Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2009-04-07— Prepared:March 30,2009,2009 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday,April 7,2009 9:00 a.m.—Board Room,Town Hall 1.PUBLIC COMMENT 2.CONSENT a.Approval of minutes dated January 6,2009 b.Approval of minutes dated March 3,2009 3.REOUESTS a.Lot 21,Little Valley 2 Filing Owner:Gregory E.Otis Applicant:Paul Brown Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2 to allow construction of a proposed detached garage within the required 50-foot front setback in the RE zoning district Staff Contact:Dave Shirk b.Lot 4,Block 1,Country Club Estates Owner:Kerry and Joie Willuweit Applicant:Zack Fonseca,Genesis Energy,Inc. Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2 to allow construction of a proposed wind turbine approximately 9.5 feet above the 30-foot height restriction in the E-1 Estate Zoning District Staff Contact:Alison Chilcott Note:This application has been withdrawn by Staff. 4.REPORTS 5.ADJOURNMENT Note:The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time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 March 3,2009,9:00 a.m. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair Chuck Levine,Members John Lynch,Bob McCreery,Wayne Newsom.and Al Sager;Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending:Member Lynch Also Attending:Director Joseph,Planner Shirk,Planner Chilcoff,and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:Chair Levine,Members McCreery,Newsom,and Sager Vice-Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1.CONSENT AGENDA Continued to the Board of Adjustment meeting on Tuesday,April 7,2009 2.LOT 4,BLOCK 1,COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES,1111 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE,Owner: Kerry and Joie Willuweit,Applicant:Zack Fonseca,Genesis Energy,Inc.—Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3,Table 4-2,to allow construction of a proposed wind turbine approximately 9.5 feet above the 30-foot height restriction in the E-1 Estate Zoning District Vice-Chair Lynch stated that after discussion between Staff and the Applicant,it was decided to continue this variance request to the April 7,2009 meetingS 3.REPORTS None There being no further business,Vice-Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:10 am. John Lynch,Vice-Chair Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 6,2009,9:00 am. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair Chuck Levine,Members John Lynch,Bob McCreery,Wayne Newsom,and Al Sager;Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending:Chair Levine;Members Lynch,McCreery,and Newsom Also Attending:Planner Shirk,Planner Chilcott,and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:Al Sager,Director Joseph Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1.PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2.CONSENT AGENDA a.Approval of the minutes of the December 2,2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine)to approve the minutes as presented,and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3.METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1575 FALL RIVER ROAD, Owner/Applicant:John Moynihan—Request for variance from Estes Valley Develoment Code 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 Planner Chilcott stated the applicant has asked to withdraw the application at this time. The applicant is looking at other construction options and may be able to build without a variance. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/McCreery)to WITHDRAW the request for 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 rquired 25-foot setback in the A— Accommodations zoning district and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4.Lot 3,Block 2,Windcliff Estates 5th Subdivision and Replat of Lot 4%,Webster Big Horn Subdivision,3325 Eagle Cliff Road,Owner:Robert C.and Erin F.Parkinson, Applicant:Van Horn Engineering and Surveying,Inc.—Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3,Table 4-2,to allow construction of a proposed second-level deck within 16 feet of the west property line in lieu of the required 25-foot setback in the E-1 —Estate zoning district. Planner Shirk stated this is a request to allow a variance to the 25-foot front-yard setback to allow a deck within 16 feet of the west property line.The proposed residence complies with all setback requirements on the lot,which is less than ½acre (zoned for one acre). This lot is significantly sub-sized for the zone district,as well as triangular-shaped,and the variance request would not have any detrimental impact on the neighborhood.The total area proposed in the setback is approximately 200 square feet.Most dwellings in this part of Windcliff have received variances.Windcliff Property Owners Association Architectural RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 January 6,2009 Control Committee has provided a letter of support for this request.Stall received one request from a neighboring property owner for a copy of the building and site plans. Member Newsom asked for assurance that the setback certificate is received by the building department prior to construction.Planner Shirk indicated the certificates are given to the appropriate departments in a timely manner Planner Shirk recommends approval of the variance request with the following conditions: 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. Public Comment: Bob lwanickiMestover Construction —Mr.Iwanicki is the builder of the home and tried to design the home to fit within the building envelope,having success with everything except the deck. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/MoCreery)to APPROVE the request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3,Table 4-2, to allow construction of a proposed second-level deck on a proposed residence within 16 feet of the west property line in lieu of the required 25- foot setback in the E-1 —Estate zoning district with the following conditions,and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Conditions: 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 suNeyor. 5.REPORTS Planner Chilcott indicated there is no meeting scheduled for February unless the Moynihan variance request is reactivated.Staff will know by January 14,2009 of their decision,and will notify the Board and post a legal notice. 6.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business,Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m. Chuck Levine,Chair Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary Otis Front Yard Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estesnel.com DATE:April 7,2009 REQUEST:To build a new detached two-car garage twenty-five feet from the front property line where 75-feet would typically be required. LOCATION:4068 Little Valley Road,within unincorporated Larimer County (To get there:go up Little Valley Road to Black Squirrel Drive, then turn left to continue up Little Valley Drive). APPLICANT:Paul Brown PROPERTY OWNER /ADDRESS:Gregory Otis STAFF CONTACT:Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Consultant:Paul Brown Parcel Number:2407406021 Development Area:1.49 acre Number of Lots:One Existing Laud Use:Single family residential Proposed Land Use:Same,with detached Existing Zoning:“RE”Rural Estate two-car_garage Adjacent Zoning- East:“RE”Rural Estate North:“RE”Rural Estate •West:“RE”Rural Estate South:“RE”Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East:Single family residential North:Single family residential —— f_est:Single family_residential,icCs Water:Well flFire Protection:Estes Park Volunteer JThuth:Single family residential Lr’ver:_Septic PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant wishes to build a detached two-car garage twenty-five feet from the front property line where the development code requires a 50-foot setback Furthennore,the development code requires building setbacks be measured from the edge of a road easement,which this lot has.These two factors combine to create a front yard setback requirement of 75-feet. The purpose of measuring the setback from the edge of an easement is to treat access easements in the same fashion as right-of-way to ensure that if roads are moved or widened in the future,adequate setbacks will be maintained.It is unlikely that Little Valley Road will be widened,as it does not lead to land that has any further subdivision potential,thus it serves only the Little Valley Subdivision.It should be noted that Little Valley has a General Improvement District that oversees the maintenance of the road system.This GID has been notified of this request,and “approved because the topography does not allow”the required setback. The applicant proposes to locate the garage in the most accessible area that would minimize the amount of overall site disturbance.Locating the garage in the proposed location would allow the applicant to use the existing driveway cut,and eliminate the need to additional site disturbance and associated cut/fill slopes. Page #2 —Little Valley Front Yard Setback Request Staff suggests locating the garage in the proposed location advances severa’goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applies concepts of grading and site disturbance standards,which technically do not apply to this lot (as it was approved prior to adoption of the EVDC).Staff also suggests this “trade off’outweighs the impact of locating the garage closer to the road than normally permitted. 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 Comment:The lot is sub-sized for the “RE”Rural Estate district,which has a minimum lot size of 2.5-acres,for which the 50-foot setbacks were created.The lot is also steeply sloped,as is common in the Little Valley area.When the house was built in 2003,it was located in this area at the top of the lot because it minimized the amount of site disturbance. The Little Valley subdivision includes 25-foot road easements along the frontage of lots.The Estes Valley Development Code requires building setbacks be measured from the edge of the easement. 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 may continue as residential use. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Cinnn,en(:The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial.Staff suggests it is not,especially considering the topography of the lot. 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; Page #3 —Little Valley Front Yard Setback Request Staff Comment:The proposed garage would not be detrimental to the. neighborhood.The Little Valley Owner’s Association has written a letter of support. d.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff comment:The current owners purchased the property in September 2008, with the current regulations in place. a Whether the Applicants predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Counnent:In order to comply with setback requirements,the garage would either have to be built down the hill to the north of the existing dwelling,or east of the dwelling.Both of these locations would result in greater overall impact than locating the garage in the proposed location. 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 is. 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. Larimer County Engineering has noted the existence of a road drainage to the east of the proposed garage.Based on this,county engineering has noted that if grading is proposed in this area,a drainage and grading plan will need to be submitted for review,and that sediment contr&measures should be in place prior to construction. Based on this.Community Development Staff recommends an erosion/sediment control plan be submitted to Larimer County Engineering for review and approval pnor to issuance of a building permit.The Board should be aware that Larimer County Engineering can require said plan at the time of building permit application.Staff Page #4 —Little Valley Front Yard Setback Request suggests that could lead to delay in issuance of a permit,and that making this requirement now can save the applicant time in issuance of the building permit. Erosion control plans typically involve silt fences and/or straw bales intended to slow water carrying erosion,and allow sedimentation and runoff to exit property at historic rate.Post construction activities include revegetation,and sometimes requires erosion control netting be installed until vegetation has taken hold. Neighbors.Staff has received one email response from notified neighbors.The property owner lives downhill from the Otis,and expressed “no problem with a variance on this residence,with the assurance that any drainage issues are addressed.” STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:Based on the foregoing,staff finds: I.The size and topography of the lot create special circumstances that require a variance. 2.The property may continue to be used for residential use. 3.The Applicant’s predicament could not be mitigated through some method other thati a variance. 4.The proposed garage would not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. 5.The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial. 6.The Board should use their judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief 7.The owner purchased the property with the current setback requirements in place. 8.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. 11.Approval of these variances 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 these variances 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 front yard setback of 25-feet,as measured from the property line,instead of the 50-foot setback required to be measured from the edge of the access easement CONDITIONAL TO: Page #5 —Little Valley Front Yard Setback Request a.Full compliance with applicabic building codes; b.The applicant shall include an erosion control iiai with building permit submittal, and shall coordinate said plan with Larimcr County Engineering (Marc Lyons,Access Control). c.Compliance with approved site and building plan; d.Submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor.This ceitificate shall he submitted to the huildiLig official at the foundation inspection,and shall verify the garage location complies with the approved site plan. SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL of the requested variances with the findings and conditions recommended by staff LAPSE:Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building pernut 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 6 —Little Valley Front Yard Setback Request ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Colkris,Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-5700 FAX (970)498-7986 MEMORANDUM TO:Dave Shirk,Planner,Town of Estes Park P0 Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 FROM:Traci Shainbo,Development Services Engineer 73 DATE:March 30,2009 SUBJECT:Ohs Detached Garage Variance Request -4068 Little Valley Drive Project DescriptionlBackground: This is a request to reduce the front yard building setback at 4068 Little Valley Drive in the Estes Valley Planning Area to build at 24’x26’garage. Comments: •Staff assumes that any subsequent improvements on this site will not adversely impact the drainage patterns