undefined, no detail elevation provided),
9. Storage room,
10. Photography darkroom/processing, and
11. Painting studio.
Referral Comments and Other Issues. This request has been submitted to all applicable
reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no
significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code
compliance or the provision of public services.
Neighboring Property Owners, Staff has received two letters of support from
neighboring property owners. These letters are attached.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 13, 2011
Windham Lane: Appeal of staff determination and setback variance
Page 2 of 4
leghlow
11
On August 17th staff determined that the proposed structure, shown on the attached
plans, is a detached accessory dwelling unit; the development code does not allow
detached accessory dwelling units on any tots within the Estes Valley.
The property owner has appealed this determination.
This appeal is reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, in accordance with the
procedures outlined in EVDC Section 12.1.0 Appeals of Final Decisions by Staff.
The decision before the Board is: did staff correctly administer and interpret the Code in
determining that the proposed structure is a detached accessory dwelling unit?
The following are attached:
1. August 17th letter describing staffs determination and the basis for it.
2. Pertinent definitions and sections of Chapter 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory
Structures.
3. September 18` and 2"d letters from the property owner and applicant describing how
the property owner finds staff incorrectly administered and interpreted the Code.
As support for their requests, the Haunschild"s have provided copies of:
a. OSHA Safety Shower Regulations, regarding "safety shower regulations to
protect workers who use dangerous chemicals;"
b. Safety Guide for Art Studios (United Educators) regarding specific health and
safety hazards and precautions for photography;
c. Safe Handling Practices with Photographic Chemicals (including need for
safety shower "centrally located in the chemical handling area"); and,
d. Health Hazards and Safety Tips for Artists (Canadian Artists Representation).
These documents are available for review at
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
a
Uphold:
I move to uphold the staff determination the proposed structure is a detached accessory
dwelling unit,.
Overturn: I move to reverse the staff determination and find that the proposed
structure is not a detached accessory dwelling unit and is clearly incidental and
customarily found in connection with a single-family residence.
r
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 13, 2011 Page 3 of 4
Windham Lane: Appeal of staff determination and setback variance
1777
1711,
7,1 110,01 firtfirr,
1011(114070
In the event the Board reverses staffs determination and finds:
1. The proposed structure is not a detached accessory dwelling unit and
2. Is clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with a single-family
residence,
then the Board needs to take action on the side yard setback variance
In accordance with Section 16 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein; these are included in your notebooks.
Should the Board approve the setback variance, Staff recommends the following finding
and conditions:
1. This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes
Valley Development Code.
2. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
3. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide
to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that
specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall
include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a
surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the
approved variance.
SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve/disapprove the requested side yard setback
variance based on the findings and conditions outlined above.
°; Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, September 13, 2011 Page 4 of 4
Windham Lane: Appeal of staff determination and setback variance
ffi
111111 D111111111
11111111111114
�llpiuk '''I Iry ^, "„ 11'' 6' I
''Rol '�'�V'I o� 'P'� oil �l� ��o Ilo" m Y I 'V 'm'i "d'� it „�P I J� I I �i N iVdl tl�r I�Vi I Ih" I II I I Ku' "6i a 11 i i li
Y I I i 'II. I I' I I i II' I' u 1 118"II' I ,, I Id d1'' I. °'I I i I I N I BI
� 61 � I p I II ul hill I 61 "I' �tl I � 0 6 I ul i I�� ""I I III 4 I I b � I I I V iII'i� , "I"' I i i I� '� it ��J �I I ll"' � I I I � I I I N� a I I
, ai I II A i III'' I 6� I I. I it I 1� I I � ��° I I � r I' I I � � �� o' 9 �� G M 1P I I � I r'� L I I III � �l I� �� I. o 11 I I I d 1 1� �� I I��� I6� I I� II '.I � I � II �' „ , I'^I II Ildl� N �� u I I �I I' I II I I I i � I I ��� �I � I I u �I I � � �I II I II � HIV 'do °'I I o V u� II II� 1' I IIMI II ^IIII 'I II I IV I II i��l IIYI"'li Y I ^ P i ry II III'"' I h II I4' il'rlii of III ii IYh , of � I I.'.I 61I
n�9 ���dIM1 �'��u �w°�q �LI JQIiII � I V�,��, �'tlP'Nil�llvio, l', �dJpli� ii'�Il�iidlvl�� II. I I� II�ioP ii lli�u,i,d�'ll �,,, � �I „�' � ��JI�j��ImII„�Ii,,q,Ii��6Y,����n��J��ir���ilYd �iiVQ I�u4gii..I 41 d''iliN�° l��,,��N� �„..,, idi li'I'I „h�'lIu III.
