HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2010-10-051 Led
Prepared: September 24, 2010
Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT
a. Approval of minutes dated July 13, 2010
3. REQUESTS
a. Lot 5, Thunder
Owner:
Applicant:
Request:
Staff Contact:
4. REPORTS
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mountain Subdivision, TBD Thunder Mountain Lane
Curtis & Debrah Lanham
Bruce Gregg, Gregg Construction
Variance from EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires
a 25-foot rear setback from property lines in the E-1—Estate
zone district. Request to allow a 10-foot rear setback in lieu
of the required 25-foot rear setback for construction of
single-family dwelling.
Dave Shirk
Note: 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
July 13, 2010, 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Bob McCreery, Members John Lynch, Chuck Levine, Wayne
Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau
Attending: Chair McCreery, Members Lynch, Levine, Newsom and Smith
Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording
Secretary Thompson
Absent: None
Chair McCreery 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 AGENDA
a. Approval of minutes of the June 8, 2010 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith).to approve the minutes as presented,
and the motion passed unanimously.
3. LOT 2, BARLOW SUBDIVISION, 340 E. ELKHORN AVENUE — Variance from Estes
Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060 (12) Roof Signs, to allow the replacement of
two non -conforming roof signs.
Director Joseph reviewed the staffreport. He stated the section of the sign code that
pertains to this application Is 17.66.060(12) Roof Signs. There was a previous
misinterpretation of this code, which subsequently allowed a sign to be placed on the
applicant's roof because the sign had an angle of 45 degrees or less from vertical. More
recently, it was determined that the correct interpretation of the code meant a roof having
an angle of 45 degrees or less from vertical shall be considered a wall where signs are
concerned.
Director Joseph explained that when a change of business occurs along with a change in
signage, a structure with non -compliant sign is required to bring those signs into
compliance. Director Joseph stated there is a new tenant occupying the structure, and a
new sign is required. In order to continue using the existing sign locations, the building
owner needs a variance. Once the variance is obtained, the building owner enjoys the
benefits of the variance for any current or future tenants. This is the first variance request
for this structure.
Director Joseph explained that by looking at the architecture of this building, one would be
tempted to place a sign on the wall facing Elkhorn; however, there is a street tree directly
in front of the building that would block the view of the sign. Staff has determined the street
tree is the physical constraint of the sight. Due to the size and shape of the building, staff
has determined there is a hardship and special circumstance to place the signs lower on
the structure. Members Smith and Lynch made suggestions to the applicant for alternative
sites for the signs.
Public Comment:
Steve Barlow/Applicant stated he would like to replace the old signs with the new in the
same location. He stated the previous owner was there for 16 years and had signs in the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2010
2
requested location. Mr. Barlow stated if the signs were placed on the side panels, as
suggested by Member Lynch, they would only be visible by those already in the plaza and
not visible to those on the street. Member Smith was concerned about the size and height
of the proposed signs. Mr. Barlow stated the top of the proposed signs are 20 feet high.
Director Joseph clarified that this building does not receive the full sign frontage because
of its size. Sign frontage is one and one-half square feet of sign area for every linear foot
of frontage exposed to the street. The amount of signage that is currently on the building is
compliant with the sign code. Chair McCreery stated the business owner has the right to
determine the sign placement on his building. He did not find these signs offensive, and
questioned why this type of sign was disallowed. Director Joseph explained that the
disallowance of roof signs is not an unusual standard in sign codes. The property owner
can freely choose between the different types of signs and how to use his total cumulative
square -foot allocation. If an owner decided to use all their allotted square footage on one
sign to be installed on the roof, it could ruin the architecture of the building. Member
Newsom was in agreement with Chair McCreery. Director Joseph stated the current sign
code is in the process of being revised, and a creative sign code review process that
would allow more flexibility with the regulations has been proposed. The creative sign code
process would be a way to reward good design with greater flexibility. In this case, he
cautioned the Board that they are not charged with judging the finer points of the design of
the sign. Their decision should be based on whether or not there is hardship and if so,
what is a sufficient amount of relief. It was not the board's charge to find a solution for the
property owner.
Chief Building Official Will Birchfield stated the total allowable signage for this business
was 30 square feet, based on the amount of building frontage. The proposed roof signs
are 24 square feet. Director Joseph stated in theory, the applicant was free to ask for one
sign measuring 24 square feet rather than two 12 square feet signs. Mr. Barlow stated the
actual size of each sign is slightly smaller 12 square feet. Chair McCreery stated that he
related this application to the prescriptive rights with real estate. Unless the goal was to
clean up the sign code when applications such as this came before the Board, he was
supportive of the variance request.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance request to
allow the replacement of two three-foot by four -foot roof signs In the location
described in the submitted application, with the findings recommended by staff, and
the motion passed unanimously.
