Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2011-11-01Prepared:October 21,2011 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday,November 1,2011 9:00 a.m.—Board Room Town Hall 1.PUBLIC COMMENT 2.CONSENT Approval of minutes dated October 4,2011 3.LOT 17,FOX RIDGE ESTATES,2115 RIDGE ROAD Owner:Cecelia &Greg Cenac Applicant:Greg Cenac Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,which requires a 50-foot setback from property lines in the RE-i zone district.Request to allow an eight-foot encroachment into the front setback for construction of a proposed attached garage/shop. Staff Contact:Dave Shirk 4.REPORTS 5.ADJOURNMENT A meeting packet is available for review in the Community Development Department and the Estes Valley Library two business days prior to the meeting. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 4,2011,9:00 a.m. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair Wayne Newsom,Members Bob McCreery,John Lynch,Chuck Levine,and Pete Smith;Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending:Chair Newsom,Members McCreery,Smith.Lynch,Levine Also Attending:Director Chilcott,Recording Secretary Thompson,Town Attorney Greg White Absent:None 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 September 13,2011 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch)to approve the Consent Agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3.METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL,810 RIVERSIDE DRIVE Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report.The applicant requests a 1.5-foot encroachment into the front setback and 9.9-foot encroachment into the side/rear setback to construct a proposed attached garage and convert the existing garage into living space.The property is located at 810 Riverside Drive,and is zoned E-1--Estate,which requires 25-foot setbacks.The west setback falls within the 10%reduction allowance which could be granted at staff level;however,due to the associated east setback,staff forwarded the west setback as a variance request instead of a minor modification.The site would continue to use the existing driveway located north of the house,which has poor driveway visibility.Because of this,staff wanted to ensure the new addition would not compromise the ability for vehicles to turn around in the driveway to exit onto Riverside Drive facing forward,instead of having to back out.The consulting engineer included a turning radius design that indicates the ability to do so,though larger vehicles would need to conduct a three-point turn.There is a very small encroachment into the front setback,and staff saw no issues with that encroachment.Staff found the request complied with the review criteria set forth in the EVDC Section 3.6.C Standards for Review”;there may be practical difficulty;the variance was not substantial;and,there were no neighbor concerns voiced for or against the variance request. Staff Discussion Two Board members expressed concern that the area was not staked sufficiently to easily identify the property lines and where the proposed garage would be placed.Member Levine suggested using paint as markers to aid the Board in their site visit.Stall would make note of the request for future variance requests. Public Comment Tom Bergman/Applicant commented on the markers at the site. Conditions I.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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 4,2011 variance,and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property Fines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith)to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4.METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL,1810 WINDHAM LANE,Appeal of staff decision and side-yard setback variance request Director Chilcott stated this request was a continuance from the September meeting.The original request was to appeal the staff decision for an accessory structure,and to request a variance from EVDC section 4.3 Table 4-2,requiring 50-foot setback from property lines in the RE—Rural Estate zone district.The applicant desires to construct an accessory structure for additional living space. After last month’s Board of Adjustment meeting,the applicant revised the building plans and removed the kitchenette.The revised plans now comply with the Development Code for accessory structures.Without cooking facilities,the structure would not be considered an accessory dwelling unit.The density in this neighborhood is low,and abuts National Forest land,making neighbor impact minimal.Staff also took into account the conservation easement on the adjacent property near the proposed structure.Staff determined that in this case,the accessory structure would be customary and incidental to the area. Director Chilcott stated the applicant could choose to withdraw the appeal of the staff determination,or they could proceed with the prior decision.Since plans were