Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2009-01-06Prepared:December 31,2008 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday,January 6,2009 9:00 a.m.—Board Room,Town Hall 1.PUBLIC COMMENT 2.CONSENT a.Approval of minutes dated December 2,2008 3.REQUESTS a.Metes and Bounds,1575 Fall River Road Owner/Applicant:John Moynihan Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.4,Table 4-5 to allow construction of a roof over a proposed deck approximately 5 feet away from the southern property line,in lieu of the required 25-foot setback in the A-Accommodations zoning district Staff Contact:Alison Chilcott b.Lot 3,Block 2,Amended Plat of Windcliff Estates,5th Subdivision and the Replat of Lot 4 ½,3325 Eagle Cliff Road Owner:Robert C.&Erin F.Parkinson Applicant:Van Horn Engineering,Celine LeBeau Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,to allow construction of a proposed second-level deck approximately 10 feet into the required 25-foot side setback in the E-1 Estate zoning district Staff Contact:Dave Shirk 4.REPORTS 5.ADJOURNMENT 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 December 2,2008,9:00 a.m. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair John Lynch,Members Chuck Levine,Bob McCreery,Wayne Newsom,and Al Sager;Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending:Chair Lynch;Members Levine,McCreery,Newsom,and Sager Also Attending:Director Joseph.Planner Shirk,Planner Chilcott.Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:None Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1.PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2.CONSENT AGENDA a.Approval of the minutes of the October 7,2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine)to approve the minutes aspresented,and the motion passed unanimously. 3.METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1575 FALL RIVER ROAD, Owner/Applicant:John Moynihan—Request for variance from Estes ValleyDevelomentCodeSection4.4,Table 4—5 to allow construction of a roof over aproposeddeckapproximately5feetawayfromthesouthernpropertyline,in lieu of the required 25-foot setback in the A—Accommodations zoning district Planner Chilcott stated the applicant has requested this item be continued to the January 6,2009 meeting.The applicant is looking at other construction options and may be able to build without a variance.However,they would like to continue the item rather than withdraw until a definite decision on their part has been made. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine)to CONTINUE the request to theJanuary6,2009 Board of Adjustment meeting 4.LOT METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 350 JOEL ESTES DRIVE,Owner/Applicant:Richard K.and Joyce A.Harvey—Request for variance from theEstesValleyDevelopmentCodeSection4.3,Table 4—2,to allow construction of aproposedgarage23feetfromthesouthernpropertylineinlieuoftherequired50-foot setback in the RE —Rural Estate zoning district Planner Shirk stated this is a request for variance from the RE—Rural Estate 5O4oot side yard setback to allow construction of a detached 1,200 square foot (So’x 40’)garage located within 23 feet of the side lot line.Planner Shirk noted that per the Estes Valley Development Code,triangular-shaped lots such as this one have two side lot lines and no rear lot line.It has been determined that special circumstances exist in that the lot is ____ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estos Vafley Board of Adjustment 2December2,2008 significantly sub-sized for the RE—Rural Estate zoning district,which has a minimum lotsizeof2.5 acres and 50-foot setbacks.This particular lot is .94 acres,which is closer totheE-1—Estate zoning district that requires 25-foot setbacks. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and toneighboringpropertyownersforconsiderationandcomment.Staff did receive a letter ofsupportfromaneighboringpropertyownerlocatedacrosstheroadthatencouragedthe --Board to grant the request.No other correspondence from adjacent property owners hasbeenreceived. In determining practical difficulty,Planner Shirk noted the awkward triangular shape of the lot minimizes the buildable area to approximately 10%of the entire lot.Without thevariance,the property may continue as residential use,and a code compliant building could be built.Planner Shirk recommends the Board use their best judgment indeterminingwhetherthevarianceissubstantial,due to the fact that a typical 2-car garagemeasures576squarefeet(24’x 24’),and the applicant’s desires are to construct a garagemorethantwicethatsize(1,200 square feet)located less than halt the required setback from the property line.Staff suggests this proposed variance is substantial. Concerning the essential character of the neighborhood,Planner Shirk noted that mostdwellingsintheneighborhooddonothavegarages,and none have a detached structureaslargeastheoneproposed.The proposed garage would be located at the back of the lot,with minimal view from neighboring properties.One factor to consider is the intendedusetohousearecreationalvehicle(RV)that is currently in the yard area and does notmeetthecoderequirementforRVstobelocatedoutofthefrontyardsetbackarea. Planner Shirk commented that the applicant purchased the property in 2004,with thecurrentsetbackrequirementsinplace.He indicated the proposed structure could be built in a conforming location,although feels that would have a greater impact on theneighborhood.Should the Board vote to approve this request,staff recommends theBoardconsidercertaindesignelements(color,finish,exterior lighting,etc.)in an effort tominimizethevisualimpact.Another option would be to require the RV to be stored insidethegarage,which is proposed to have two bays with a total height of 19 feet.The Boardshouldconsiderthiswhendeterminingwhethertherequestissigniticantorwillhaveadetrimentalimpactontheneighborhood. Planner Shirk recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a rear-yardsetbackof23feetinlieuofthe50-foot setback required,conditional to: 1.Full compliance with the applicable Building Code 2.Prior to pouring the foundation,submittal of a setback certificate prepared by aregisteredlandsurveyor. 3.There shall be no outside storage of RVs or recreational equipment. 4.The building plans shall be revised to include a matte finish and neutral color,and shall be subject to Staff review and approval.Appeal to Staff determination shall be made totheBoardofAdjustment. 5.Exterior lighting shall be concealed,with no portion of a bulb visible from off-site. Public Comment: Richard Harvey/Applicant indicated he is in agreement with a neutral color.He wouldprefertopaintthegaragetomatchthecolorofthehouse,which is light green with brown trim.In the proposed location,there will be minimal ground work and no tree removal. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager)to APPROVE the variance request toallowconstructionofaproposedgarage23feetfromthesouthernpropertylineinlieuoftherequired50-foot setback in the RE —Rural Estate zoning district with thefollowingconditions,and the motion passed unanimously CONDITIONS: 1.Full compliance with the applicable Building Code RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ______ Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3December2,2008 2.Prior to pouring the foundation,submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 3.There shall be no outside storage of RVs or recreational equipment. 4.The buHding plans shall be revised to include a matte finish and neutral color,and shall be subject to Staff review and approval.Appeal to Staff determination shall be made to the Board of Adjustment. 