/ / it
44/76/
jr %/ �/ r/ /
r /
y,„11I1^I�Npviun
"
J�I,tl'
mmmmmmuuui
ouwwwimumw
WI NI
luguars
plffq
a1.
13
ertt
do Cent it
OK
rwctsfl01 . o
Fleet
r arK5
Streets
287'
Oka
August 17, 2011
The Portfolio Group
PO Box 2735
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: 1810 Windham Lane
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in follow-up to the July Planning Division denial of zoning approval
for the proposed accessory structure at 1810 Windham Lane, zoned RE Rural
Estate.
The proposed structure is would be approximately 1,500 square feet, two levels,
and would contain: a billiards room, four decks, media room, shower room,
powder room, music room/library, two offices, kitchenette (undefined, no detail
elevation provided), storage room, photography darkroom/processing, and
painting studio.
Staff has determined the proposed structure, as described above:
1. Constitutes a detached accessory dwelling unit.
2. The accessory structure is not clearly incidental and customarily found in
connection with the principal use.
Accessory Dwelling Unit. Staff has determined the structure is a dwelling unit.
This interpretation is based on a June 2006 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing in which the BOA heard a similar appeal to Staffs interpretation of the
Code.
At that time, the Board determined that living space with cooking and sanitary
facilities was an accessory dwelling unit (the specific appeal was for attached
living area).
Based on the 2006 BOA interpretation, Staff reviews the overall design to
determine if an accessory dwelling unit is proposed. if a building or portion of a
building is designed so that a household can live independently in that portion of
the building, it is an accessory dwelling unit, even if it provides only limited eating
facilities such as a kitchenettelwetbar.
Accessory dwelling units (ADtJ) are not permitted on Tots of less than 3.33 acres
in the "RE" Rural Estate zoning district, as your property is zoned. According to
the Larimer County Assessor records, your lot is 2.4 acres. In addition to the minimum
lot size required for an ADU, the Estes Valley Development Code requires ADU to
integrated within the principal dwelling unit, and prohibits detached ADUs.
Use. Section 5.2.A.4.a states "the accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental
and customarily found in connection with the principal use." Staff has determined the
proposed use is not clearly incidental to the principal structure.
This determination was made due to the multiple uses proposed. Customary accessory
structures and uses in residential zone districts include barns and stables, garages,
private greenhouses, and swimming pools (these structures are those listed on Table 5-
1 Accessory Use and Structures of the Estes Valley Development Code),
Appeal and Variance. The appeal application submitted on July 27 2011 has been
accepted as complete, and has been scheduled for review by the Estes Valley Board of
Adjustment on September 13, 2011. This appeal also includes a request to reduce the
setback requirement.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to
contact Community Development at 577-3721 at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Vid W. Shirk, Planner
cc: Harold and Ginnie Haunschiild
Use Regulations
§ 5.2 Accesry Uses and Accessory Structures
§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
A. General Standards.
1. Permitted principal uses and approved special review principal uses shall be deemed
to include the accessory uses, structures and activities as set forth in this Section,
unless specifically prohibited.
2. See also §13.2, "Use Classification," wherein incidental or accessory uses are
sometimes included in the description of a specific principal use. When a use
classification or specific use type definition in §13.2 does include permitted accessory
or incidental uses, such accessory or incidental uses shall be subject to the general
standards set forth in this Section, as well as any use -specific standards set forth in
§5.1 or this Section.
3. All accessory uses, structures and activities shall be subject to the, general,
dimensional, operational and use -specific regulations set forth in this Section, in
addition to the same regulations that apply to principal uses in each district. In the
case of any conflict between the accessory use/structure standards of this Section and
any other requirement of this Code, the standards of this Section shall control.
4. All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following conditions:
a. The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and customarily found in
connection with the principal use; and
b. The accessory use or structure shall be conducted and/or located on the same lot
as the principal use; and
c. The principal use and accessory use shall be under the same ownership. (Ord. 15-
03 #1)
B. Accessory UseslStructures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts.
1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures.
a. Listed Accessory Uses/Structures, Table 5-1 below sets forth what types of
accessory uses and structures are permitted in which residential zones. If a
specific accessory use or structure is permitted in a residential zoning district, the
column underneath the zoning district will be marked with a "Yes." If the
accessory use or structure is not permitted in a particular zoning district, the
column will be marked with a "No." If there is a reference contained in the column
entitled "additional requirements," please refer to the cited section(s) for additional
standards that shall apply to the specific accessory use.
b. Unlisted Accessory Uses or Structures. If an accessory use or structure is not
listed in Table 5-1 but satisfies all the conditions set forth in §5.2.A.4 above, it may
be permitted subject to compliance with the general, dimensional and operational
standards set forth in this Section.
