Loading...
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