5.Exterior lighting shall be concealed,with no portion of a bulb visible from off-site. 5.REPORTS Director Joseph reminded Board of Adjustment members of the invitation to attend the luncheon prior to the Planning Commission meeting on December 16,2008.This is to say thank you for your service on the Board. 6.ELECTION OF OFFICERS Member Newsom nominated Member Levine to preside as Chair for 2009,and Member Lynch agreed to serve as Vice-Chair for 2009.Karen Thompson was named Recording Secretary. There being no further nominations,the 2009 officers were approved byacclamation:Chair—Chuch Levine,Vice-Chair—John Lynch. 7.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business,Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m. John Lynch,Chair Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary 15Th FaIl River Road (Highway 34) Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall,170 MacGregor Avenue POBox 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estesr1et.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING:December 2,2008 LOCATION:The site is located at 1575 FaIl River Road (Highway 34), within the Town of Estes Park.Legal Description:Metes and Bounds. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS:John Moynthan STAFF CONTACT:Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The property owner requests a variance to Estes Valley Development Code Table 4-5,which establishes a twenty-five-foot setback from arterial streets in the A—Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning district,in order to construct a roof over a proposed deck 4’6”feet from the southern front property line;a 20’6”variance. This property is approximately 0.76 acres in size and contains two single- family residential structures.The eastemmost structure has been converted to retail use per Larimer County Tax Assessor records. The property used to contain three single-family residential structures.The westernmost structure was destroyed by fire on Saturday,October 20,2007. Demolition Permit #D017-08 was issued by the Building Department on September 23,2008 and this residence has been removed.Below are photos of the burned residence. The property owner is building a new single-family residence in the same location as the old residence.The old residence was located six feet from the front property line and was non-conforming as to the front-yard setback. Per EVDC §6.6 Damage to or Destri.iction of a Nonconforming Structure orStructureContainingaNonconformingUse,nonconforming structures can be rebuilt (without Board of Adjustment approval)if work begins within one year from the calamity and is completed within three years. Staff approved Building Permit #8664 on October 31,2008 for construction of the new residence.The proposed house is similar in design to the old house;however,some design improvements have been made such as Page #2 —1575 FaIl Rivet Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request eliminating the negative roof pitch.Construction of the proposed house, which is 1,727 square feet in size and does not have a garage,has not begun. The property owner may be waiting until the Board of Adjustment hears this variance request to begin construction.Below is a comparison of the old and new side elevation. The property owner wo&d like to make further design improvements to the house,i.e.,they would like to add a roof over the porch.This design change requires Board of Adjustment approval.Below is a comparison of the proposed side elevation with and without the roof over the porch. WOThOIUT P©FR©1 ©GF WITh P©C1 ©OF NORTIJEAST ELEVATION NORTHEAST ELEVATION -:FINISH DETAILS FINISH DETAILSIrI.,Al-. __ -zJzJ -p1 Page #3 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)-.Setback variance Request The addition of a roof over the porch will: 1.Move the house closer to the front property line.The eave will extend 1’ 6”beyond the porch,changing the front-yard setback from six feet to 4’ 6”;and 2.Increase the pitch of the roof thereby increasing the height of the building by eleven inches,changing the height from 25’10”to 26”9.” II.SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels One Parcel Number(s)35233-00-009 Lot Size 0.76 acres 33,119 square feet per Tax Assessor records Zoning A—Accommodations/Highway Corridor Existing Land Use Single-family residential and retail per Tax Assessor recordsProposedLandUseAsingle-family residence will be added to the property SERVICES Water Town of Estes Park Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Qwest LOCATION MAPS WITH ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING 11ij Page #4 —1575 Fall River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request Page #5 —1575 Fat!River Road (US 34)—Setback \‘ariance Request III.REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.C and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff-level review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. IV.REFERRAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and neighboring property owners for consideration arid comment.The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Town Park Building Department See Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 17,2008. Town Public Works and Utilities Departments See Tracy Feagens memo to Alison Chjleott dated November21 2008. Town Attorney See Greg White’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated November 12.2008. Town Fire Departincnt See Derek Rosenquist’s email to Alison Chilcott dated November 10,2008. Page 6 —1575 Fall River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Todd Krula’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated November 14,2008. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)See Gloria Hice Idler’s note dated November 11,2008 on the All Affected Agehcies memo. V.STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 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: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. Special circumstances may result from the triangular shape of the lot, from the fact that at approximately 0.76 acres this lot is undersized for the A—Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning district,which has a 40,000-square-foot minimum lot size for new lots,and/or from the fact that the lot is steeply sloped and has many rock outcroppings. 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:Staff finds there can be a beneficial use of the property without the requested variance.The house could be rebuilt as approved with Building Permit #8664 without a roof over the porch. Page #7 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback variance Request b.Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding:If approved the variance will reduce the setback from the front-property line from six feet to 4’6.”The Board should use their best judgment to determine if this variance is substantial. 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:Staff finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered and that adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment.The roof over the porch could improve the look of the residence from the arterial street. Staff has not received any letters in support or opposition to the request,and adjoining property owners have not stated that they will suffer a substantial detriment. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding:This application was routed to providers of public services,such as water and sewer. Significant safety concerns were expressed by the Light and Power Department due to the proximity of three-phase primary electric power with high voltages.On October 26,2008,the applicant’s consultant will meet on-site with the Light and Power Department to discuss how to resolve this problem. Gloria 1-lice-Idler stated in her note on the All Affected Agency memo that projected right-of-way is seventy-five feet from the highway centerline,but that CDOT would defer to the Town.The Public Works Director has not expressed any concerns about the impact of this variance request on projected right-of-way.Right-of- way in this area may be constrained by steep slopes on the north side of US 34 and by Fall River on the south side. Page #8 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding:This standard addresses whether or not the Code requirements changed during current property owners’ownership of the property.For example,did the property owner purchase the property prior to adoption of the required setbacks? This standard is not intended to address whether or not Ihe property owner reviewed Estes Valley Development Code to determine which setbacks are applicable to his/her property. The property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the twenty-five-foot setback.Per the Larimer County Tax Assessor records,the owner purchased the property in 1998.At that time the property was zoned E-Estate with a twenty-five-foot minimum required setback from arterial streets. f.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance, Staff Finding:The applicant could shift the house further back on the lot.This is likely to require further grading as it is a steeply sloped lot with rock outcroppings. 3.No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding:The Board should use their best judgment to determine if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 4.No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will 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. Staff Finding:The variance would not reduce the size of the lot. Page #9 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request 5.If authorized,a variance shad represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The Board should use their best judgment to determine if the variance,if granted,represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6.Under no circumstances shalt the BOA grant a variance to 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. Staff Finding:The proposed use is permitted. 7.In granting this variance,the BOA may require such conditions as will,in its independent judgment,secure substantially the objectives of the standards varied or modified. Staff Finding:If the Board chooses to approve this variance,staff has reconuuended a number of conditions of approval. 8.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff,referred to in Section IV of this staff report,are incorporated as staff findings. 9.Code Compliance The Board should be aware that staff believes there are ongoing code violations on this property.Staff believes that the property owner is manufacturing and assembling log furniture on site.This is an industrial use,which is not permitted in the A—Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning district (see the Community Development Director’s June 27,2008 letter to John Moynihan addressing this use.) The Board may choose to continue this application until this violation has been corrected.Below are photos of the property taken on Monday November 24,2008 showing outside storage related to this business. Page #10—1575 Fall River Road (US 34)—setback Vaiiance Request 4t Page #11 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request One option would be to require that: 1.Logs and plywood not be stored outside; 2.No more than three cords of firewood be stored for personal use. The amount of wood and location of storage could be discussed further with the applicant.This firewood is appears to be a by product of the wood-furniture manufacturing operation. The dumpster could be relocated to a code compliant location and screened once construction of the house is complete. VI.STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Board chooses to continue this application to the next regularly scheduled meeting,staff recommends that it be conditioned on: 1.Removal of logs and plywood from the outside of the property. 2.Removal of all but three cords of firewood.Firewood shall be neatly stacked to the side of the building to aid in screening from the street. If the Board chooses to recommend APPROVAL of the requested variances,staff recommends that it be approved CONDITIONAL TO: 1.Compliance with the submitted application. 2.Compliance with the affected agency comments,This may require the applicant to relocate or bury the three-phase primarily electric line. 3.A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms.After the footings are set,and prior to pouring the foundation,the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 4.This variance does not extend the three-year time frame,required per EVDC §6.6,during which construction of the house must be complete, i.e.,Certificate of Occupancy issued. 5.Any dumpsters on site shall be located ii a code-compliant location and screened as required by code prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Page #12 —1575 Fall River Road (US 34)—Setback variaice Request Town of Estes Park Department of Building Safety MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Alison Chilcott,Planner II Will Birchfield,Chief Building Official November 17,2008 Variance Request Moynihan Residence 1575 Fall River Road The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application for Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for the above-referenced property and offers the following comments: 1.Please see letter from Community Development Director Bob Joseph dated June 27,2008 regarding an ongoing violation. C©iüTh4 EsIes Pat,Co.80517 ¶©wm @1 June 27,2008 Mr.John Moynihan 1575 Fall River Road Estes Park,Colorado 80517 Dear Mr.Moynihan: I have reviewed the attached documents and I find that the non-conforming commercial use at 1575FallRiverRoadislegallygrandfatheredasofthedateofthisletter.As a non-confoi’ming use thecontinuationofthiscommercialuseissubjecttotherelevantprovisionsoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode,in particular Chapter 6.Nonconforming uses,structures and lots. Please take note that the use of this property to manufacture and assemble fog furniture constitutes aviolationoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(see Chapter 5,home occupations;and Chapter Four,Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning Districts).Nothing in this letter should be construed to condoneorallowthisviolation.4 Sincerely, Bob Joseph Community Development Director E A R K C 0 1 0 R A 0 Q Room 100TownHafl P.O.Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 -- Memo To:Alison Chilcott,Bob Goehring,and Scott Zurn From:Tracy Feagans Date:November21,2008 Re:Moynihan Residence Variance Request,1575 FaIl River Road Background: The Public Works and Utilities Departments have enclosed progress comments regarding the submittals received to date and remain general as the submittals are not complete and construction drawings for the public improvements have not been submitted.It is important to note that these Departments reserve the right to make additional comments and revise comments as more detail is provided in the subsequent submittals and development plans. Engineering: After review of the variance request the Engineering Department has no comments. Light &Power: We object to the requested variance for the following reasons,the deck is already against the existing power pole with is our main line three phase primary pole.This particular pole has at the top high voltages of 7200/12470 and is extremely dangerous,proper clearances must be maintained.We have safety concerns that must be addressed. Water: After review of the Variance Request the Water Department has no comments. •Page 1 GREGORY A.WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29ih StFeet Loveland,Colorado 80538 ALISON Cf-IILCOfl,PLANMER II COMMUNITY DE VELOPME TOWN.OF ESTES PARK fl,Thr:ThV l1fl’I )I)kaA i..’j, ESTES PARK,CO 80517 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 Re:Board of Adjustment —Variance Requesi —Moyniham Residence Dear \4s.Chicou: I have no comment. If you have any questions,please do nor hesitate to ve me a caU, C.