Supp. 5 5-9
Use Regulations
§ 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures
Table 5-1
Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts
Accessory Use
Residential Zoning District"
"Yes" _ Permitted "No" ; Not Permitted
"CUP"=Conditbnal Use Perrnit
Additional
Requirements
RE.1
RE
E-1
E
R :
R.1
R.2
RM
Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
§5.2.B.2.a
133 times minimum lot
area required
Accessory kitchen
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
§5.2.B.2.f
Barns and Stables
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
None (Ord. 15-03 §1)
Day Care Center
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
§5.1.F;
§5.1.0; as accessory to
a permitted religious
assembly use
(Ord. 8-08 §1)
Family Horne
Day Care, Small
(Ord. 6-06 §1)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
§5,2.B.2.d
Home Occupation
As accessory to a
principal residential use
only
Fences and Walls
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
§7.5.H
Garages, carports, and
off-street parking areas
used to serve the
residents of the
property
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
§5.2,B.2.d and §7.11
Golf clubhouses,
including space for the
sale of golf or other
sporting equipment,
food and refreshments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Na
As accessory uses to
golf courses only
Home Occupation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
§5'2'B'2'e
(Ord 18.01 §18)
Micro Wind Energy
Conversion Systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
§5'2'B'2'g
(Ord. 05-10§1)
Private greenhouses
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Private Schools
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
As accessory to a
permitted religious
assembly use only;
§5.1 .0
5'.11 O
Supp.11
Use Regulations
§ 52 Accessory, Uses and AccessolyStructures
Table 5-1 (Contld)
Accessory Use
Residential Zoning District
'Yes" =Permitted "No" =Mot Permitted
'cur =Conditioned 'Jess Permit
i%ddltional
Requirellents
RE-4
RE
51
E
R
_._
R-I
R-2
RM
Satellite dish antennas
39 inches (I meter) or
less in diameter
,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
•Accessoryto a principal
residential use only
•To the maximum extent
feasible, but only where
there is no impairment to
acceptable signal quality,
such satellite dish
antenna shall be located
in the rear yard of the
residential use
Satellite dish antennas
greater than 39 Inches
(1 meter) in diameter
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
•Accessoryto a principal
residential use only
•To the maximtm extent
feasible, but only where
there Is no substantial
Impairment to acceptable
signal gustily, such
satellite dish antenna
shall be located In the
rear yard of the
residential use,
•To the maximum extent
feasible, the satellite dish
antenna shall be
screened from view from
adjacent public rights-ol-
way (inc I udng trails)
Small Wind Energy
Conservation Systems
(Ord.21 -10 §1)
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
§5.2.132.h
Storage or parking of
trucks, cars, or major
recreational equipment,
Including but not limited
to boats, boat trailers,
camping trailers,
motorized homes, and
house trailers
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
§5.2.B2.h
Swimming Pools/Hot
Tubs
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Yes
4
Yes
Yes
.
541
Supp.11
Definitions:
• Accessory Building shall mean a building detached torn a principal
building and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate
to, the principal building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with
such principal building.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean a second dwelling unit integrated with
a single-family detached dwelling that is located on the same lot as the
single-family detached dwelling. "Accessory Dwelling Unit' does not
include mobile homes, recreational vehicles or travel trailers.
• Accessory Structure shall mean a structure detached from a principal
building and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate
to, the principal building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with
such principal building.
• Dwelling Unit shall mean a building or portion of it designed and used as
living and sleeping quarters for a single household, and that includes
exclusive sleeping, kitchen, eating and sanitary facilities.
tiI
n
G ves Avenue . P.O. x 2735 . E; Park, CO 80517 . (970) 586-' ': . F 6- 37
David W. Shirk, Planner
Town of Estes Park Community Development
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado
Dear Dave:
September 2, 2011
We have received your letter of August l7th regarding the proposed Accessory Structure
at 1810 Windham Lane. Since we did not have this follow-up letter when we wrote our
Statement of Intent, we would like to amplify our reasoning for requesting an appeal of
Staff's decision to deny the Haunschilds this structure. Please add filis letter to the Board
of Adjustment's package for reviewing this Appeal and Variance Request.