4. REPORTS
Director Joseph introduced Jeff Moreau, who will serve as the alternate for the Board of
Adjustment through June 3, 2012.
There being no further business, Chair McCreery adjourned the meeting at 9:32 a.m.
Bob McCreery, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
WMLanham Side Yard Variance Request
Estes Park Community Development Department
Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org
111111
DATE: October 5, 2010
REQUEST: Variance from the "E-
1" Estate 25-foot side yard setback
requirement.
LOCATION: TBD Thunder
Mountain Lane, within unincorporated
Larimer County.
The building site is located at the far
end of Thunder Mountain Lane, which
is located on the east side of Tunnel
Road approximately 1/2 mile past Windcliff.
APPLICANT: Gregg Construction
PROPERTY OWNER: Curtis and Debra Lanham
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk
SITE DATA TABLE:
Consultant: Gregg Construction
Parcel Number: 3409105005
Development Area:
Number of Lots: One
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped, platted for
single-family residential
Proposed Land Use: Single-family residential
Existing Zoning: "E-1" Estate
Adjacent Zoning -
East: "E-1" Estate
North: "E-1" Estate
West: "E" Estate
South: "E" Estate
Adjacent Land Uses -
East: Single-family residential
North: Single-family residential
West: Platted private open space
South: PIatted private open space
Services -
Water: Town of Estes Park
Sewer: Upper Thompson Sanitation
District
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance
to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development
Code to allow a side yard setback of 15-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required.
The purpose of the variance request is to allow a new single-family residence.
The subject parcel is located within the Thunder Mountain PUD, which was platted for
single-family use in the 1980s. The original subdivision included platted building
envelope, which were vacated by request of the homeowners association in the year 2000.
Vacation of the building envelopes resulted in the application of underlying zone
setbacks, which are 25-feet from all property lines.
The applicant requests to vary from the 25-foot requirement to allow the house to be
located 15-feet from the property line. The intent of the 25-foot setbacks is, in part, to
provide at least 50-feet between dwellings. The lot adjacent to the south is a platted open
space lot, and approval of the variance would create the greatest amount of separation
from the nearest structure, and would maintain over 600•-feet from the dwellings located
on the other side of the open space Iot.
Furthermore, the other homes built on Thunder Mountain Lane were built with the
assumption the home on this lot would be located in the area south of the water main, as
per the original building envelopes.
Page #2 -Thunder Mountain Side Yard Setback Request
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 set forth below:
1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions,
narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other
areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not
have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific
standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that special circumstances exist and practical difficulty
may result from strict compliance with Code standards. Specifically:
• The original PUD Master Plan included a platted building envelope for this lot.
•
The building envelopes have been vacated, and underlying zoning standards now
apply.
All other lots in the subdivision were built with assumption the building envelope
would prohibit locating a structure north of the proposed location.
No wetlands study has been done for this lot, though it appears from the aerial
photo that there are wetlands present on site to the north of the proposed building
site. Assuming these are
wetlands (Staff suggests they
are based on the color of the
vegetation and the presence of
surface water during site
inspection in early September),
the proposed location would
maximize the distance between
the assumed wetlands and the
structure. In other words: if
this variance is denied, the
applicant may have to apply for
a variance from the wetlands
buffer.
2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff Finding: The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of
the property.
Page #3 —Thunder Mountain Side Yard Setback Request
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The requested variance is not substantial. Adequate separation
between structures will be maintained (and enhanced).
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance;
Staff Finding: The proposed location within the side yard setback would have
the least impact on the character of the neighborhood.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public
services. Specifically:
• The proposed location of the structure would be south of an existing water
main and electric line.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: This property has been in the same family since the original
platting of the lot and former building envelopes.
f Whether the AppIicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Staff Finding: The applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some
method other than a variance. However, locating the structure further north on the
lot would have a greater impact on the surrounding properties.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations
that will afford relief.
4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its
independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or
modified,
Page #4 —Thunder Mountain Side Yard Setback Request
Staff Comment: Staff has provided suggested conditions of approval at the end of the
Staff report.
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.
Neighborhood Association. The Thunder Mountain Architectural Control Committee has
approved the proposed plans, and "have no concerns about allowing this variance."
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with Code standards.