\\V/dr CC:Michelle Acers Fax:970/577-0755 cu November 12.2008 NT DEPT F,2 q V A.White Alison Chilcott ____ From:Derek Rosenquist Sent:Monday,Novemberl-0,2008 10:36 AM To:Alison Chilcott Subject:Moynihan Residence variance request Allison, The Fire Department has no comments for the variance request for the Moynihan Residence at 1575 Fall River Rd. Derek Rosenquist Training Captain Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department 970-577-3690 1 November 14,2008 Alison Chilcott,Planner II Town of Estes Park P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 Re:Variance Request Moynihan Residence -zLuuIsTtTi) P.O.Box 568 Estes Park,Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 (970)586-1049 Fax Metes &Bounds properly located at 1575 Fall River Road Dear Alison, 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. i you have any questions or need further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District cc:Michelle Acers Town of Estes Park Board of Adjustments - Re:Variance Request for 1575 PaIl River Rd. John Moynihan Family Residence October 20,2008 LETTER OF INTENT Our home burned down a year ago and we are now undertaking the process of rebuilding it.We would like to request a very small variance for our proposed new residence. Our construction plan has been approved only to rebuild the house in its exact original footprint and location,and we are complying with that.We are also wanting it to be both a more practical plan and more aesthetically pleasing to the curbside corridor.The home will be covered in log siding with the use of log posts and railings for a pleasing Mountain design. We have already been approved for a better and more sensible Architectural Plan,which includes a much nicer roof line than was existing originally,but are hoping to add one small item,a covered front porch. There will be a 4’wide deck rebuilt to the front of the house as it was previously existing, with log posts and railing.We are hoping to extend the roof trusses over the 4’wide deck to achieve the covered front deck. In doing this with the use of longer trusses,it will only increase the overall height of the house by 11 inches to the originally submitted plan.The total building height would be 26’4”.This proposed building height is still well within the height limitations mandated by the Town of Estes Park. With this proposal we are hoping to: 1.Make the outdoor space more usable throughout the year. 2.Improve the overall look and value for the neighborhood. 3.Improve the value of the residence. 4.Make the front of the residence more aesthetically pleasing to the main corridor. We are hoping that you will agree that this request will have only a positive impact to the area.And that this small improvement would bring an increased value to this residence, the neighborhood,and the corridor view. We sincerely thank you for your consideration of our proposal. 1ohn Móynihar 711family / Submittal Date: ESTES VALLEY 8OARD OF ADJUSTNUENT APPLICATION _ :2)1 Record Owner(s):7’/inJ4o,nihan Street Address of Lot: Legal Description ___________ Lot: ____________ Block: Subdivision:Metes $BouiS ‘°arcel ID #35233 --q Section Z3 O.7&AcresLotSize Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service V Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Zoning A Specific variance desired (state development code section #):EYj7C.‘Ta Ne 4-5 Variance to 25’Pcn+ya-d Sf I back Name of Primary Contact Person Mailing Address 3bn f-lovnihon_ 15’75 FczilPfverPd.,/k#es i2orkj7t_8C511 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’)**Sc,’l 1 reduced copy of the site plan (1 IX 17”) V Names &mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.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. ,75 Pa;i PA’er Pd sJe Park (1O SCi7 Tract: Township 5A/Range ‘73 W’ Resident/cr.’ë Corn rrgrcc’;’ctl V Town r Town r r Well Well same -Pebw]S Re,s,den-fla!Bulk!r Other r Other r r r (Specify) (Specify) V UTSD r UTSO F None EPSD EPSD Other r F Septic Septic r ‘Yes____V No Town of Estes Pork -,P.0,Box 1200 ,170 MacGregor Avenue .Estes Park,CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone:(970)577-3721 -a Fax:(970)58a-o249 ‘a www.estesnet.com/ComDev Cell Phone Fax — /57’Y Pa,)PArcj—.PcI 97O2/1237 It — IlllIIIHflDIllIil___a I Primary Contact Person is Owner r Applicant r Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s)ItlohjZJha,i Mailing Address Phone Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email ConsultantlEngineer Mfr’hei Ic Aecr MailingAddress po,B’4/i04 Phone 97o-ee0-5z3o Cell Phone ian—9S-floD Fax_______________________________________________ Email MâAcze’s5kj @cw/rom APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area,both inside and outside Town limits See the tee schedule included in your application packet or view the tee schedule online at www.estesnet.comlComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing All fees are due at the time of submittal. APPLICANT CERTWCATON I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in fihng the application am actin•With the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement,lacknowledge 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 www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for tiling and receipt of the application tee 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 maybe delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date. I I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. b The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I 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 lull lees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. 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 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 Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASEPFfINT:c bAn i&’k’ynihan Applicant PLEASE PRINT:/t//,hc/)p /1cerc.. __________________________ Signatures: Record Owner /9(1 /vz.__Date /o 2 o Applicant’J’Y)4J4LzJL -Date Revised 10/13/06 Zoning Oisircis 4.4 Nongesidentisl Zoning Districts 4.Table 4-5:Density and Diinensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Zoning Difrict Minimum Land Area per Accommodation Resici entia[Unit (sq.ft.per unit): Minimum Lot Size [7] L•Area (sq ft) Minimum Building! Structure Setbaqj4flaj. Width Front Side (ft.)-:(ft.)(ft.) ‘Max Bldg Hâjght (ft4M Rear (ft.) Lot Cover age Accommodation ArterialUnit=1,800 [I]; A Residential Units:=25 [5]; SF =9,000;40,000(21 100 (3)All other 15 [6)10(6]30 N/A 50 streets =2-Family =6,750; 15MF=5,400 Arterial =25(5); A-i 10,890 j 15,000 [2]50 [3]All other 15 10 30 .20 30 streets 15 Accommodation I Units Only = I 1,800;I SF &2-Family ISF&(stand-alone) =2-Family If lot If lot9,000; .Accommo-(stand-Mini-abuts a abuts a i mum =residential residentialDwellingUnitsLdationusesalone)=25; I (1st Floor)I unft =20,000 I MF (stand-I property =property =30 2.0 n/aper2,250 square feet of gross I All other alone)=Maxi-10;10; 16 I All other All otherlandareauses=n/a I 100;mum = All other [ cases =0 cases =0DwellingUnitsIuses=n/a [(2nd Floor)No I: minimum gross land area per unit (Ord.15-03#3) Lots fronting I arterials = 40,000 [2]; co n/a Recreahon!200; All other ‘15 [6]15 [6]30 .25 ‘65 I Outdoor Fronting Arterial Commercial arteriats ==25 [5); ..I ment=lots=50 =15 I 40,000(2] Entertain-All other streets Allotherlots =15,000[2] 4-21Supp.5 Zoning Disiricls 4.4 NonresidenUal Zoning Disis/cIE ftinunum Land —Minimum At ea pet BuildingiSU uctu e Accc,mmo Mtiumum Lot Size [7]Setbacks [4J [S daLton or Zoning Residential Unit *tea Width Front Side RearDistrict(sq.ft.per unit):(éqft)(ft)(ft.) Residential Units Fronting Arterial(2d Flool-)15000 Arterials ==25 [5];0 1 unit 2,250 sq.r1 200;All other 15 [6]15 [63 ft.OFA of All other streets principal use.