The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2009-12-01Prepared: November 23, 2009 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, December 1, 2009 9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated September 1, 2009 3. REQUESTS a. Metes and Bounds property located at 2025 Moraine Avenue Owner: Stonewood Properties, LLC Applicant: Don Chasen Request: Variance from EVDC Section 7.5.F.2.b(3), which requires a 25' landscape buffer from the property line. Request to allow portions of a driveway to be placed within the Landscape Buffer. Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. REPORTS 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2010 Chair — County Representative Vice -Chair — Town Representative Recording Secretary 6. 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. Hoopyollompea '"")o b:oo Piese P. 13), Decernbernli to Thon3.1.11.3,011. call (9700 577-3'71':2"11,, 11111111 Landscape Buffer Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 monummouso Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586.0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: December 1, 2009 REQUEST: A request to allow an access drive to be located within the required 25-foot arterial landscaping buffer zone. LOCATION: 2025 Moraine Avenue, within unincorporated Larimer County (the site is just west of Dallman Drive) APPLICANT: Don Chasen PROPERTY OWNER: Stonewood Properties LLC STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: 1111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Joe Coop), 586-9388 Parcel Number: 3534400024 Number of Lots: One Proposed Land Use: Multi -family accommodations Adjacent Zoning- Development Area: 2.55 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations East: "A" Accommodations West: "A-1" Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single-family West: Single-family Services - North: "A" Accommodations South: "A" Accommodations North: Multi -family accommodations South: Accommodations (Glacier Lodge) Water: Town Sewer: UTSD tl Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant, Don Chasen, requests a variance to Section 7.5.F.2b(6) "No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow driveway access to be located within twelve feet of the property line, within the mandated 25-foot arterial landscaping buffer zone. The purpose of this variance request is to develop this property with nine residential/accommodation units, for which the property is zoned ("A" Accommodations). This same variance request was before the Board on October 2, 2007, under a different property owner/applicant; that variance was approved unanimously, with the following condition: District -buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial -street standards. Minutes from the 2007 meeting are attached. The area of the variance request is shown within the red oval: lialouvol111111111, Page #2—Chasen Variance Request ff REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6.0 "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: Staff suggests the following special circumstances exist: • Topography (steep drop from the road). • Narrow lot (considering river and arterial road setbacks). 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 is currently undeveloped and could be designed to meet all setbacks. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment whether the variance is substantial; Staff suggests it is not. Page #3—Chasen Variance Request 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 Comment: This request would place the interior drive closer to the road, thus allowing more land area for buildings. Therefore, Staff recommends additional landscaping be planted to mitigate this. Staff recommends using the "district buffer" landscape requirement instead of the "arterial street" standard. District buffers require eight evergreen trees and eleven shrubs per one hundred feet of frontage. Arterial buffers require four trees and ten shrubs per one hundred feet of frontage. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant purchased the property in October 2008, with knowledge of the requirement. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The property is currently undeveloped and could be designed to meet all setbacks. 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 whether the variation affords the least deviation. 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. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: Page —Chasen Variance Request 1. Special circumstances exist, as outlined in the staff report. 2. The property may be developed without the variance. 3. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4. This request would place the interior drive closer to the road, thus allowing more land area for buildings. Therefore, Staff recommends additional landscaping be planted to mitigate this. Staff recommends using the "district buffer" landscape requirement instead of the "arterial street" standard. 5. The Board should use their best judgment whether the requested variance is substantial; Staff suggests it is not. 6. The Board should use their judgment whether the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 7. The applicant purchased the property in October 2008, with knowledge of the requirement. 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, and would provide greater area for the necessary septic system without disturbing the aspen stand. 