or create erosion problems in the area.The site has a drainage swale just to the east of the garage location.Flows are directed into this drainage by an upstream culvert under Moon Trailway. This drainage shall not be altered and,if grading is proposed in this area,drainage and grading plan shall be submitted for review. •The terrain in this area is steep and therefore there is an increased potential for erosion.Sediments and debris could also be washed downstream onto the property to the north if erosion and sediment control measures are not in place prior to the commencement of construction. •All disturbed areas shall be replaced and reestablished in a condition equal to or better than the historic condition. •For more information on erosion and sediment control best management practices,the applicant may call Scott Cornell with our office at (970)498-5723 or Marc Lyons at (970)498-5709. Recommendation: As long as the comment above has been noted and will be considered during and after construction,the Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any major concerns or issues with the submittal of this proposaL Please feel free to contact me at (970)498-5701 or e-mail at tshambo(dlarimer.org if you have any questions.Thank you. cc:Paul Brown,254 Solomon Drive.Estes Park,CO 80517 Marc Lyons,Larimer County Engineering Department Scott Cornell,,Larimer County Engineering Department file LARdMERtNTY H:\DEVREV\PLANcHK\Refenals\C]T[ES\Estes\otjs Detached Garage Variance_FVPA.doc Page 1 of] Dave Shirk From:PMoak@aol.com Sent:Sunday,March 15,2009 12:28 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:Otis garage Dave, Bob and I have no problem with a variance on this residence,with the assurance that any drainage issues are addressed..given our large scale problem with the former owners and the debris washing onto our driveway. thanks for the notification.Linda Moak A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.Seyllrs in just 2 easy steps] 3/1612009 Dave Shirk From:Traci Shambo [tshamho©Iarimer.org] Sent:Wednesday,March 18,2009 8:09 AM To:Dave Shirk Cc:Marc Lyons;E Scott Cornell Subject:Little Valley variance request for Otis’s garage Dave — when marc gets back to the office next week,ill see if he can take a look at the sitewhenheisinEstesnext?Has construction started?Can you building inspector keep aneyeouttoo?I wonder if Scott Cornell would have any input or ideas on this one?Lets try to keep in touch on this one.Traci >>>“Dave Shirk”<dshirk@estes.org>03116/2009 9:07 AM >>> Traci— A neighbor concern about the Little Valley variance request.Marc might know somethingaboutthis(or not The Moak’s live downhill,and are concerned about changes to historic drainage patterns,so we should make sure this garage doesn’t alter runoff. From:Pvoak@aol.com [mailto:PMoak@aol.com] Sent:Sunday,March 15,2009 12:28 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:Otis garage Dave, Dob and I have no problem with a variance on this residence,with the assurance that anydrainageissuesareaddressed...given our large scale problem with the former owners andthedebriswashingontoourdriveway. thanks for the notification..Linda Moak A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.See yours in just 2 easy steps!<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220439616x120l372437/aol?redir =http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditrepor’.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%2 6hmpgl D%3D62%2 6bcd%3DtebemailfooterNO62> 1 /otownofestespark/ou=ENGINEERING/cn=Recipients/cn=dshirk From:Stan Griep [sgriepIarirner.org] Sent:Monday,March 23,2009 1:27 PM Dave Shirk Subject:Otis Variance and Sunfield Estates Hello and good afternoon Dave. I have no coriments on the Otis Variance setback variance request other than to say thattheywillberequiredtoobtainabuildingpermitforthegaragepriortoanyworkonthestructureoritsfoundationsystem. Concerning the Sunfield project I have the following comments; A building permit is required for each structure.Any retaining walls that are four feetortaller(measured from bottom of footing up)will require Engineered plans to besubmittedwiththeapplicationforpermit,as well as 4 plot plans.The residencestructureswillneedtohaveengineeredfoundationsystemsandacompletestructuraldesignanalysisdoneoneachbytheprojectengineerduetothisbeingaHighWindDesignArea(138 MPH 3-second gust —Exposure C).All engineers shall be Colorado RegisteredEngineers.The river access stairs will need to comply with the 2006 InternationalBuildingCode(maximum rise 7”minimum tread depth =11°,graspable handrails both sidesandminimumwidthof36”).We would require a code conpliart guardrail system atop theproposedriverwallifthereisawalkwaywithin3feetofa30inchormoredropoff. I have copied this email to Rod at Landnar:<but did not send anything to Paul on the Otiproject. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Stan Stan V.Griep Lead/Commercial Plans Examiner Larimer County Building Department Ft.Collins,Colorado 80522—1190voice:(970)498—7714 email:sgriep@ larimer.org 1 /otown of estes park/oUENGINEERINGIcn=Recipientslcn=dshirk From:Candace Phippen [cphippen@larimer.org] Sent:Wednesday,March25,2009 12:58 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:Sunfield Estates and Otis Variance Request Hi Dave.No issues from my end.I believe Stan Griep will have e—mailed separately.Call if you have any questions.Thanks. 1 Page 1 of2 Dave Shirk From:Michael Bryant [chippermaninc©msn.cornl Sent:Saturday,March 28,2009 11:13AM To:Dave Shirk Subject:Otis Residence Variance Request Dear Dave, I received notice of a variance request for the Otis Residence at 4068 Little Valley Drive and wanttovoicemyoppositiontoit,for several reasons: Based off the current minimum lot size in our zoning area,the current residence was built on asmallerlotthatwasexistinginthesubdivisionpriortothenewregulations.However,these smalllotspresentpracticalproblems.When the current home was built everyone was aware of thesetbacks.The choice to buy the lot or build on it within current regulations should be part of duediligence.That should also apply to the current owner,I think perhaps a few things have beenoverlookedhere. I did not physically inspect the site,but from review of the site plan it appears that servicing thewellheadwouldbeaprobleminthefuture.It will,at some point,have to be done.This isinevitable.Where is the access to this for a truck? The road right of way for Little Valley is not fully developed as to road width.I have beeninvolvedwiththisissuesince1990,and the easement width for the road as platted with theCountyofLarimershowsmanyexistingownershaveencroacheduponit.This may not be thecasehere,but it probably would go to the property line,which would then put the nearest pointofthegarageat25feetfromtheroad.That would be a visual affront.Nice as it may turn out tobe,it is twice as close to the roadway as any other structure in the area.As the subdivision getsmoredevelopment,these woefully inadequate roads become a bigger issue,and at some point inthefuture,it will have to be addressed. I appreciate the comments of Mr.Otis regarding the expense or difficulty of placing the garage inaconforminglocation,but I was unaware that this was a consideration in a variance request. Under his ‘option #4”Mr.Otis states that a Pro for the placing of the garage on the South side isthatitreducesthesetbackdistance.Why is this a benefit relative to the code? He offers an argument that the garage will only be seen from the road and should not affect theessentialcharacteroftheneighborhood”.On this point I have personal issues that in no wayrelatetoMr.Otis.As you know,I went through considerable agony for a deck permit to buildsomethingwithamuchsmallerprofilethatwasneithervisiblefromtheneighboringpropertiesnortheroad,and yet my setbacks were rather enormous by comparison.I would hope that therewouldbesomeparityhere.Part of the charm of Little Valley is the slight isolation of the buildingsfromtheroadway.A garage right in your face at a hairpin turn is not part of the essentialcharacteroftheneighborhhood. Lest it seem I am being vindictive,let me assure you this is not so.I am concerned aboutdrainagefromabove,the well access,the potential for road widening,and of course,the extremevariationfromtheexistingcode.Some lots are not workable.Asking for massive deviations fromsetbacksafterthepurchasemakesnosensetome.And of course,I believe this would put the 3/31/2009 Page 2 nfl garage closer to the road than any other existing building in the subdivision.To revise the building regulations and then override their purpose would be a travesty.Why then,do we have regulations?If indeed this variance passes,where do we draw the line,or is there no line? Sincerely, Michael Bryant 3965 Little Valley Drive,Estes Park 4181 Avenida Madrid,Cypress,Ca. 3/3Y2009 Otis Gregg,January 22,2009 1710 Windmill HiH Lane Desoto IX 75115 Dear Gregg, Our Board took a good deal of time evaluating your variance and building request.There have been questions about drainage problems before.We would not want you to have similar problems.Our main concern is your variance request of a 25ft.to 34ft set back for the front yard from the road.We have okayed two previous building request and the Front set back gets to behorter distance each time.We would hope that the garage will be completed with this request. The request is approved because the topography does not allow a setback,as our covenant state.n9Sincerely,Ima M thies,President C/o Bob Taylor 4725 Hwy 36 Mile Marker 5 Estes Park,CO 80517 UTTLE VALLEY OWNERS’ASSOCAflON 5000 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD •ESTES PARK,CO 80517 -. LE VALLfl OWNERW ASOCL4TIONbflUWtRtQuZSFORM 1 &feftewnig mfnntt*oia i n prtftd tie tnt LUI fllky Oners’Aiczro tor,s.k M4 aq the Cn-z’xnt Canplince Cownrtc PLease include a mac r_v3a lea on GIL 9b ta Intcrmatton needed to ;t tht l3oard: I.What is t ‘.atê beginum ou?Wi?rc°fWaov4c op3e-tCiPi 4JLJ473ILW1 2.Wh is the naze footage *froposcdbiiitdiv.g’(I Tnse pIiis 81G not necessary.)w s’-’‘tlW5r 5ytE 47sovD 3.It hr n blL.?W bulldujjñ*tayi 4.Are id stni*uzt e back 75*tt from the front preperty Jtiend SC;feet from the &deyatdlin&6)J1”t4 oajgr 4’5t5 plo 5,Do chimney pIan cafl fr’a w anakng device? 