revised, staff found the structure was not a detached accessory dwelling unit. Harold Haunschild/property owner spoke in favor of withdrawing the appeal.The withdrawal of the appeal was accepted by the Board and staff. Variance request. Director Chilcott stated the applicant requested a variance from the side yard setbacks to construct the accessory structure previously discussed.The lot is zoned RE—Rural Estate, which requires 50-foot setbacks on lots sized 2.5 acres.If approved,the proposed structure would be almost entirely within the 50-foot setback on the southwest portion of the lot. Director Chilcott stated this particular lot is slightly over three acres,but very narrow and rocky.Staff found practical difficulty due to the lot configuration and geologic features. The west property boundary abuts a conservation easement co-owned by the Haunschilds and their neighbor.Staff found the character of the neighborhood would not be altered by this variance request.The location of the proposed structure was placed so there would be minimal,if any,visual impact on the adjacent property owners.No vehicular access to the structure was proposed.Staff received two letters of support from adjacent property owners. Staff recommended approval of the setback variance with conditions. Conditions 1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C 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, It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Levine)to approve the variance request with the finding and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 4,2011 5.METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL,1731 HIGH DRIVE,Request to alter a nonconforming use Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report The applicant requests to remodel an existing detached garage into additional living quarters.The property is located at 1731 High Drive,near the entrance to the National Park.The lot is zoned E-l —Estate,where the minimum lot size is one acre.This lot is 0.44 acre,which makes it undersized for the zone district.The applicant has proposed two independent guest sleeping quarters;one being in the lower level of the existing detached garage,replacing current garage space;the other directly above,with separate entrances for each bedroom located on the outside of the structure. Director Chilcott stated the properly owner was issued a building permit several years ago to add an upstairs bathroom to the existing garage.According to the county building department,there was not a permit issued to convert additional space above the garage to a bedroom.The site plan shows one two-story main dwelling of less than 1,000 square feet and a detached garage.The property owner was under the assumption the space above the garage had been approved for sleeping quarters.Director Chilcott stated if the applicant desired to continue to use this space as sleeping quarters,he would need to apply and receive a permit to convert the upstairs room to a bedroom. Staff reviewed and found that it was not customary to have,on a lotof less than ½acre, two independent sleeping and guest quarters.Basically,the proposal is for a guest unit that you may find in the A-I—Accommodations zone district.Also,it is not typical to find guest quarters with separate entrances.Staff found the neighborhood character could be altered.The lot size is small for the zone district and there is the potential for increased density.Staff received one comment from a neighbor concerned about rentals,and two letlers of support.Staff recommended denial,stating the owner could add onto the existing dwelling. When questioned about the unpermitted use,Director Chilcott stated the property owner would need to contact a structural engineer to review the site,an electrician and plumber to review the electric and plumbing work,and the sewer and water systems would need to be proven as adequate.i.. Cs. During discussion between the Board and staff,Director Chilcott pointed out that staff looked more at the use (two independent sleeping quarters)than the footprint.The Board needed to determine how much detached accessory living space was customary for the zone district.According to the code,Director Chilcott stated the units look like hotel units; completely independent from the main dwelling and accessible from the driveway.The proposal could also present a code compliance concern if the current or future properly owner decided to rent the units.Chair Newsom disagreed that this variance would change the character of the neighborhood.Director Chilcott stated if the Board was supportive of the variance,staff would recommend a deed restriction so future properly owners would be aware of the regulations not allowing rentals of accessory structures. Public Comment 4 Thomas Beck/Applicant disagreed with the county comments concerning the unpermitted upstairs bedroom.He stated the original garage and upstairs bedroom were permitted