2. The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. The essential character of the neighborhood would be enhanced with the granting of
the variance by allowing the structure to be located outside the principal view
corridor of nearby homes.
5. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services.
6. The property has been in the same family since before the current zoning setbacks
were adopted, when the property had a platted building envelope.
7. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
8. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
9. 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.
10. 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.
Page #5 -Thunder Mountain Side Yard Setback Request
11. Approval of the variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots
beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the
applicable zone district regulations.
12. Approval of the variance would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or
by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district
containing the property for which the variance is sought;
13. 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.
Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a side yard
setback of 15-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO:
1. Prior to issuance of a permit to implement this variance, the applicant (or
representative) shall meet with Community Development Staff to discuss the
requirements of the variance approval, and how said requirements are to be met.
2. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
3. Section 7.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code shall apply to this variance
application. Trees, as noted in the variance approval, shall be fenced to protect from
damage prior to any site work, and fencing shall remain in place and in functional
condition throughout construction timeframe.
4. 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.
Page #6 -Thunder Mountain Side Yard Setback Request
4,0
September 8, 2010
Dave Shirk, Planner lI
Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
P.O. Box 568
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
(970)586-4544
(970) 586-1049 Fax
Re: Variance Request
Lot 5 Thunder Mountain Lane
Thunder Mountain Subdivision
Dear Dave,
The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced
property:
1. The District has no objection to the proposed variance request.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Todd Kiula
Lines Superintendent
August 30, 2010
Dave Shirk
Estes Park Community Development
Re: Lot 5, Thunder Mountain Lane
Dear Mr. Shirk,
The plans for Lot 5 have been reviewed by the Architectural Control Comm. of the Thunder
Mountain Homeowners Assoc. per the guidelines set by the association and the plans have been
approved. The contractor representing the owners, Curt and Debbie Lanham, is Bruce Gregg of Gregg
Construction Co.
We have also reviewed the request for the variance on file with your office. This variance is to
change the rear lot setback from 25' to 10' and we have no concerns about allowing this variance.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information.
''ii4.1—R-11--. er— autit
Barbara Burge
Chairperson
Thunder Mountain Architectural Control Committee
970-577-1043
Memo
To: Planner Shirk
From: Utilities & Public Works Staff
Date: September 9, 2010
RE: VARIANCE: Thunder Mountain Variance Lot 5
Public Works:
Have no comments as property is in the county.
Light & Power:
After visiting the site L&P has no issues or concerns with this request. The
electric infrastructure is already in place with a secondary pedestal at the
property line for new electric service to hook up to.
Water:
No comments.
Town of Estes Park Public Works and Utilities reserve the right to amend comments
contained herein at any time prior to final approval.
Page 1 of 1
Dave Shirk
From: Greg White [greg@gawhite.coml
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 3:49 PM
To: Dave Shirk
Cc: Karen Thompson
Subject: Variance request -Thunder Mountain
Dave I have reviewed the variance request for the Lanham property -Lot 5, Thunder Mountain Subdivision,
Larimer County. I have no comments.
Greg
9/9/2010
Page I of I
Dave Shirk
From: Candace Phippen [phippecl@co.larimer.co.os]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:09 PM
To: Dave Shirk
Subject: Lanham Setback Variance
Vacant land. No known issues.
9/8/2010
Page 1 of 1
Dave Shirk
From: Stan Griep (sgriep@larimer.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 1:20 PM
To: Dave Shirk
Subject: Thunder Mountain Variance
Hi Dave,
We have no comments on this project other than they will need a building permit for it. The distances to
property line (io feet being the closest) are still adequate so as not to require fire rated wall assemblies.
Have a great rest of the day and long weekend ahead.
Stan
Stan V. Griep
Lead & Commercial Plans Examiner
Larimer County Building Department
Ft. Collins, CO 8o522-1190
Phone: (970) 498-7714
Fax: (970) 498-7667
9/2/2010
?age 1 Ot 2
Dave Shirk
From: Karen Thompson
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:47 PM
To: Dave Shirk
Subject: FW: Thunder Mountain Variance, Lot 5, Thunder Mtn Subdiv. -Referral for Comment
From: Rod Patterson [mailto:rpatter^son@bajabb.ty]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:35 PM
To: Karen Thompson
Subject: RE: Thunder Mountain Variance, Lot 5, Thunder Mtn Subdiv. -Referral for Comment
This does not create any issues for Baja Broadband.