6.What is the planied finished coLor tot all huildizigW?t\’st U &K(577Ü&t #0 Ot 7.Are there pis for a uIvert whep.i the dnveway mtxts the rawi?*4 8.Is the-roof to be of the retardant mteTia1?qe wi!1 ru)eiv€a writ rueswnse•&m the Board of direcwc within :o dws from teceipt of thb completed information. Cwenants:Mark with an ‘X”where apprapñate: First Fiing .‘ndFiling ‘X flaic LLt1 :— C-C :jcj (1E:E1t! (zooq) MA-(cu 6xei?”7 !b9LI4&I New Co9tnants APPROVED 717*2 i_i — /) —7’, FRS ( HcJtu &a S;2 F2 VARiANCE;RQUt’STh OF COVENANTS AND REflPACEIONS FOR THE u’rfl,E VALLEY OWNERS’ASOC1ATrON,WLiflI ACTS AS THECZC1COMPLJ&?XE .O4J4rUTEE [.istd below are varinnces that will need zo be quested so that existing imrovements will be r w jar;’Qwtfl a i 2 lease LC-.mat win pp1 your property wd &t a brief reason for your reqies1.ffa variance !a requested which is not iiste4 insert the artick-minibcr,section number and lettcr ths is appropriate for youx £JEC(C RflCJJt JJON LEtTER Wi SS()N: v _________ V 2 A v B ___________ V C fl±MJlar?at45 f -uc&tr..iMsta.aiz•cst4_]PS’ CoQaDj f1e GAA*4t /ia7i: 0 eJhràe4n e0 Par>tH 24014-o&-ozI Datt ______________JJ 2/25/09 ‘fo:Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Request:VARIANCE REQUEST TO DEDUCE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK As the present owner of the residence at 4068 Little Valley Drive,I am requesting a front yard building setback variance to build a detached 24’x26’garage.This request would alleviate the hardship of my particular situation. Background History: The lot in located in an RE zoning district and it is substandard in size.The local terrain is steep and densely wooded.Public water and sewer are not available in this subdivision.All public roads are unpaved.No provisions are made for adequate control of storm water drainage.Most all lots in this subdivision have garages that are similar in size to the one proposed. The residence was built in 2003 by an owner/builder.The original site pian drawing that was approved by the Little Valley Owners’Association and the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department showed a detached two car garage that encroached on the front yard setback and was located in the drainage ravine east of the house.Deviating from the original approved site plan,the owner/builder relocated the house more towards the east of the lot to allow for a deck on the west side of the house (see current as-built drawing). According to Rodney Ault,who does road maintenance for the Owners’Association,he received a call from the owner/builder about storm water discharging from the 18”drainage culvert at the intersection of Little Valley Drive and Moon Trailway.The storm water was flooding the house,well head and supports for the propane tank.Mr.Ault and the owner/builder agreed that a diversion ditch was needed to divert the storm water away from all improvements then built on the property.Mr.Ault dug the ditch and installed an 18”diameter culvert,furnished by the owner/builder,on the lot as shown on the current as-built drawing.The new culvert discharged into the drainage ravine where the owner/builder had originally planned to place the garage.Mr.Ault said the owner/builder gave up on building the garage because of the drainage problems.Moving the house further to the east had also created fire separation problems between the two structures. Other Options I Have Considered: 1.Alter the drainage ravine to redirect storm water away from the east side of the house and build an attached garage.Pros:Meets setback requirements.Cons:Drainage may affect property owners down stream,blocks the required bedroom egress window,cutting the existing ravine banks would create new erosion problems,very expensive construction. 2.Remove west deck and build an attached garage.Pros:Meets setback requirements.Cons:Lose deck,blocks living room windows and basement exit door,expensive construction. 3.Building on north side of residence not practical because of steep grade and location of septic system. 4.Build an attached garage on south side of house.Pros.Reduces the required setback distance. Cons:Blocks the required bedroom egress window,blocks bathroom windovç approach to the garage door would be difficult,would require removing trees for the driveway approach that would make the garage more visible from the Street. 