—lots =50 =15 — CF-I n/a 6,000 [23 50 15 0 [6]0 [6].50 80 Fronting Arterial Arterials ==25 [5]; I-I n/a 15,000 200;All other 10 [6]10 [6]30 .30 80 All other streets lots=50 =15 (Ord.2-02 #6;Ord.11-02 §1;Ord.15-03 #3) NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1]For guest units in a resort lodgelcahin use that have Mt kitchen facilities,the minimum land area requirementperguestunitshallbe5,400 square feet.See also5.1 P below. [2]If private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations setforthin§7.12,Adequate Public Facilities.” [3]For lots greater than 2 acres,minimum lot width shall be 200 feet. [4]See Chapter 7,§7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands.(Ord.2-02 #5;Ord,11-02§1) [53 All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards setforthin§7.5 of this Code. 161 Setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary. [7]See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area)for development on steep slopes.(Ord.2-02 #6) [8]All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots.Thesetbackshallbemeasuredfromtheedgeofpublicorprivateroads,or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way orrecordedeasement,whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be the same as the applicableminimumbuilding/structure setback.This setback is applicable only in the ‘A-i’district.(Ord.11-02 §1) [9]See Chapter 1 §1 .9.E,which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes.(Ord.18-02#3) 5.Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development ParceL a.Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted.One (1)or more principal uses shall be permitted per lot or development parcel,except that in the A zoning district,only one (1)principal residential use shall be permitted per lot ordevelopmentparcel. b.Permitted Mix of Uses.Where more than one (1)principal use is permitted per lot or development parcel,mixed-use development is encouraged,subject to the following standards: (1)More than one (1)principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed orestablishedtogetheronasinglelotorsite,or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code and all other applicable ordinances are met. 30 .25 50 30 Supp.S 4-22 Ow n e r Su n n y s i d e Kn o l l Re s o r t Da n i e l G St r o h Un i t e d St a t e s of Am e r i c a Na t i o n a l Pa r k Br i a n Mu r p h y , LL C Ca s t l e Mo u n t a i n Lo d g e Pi n e Ha v e n Ca b i n s C L & Ca t h e r i n e Fi n c h e r Th e In n on Fa l l Ri v e r Jo h n & Ma r t h a J Tu c k e r Da n i e l S De c k e r Ad d r e s s 16 7 5 Fa I l Ri v e r Rd 75 0 Ca s t l e Mo u n t a i n Rd 18 4 9 C NW Ro o m 24 4 4 36 2 0 Ca p u l i n Dr 15 2 0 Fa l l Ri v e r Rd 15 8 0 Fa I l Ri v e r Rd 11 2 1 E Ha r r i s o n 16 6 0 Fa I l Ri v e r Rd 66 4 Ca s t l e Mo u n t a i n Rd PC Bo x 44 4 1 Ci t y , St a t e , Zi p Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Wa s h i n g t o n , DC 20 2 4 0 Lo v e l a n d , CO 80 5 3 8 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Ha r l i n g e n , TX 78 5 5 0 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Ow n e r II S La n d Re s o u r c e Di v i s i o n Ge o r g e B & Jo a n E Ha n s e n Ne i l s C Mc D e r m o t t Mo y n i h a n Re s i d e n c e Va r i a n c e L MO Y N I H A N AIR I A N C E FO U N D 1. 5 ’ V FO U N D VA N HO R N 2 ME T A L CA P RO C K S I T E P L A N N 89 ’ W 34 5 . 6 1 ’ 15 ’ 0zh i - J00 , €004Ft 000n (N00 )0(N00U) —, : _ F9 < l O > No . St o . 35 7 + 2 0 0 . 7 7 2 5 . 6 2 0FO U N D CD O T 3’ BR A S S CO N T R O L PO I N T #1 LE G E N D : F - 0 €0 CD — €0 fr . : I .s . 1 s — U, Z w I ra H a, 0 € C , , CD ‘ — ‘ e t o O r 0 — .c % . • C . 1 0 ) 2 2 a v. d d 4 Y t n o _ 0 1 -t . UT i l i T Y PO L E li G H T PO L E rn 20 0 8 EL E C T R I C SE R V I C E BO X TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E BO X GA S ME T E R © GA S SE R V i C E WE L L e SC A L E : 1” 0 0 30 ’ WA T E R ST O P BO X — 5 — SE W E R CL E A N O U T 3 0 —w — SE W E R UN E WA T E R li N E SO 0 OV E R H E A D EL E C T R I C LI N E 9 0 0 0 . 0 0 FO U N D MO N U M E N T A 1 1 O N (0 0 . 0 0 ) ME A S U R E D OR CA L C U L A T E D DI M E N S I O N S PL A I T E D OR DE E D E D DI M E N S I O N S NO T E S : 1. TH I S SI T E PL A N IS RE P R E S E N T A T I O N A L f t IS NO T TO BE CO N S T R U E D AS A LA N D SU R V E Y PL A T NO R AN IM P O V E M E N T SU R V E Y PL A T . 2. TH I S PR O P E R T Y IS ZO N E D A. SE T B A C K S AR E 25 FE E T FR O M A R T E R I A L ST R E E T S , 10 FE E T FR O M RE A R LO T li N E S AN D 15 FE E T FR O M SI D E LO T LI N E S . 3. NO EA S E M E N T RE S E A R C H OR FU R T H E R BA C K G R O U N D RE S E A R C H WA S CO N D U C T E D AS PA R T OF TH I S SK E T C H PL A N . ‘ S i C t oIt 0- JI0 ci) 0 C H If) H H II 0 L__________25’—lO’ 9’-O 5/8’ -——-••-— 7’-3•—--- -J b--3’---H I 0 0 n 0 0 N RESIDENCE DESIGNED FOR:r -MOYNIHAN —c 1 6 RESIDENCE 1575 FALL RIVER RD.,ESThS PARR Co 8G51.IOHNMOYNIFIAN 970—215-7237 PT-PraITECH Dcsiqn© PanOx 4604 ESTES PARK!O 80517 970-586-5230 720-938-1100 Cl) © H tn (/D H H C Ii I El 0 0 0 ‘fl aa C fl C C 6 C MOYNIHAN RESIDENCE JOHN MOYMHAN RESIDENCE DESIGNED FOR Dr ITECH Pe5ign ©- 1575 FALL RIVER RD.ESTES PARK,Co 80517 P0B0x 4604,ESTES PARt CO 80517 970—215-7237 970-586-5230 720-938-1100 2 j z C H LID H tn •< H C H tn LID H mi H :1 C 0 ‘El 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 ‘I LID N Wa Cs]k)C_,c —C Sz (C MOYNIHAN RESIDENCE RESIDENCE DESIGNED FOR: JOHN MOYNIHAN 1575 FALL .,ESTES PARK,Co 805 l7 970—215-7237 DraITECH Desfyn® POBOX 4604,ESTES PARE,Co 80517 970-586-5230 720-938-IldO ( Parkinson Front Yard Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building,170 MacGregor Avenue POBox 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 _____________ Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-5 86-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE:January 6,2009 REOUEST:Allow a front yard setback of 16-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required in the “E-l”district. LOCATION:3325 Eagle Cliff Road, within unincorporated Larimer County (see vicinity map of site plan). APPLICANT:Celine LeBeau PROPERTY OWNER /ADDRESS: Robert C.and Erin F.Parkinson (5333 Coco Plumosas,Kenner,Lousiana) STAFF CONTACT:Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer:Van Horn Engineering,586-9388 Parcel Number:Development Area: Number of Lots:One Existing Land Use:Undeveloped Proposed Land Use:Single-family residential Existing Zoning:“E-l”Estate Adjacent Zoning- East:“E-l”Estate North:“F-i”Estate West:“E-i”Estate __________________pth:_“F-I” Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East:Single-Family Residential,Private FNorth:Pnvate Open Space Open Space _________________ West:Single-Family Residential South:Single-Family Residential,Right ______________ of-Way js’ateOenpace Services [Water:Windcliff Sewer:UTSD PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to the 25-foot front yard setback requirement to allow a deck within 16-feet of the west property line.The remainder of the structure complies with all setback requirements. This is a new structure to be built on a vacant platted lot which is less than ‘/acre (zoned for one-acre).The owner purchased the property in 2007,after adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code.Staff suggests a conforming structure could be built,but that the lot is significantly sub-sized for the zone district,and that the variance request would not have any detrimental impact on the neighborhood.Most dwellings in this part of Windeliff (the “upper mountain”)have received variances.Finally,the Windcliff Property Owners Association Architectural Control Committee has provided a letter of support for this 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 Page #2 —Parkinson Setback Request C have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specificstandards,this Code or the Comprehensive Plan, Staff Continent:The lot is significantly sub-sized for the “E-l”Estate district,which has a minimum lot size of 1-acre,for which the 25-foot setbacks were created.This lot,at .46-acres,is closer to the “E”Estate district,which has setbacks of 15-front (front and rear),and 10-foot (side),which this proposal would meet.