in the late 1980s,with the permit for the upstairs bathroom issued in 2003,after the Franklin’s purchased the property.There was a debate between Mr.Beck and the County Building Department as to whether or not the bedroom was permitted.Town Attorney White was questioned about grandfathering,and stated that grandfathering does not apply if the use was never legally permitted.He was commenting only on the grandfathering regulations,not specifically to this application. Darrell Franklin/property owner stated the main dwelling was very small,and he desired to add additional space for personal guests.He had no intention of renting the rooms,but would agree to a deed restriction.He anticipated using the additional bedrooms about 15 times per year,and thought this addition would be the most practical and economical way to expand their living space. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 October 4,2011 Member McCreery expressed concern about the deed restriction not allowing rental of any part of the property,not just the additional bedrooms,and cautioned the applicant to review the wording of a deed restriction. Director Chilcott stated this was a difficult application to review and also a difficult decision to recommend denial.Whatever decision the Board makes,she hoped it would bring awareness to the elected officials as to the dilemma associated with accessory structures and dwelling units. Member McCreery would be supportive of the request if the necessary permits and/or corrections were granted. Mr.fleck stated he reviewed a possible addition to the existing dwelling,which would be difficult.A second story would not be practical due to the strength of the foundation.If necessary,he could redesign the proposed project to make one entrance to the structure. Member Levine stated he did not think Mr.Franklin did anything nefarious,and the proposal was given with the best possible results in mind.Member Levine supported staff, and agreed this issue identified how difficult the decisions can be.He suggested receiving better direction on how these types of applications are handled.He commended staff for doing everything they were supposed to do. The Board suggested the applicant create a deed restriction that was specific to not being able to rent out the detached bedrooms separately from the main dwelling,while still allowing the property owner the ability to rent the entire property on a long-term basis. Town Attorney White stated the deed restriction could be cratted to address the issue of possible future zoning regulation changes allowing rentals of detached units. Town Attorney White stated the applicant would need to resolve the existing building permit issues with Larimer County. Conditions I.Compliance with the building design as approved by the Board of Adjustment 2.Compliance with the comments from the Larimer County Code Compliance Section dated August31,2011,which includes,but is not limited to,obtaining a change of use permit. 3.Prior to permit issuance,the applicant shall submit letters to Community Development from the Water Department and Upper Thompson Sanitation District verifying that all fees have been paid. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith)to approve the variance request with the findings and conditions recommended by staff,including a deed restriction submitted by the applicant and subject to approval by the Town attorney prior to the final inspection and the motion passed unanimously. 6.REPORTS Director Chilcott reported the terms of Chair Newsom and Member Levine expire on February 28,2012.The vacancies will be opened to the public and will be advertised in the local newspaper in the near future.Chair Newsom expressed his willingness to remain on the Soard for another term. There being no further business,Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m. Wayne Newsom,Chair _______ 0 Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary Cenac Front Yard Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division Room 230,Town HaIl,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estes.org ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE:November 1,2011 _________ Variance from the “RE-i” 50-foot front yard setback LOCATION:2115 Ridge Road,within unincorporated Larimer County How to get there:Ridge Road is located on the west side Dry Gulch Road, approximately 1.25 miles north of US Highway 34. APPLICANT/OWNER:Greg Cenac PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback of 42-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow an attached 16x25 foot shop addition to an existing garage.The existing structure,built in 1976,is located in the southeast portion of the lot. Architect:BASiS (Matt Heiser) Parcel Number:2517305017 Development Area:2.5 acres Existing Land Use:Single-family residential Proposed Land Use:Same,with shop addition to garage. Zoning Designation:RE-i Rural Estate (10- acre_minimum_lot_size) Adjacent Zoning: East:RE-i Rural Estate North:RE-i Rural Estate West:RE-i Rural Estate South:RE-i Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses: East:Single-family residential North:Single-family residential West:Single-family residential South:Single-family residential Services: Water:Well Sewer:UTSO cl,C’ REQUEST: Rural Estate requirement. 