5.Other optional locations for a detached garage would all require a building setback variance and would place the garage farther from the front entry door of the residence.All the other locations would require cuffing numerous trees and extending the driveway and changing the topography. Practical Option: The proposed location for the detached garage as shown on the site plan is the most practical and reasonable option because it places the garage on the current flat parking area..It doesn’t alter the existing topography or current drainage situation thus it wont affect other property owners in this regard.It provides adequate fire separation between the two structures.No required egress windows are blocked.No existing trees are removed which will help screen the new stmcture from the road and also not cause additional erosion.The driveway will remain the same.It has no effect on Little Valley Drive or Moon Trailway.It will not affect any existing public utilities or utility easements.It is only visible from the roadway.It cannot be seen from the homes on adjoining properties and should not affect the essential character of the neighborhood.It is still 25’back from the front property line and farther from the existing roadways. The garage is designed to compliment the existing residence.It is not unusual in size or configuration. It will have the same siding,trim,roof pitch,shingles,windows and other architectural details as found on the residence.The garage will also be stained to match the house color. Please consider the comments made supporting this proposal by the Little Valley Owners’Association. Sincerely yours: Gregory E.Otis c ,y[&c.,s I (,‘a’--‘U fr&r 31i3\9 Submittal Date: /— ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION (F’ ARci E,0716 40ae>LirrtE VALL-eq t’1. Lot:ti Subd[vision:Lj]’TL VALLEY Parcel ID#24-094-O(p--oz.I Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service r Town Proposed Water Service r Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service r Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Township Name of Primary Contact Person ?P’.dc ç,p Mailing Address 24 60L0M014 P-Co 3os t—i r Application fee (see attached fee schedule)r Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code)r 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=20’)** r 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11”X 17”)r Names &mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) I”The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix BVll.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. Block: Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: Legal Description Section Tract:a t4b 1,49 AeR6 &c in-t-raa.. REs Zoning .L t1 kr Well Well r r r Other r Other EPSD EPSD Other (Specify) (Specify) r UTSD F UTSD r r None Septic Septic F Yes F No Specific variance desired (state development code section It):FRoi-lr YA,-.t,5ETxc,j.c I Town of Esfes Park -d P.O.Box 1200 -170 MacGregor Avenue .Estes Park,CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone:(970)577-3721 -Fax:(970)586-0249 -www.estesnet.com/ComDev 7 )(Apphcant F Consultant/Engineer Email Applicant F’13)O w4 Mailing Address 225+50t ,cj’4 DI.esr&FAi2-frS @ Phone (9-ioN ,9W7 Cell Phone Fax Email L w4 1ac o6’5tc4 2 MH IConsultantJEngineer 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 tee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. --All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal. r OwnerPrimaryContactPersonis Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax e 3S 97e5ss47sE TArt &JILI APPL;CANT CERTIFICATION — I hereby certily that the hfarnmti-ano whibits herewith subn’$ttecj are true anti correct to the best of my knowIodje and that in in the apptloaflon am acting with Thu RnowieOe and consent of the owners of the popefly. In ubm;ttirtg the appIioatIQn nintari&s and signing ih application agreanlent.I atknawlaoga arid agree that The ipliestlcn (S cubject to the applicable procvssn an puoflc hearing requcrernents et forth in the Eves Valley Development CodG IEVDC. 0 ckncwbdge thai have ‘Qtacwd çr have accs IG fl VDC,eric thai,pilot to tiling this appIlosttct,have had the pariunity tt colsult be re€vant previaier.s governing the processing ot and OeasiOn on the appt;eat (rho Estee ValPy Dave trent Coda is avai:lg online at pjww.tsnet.com/Cont)evfDgvCode) I u.-erstarid flat sccaptar.ce cl iis app:icaion by ti-tu Thwn of Estes Part for trç and receipt of the applicton Fee b’,’ the Town does riot n1ecssaiily mean that the application is conpIele jndcl me appIable requ rements of the EYDC. 0 unierstann that thia v&ianza request may be celayed in processir by a month or more II the inforniation wovided is npompiete.jnaccratn.or submtej &‘tt t11e deadi ‘is data 0 I uners!Snc that a resubnn t;tee wit be charged 1 -ny atç[cat or i inGtnplete. V The Community Development DepartmEnt will notily the appHcant r writinQ ot the date on whicn the apphoation is deteniried to be comaete.- 0-I grant perrnilsIon for Town of Estes park nployee and Members 0?the Soart of Atstmenl with pco*cr ioentif,cStjofl access to my cropenty during ttw review of this apilication. V acknowledge That I have received the FtI Valley Boarci &Aojintrr,lt ‘Jar anc Aji canon Snbe&jie and ti-tat failure to meet The deadi nc’s sbo’,n on said s&odule shall resoti n my plica1ion Or the apprJvs!of my apbcation beconitnç NULL and VOl I unders1ar that tf lees wilt be ctierp.d ton $ie -esubn,Iite:of an appiicalior mat has hecornenjI 3novo. 0 I understand that I &i,req-red to cbtain a vwianca h4ce’sign train iii,Cimuntty Development Department and that This sign must oe pos!ed on my property v,tere It is cfearly viatbie ‘ron,the road.I uncerstr4 that the co’nas &ny orovelty and the