Your letter states that "Staff has determined the proposed structure, as described above,
1. Constitutes a detached accessory dwelling unit.
2. The accessory structure is not clearly incidental and customarily found in
connection with the principal use."
Once again, the Owner and Applicant strongly disagree with this administration and
interpretation of the Code by Staff...
First of all, this proposed structure is not a dwe]ling unit Chapter 13, Section 13.3, Definition
of Words, Terms, and Phrases of the Estes Valley Development Code, paragraph 95, dearly
states that a Dwelling Unit includes exclusive sleep' g and kitchen facilities. No sleeping
facilities are proposed here. Furthermore, paragraph I30 of Chapter 13 clearly states that
"Kitchen shall mean a room or space within a room equipped with such electrical or gas hook-
up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or like appliance using 220/40 volts or
natural gas (or similar fuels) for the preparation of food". No such facility is being proposed
here.
Therefore, based on Chapter 13 of the Development Code, we do not understand how Staff
interprets this structure as a Dwelling Unit.
Staff states that "this interpretation is based on a June 2006 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing in which the BOA heard a similar appeal to Staff's interpretation of the Code."
However, since 2006, The Development Code has been rewritten to define an (accessory)
dwelling unit as having kitchen and sleeping facilities as described above. Therefore, the 2006
BOA decision has been superceded by a redefinition in the Code, and Staff's use of this
precedent is pot applicable.
This is what the Estes Valley Planning Commission hearings regarding Accessory Dwelling
Units were all about..to stop Staff from interpreting every wet bar in the Valley as constituting
a )dtchen facility!
Secondly, Staff concludes that the accessory structure proposed here is "not clearly incidental
and custornartly fourdin _connection with the principal use". This is similarly not
understandable to us, the Owner and Applicant. To reiterate our language in the Statement
of Intent...
1) All the uses proposed for this structure are dearly secondary and subordinate to
principal uses of a residence. That is, they az incidental. The design does not
include any necessary spaces such as: living roorn, dining room, kitchen, or sleeping
facilities. The design includes only uses that are occasional, that is, from time -to -time,
and largely recreational.
2) All the uses proposed here are permitted in a single family dwelling. Accordingly, we
consider that these uses are, by definition, "customarily found in connection with the
principal use".
3) Section 5.2.B. of the EWC specifically permits Accessory Uses in Accessory
Structures that are not specifically listed or mentioned as permitted in the Code.
There is no restriction in the Code that precludes the combination of such Uses in
an Accessory Structure.
4) All these proposed incidental uses would be permitted in a single family dwelling.
Here at 1810 Windham Lane, there is simply no good or easy way to add on to
the existing dwelling. Hence, a detached Accessory Structure, as permitted by the
Development Code, is being proposed.
We would also like to call attention to the fad that these accessory structures are becoming a
more and rrnore frequent trend in resort corn unities. In our design business we are often
asked to include such struchares into the projects. These include various uses such as offices,
potter's and other art studios, woodworking facilities, guest quarters and the newest: "the
man cave"...for billiards, cards, and big screen TV watching for sports events. These are
usually on very adequately sized parcels and respect the views and privacy of neighbors. As
you know, we have campaigned vigorously for a code definition that helps make the
definition of accessory structures dear. We felt that a big step toward clarity came when a clear
definition of a kitchen was added to the Code, so that accessory structures of this nature do not
become identified as Dwelling Units.
Finally, please allow the Applicant to express some frustration. As Designers and Builders, we
accept that we must operate under the rules of the Estes Valley Development Code. However,
it is very difficult to operate if trying to predict the seemingly arbitrary interpretations of Staff
decisions. Simply, permit us to operate under the Code.
40
Harold & Ginnie Haunschild
1810 Windham Lane
Estes Park, CO 80517
August 31, 2011
David W. Shirk
Planner
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
P. 0. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: 1810 Windham Lane, Variance Request et al
Dear Mr. Shirk,
We are in receipt of your letter to The Portfolio Group, dated August 17, 2011
where you relate the reasoning behind the zoning denial decision to the
proposed outbuilding structure on our property. We appreciate the detail your
letter provides. We have recently reviewed the Estes Valley Land Code given the
context of your letter and would argue the following:
First and foremost as far as we can discern this is not by current code
definition an Accessory Dwelling Unit. In Item 3 of Chapter 13 of the Estes
Valley Land Code an 'Accessory Dwelling Unit shall mean a second dwelling unit
integrated with a single--farnily detached dwelling that is located on the same
lot as the single-family detached dwelling..." Further in 'tern 95 of Chapter 13
of the Estes Valley Land Code a Dwelling Unit is defined as "... a building or
portion of it designed and used as living and steeping quarters for a single
household, and that includes exclusive sleeping, kitchen, eating and sanitary
facilities." As your letter clearly noted, our proposed structure does not include
any sleeping areas, exclusive or otherwise or any eating facilities. Further
although our plans call for a kitchenette, this will be nothing more than a place
to put a coffee pot, small microwave, bar sink and under -counter refrigerator. In
truth, this kitchenette is not a necessary part of our proposed structure, but
simply one of convenience that we would like to have and candidly again
based on code, believe we are entitled to have. Item 130 of Chapter 13 of the
EVLC defines a kitchen as "a room or space within a room equipped with such
electrical or gas hook-up that would enable the installation of a range, oven or
like appliance using 220/40 volts or natural gas (or similar fuels) for the
preparation of food, and also containing either or both a refrigerator and sink."