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.These standards are included in the Board notebooks. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES:This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.At the time of this report,no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. FINDINGS: 1.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. 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. .a!2 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,November I,2011 Page 2 of 2 Cenac Variance Request 10/26/2011 0 I:Nearest structure:2110 Ridge Road,the closest affected property,is approximately 170-feet from the SW corner of the proposed garage addition.It* Estes Valley 8oard olAdju,biieqie Nov,mb.,12011 1 Este.Valley Board of Adjustment Noyembe,12011 ---A 10/26/2011 0 Cenac Setback Request —2115 Ridge Road SI/S li/fl R&P law Tr — Cenac Setback Request —2115 Ridge Road IL_a;s1:;Board of Adjustment November 1 2011 2 • Dave Shirk Todd Steichen A:Monday,October 10,201111:18 AM To:Karen Thompson;Susie Parker;.Jen Imber;Dave Shirk;Alison Chilcott Cc:Reuben Bergsten Subject:RE:FINAL REVIEW -REFERRAL FOR COMMENT -Lot 17,Fox Ridge Estates,2115 Ridge Road L&P still has no comments or concerns with this variance request. Todd. From:Karen Thompson Sent:Monday,October 10,2011 9:35 AM To:Greg White;Jen Imber;Susie Parker;Reuben Bergsten;Todd Steichen;Derek Rosenquist;Traci Shambo (tshambo©larimer.org);Chris Bieker Cc:Dave Shirk;Alison Chilcott Subject:FINAL REVIEW -REFERRAL FOR COMMENT -Lot 17,Fox Ridge Estates,2115 Ridge Road REFFERAL FOR COMMENT FINAL/PUBLIC REVIEW V Pre-Application V Completeness Review Final/Public Review (Estes Valley Board of Adjustment) Building Permit As-Builts This email is to notify you that Planning staff has accepted the below variance 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 www.estes.orgJcomdev/CurrentRepuests.aspx. •Please submit review comments as soon as possible,but no later than 5:00 p.m.on Friday.October 21.2011. •Does the application comply with applicable regulations?If not,please specify the ways in which the application is non-compliant. •Would the variance adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer?Please refer to the Standards of Review in the Estes Valley Development Code,Chapter 3.6.C.for detailed information.http:J/www.colocode.com/estesvalleyjestesvalley 03.pdf •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). 1 October 11,2011 Dave Shirk,Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,Co 80517 Re;Variance Request Cenac Residence . P.O.Box 568 •Estes Partc CO 80517 Pb:970-586-4544 •Fax:970-586-1049 www.utsd.org . 0 Lot 17 Fox Ridge Estates 2115 Ridge Road Dear Dave The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1.The District has no obiection to the proposed variance request. If you have any questions or need further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Environmental Protection Through Wastewater coltection and Treatment Dave Shirk -Traci Shambo [shambotl@co,Iarimer.cous] 1:Friday,October 14,2011 4:52 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:Setback variance -Lot 17,Fox Ridge Estates,2115 Ridge Road Dave, Comments: The Engineering Department has reviewed this application from a tecimical perspective and has the following comments: 1.The proposed addition is not expected to impact the operation,maintenance,or safety of the adjacent Streets. 2.Our Department does not typically support setback variances less than 20 feet off of a road right-of-way. This request appears to exceed this minimum. 3.The construction,and associated grading,can not impact or hinder the existing drainage patterns in the area. We have no issues with this request, Traci Shambo,P.E. Larimer County Engineering Department 200 West Oak St,Suite 3000 P.O.Box 1190 Fort Collins,Co 80522 Phone:(970)498-5701 tsharnbolarimer.org 1 Dave Shirk From:Traci Shambo [shambotI@co.Iarirner.co.us] Sent:Wednesday,October 19,2011 8:31 AM To:Dave Shirk -} Subject:Re:ridge road variance Ok thanks.This sounds even more like a non issue. On Tue,Oct 18,2011 at 8:24 PM,Dave Shirk <dshirk4estes.org>wrote: Traci In response to your earlier email,the proposed garage on Ridge Road would be approx.43-feet from the property line,with the road even further away. -dave David W.Shirk,AICP Planner,Estes Park Community Development 1200 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 ph:970-577-3729 fx:970-586-0249 ftkcqestes.pg Traci Shainbo,P.E. 1 S Setback Vanance LW 2115 Ridge Road Lot 17,Fox Ridge Estates Statement of Intent This application is