prpCsed b ingeruclure cornea must be ti staited.I t.ndargtatt thN the r most bepostedanchatek:ng co’npteied no later than tcn (10)bsaness days pror to the Estas Valley Scaid of Adiustrnecnhearq. I.I undetotand that the Roard of AdiusIrrent approves my roqve;t,F&7ts.01 IfI eppflcsnt to apply for a buIIulnpermitaridaon,menve cnMructi or acte.i with regard lathe variance approval WiThin one (1)year ofreceivingapprowalatth.variant,shall automatically render the dscfsmn at the QA huH and void •tEcteeValleyDevesopnentCodeSection3.G.D Record Owner tNT. Applicant L#ASEPR,fa tA’L-r ttc.4a ______ Reco OwnerL_.Appicait -‘L4 :: Rawest,i Otta/oa £d L1d9P:t 6U 01 -I’J 0N XbJ 2bning Districts Table 4-2 §4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Notes to Table 4-2: Minimum BuildinglStrUcture Property Line Setbacks 121 (4]Max._J!]J01t1.25-07 §1)-—Building Side Height Front (ft.)(ft.)Rear (ft.)(ft.)[10] [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,§71,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) 31 If private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations set forth in §7.12,Adequate Public Facilities.” [4 Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet;however,each individual townhome unit may be constmcted on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [51 All development,except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot,shall also be subject to a maximum floorarearatio(FAR)of .30 and a maximum lot coverage ol 50%.(Ord.25-07 1) [61 Zero side yard setbacks (known as “zero lot line development’)are allowed for townhome developments. [7]Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8]Single-family and duplexdevelopments shall have minimum lot areas of 1B,000si.and 27,000 sI.,respectively.(Ord 18-01 #14) (9]All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than tour 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) lstriot kax.Net 1.Density. (units/acro) Minimum Lot‘Standards EUN (Ord.26-!Zfl. a.Area (sq ft.) Wth ‘(If.) Mi 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 1 lAc.[3]100 25 25 25 30 20 25- arterials;10 15 30 20E2½Ac.[3]15-other streets 25- arterials;R 4 1AAc.60 10 15 30 20 15-other streets R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 Single-family 25- =18,000;arterials;10 10 30 20R-2 4 60 Duplex =15-other 27,000 streets 40,000, Residential 5,400 sq.60; Uses;ft/unit Lots 25-RM Max =8 and [4][8j (Ord.Greater arterials;(Ord.Mm =3 25-07 §1)than 15-other 10(6]10 30 20 [7]18-01 Senior #14)Institutional Senior 100,000 streetsInstitutionalsq.ft.:Living Uses; Max =24 Living Uses;200 ½Ac. Supp.8 4-7 Ow n e r Ti m o t h y Bl a c k El i z a b e t h Bl a n c h a r d Mi c h a e l Br y a n t Li n d i & Br u c e Ca r m i c h a e l Wi l l i a m & Ph i l i p p a Fl a h e r t y Ka t h l e e n He n r y Ho w a r d & Do n n a Ho r n Li s a An n Ka u f f m a n Ti m o t h y & He a t h e r Le p p e r t Pr i s c i l l a Lo o n s t e n Jo h n & Ba r b a r a Ma g e e Ro b e r t & Li n d a Mo a k Gr e g o r y Ot i s Sc o t t an d Ri t a Ro g e r s Sc a n l o n Ex e m p t Ch i l d r e n ’ s Tr u s t Wi n d y Dr e a m s , LL C Ma r i l y n Br a d l e y Ca t h e r i n e Ta n d y Ca r o l y n De n n e h y Tr u s t Ju d i t h & Fa b r i c i o Le D o u x Ke r n & Te r r y Ti e r n e y Mo n a & Ri c h a r d Ac k e r m a n Ve r n o n & Ma r i a n n e Oe p p i n g Le o l a Ke n n i c k e Fr a n k Ra c k e r b y Ca r o l y n Co d y Tr u s t Ad d r e s s 91 8 Ar a p a h o e Ci r P0 Bo x 23 0 1 41 8 1 Av e n i d a Ma d r i d 55 9 Ar b o r Dr 30 4 5 1 Wi n g f o o t Dr 23 0 Co e Rd 44 - 1 5 5 Oc o t i l l o Dr 27 2 2 7 Pu l l e n Av e 45 0 La k e t r o n t St 17 3 0 Mo o n Tr a i l w a y 37 4 0 Ma l l a r d Dr 39 6 0 Li t t l e Va l l e y Dr 17 1 0 Wi n d m i l l Hi l l Ln 35 8 7 Sc o t t s d a l e Ci r P0 Bo x 13 0 7 28 6 3 7 Me a d o w Gl e n Wa y W 16 7 3 Bl a c k Sq u i r r e l Dr PC Bo x 13 0 5 40 7 0 Li t t l e Va l l e y Dr 40 9 0 Li t t l e Va l l e y Dr 17 6 0 Mo o n Tr a i l w a y 20 0 0 Co u n t r y Cl u b Dr 40 2 8 Li f t le Va l l e y Rd Ci t y , St a t e , Zi p Lo u i s v i l l e . CO 80 0 2 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Cy p r e s s . CA 90 6 3 0 La f a y e t t e , CO 80 0 2 6 Ev e r g r e e n , CO 80 4 3 9 Cl a r e n d o n Hi l l s , IL 60 5 1 4 La Qu i n t a , CA 92 2 5 3 Bo n i t a Sp r i n g s , FL 34 1 3 5 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Hi g h l a n d s Ra n c h , CO 80 1 2 6 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 De S o t o , TX 75 1 1 5 Na p e r v i l l e , IL 60 5 6 4 Ly o n s , CO 80 5 4 0 Es c o n d i d o , CA 92 0 2 6 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 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Do d g e Ci t y . KS 67 8 0 1 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Ow n e r II Ot i s Va r i a n c e BO A AP O £ tL N ,7LLZa”ON A \\ ‘4; ‘\!j __\\/Ihl:Sjç_t\\çL ‘NI/7/\ N‘I t\I’\1w(.\: N rv /#4 -/1 “/—__/1 ‘I—\/ /0#4 Z r 0t A/ ‘-__-/-N/t- 2<4 / r °r N 4 4’ ji_”Ir C II 11o-fr‘IC-.-’; ,4I;6 = C I- p ‘A0 I -_Irg C I.’ N NT —1 1 0 #4 C r ‘p I 4- 4 oZlimos