Rod Patterson
System Tech Lead
Baja Broadband
Telephone: 970-577-7742
Fax: 970-577-7741
Mobile: 970-214-3036
405 Stanley Ave
Estes Park, CO, 80517
rpatterson@bajabb.tv
From: Karen Thompson [mailto:kthompson@estes.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 12:27 PM
To: greg@gawhite.com; Jacqueline Halburnt; Barbara Boyer Buck; Tracy Feagans; Bob Goehring; Jeff
Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Todd Steichen; Carolyn McEndaffer; tgarton@larimer.org; Len Hilderbrand
(lenhilderbrand@xcelenergy.com); donna.mastriona@gwest.com; Rod Patterson
Cc: Dave Shirk
Subject: Thunder Mountain Variance, Lot 5, Thunder Mtn Subdiv. - Referral for Comment
REFERRAL FOR COMMENT
This email is to notify you that staff has received a variance application, which can be viewed by
accessing the following links or by visiting our website at
htto://www.estes.orracomdeviCurrentReQuests.aspx.
Project Nelms
and Type
Address
Meeting
Dates
Project
Documentation
(PDF)
Staff
pa and
Comments
(PDF)
Staff
Contact
Be,
Estes Valley
Statement of Intent
9/2/2010
rage 1 0i 1
Dave Sh irk
From: Hilderbrand, Len[Len.Hilderbrand@XCELENERGY.COM]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 7:48 AM
To: Dave Shirk
Subject: 25' set back
Xcel Energy has no problems with changing the current setback from rear property line
from 25' to 10'
Len Hilderbrand
Designer
09/03/10
9/3/2010
Iji
1,4044#1i)
August 23, 2010
Statement of Intent
Lot 5 Thunder Mountain Lane
Thunder Mountain Subdivision
Estes Park, Co. 80517
Owner Curt and Debbie Lanham
The intent of this request for a setback variance is to have a more workable building site.
The current setback from rear property line is 25' and we are requesting it be changed to
a 10' setback along the rear of lot only. Although the lot is over three acres, the actual
building site is restricted to approx. Y4 acre due to a 6" water main that runs through the
lot which carries with it a 10' setback. The lot and building site are not squared off which
make it more difficult to meet the set back requirements. The other restriction of the lot
below the water line is the view corridor to lots #3 and #4. The rear of the lot backs up to
the dedicated green space of the Thunder Mountain Subdivision. The home designed for
this lot is 2641sf of living space on main floor with a two car garage and 37Osf patio.
The basement will have 2634s living space. The home design is not out of character with
the size or style of other homes in the subdivision.
To review, the four main areas to consider are:
* Water main that splits lot with 10' set back.
* View corridor for lots #3 and #4.
* Lot #5 backs up to green space.
* Shape of lot and building site
Thanks for your considers ion,
Bruce Gre
Gregg Construction Company
•
P lolc 1.573 gij, Palk, CO851117 4, (970).5. i39
�!u I44
Y,.
VI dli„I
1110' i IIy�
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
��:,�m�r:��rl NrridoNurr��'tli�v�m
Record Owner(s): s 5 , ' • "., -���'
Street Address of Lot:
0 I 1;�
Legal Description: Lot: s Block: Tract:
Subdivision: T, G64Z /77 P(. i/N 5 y u : ' 1 II 1 ve's/
Parcel ID #
ll. Nut"rauunr:atii:n'n
Zoning
Lot Size 2.1 40L6-S !,
Existing Land Use,, nr'r 1--45*
Proposed Land Use %Mi.l.E FgmI 0E50bEt4CE
Existing Water Service 'Town r" Well r Other (Specify)
Proposed Water Service gitTown i'W Well 1 " Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service """ EPSD r UTSD r Septic
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service jEPSD UTSD r""' Septic
Existing Gas Service r Xcel r Other (" None
Site Access (if not on public street)
Are there wetlands on the site? Yes 4: No
Variance
in Variance Desired (Development Code Section #):
Primary C011t,1(.11111011ilh111011
Name of Primary Contact Person
Complete Mailing Address
Primer Contact Person is r Owner r A! • licant r ConsultantiEn'.ineer
A[1,it;lhrnrenros
r Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
r Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code)
r 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20)**
uelll'i lil III 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
**The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VIl.5 (attached).
nr The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review
f (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded.
Town of Estes Park .ati P.O. Box 1200 -4+ 170 MacGregor Avenue •en Estes Park. CO 80517
Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586.0249 .a www.estes.org/ComDev
Revised 11/20/09
"iioitl�ii�r
Record Owner(s) evil:T1 , a aP� ■ ltii4
Mailing Address 1 CI COI 1INS SZ
Phone 110 - 2.1-'i 11*
Cell Phone n - 1411 1
Fax Z 01
Email _ ................................._
kt1kAyn TO €yifli� . Covin
Applicant ex) Q - G6
Mailing Address 1 1
Phone I Q.- Ti -063
Cell Phone `r +-� Fax .. 6 -Ob3
Email G+2 . C�
ConsultantlEng Inver,
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:
tizif
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 (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 dedslorr on the application.