-- 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 Comment:The property could be developed without the requested variance, and could be used for single-family residential use,as it was platted for. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Continent:The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial.Staff suggests that because if the lot were zoned for it’s lotsize,it would not need the requested variance,the request is not substantial.Also, the request is for a portion of a deck;the balance of the dwelling meets the setback requirements. c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as aresultofthevariance; Staff Comment:The character of the neighborhood would not be altered as aresultofthevariance.Staff cannot recall a new dwelling in the Windcliff subdivision that has not received a setback variance (or for that matter,additions to existing dwellings). d.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of therequirement; Staff Continent:The applicant purchased the property in 2007,vith the 25-footsetbacksinplace. e.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff comment:A conforming structure could be built on the lot without therequestedvariance. Page #3 —Parkinson Setback Request ( 3.If authorized,a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Comment:The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief.Staff suggests it does. 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. 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. Neighbors.Staff received one phone call from a nearby property owner (Doug Calvin, 1731 Zermatt Trail),who expressed a “philosophical objection”to variances in general. Mr.Calvin then requested a copy of the building and site plans.No further contact has been made by Mr.Calvin. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:Based on the foregoing,staff finds: 1.The size of the lot constitutes a special circumstance. 2.The property may be used for residential use without the variance. 3.The Applicants predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4.Approval of the variance would not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. The request is less substantial than several other variances granted in the neighborhood. 5.The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 6.The Board should use their judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 7.The applicant purchased the property after adoption of the EVDC. S.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. 9.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 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 #4 —Parkinson Setback Request C 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;-- Therefore,Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a deck to be located 16-feet from the west property line CONDITIONAL TO: a.Compliance with the approved site and building plans; b.Compliance with the applicable building code; c.Prior to pouring foundation,submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff LAPSE: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. Page #5 —Parkinson Setback Request jjLr,1’.zt2L,Li ‘•;‘Statement of Intcnt —Variance Request U)3325 Eaglecliff Drive I I ‘ November2l.2008 6 Requested variances:- Section 4,3.C.5.Table 4-2 ‘F-I’Zoning Front Setback — -Existing 25’from current property line -Requesting 15’from west properly line The legal description of the subject properly is Lot 3,Block 2,of the Amended Plat of Windcliff Estates,Fifth Subdivision and the Replat of Lot 4 ½,Webster Bighom Subdivision.Access will be from Zermatt Trail.The land is zoned E —I Estate (1.0 acre),under the current Estes Valley Development Code,with setbacks being 25’ from all lot lines.The variance is being requested in order to obtain approval of a building setback less than prescribed in the EVDC Section 4.3.C.5 Table 4-2.The proposed house footprint totals approximately 2,540 square feet.The client is requesting a variance for a second level deck on the southwest side of the proposed house. Standards for Review: 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist on this lot since it is under half of an acre (0.44 acres)in one acre zoning and is triangular in shape.Twenty-five foot wide building setbacks are prescribed to E-I Zoning (1 acre minimum),whereas fifteen foot setbacks are prescribed to E Zoning (0.5 acre minimum) in which this lot fits more appropriately due to size.Due to the lot characteristics and zoning mentioned above,a very small (0.15-acre),steep (34%-4l%slopes)allowable building area is available. 2.“Practical Difficulty Factors:” a.Without the variance the proposed home will have to be moved uphill,into large trees (that the client wolLid Jike to save),and steeper slopes. b.The variance is mit substantial-the request is to allow a deck to encroach into the 25’setback approximately 10’.’The entire house is within the setbacks,only a portion of the deck is encroaching in the 25’setback. c.The house is located centrally on the property and blends well with the character of the Windcliff neighborhood.The portion of the deck for which the variance is requested will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood nor will adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance. d.This variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer due to the nature of a deck structure. e.The client did purchase the property with knowledge of the setbacks,however,when placing the house,wanted to save the large trees on the Site. f.If the house is moved to fit the 118 square feet of the deck within setbacks,the largest trees on the Site will need to be removed and the house would be located higher on the slope,making it more visible to the neighbors. 3.The variance requested is not general or recurrent in nature,the situation is site specific. 4.The granting of this variance will not cause an increase in density or create the ability to create new lots. 5.If allowed,this variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6.The proposed variance request will not allow a use that has not previously been permitted on the property. (( ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -APPLICATION Robert C.and Erin F.Parkinson 3325 Eagle Cliff Road Lot:3 Block:2 Tract: ________ Subdivision:Windcliff Estates 5th and Replat of Lot 4 1/2,Webster Big Horn 34101-14-003 Section 10 Township 4N Range 73W Lot Size 0.443 acres Existing Land Use Vacant _________ Proposed Land Use _______ Existing Water Service E Town Proposed Water Service P1 Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service El Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Single Family Residential F Well F Other F Well F Other FEPSD I? FEPSD P1 F Other P1 Proposed access off Zermatt UTSD UTSD None Trail Specific variance desired (state development code section #): Setback variance for second level deck.15 setback requested from the 25’setback as specified in EVDC §4.3.C.Table 4-2 Name of Primary Contact Person Celine LeBeau Mailing Address Van Horn Engineering and Surveying,Inc.,1043 Fish Creek Road,Estes Park,Colorado,80517 I?Application fee (see attached fee schedule) P1 Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code) P 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=20’)** 12’1 reduced copy of the site plan (11”X 17”) 12’Names &mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.