Based upon this definition our kitchenette is not a kitchen and therefore again
our structure does not fall within the confines of the code defined ADU. We
could not locate a definition of sanitary facilities anywhere within the EVLC and
are therefore left to guess at any possible objections and whether this qualifies
a. small portion of our structure as an ADU. Based upon our review of the
current code, we respectively submit that your denial based upon the BOA
2006 rulings definition of an ADU is subjective at best and explicitly not
according to rule.
Additionally, since sanitary facilities are not currently code defined, we feel it is
prudent to explain our inclusion of a shower on our plans. Our want of a
shower is two -fold. First as a matter of convenience; we would like to be able
to exit the hot tub and shower and change before making our way back to our
dwelling unit, particularly in frigid temperatures. Secondly and more importantly
for safety. As you are aware our proposed structure includes an artist and
photography studio. Many of the darkroom and art processes (specifically
photographic stencils, photo etching and photogravure) three of our family
members are involved in require the use of nitric acid, photo developers and
photo emulsions that can be damaging to the skin when an accident happens.
It is important should this occur to have a shower in close proximity to
mitigate damage. To substantiate this need, we have attached for your
convenience and use OSHA and various published universal safety standards
pertaining to the need for a safety shower within specific artist studios, of
which ours clearly qualifies.
Lastly we would like to address your denial based upon incidental use. You
indicated in your letter that 'The accessory structure is not clearly incidental" .
.. and that "This determination was made due to the multiple uses proposed."
Again going strictly by code, nowhere does it say you can't combine uses
within an accessory structure. All that the code says (item 4a of Chapter 5 of
the EVLC) is "All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following
conditions:
a. The accessory use or structure shall be clearly incidental and
customarily found in connection with the principal use;
We can easily argue that each and every use within our proposed structure is
clearly incidental and is also customarily found in many residences today in
connection with the principal use. Your finding therefore again appears at least
to us to be very subjective and explicitly not according to rule.
Respectively submitted,
Harold & Ginrne Haunschild
Owners, 1810 Windham Lane
970-586-0211
Attachments - 4
August 30, 2011
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
Town of Estes Park
Attention: David Shirk, Planner II
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Mr. Shirk:
Re: Appeal of Staff Decision and Request for Variance
Property Owned by Harold and Ginnie Haunschild
Hearing Date: September 13, 2011
We own the property located at 1802 Windham Lane which is adjacent to the property located
at 1810 Windham Lane which is the subject of this appeal. We have owned and occupied our
property for 23 years.
We are very familiar with the properties in this area -we try to keep abreast of any changes or
developments in our area -we would actively fight any change that would hurt the integrity of our
property.
Last week the Haunschild's invited us down to learn all about the proposed small building they
wish to construct on the southwest part of their property. They had staked the location and
showed us the sketch and drawings. They answered all of our questions.
We support the Haunschild's appeal of the staff decision and urge your board to approve their
application. This small building would have no affect on Dunraven Heights Subdivision -on any
adjacent property -or on any resident in the area.
Although we will not be able to be present at the September 13 hearing, we will be available on
that date at one of the phone numbers listed below in case you or a board member has a
question.
We urge your board to approve the application.
Sincere
Ed and Mary Copple
402 475-3213
402 430-3155
Elizabeth Dolman
P. O. Box 2461
Estes Park, CO 80517
TO: Mr. Dave Shirk, Planner II
Town of Estes Park
DATE: August 31, 2011
RE: Appeal of Staff Decision & Request for Variance
Metes & Bounds Parcel located at 1810 Windham Lane
Dear Mr. Shirk-
1 am the full owner of 1801 Windham Lane and a one-half undivided interest owner
in the property commonly referred to on our hill as Elk Run (parcel #25323-00-01.8),
both of which are adjacent to the property located at 1810 Windham Lane currently
under variance review by the Board of Adjustments.