a request for a variance of the 50-foot front building setback to be reduced by 8 feet to a 42-foot setback for the addition of a garage/shop to an existing single- family residence.The project intent is to construct a 25-foot by 16-foot single-story addition extending to the southeast of the residence with a solid-surface deck above.The difficulty in meethig the setback standard sterns from the location of the current structure in the eastern corner of the lot,6 feet from the southern setback line. To mitigate the impact of this 16%variance of the standard,the new construction will relocate the garage access from the southeast (road frontage)face of the structure to the southwest face,The new street façade will be constructed with windows set in wood siding with a stone wainscot below and a log rail at the deck above. The standards for review of a variance outlined in 3.6.C of the development code state that the following criteria should be considered: 1)Special circumstances or conditions —the location of the existing structure and its proximity to the setback are unique to this property.(?2a)Beneficial use of the property —the property is currently and would he continued to be. used as a single-family residence.This variance would grant a further use of the property to meet the owners’needs. 2b)A ‘substantial’variance —this request is for a I 60/o deviation from the standard,resulting in a 42-foot setback from the road. 2c)Neighborhood character —this is a rural area without a uniform distance from structure to street.Impact of the new construction would be mitigated with the enhanced architectural features of the façade described above. 2d)Public services —this variance would not impact the delivery of public service to this or any adjacent properties. 2e)Knowledge of the standard —the code and setback was in place when the property was purchased in 2009,but the owners did not intend to add on to the residence at that time. 2fl Other mitigation —a variance is the proper method to address this request. 3)General nature of the request —this request is specific to the special circumstances of this lot and do not warrant a change in the code. 4)Lot size —this variance would not alter the size of the lot. 5)Least deviation —the requested distance is specific to the size of the proposed addition. 6)Permitted use —there is no proposed change in use of the property. Prepared by:Matthew 1-leiser BASIS Architecture,P.C. I’SubmittaI Date: ____ ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT niR2s2oll1 APPLICATION ills tIR( Block:Tract: at.ItS5’Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service r Proposed Water Service r Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service F Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Attachments Application fee (see attached fee schedule) V Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) 4 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=20)** 1 1 reduced copy of the site plan (1 1”X 17”) The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VlI.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. +óircc..Lea4i.c 0 Record Owner(s): ‘Street Address of Lot: Legal Description:Lot:r Subdivision:Lx QJ*ic d&St4•€&1 Parcel lD#:251?)05 öt? I !.a.L Pam.L.Xcj:,k4’.1 zoningfl-l -ILrJ&s+a+err.1/n IS.‘c,IC -ramslt.J%.CC,jcn#,aIfi’Well i Other Well r Other r EPSO I EPSD /Other (Specify) (SPfY) I UTSD UTSD F r F Septic Septic None Yes :v’No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):fg..bIt ‘4—2..Le..s;,L_+f..I sc+L.ki iLqz D:...7h.as..Av Owner I,F tApplicant St€.Uk).sfei’Paik CO.4os VConsiltanvEngineer ,S Town of Estes Pork .t.0.0.Box I 20C’.173 MacGregor Avenue .Estes Pork.CO 80517 Cornniuni’y Deveioprnent Depotrneru Phone:577-3721 .Fox:970i 586-0249 ..www.estes.org/CornDev Revised 11/20/09 2.115 L;4 9.2 &sCcs Park,to sosil 2S 14’43’ . rRIDllDj Record Owner(s)cceL +&(c4!i CCFI&C Mailing Address ______________________________________________________________________________ Phone - Cell Phone _________________________________________________________________________ Fax_______________________________________________________________________________ Email pcc.aec.Q fli.G1 .c.m Applicant &Wntf Mailing Address Phone _________________________________________________________________________ Cell Phone _________________________________________________________________________ Fax ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Email ConsultantlEngineer 7?LwIsc.ie Cisc,4 L3ASI’ Mailing Address IL’tL l5:.{Aiosq nsa Aqc.itt.IO Erter Co so;ii Phone - Cell Phone ______________________________________________________________________________ Fax ______________________________________________________________________________ Email mdihc,w&.bealt.am c,.L-ijgo’ Q -ssiic APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area,both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: http ://w.estes org/Corn Dev/Sched ules&Fees/PlanningApplication FeeSchedule pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal. Revised 11/20/09 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement,I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVOC). 