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. ‘Submittal Date:-11/26/08 NOV 26 2008 Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: Legal Description ‘Parcel ID # fi Zoning E-1 Estate (Specify) (Specify) El Septic F Septic El Yes ENo Town ot Esfes Pork .e.P.O.Box 1200 ..170 MacGregor Avenue .e Estes Pork,CO 80517 Community Deveiopment Deparfment Phone:(970)577-3721 +Fax:(970)586-0249 .e.www.eslesnel.com/ComDev ( r ApplicantPrimaryContactPersonisFOwner Record Owner(s) _____________ Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax 5333 Coco Plumosas,Kenner,Louisiana,70065 W ConsultantlEngineer Robert C.and Erin F.Parkinson Email Applicant Celine LeBeau,Van Horn Engineering and Surveying,Inc. Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road,Estes Park,Colorado,80517 Phone 970-586-9388 Extension 14 Cell Phone Fax 970-586-8101 Email ceIinevheairbits.com IConsultantiEngineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone 1043 Fish Creek Road,Estes Park,Colorado,80517 970-586-9388 Extension 14 Celftp_fl,çBeau,Van Horn Engineeg and Surveying,ln Fax 970-586-8101 Email ceIinevheedpirbits.cor 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 wwwestesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal. nov 25 08 05:l5p NFurHConsu1tin 5044598768 i975?74’25 2S 326PN P1 EPOII ESTOUP CONSTP FAk NO,. —APPLICANT CERTIFICATION hereby coitity that the inrmation and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledgeandthatinfilingtheapplicationIamactingWthmeknowledgeandconsentoftheownersoftheproperty.- In submitting the application materials and signing mis application agreement,I acknowledge and agree that theapplicationissubjecttomeapplictibleprocessingandpublichearingrequiremensetforthintheEsteeValleyDevelopmentCode(EVOC). I acknowledge that I have obtained -have access to the LVDC,and that poor to filing this application,I have had theopportunitytoconsulttherelevantprovisionsgoverningtheprocessingofanddecisionontheapplIcatIon.(The Fates Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnetcnmfcomDevIrJwc&Je) I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and recolpt Of the application fee bytheTowndoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheapplicationlcompleteundertheapplicablerequirementsoftheEVVC. I I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the informalion provided is incomplete,inaccurate,Or submitted after the deadline date. I understand that a resubmittal foe will be charged it my application is incomplete. $The Community Development Department will notify the applicant inwritmg of the date on which tbe application is determined to be complete. b I grant permission for Town of Estec Perk Employees and Members of the Soard of Adjustment with prOper identification access to my property during the review of this application. I acknowledge that I have received the Estas Valley Hoard of MjusarteM Variance Application Schedule and that fadure to meet the deadlines shown on sad 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 otai 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 ths tho corners of my properly and the proposed bulldlng/sUucture corners must be field staked.I undet stand that the s4gn must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10)business days prior to the £stes Valley RoaO of Adjustment hearing. fr I understand that It the Board of Adjustment appioves my request,“FaIlure of an applicant to apply tori building permit end commence conafruction or .cdon with tegerd to the vailance approval withIn one (1)year of receiving epproval of the varance shall automatically render the decision of the BO*null and voId.”(stea Valley bevPlopinent Code SectIon 3.6.0) Names:Record Owner PLfrASE PRINT Erin F,Parkinson l?ecord Owner PLeASE iwt —.Robett C,Parkinson Applicant PLAscp:m-1 ,r)Calms bL Le8eau Signatures:Record Owner Dale ii Record Owne%.Jk1%JL.___.-’-Date ±L/iS /o ‘K’-— Appl’icanL f4CZ4tx,/_4_r -Date —.,--___________ R.vIr..d 10113106 C ( Zoning Districts §4.3 Residential Zoning Districts a, Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot .d1!4 inimum BuildinglStructure Miii,irds1 -WIksiocr4’4q ftj ,.)tJ%nt (ft.)I (ft)Rear (ft.)(It)riaf RE-i 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 I lAc.[3j 100 25 25 25 30 20 E 2 ½Ac.[3]10 15 30 20 streets 25- R 4 ¼Ac,60 arterials, 10 15 30 2015-other streets R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 Single-family 25- =18,000;arterialsR-2 4 60 ‘10 10 30 20Duplex=15-other 27,000 streets 40,000, Residential 5,400 sq.60;Uses:ft/unitRMMax=8 and 141 [81 (Ord.Lots 25- 25-071)Gre&er 10(6]10 30 20(71 #14)Institutional Senior 100,000 streets Living Uses Institutional sq.ft.: Max =24 ‘Living Uses:200 Notes to Table 4-2: (1)(a)See Chapter 4,§4.3.0.which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for single-family residentialsubdivisionsthatarerequiredtosetasideprivateopenareasperChapter4,§4.3.D.1.(b)See Chapter 11,§11.3,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for 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.2-02 §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)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 individualtownhomeunitmaybeconstructedonaminimum2,000 square foot 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 floorarearatio(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. 171 Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home parl. [81 Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f.and 27,000 s.f.,respectively.(Ord 16-01#14) [9]All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings orlots.The setback shall be measured from 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.(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 ( (970)-586-4544 (970)586-1049 Fax December 22,2008 Dave Shirk,Planner 11 Town of Estes Park P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 Re:Variance Request Parkinson Residence Lot 3.Block 2,Amended Plat of Windcliff Estates,5Ih Subdivision and the Replat of Lot 4 V23325EagleCliffRoad 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 ftrther assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent P.O.Box 568 Estes Park,Colorado 80517 cc:Celine LeBeau,Van Horn Engineering / GREGORY A.WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland,Colorado 80538 DAVE SHIRK,PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PC BOX 1200 ESTES PARK,CO 80517 I have no comment. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to give me a call. 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 CC:Van Horn Engineering,Ceine LeBeau Fax:970/586-8101 December 18,2008 Re:Board of Adjustment —Variance Request —Parkinson Residence Dear Mr.Shirk: A.White GAW/Idr RRIMER h!EXdLENCE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 11 90 Fort Collins,Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-5700 FAX (970)498-7986 TO:Dave Shirk,Planner Town of Estes Park P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 FROM:Traci Shambo,Development Services Engineer DATE:December 18,2008 SUBJECT:Parkinson Residence Setback Variance -Windcliff Estates Estes Valley Planning Area Project Description/Background: This is a request for a setback variance for a deck at 3325 Eagle Cliff Circle Road.The reason for the request is due to small size of the lot. Comments: 1.The setback variance is from a local road.It should be confirmed by the applicant that the building location does not encroach into any existing road easements or rights-of-way for these roads.Otherwise,the setback request shouid not create any issues for these roads. 