The Estes Valley Development Code is available ordine at:
t► 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.
l► 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 resubrmittal fee wil be charged If my application Is Incomplete.
le 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 shah result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming null and void. I understand that full fees wit be charged for the resubmlttal of an application that has become
nut and void.
► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where It Is dearly visible from the road. I understand that the comers 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
t► I understand that If the Board of Adjustment approves my request. 'Failure of an applicant to apply for a building
permit and comments 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:
Re
vmar
Al *mat
C k.;
LANK k--be\DTO, LoAscedvt
veE
€t�~iilti !7a o 4010
Re, d rD,109
•
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 ill 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
ht " � tp;.:r' Dv1v
► I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filling 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..
► 1 grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper
identification access to my property during the review of this application.
► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that
failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application
becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become
null and void.
► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and
that this sign must be posted on my property where It is clearly visible from the road. i understand that the comers of
my property and the proposed building/structure 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.
► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building
permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of
receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes
Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:
Applicant PLEASE PRINT. 812VGE 612666 ' 4gea6 Cta/1rsft ticf70 ✓ efro1pA.j
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
Date
Date / 0/pail/ 0
Revised 11/20/09
Zoning Districts
§ 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts
Table 42
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts
?Acing
District
liUL
,i re)
PMiiijlrwn
ri1 7
(OW 28.07;111) .,
ti'
t n, nr," a ? kj
�ileie• �pe�t��f� �.ao �
' Mt1 (br�,a�y 2 t 1%
i r �t r0, Cam,} / �I)'''-.`;
o , °
� / � �
�p g
H •-ss�
s
i .ititlin �
1.�
N �>aity A
t
04ft.)
.y
F .)
�,-
` tft.)
}''
i
R� 1
� �� �f
°� �e��
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 M. [3]
100
25
25
25
30
20
.
25-
E
2
'/4 Ac. [3]
75
arterials;
16-other
streets
10
15
30
20
25-
R
4
°/a 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;
25-
R-2
4
=
Duplex =
27,000
8O
arterials;
15-other
streets
10
10
30
20
Residential
40,000,
5,400 sq.
60;
RM
Uses:
Max = 8 and
ft./unit
[4] [8] (Ord.
Lots
25-
(Ord.
Min = 3
25.07 §1)
Greater
arterials;
18-01
Senior
than
15-other
10 (B]
10
30
20 [7j
#14)
Institutional
Living Uses:
Senior
Institutional
100,000
sq. ft.:
streets
Max = 24
Living Uses:
142 Ac.
200
Notes to Table 4-2:
[1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential
subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1.
(b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space
developments.
(c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing.
(d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase In minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes.
(Ord. 2-02 §1)
[2] See Chapter 7, §7.6, for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1)
[3] It 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 toot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
[5] All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor
area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord. 25-07 §1)
[6] Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for townhome develdpments.
[7] Minimum building width requirements shall r apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park.
[8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum tot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01
u14)
[9] Ali structures shall be set back from public or private roads that aerve 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
applicable minimum building/structure setback. (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1)
[10] See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase In the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3)
Supp. 8
4-7
Thlurvtic [-ANT 11-
Locit
viel4 4rP21‹
eref:Ti ieteN hi"W
rrotit4V-Iti
0.1tVIVIOL011
( L.114 4-01°)
ore %1-1.0
LA' THurveit rtoUNTAIrt
rit.1<,&01-0Vo.
114'. frartHrE :
1.1vIrit
- E•ti:N
ToN. 14#f•
a,54tII
TON. 01.94 "b.M,
LAfiligfi
efice•61- (OrtiolituATIori•
AO. tiV
7 '2010
CiArqlft
41 ;4 ,
Y
Lfr 111,0,
4`.pl _.
I2x 14
P
uripho.or,
p;p44-
r-in: 10
_eforf
III k,14, e
14- 0
AUG 2 7 71
fl
!41-1 :01
, qike kw'. 00
t.e.. 0401
flT
E=1.-G-VAroo•r-F
NT,dhe'
PNO-
R101+7 010
1"
1— •
; t -
;
LL
22itg
1 t glYtAlf t$11
.011
r-