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:/Iwv.’w.estes orq!CornDev/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 buildingfstructure corners must be field staked.I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10)business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request,“Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1)year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.”(Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:cjece 7ta Cevt (- Applicant PLEASE PRINT:(r ((ic_(en”C Signatures: Record Owner (flEnc Date z J76 11Oc.-[zr/zô 11ApplicantDate 0 Revised 11/20/09 Table 4-2BaseDensityandDimensionalStandards Re&dential Zoning Distdcts7fl$t__ II it4 ffL 4tfft)IL)’$a&qt W.)03 RE-i 1/lOAc.lOAc.200 50 50 50 30 20RE1/2.5 Ac.2.5 Ac.200 50 50 50 30 20F-i 1 1 Ac.(3]100 25 25 25 30 20 !2 ½Ac.[3)10 16 30 20 streets 25- A 4 ¼Ac 60 arteriais, 10 15 30 20.15-other streets A-i 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 Single-family 25-=18,000;‘teri IsR-2 4 60 ‘10 10 30 20Duplex=16-other 27,000 streets 40,000, Residentlal 5,400 sq.60;Uses:ft/unitAMMaxSand(4)[8)(3rd.Lots 25- 25-07 §1):6r arteria 10 [6]10 30 20 [7)#14)institutional Senior 100,000 streets Livin Uses’nst1tu1onai sq.It.: Ma=24 LIving Uses:200 I (lj (a)See Chapter 4,§4,3.0,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for single-family residentialsubdivisionsthatarerequiredtosetasIdeprivateopenareasperChapter4,§4.3.0.1.(b)See Chapter 11,§11.3,which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area)tar clustered lots in open spacedevelopments. (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.2-021) (2]See Chapter 7,§7.6,for required setbacks from stream/rIver corridors and wetlands.(3rd,2-02 #5;3rd.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,“Mequate Public Pacilities,” (4]Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet;however,each indMduaitownhomeunitmaybeconstructedonamInimum2,000 square toot lot at a maximum density olS dwellIng units per acre,(5)All development,except development of one slngle4amily dwelling on a slne lot,shall also be subject to a maximum floorarearatio(FAR)of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%,(3rd.25-07 §1) (6]Zero side yard setbacks (known as “zero lot line development”)are allowed for towrihome deveidpments, [7)MinImum building width requirements shall apply to mobile homes located In a mobile home park, [B)Single-famIly and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 16,000 sf,and 27,000 s.f.,respectively.(3rd 18-01#14) [9]All structures shall be set back from public or privals roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings orlots.The setback shall be measured Ironi the edge of public or private roads,the edge of the dedicated right-of-way orrecordedeasementorthepropertyline,whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be the same as theapplicableminimumbuilding/structure setback.(3rd.11-02 §1;3rd.25-07 §1) (10)See Chapter 1,§1 .9.E,whIch shows an Increase in the maimum height of buildings on slopes.(3rd.18-02 #3) Notes to Table 4-2: .. Zoning Districts 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts 3 C..-- Ce n a c Va r i a n c e AP O Ow n e r Ja n i c e Va v r i n a An n & Cl y d e Ka u f f m a n Er n e s t Sh e l t o n Ja m e s Bi s s e l l , Il l Ca r l & No r m a Er i c k s o n Ca i r n s Fa m i l y Tr u s t Wi l l i a m Ri t c h e y Tr u s t Br u c e Co h e n & Sh e i l a Ro b e r t s o n Ro c k y Mt n De s e r e t FL P Ed g a r Dr a k e & Ni n a Wo o d Di a n n e Sa n f o r d Ja c k & Sh a r y n Ga r t n e r Ow n e r Ii Ad d r e s s 11 1 W 5t h St 16 0 0 Co n v e r s e Av e 15 9 3 Dr y Gu l c h Rd 18 8 4 De v i l s Gu l c h Rd 16 6 9 1 Lo n g s Pe a k Rd 21 3 5 Ri d g e Rd 31 8 9 8 Ka n e Rd PG Bo x 45 6 0 Ri d g e Rd In v e s t m e n t s LL C 21 1 0 Ri d g e Rd 21 0 1 Ri d g e Rd PG Bo x 24 5 0 PG Bo x 17 1 4 Ci t y Cl a r k s o n Ch e y e n n e Es t e s Pa r k Es t e s Pa r k Gr e e l e y Es t e s Pa r k Me d o r a Es t e s Pa r k Es t e s Pa r k Es t e s Pa r k Es t e s Pa r k Es t e s Pa r k 68 6 2 9 82 0 0 1 80 5 1 7 80 5 1 7 80 5 3 1 80 5 1 7 62 0 6 3 80 5 1 7 80 5 1 7 80 5 1 7 80 5 1 7 80 5 1 7 Ce n a c V ic e AP O 0 S ST Zi p NE WV CO CO CO CO IL CO CO CO CO CO S Q C -H-- 59 p m -H r z tO rn >< I- C-, rnz Nr— rpo, I •1 tt t::z H Ph - za Cm rr I I ztx IrH tzesC.,) I,, p. C)0 fl(-) II (o 7- F—) II —CD C rt 3. -m - et 0 -L ..am CD m -CDel. C C I”I -L II a) -I. 0 D 0 Ci)CDz.z CD CD CD ma—— z-1ow o•.. (n Cenac Residence ShoplDeck Addition 2115 Ridge Road Estes Park,Colorado 80517 -a 0 -1 ‘.3 0 -a -a o ;-w o am C)a I rWw P O5 —w BASiS ARCH IT E CT U RE P.C. 1692 Big Thompson Avenue,Suite 100 Estes Park,Colorado 80517