My neighbors the Haunschilds have fully reviewed their site plans and structure
drawings with me. 1 understand their wanting to put the structure within the
setback adjacent to Elk Run. I can tell you first hand, from various conversations we
have held, that they have tried to be considerate of adjacent neighbors views and
maintaining the natural rock outcroppings on their property all while working
within the confines of a very, very narrow lot. Since the Haunschilds own Elk Run in
conjunction with me, I feel they have every right to build-up to the lot line if they so
choose and would like to go on record that I have absolutely no problem with them
building within the setback as proposed.
Sincerely,
Namit- at.
Elizabeth Dolman
970-586-6224
Dave Shirk
Prom: Stan Gnep fsgriep@larimer.org]
ant: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:19AM
io: Dave Shirk
Subject: 1810 Windham Lane Variance Request
Hi Dave,
The only comments i have are; If the variance is approved, two sets of engineered foundation plans
will be required for submittal for the required building permit. Also the project engineer will need to
review the overall structure for high wind area bracing as well as the structural loads. The distances to
property lines as proposed appear to be far enough away so as not to require fire rated wall assemblies
based on distance to property lines.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Stan
Stan V. Griep
Lead & Commercial Plans Examiner
Larimer County Building Department
". Collins, CO 80522-1190
,zone: (970) 498-7714
Fax, (970) 498-7667
Dave Shirk
From: Todd Steichen
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 2:40 PM
To: Karen Thompson; Reuben Bergsten; Susie Parker
Cc: Dave Shirk; Alison Chilcott
Subject: RE: Metes & Bounds parcel located at 1810 Windham Lane - Appeal & Variance Request -
REFERRAL FOR COMMENT
After asite visit L&P has no comments oil °t this appeal & variance request.
Todd.
From: Karen Thompson
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 1:36 PM
To: Barbara Boyer Buck; Susie Parker; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Russell Legg (deg larily'ter. gq),
Matt Lafferty; Tom Garton; dryaprOalnjrner,c ; Chris Bieker (orb@s )
Cc: Dave Shirk; Alison Chilcott
Subject: Metes & Bounds parcel located at 1810 Windham Lane - Appeal & Variance Request - REFERRAL FOR
COMM ENT
REFFERAL FOR COMMENT
FINAL/PUBLIC REVIEW
✓
Pre -Application
✓
Completeness Review
Final/Public Review (Planning Commission/Town Board/County Commission)
Building Permit
As-Bu i Its
This email is to notify you that Planning staff has accepted the below development application as complete and
scheduled it for review on the dates shown below. The application can be viewed by accessing the below links or by
visiting ou r website at Igo ww. to .prthonadev C Mft„t ,p .
• Please submit review comments as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday. August 26,
2011.
■ Does the application comply with applicable regulations? If not, please specify the ways in
which the application is non -compliant.
■ Do you need additional time to review the application? In some cases we can continue the
application to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
■ Do you recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial?
• Compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code is required(www.estes.org/comdev/devcode/).
t
P.D. Box 588 • Boles Park, CO 80517
Ph: 970-586.4544 • Fax 970.588-1049
www.utsd.org
August 17, 2011
Dave Shirk, Planner II
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Re: Variance Request
1810 Wyndham Lane
Dunraven Heights
Dear Dave:
The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above
referenced property:
1. TheVistrict:has no objection t the variance request.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Todd Krula
Lines Superintendent
Environmental Protection Through Wastewater Collection and Treatment
STATEMENT OF INTENT:
APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION & VARIANCE REQUEST
As contained on the accompanying Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Application, the Owner,
Harold and Ginnie Haunschiid, and the Applicant, The Portfolio Group, Inc., are appealing the
Staff Decision denying Zoning Approval of a proposed Accessory Structure for 1810 Windham
Lane, and also requesting a Setback Variance for the same Accessory Structure.
The Forrn of the Apt. t is in accordance with Section 12.11 of the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC), and the Form of the Variance Requvpt is in accordance with Section 3.6C of the
EVDC.
Appeal of Final Decision from Staff In the Pre -Application Meeting for the below Variance
Request, The Applicant, The Portfolio Group, Inc., met with the Town Planning Division Staff
and presented Plans and Elevations for a proposed Accessory Structure for Harold and Ginnie
Haunschild.