2.Staff assumes that any subsequent improvements on this site would not adversely impact the drainage patterns or create erosion problems in the area.If drainage patterns are going to be changed,a drainage plan will need to be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval.Any disturbance of the site should be reestablished to be equal to or better than the preconstruction condition.All disturbed areas should be reseeded with a native dry land seed mix. Recommendation: Other than the comments noted above,the Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any concerns or issues with the proposal.Please feel free to contact me at (970)498-5701 or e-mail at tshambo@larimer.orR if you have any questions.Thank you. cc:Van Horn Engineering.1043 Fish Creek Road,Estes Park CO 80517 reading file file wwa)cuFF PARKINSON RESInENcE SETBACK VARLkNCE.Doc TOWN0 Communify Development Depar{menf -Memo To:Bob Goehring From:Mike Mangetsen Date:12-17-08 Re:Parkinson Residence,Variance Request,3325 Eagle Cliff Road The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Request for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1)Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. 2)Locates of existing utilities will be critical and essential.In the event our facilities incur damage the necessary repairs will be at the developer’s expense as well. P.O.BOX 1200 •170 MACGREGOR AVENUE •ESTES PARK,COLORADO 80517 1PHONE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICE:970-577-3735 •FAX 970-586-0249 PHONE,PLANNING OFFICE:970-577-3721 •FAX 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com/CornDev c*9idc44L PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN Architectural Control Committee 1740 Windcliff Drive Estes Park,CO 80517 970 586-3360 cofasc@msn.com November 191 2008 TO:Dave Shirk,Planner II (by e-mail dshirk@estes.org Planning Department -Town of Estes Park SUBJECT:Variance Request —Parkinson Residence Lot 3 Block 2 Windcliff Estates Fifth Subdivision 3325 Eaglecliff Drive Dear Mr.Shirk, With reference to the subject request for a setback variance submitted by Van Horn Engineering on behalf of Robert and Erin Parkinson,please be advised that the W,ndckff Property Owners Association Architectural Control Committee has no objection to your granting the subject request.We feel the 7 foot encroachment for the second level deck into the west 25’building setback is not unreasonable and should have no negative impact on any neighbor or our subdivision infrastructure. relY,) Charles Cofas,Chairman WPOA Architectural Control Committee CC:Celine LeBeau —Van Horn Engineering —cellnevhe@airbits.com Craig Novak —Windcliff Operations —opmgr19O2yahoo.com Robert &Erin Parkinson -Property Owners -parkvfamaol.com John Stucki —AUG Committee —ikcuts1937@yahoo.com Ow n e r Ci t y , St a t e , Zi p Do u g l a s & Ly n n Ca l v i n Ma r t h a St e p h e n s St e p h e n & Gl e n d a Be n n o Co r n e l i s & Br i g i t t e De e r i n g Ja c k Ru t t e n b e r g Je f f & Ju l i e Ko n z a k Ba r b a r a & Le s l i e Fo i l e s Ch a r l e s Sc h o b i n g e r Wa y n e & Ju l i e Re s c h k e Ta r a & Ro s e m a r y Sm i t h Mo u n t a i n Gr e e n e r y Pr o p e r t i e s Ge o r g e Za h n Ow n e r II Ad d r e s s 16 0 1 Pr e s t w i c k Dr 51 1 5 Am h e r s t Ct 91 0 Co l o r a d o Dr 11 7 8 Tr u e n o Av e 58 1 3 Mt . Ro c k w o o d Ci r 16 3 1 Ze r m a t t T r l 36 0 Po n d e r o s a Av e 70 6 9 S. Fi l l m o r e Ct 48 1 0 Fo n d - d u - L a c Tr I P0 Bo x 33 6 26 8 5 La m p l i g h t e r Li , 53 0 1 W 83 Te r La k e Ge n e v a , WI 53 1 4 7 Pa r i s . TX 75 4 6 2 Al l e n , TX 75 0 1 3 Ca m a r i l l o , CA 93 0 1 0 Wa c o , TX 76 7 1 0 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Ce n t e n n i a l , CO 80 1 2 2 Ma d i s o n , WI 53 7 0 5 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 - 0 3 3 6 Bl o o m f i e l d Hi l l s , MI 48 3 0 4 Pr a i r i e Vi l l a g e , KS 66 2 0 7 Pa r k i n s o n Re s i d e n c e Va r i a n c e y4RnWrt NOflST I.THE VARIM4CE REOLIESIED IS FROM THE ESTES VALLEY OE’AELOPIAENT CODE TABLE 4—2 IN SECTiON 4.3 CS,BASE DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF RESIDENTIAl.ZONING DISTRICTS.WHICH SNOWS THE MINIMUM OLOILDINO SETBACKS IN THE E—I ZOHIINO TO BE; FRONT —25’,SIX —25 PRO REAR —25’ 2.THIS VARIMICE REQUEST IS FOR APPROVAl,OF IS’SETBACK ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY SHE TO ALLOW THE ENCROACHMENT OF A SECOND LEVEL DECK.THE DECK WOULD ENCROACH THE 22’SETBACK - WPROYIMATEIY 10’(IIWSI). 3.TOt PROPOSED HOUSE ‘S ENTIRELY WITHIN lIt SETBACKS (ESESRflOH OF THE PORTtN OF DECK STARED 04 HOlE j1)Mt DOES NOT ENCROACH OH Mn’EXISTWHC EASSSOOTS. 4.THE STEEP ALOPE,104(51W AREA.TRS’tOJ,AR Ca4FC.RITSON Cc THE LOT,SMALL LOT SIZE RELATIVE TO Z*ID,MID SI(ALL fl.aaE SPACE (1.15 ACRES).ATTJTS 10 1Sf RE°SON 104 THIS VARMACE REosT. 5.ELEVATiON DIFFEREnCE OF OLHL OE FROM %H PO4”r 10 LOW °DTIT (EAST TO WEST)Cc IDE PROPOSED HOUSE FOOTPIT IS WPROXIAITTLY IS’.ACCe€3 10 1Sf EVDCDI.S.E 11€M4XS&AI DEGIT FROM 0Get’L 04AD(AT 1Sf HIGH€ST POW4T 004 1Sf IOJSE AS PROPOSEO IS 37.5’(30’PLUS WJS OF Hf CALID(DIFFERENCE AT I1’IT Pont).THE IEIG4T Of 15€PROPOSED 10,155 AT THIS POuT 6 APPRO44ATD,Y 32’(ELEVATiON Cc 8441’).5,5’885,0*ALLOWED .if ISI4T. cORvn1SR’T MOSES: I.THIS SIRE PLAtO IT REPRESEFTATTOILHL ONLY MID SHOULD NOT BE REUEO UPON AS A OOUHOAR’r SURVEY NOR MI IMPROVEMEIO SURVEY, 2.THIS LOT IS ZONED E1 (ESTATE)*1154 25’BUILDING SEIBRCIYS ALONG ALL LOT UNES. 3.SECIJWIY liStS CGBMCF CORI&WTSfHT 150223880 (DAZED MAY 30.2007)NO lIt neoeo FLAT OF OF LOT 4 1 WERETER *0 NORi SIMS004 W 1,15W 4.PI.ABJC ID’EAI(NTS IJ,DIf ALL LOT LEtS FOR lit WISFALLMIG1 MO IMI4TEDLc,CS Mt DPEk&lt*i Cc 1,115115’SERT.S API EPECEID FOR 15€LOTS 001 THE AMENDED PEAT Cc W1400SF ESTATES 5Th çpo 50 çIATC€WT 4Jt0*BSTER 1101*1 .WITIG4ILLY.OUtS EASELENTS 5.TeE 54535 Cc BEARICS IS 1Sf 500154*551 PRORERTY 00€WITH A &A8810 OF S46’30’OOE MCIW,IISNTED 004 TiE NORTH END BY A f4 RSOAB WITH MO BJ.EaaE PLASTIC CAP MO ON lit SOLON EN)DY A jl REAPS 04TH A PLASTiC CAP STMWW RIS j464& W*1DC,IFT ESTAISS ©v5i fNov 26 2008 SITE PLAN FOR VARIANCE REQUEST leant flescrinolnn (Tin.Cantmit,nent 1502235601:Lot S.Block 2.WsndcI,ff Estates FifTh Subdzvision and Replat of tot 4 .Webster Bog Horn Subdivision,a fanned Unu Detetopinora.CounOwtf Lcrinwr.Slate of Colorado Lo:aled in the NW)of the NE)of Section 70.Townshsp 4 North.Range 73 West cl the 6th p N.Larimer Countij.Colorado Km LOT 2,SEOC!S PRIVATE OPEN SPACE WI 1,BLOCF S ZONED E—T ,BLOCK 4 ZONE)E1 LOT 74.BLOCS A ZONED E—T \--I LOT 9,BLOCK S ZONED E—l LOT 9.BLOCK 4 ZONED E”i WI 04, BLOCK 4 PRIVATE OPEIN S°ACE 0 — 30 — I —— 60 — 90 LEGZNV PONDEROSA PINE 000aWS FoR2 EDT 9,•LOC ZONED El mIRRORS PEDESTAL 4005 52€(ROOF) UTRJI’T EASES€NT ç ———leSson’EASEMENT —‘-0(00 SETBACK EXISTING RATER ONE — 00 I€ISLWED OR CHLaSAIED OW019006 (00.00)RATTED DIIC,HlS 0 FOUND (400AM ENTATIOR4 PROPERTY OWNERS: RO&RT WHO CR14 PEIRKINSON 5333 COCOS PLLWIOS.S KENDER.LA 10065 ‘SETBACK VARIANCE a ,DAIS REVISION BY I’ -3325 EAGLECLIFF DRIVE A VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING —‘ESTES PARK,COLORADO PHONE;(870)386-9388 •FAR:‘(070)586—8101 — 5043 FISH ORW(RD.•ESTES PARK COLOR’DO 80517 —; Vicinity Mciv SCALE I ‘a 5,030’