Subsequent to this meeting, the Planning Division Staff informed The Portfolio Group that the
design is not: "clearly incidental and customarily found in connection with the principal use"
as required by Section 5.2A.4.a. of the EVDC, and therefore is not permitted to be constructed.
The Owner and Applicant strongly disagree with this administration and interpretation of
the Code by Staff...
1) All the uses proposed for this structure are clearly secondary and subordinate to
principal uses of a residence. That is, they ara incidental. The design does not
include any necessary spaces such as: living room, dining room, kitchen, or sleeping
facilities. The design includes only uses that are occasional, that is, from time -to -time,
and largely recreational.
2) All the uses proposed here are permitted in a single family dwelling. Accordingly, we
consider that these uses are, by definition, "customarily found in connection with the
principal use".
In evaluating the merit and reasonableness of this Appeal, we would ask the Board of
Adjustment to consider the following factors...
1) Section 5.2.B. of the EVDC specifically permits Accessory Uses in Accessory
Structures that are not specifically listed or mentioned as permitted in the Code.
2) This proposed structure is not an Accessory Dwelling Unit. To reiterate, there is
no living room, dining room, sleeping quarters, or, exdusive kitchen facilities
as defined in Chapter 13 of the Code.
3) All these proposed incidental uses would be permitted in a single family dwelling.
Here at 1810 Windham Lane, there is simply no good or easy way to add on to
the existing dwelling. Hence, a detached accessory structure is being proposed.
Please refer to the attached Site Plan. and Request for Setback Variance below which
further substantiates this fact.
4) The square footage of the proposed structure is less than that permitted for art
accessory structure on a lot of this size.
In summary, it appears that Staff is interpreting that some uses become Iess incidental and
more uncustomary to principal uses when they are not integrated with a main residence.
Again, we appeal this interpretation, and request that the proposed Accessory Structure
be allowed to be constructed as designed.
Variance Req. This variance request is for the approval of a Variance from the 50 foot
Building and Structure Setback required by Section 1.9.D of the EVDC for the Accessory
Structure described above. The Qwrters and Applicant are requesting that the northwest
comer of the structure be allowed a 17 foot setback versus the platted 50 foot setback, and that
the southwest corner of the structure be allowed a 16 foot setback versus the 50 foot setback.
Two other corners of the structure result in an approximate 10 and 12 foot setback. (See
attached Site Plan and Floor Plans).
Compliance with the Standards for Review set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC is outlined
below...
1. Special Circumstances. Three special circumstances and conditions exist here that are not
common to other areas of the Estes Valley...
a) The setback variance requested here would only impact parcel #25323-O0-018 to the
west. As can be seen on the attached Site Plan, this parcel is jointly owned between the
Haunschilds (the subject Owners here) and their neighbor Elizabeth Dolman. This
Parcel has a Conservation Easement placed on it, sporisored by the Estes Valley
Land. Trust, that predudes the construction of anK structure on it. Therefore, the
granting of this setback variance will never impact any owner of this parcel.
b) For a lot of this acreage, it is configured very long and narrow. This, together with
the 50 foot setback requirement, severely limits options to place the accessory structure
within the allowable building area.
c) The Owners wish to place the accessory structure within reasonable proximity to their
primary residence. However, the topography within the allowable building area
to the south of the residence contains a rugged rocky ridge and numerous trees,
which if built upon, would necessitate undesirable site disturbance. (See again the
attached Site Plan).
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) By purchasing the neighboring property, the Owner has gone to -unusual lengths in
an attempt to place the accessory structure in a desirable place.
b) A request for a 10-17 foot setback on a property this narrow, and with its topographical
constraints, is not considered substantial.
c) From the standpoint of the neighboring properties, the placement of this structure
within the 50 foot setback impacts no one, and in fact, better protects the view corridor
of the neighbor (the Copples) to the southeast.
d) The intent of property Setbacks is to protect neighboring structures from impacting
each other. Here there are no neighboring structures. Therefore, one could argue
that imposition of a setback here is irrelevant.
3. The special circumstances described in paragraph 1. above are not considered general or
recurrent.
4. Not applicable.
5. As noted in paragraph 2.d) above, the deviation from the setback regulation here is not
only minimal, but arguably not applicable.
6. Not applicable.
•
tH. 2 '7 20
Submittal Date:
gi:.ua11 ce,cmma1uC7rr
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
Record Owner(s):�� � r �;," IViVI x�AtittKfiq/-
Street Address of Lot
Legal Description: Lot: Block: Tract:
Subdivision
Parcel ID #: 2S Z QIQ-OZ
Lot Size • f, Zoning
Existing Land Use 11,
Proposed Land Use
Existing Water Service r Town g Well r Other (Specify)
Proposed Water Service " Town g Well ( "W" Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service I EPSD r" UTSD Septic
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD UTSD Septic
Existing Gas Service Xcel r Other r,. None
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site?., Yes No
ii',a:u^ic,^
Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): i)011iarthitt 40e,(604406 : 4fi5r00 j r
5'111115 Bf 111511 fir': i, 11014'0 1'r; h; l'E
Name of Primary Contact Person
Complete Mailing Address risd .
Primer Contact Person is
(l1;uf1111,,115
A'fluent "-. Consultant/En . tneer
fApplication fee (see attached fee schedule)
ri/ Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code)
f✓' 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ""
C✓ 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
'i 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). Coples must be folded.
Town of Estes Park .a PnC. Box 1200 41. 170 MacGregor Avenue -w Estes Pork, CO 80517
Community Development Deportment Phone: (970I 577-3721 .a Fax: (970) 586-0249 . www.estes.org/ComOev
Revfsed 11/20/09
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Applicant
Mailing Address M ® 21
Phone /0 5 R''3
Cell Phone " 10 Z3.
Pax 110 51 q
avirc
/7
7
APPLICATION FEES
For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both Inside and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at;
All requests for refunds must be made in writinct All fees are due at the time of submittal.
Revised 11 /20/09
J
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 governing the processing of and decision on the application.
The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at:
http://www.estes.oro/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.
► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of
my property and the proposed building/structure comers must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
► 1 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 l
Applicant
aI(.t.jI.(I_,
Itt ri sio Moor
Date
Date
2 l dgoi 11
S41-4( 1/
Revised t 1/2O/O9
Zoning Districts
§ 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning
Dtablat
RE-1
RE
E-1
R-1
R-2
RttA
(Ord.
18-01
#14)
Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts
KUL Net
Dellear
(im tc1
1/10 Ac,
112.5 Ac.
1
2
4
8
4
Residential
Uses:
Max = 8 and
Min = 3
Senior
institutional
Living Uses:
Max = 24
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, §4.3.0.1.
(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)
30
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20 [7]
othanitan 01`5'
y *Arnim
totheribiyn� Gr
r�y y
`_3 ) ,
Hfppthd�bhf
ls��ti..
_ )
F,
_q_�;
oar (Icy
10 Ac.
200
50
50
50
2.5 Ac,
200
50
50
50
1 Ac. [3]
100
25
25
25
14 Ac. [3]
75
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
15
16 Ac.
80
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
15
5,000
50
15
10
15
Single-family
= 18,000;
Duplex
27,000
80
25-
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
10
40,000,
5,400 sq.
ft,lunit
[4] (8] (Ord.
25.07 §1)
Senior
Institutional
Living Uses:
1 Ac.
80;
Lots
Greater
than
100,000
sq. It.:
200
25-
arterials;
1 e
streetsr
s
10 [6]
10
(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 devetopment, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single tot, shalt 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 Ilne development') are allowed for townhome developments.
(7] Minimum building width requirements shall la apply to mobile homes Located In a mobile home park.
[8]Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 a,f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01
(9] Ail structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off -site dwellings or
Tots. 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
appltcabte 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)
,,IIIIIII�11
uuuuuuuuuuw uuuuuuw
ii111111i '1'1iiiiiiiiiiiiii'1'11
"""IIIIIIIIIIII
i, MV
iy Il OU N313aJ
F
EFTA
0 III
ry
Haunschild Appeal & Variance
Ln n .- Lt1 N 0 N
I0 W 0 N a-i N INi Pi la Ln 2Ln Lf1 w Ln
N 00 Lb 0000 CO�N CO
171'I5811°81-o
LA
to
c
in •C
o .
CO
sj a c •Qc • a ,c a
�'IIan Ct. an
Y � ul C {.) � .-. O)
V� J W = Lei W 0 hIJ
Cil
d
a
Ed
0
2850 McClelland Dr
Forest Service
PO Box 2461
Harold & Virginia Haunschild
PO Box 1003
& Variance
Haunschild
IIIlk
NI
' gr4ll
1111 II 1I.
a 4
a
8 a
w
i 1
k
�'.
1POR.
li 99991
HAUNSCHILD VARIANCE REQUEST
IRN9px
Bf
....�...�
OFSW I/P OF 1i
T5N, R72
ESTES IANADO
VAN32,
HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
ilAl osox xo • EdES PALL. caoano dml)
ROE 70 EOM9.. • R. WO) 999-dlol
SNV1d LI001A I