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 this 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 this 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 Section 7.5.F.2b(6) "No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow driveway access to be located within ten feet of the property line, within the mandated 25-foot arterial landscaping buffer zone CONDITIONAL TO: a. District Buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial street standards. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and condition recommended by staff. Page #5—Chasen Variance Request RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2007 Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Altemate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Newsom; Members Levine, Lynch, and Sager; Altemate Member Grant Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Dill Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. He welcomed Planner Chilcott back from maternity leave and congratulated her on the birth of baby Kathryn. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the September 11, 2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2025 MORAINE AVENUE, Applicants: Steve Eck & Steve Williams — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.5.F.2.b(6) to allow portions of a driveway to be placed within the required arterial -street landscape buffer at a distance of 11.5 feet from the property line in lieu of the required 25-foot buffer Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow portions of an access drive to be located within the required 25-foot arterial setback/landscape buffer zone. The property is zoned A —Accommodations and is currently undeveloped. The applicant contemplates future development of nine units on the site, which would require a development plan. However, this variance hearing in no way constitutes review of a development proposal, nor would approval of the variance imply approval of any future development plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2007 2 The applicant's intent to preserve significant trees if the property is developed as contemplated, including a 24-inch-diameter ponderosa, pushes portions of the access drive into the setback. Planning staff suggests that the required setback should be further reduced to allow the interior driveway to be twelve feet wide rather than ten feet wide and recommends approval of the requested variance with the requirement that district -buffer landscaping standards apply. This would provide approximately twice the amount of landscaping as that required to meet arterial -street landscaping standards and would require installation of evergreens rather than deciduous trees. Staff recommends this district -buffer landscaping be planted along approximately two-thirds of the highway frontage. Correspondence opposing this variance request was received from neighboring property owners Dave Ranglos of Glacier Lodge, 2166 Highway 66, and Cheryl Wagner, 1986 Dal!man Drive, #5. A letter was also received from applicant Steve Eck. Public Comment: Zach HansonNan Hom Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicants. Board members did not have any questions for Mr. Hanson. Dave Ranglos/2166 Highway 66 stated he is the owner of two adjacent parcels located across the river from the applicant's property. He reviewed the information provided in his letter opposing the variance request. He stated the applicant could build fewer or smaller units to comply with required setbacks. He expressed concern about driveway -spacing requirements and the effect the applicant's proposed access may have on an existing easement across the subject property that provides access to his property. His concerns also included a possible retaining wall and fill that may be placed on the site with future development, impacts on the direction of the river flow, previous evidence of river water flowing through the middle of the lot during peak runoff periods, substantial and detrimental changes to the character of the neighborhood, disruption of the tranquility of the river corridor, possible detrimental effect on his rental business, and lack of appropriate transition between the valley and the national park as required by the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Newsom stated the Board is only reviewing a request to decrease the required setback from the road for a future driveway. Planner Shirk stated a letter received from Traci Downs of Larimer County Engineering indicates the county has no concerns with this variance request. The applicant's submitted plans show the ingress/egress point to be approximately 300 feet from Mr. Ranglos' easement, which is greater than the 250-foot separation required. If a development plan for nine units is submitted in the future, it will be reviewed at the staff level; eleven or more units must be proposed in order for a development plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Steve Eck/applicant stated the placement of the driveway access was designed to accommodate Mr. Ranglos' easement and is 340 feet away. River water will not be diverted onto Mr. Ranglos' property. He is proposing nine residences; Mr. Ranglos' property includes 36 rental units. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 2, 2007 3 Cheryl Wagner/1986 Dal!man Drive expressed dismay that neighbors have so little say in development proposals. She urged the Board to consider the impacts of the future residences and retaining wall to the environment and area wildlife. She expressed concern about density and increases in traffic and noise. Chair Newsom pointed out that the subject property is zoned for this type of development; if the applicant's proposal meets zoning guidelines it can not be disapproved. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds property located at 2025 Moraine Avenue, to allow portions of a driveway to be placed within the required arterial landscape buffer at a distance of 10 feet from the property line in lieu of the required 25-foot buffer, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. District -buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial -street standards. 4. LOT 2, GOOD SAMARITAN SUBDIVISION, 2000 PTARMIGAN TRAIL, Applicant: Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E to allow a steeple structure and cross to extend 12 feet above the maximum slope -adjusted height limit of 32 feet, 9 inches Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request by the Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church for a twelve -foot variance to the maximum slope -adjusted height limit of 32.75 feet in order to construct and install a 45.25-foot steeple and aluminum cross. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 1.9.E establishes the maximum height limit but excepts residential chimneys and telecommunications facilities, with some limitations. In considering whether special circumstances exist, the Board should consider that a steeple is typically an integral part of a church. There is no practical difficulty with this site; a structure could be built to comply with the height limit. Building plans submitted with a Special Review for this property, which was approved in 2002, showed a church building and cross structure that complied with the height limit; the plans have since been redesigned. The Board must consider the protections offered by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Planning staff suggests that if the impact of the steeple structure and cross would be similar to that of a chimney or telecommunications facility, the Board should consider the variance request. A letter of objection was received from the North End Property Owners' Association stating approval of the variance will have significant impact on the neighborhood even if the cross is not lit and is not shiny. In response to questions from Board members Levine, Grant, and Sager, Planner Chilcott stated the building meets the height limit; only the steeple structure and cross will exceed the height limit. The applicant's architect has indicated the cross will not be lit. The Page 1 of 3 Dave Shirk From: Greg White [greg@gawhite,com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 6:59 PM To: Karen Thompson; Jacqueline Halburnt; Bob Goehring; Jeff Boles; Reuben Bergsten; Traci Shambo; gartonta@larimer.org Cc: Bob Joseph; Dave Shirk; Alison Chilcott Subject: Re: Affected Agencies - Referral for Comment from Town of Estes Park Dave Shirk I have reviewed the variance request for the following and have no comments. Variance Request Stonewood Properties, LLC Metes and Bounds parcel) located at 2025 Moraine Avenue Greg White ---- Original Message ----- From: Karen Thompson To: grreg •awhile mil! is g,eline Haiblurnl ; ob Goehting ; ,e „ ,Ales ; Ber4 tQL1 ; TM9i Shambo ; artonta@larimer.orq Cc: blosepil,@'estes,.orq ; ,Dave Shia; ; Alison Chillcott Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 9:51 AM Subject: Affected Agencies - Referral for Comment from Town of Estes Park TO: All Affected Agencies FROM: Dave Shirk, Planner II 970-577-3729, dshirkh'estes.org, Fax: 970-586-0249 SUBJECT: Variance Request Stonewood Properties, LLC Metes & Bounds parcel located at 2025 Moraine Avenue DATE: November 6, 2009 REFERRAL FOR COMMENT An application for the above -referenced property has been submitted by Don Chasen, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on December 1, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Room of the Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. You are welcome to attend this meeting. Documentation can be reviewed by accessing the following links: Stonewood 2025 Statement Staff Report t. Properties,, LLC Variance Moraine Avenue 1211108 �� i II wr % ,AoticaUorl , i Comments available 11/24/00 If you need a paper copy of a certain document(s), please email me at dshirkKotg and one will be 11/9/2009 Page 1 of 3 Dave Shirk From: Traci Shambo [tshambo@larimer.org] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:38 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Fwd: Affected Agencies - Referral for Comment from Town of Estes Park Dave - I have no issues with this request. Thank you - Traci Traci Shambo, PE Larimer County Engineering Department 200 West Oak Street, Suite 3000 PO Box 1190 Fort Collins CO 80522-1190 (970) 498-5701 »> "Karen Thompson" <kthompson@estes.org> 11/6/2009 9:51 AM »> TO: All Affected Agencies FROM: Dave Shirk, Planner II 970-577-3729, dshirk@estes.org Fax: 970-586-0249 SUBJECT: Variance Request Stonewood Properties, LLC Metes & Bounds parcel located at 2025 Moraine Avenue DATE: November 6, 2009 REFERRAL FOR COMMENT An application for the above -referenced property has been submitted by Don Chasen, and will be 11/9/2009 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Stan Griep (sgriep@Iarimer.org] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:13 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Fwd: Affected Agencies - Referral for Comment from Town of Estes Park Attachments: Fwd: Affected Agencies - Referral for Comment from Town of Estes Park Hi Dave, I have no comments on this one, except that permits are required for construction. It appears that there is plenty of room to property line (11.5 ft.) so as not to require fire rated wall assemblies based on that distance. Paperless reviews! We have taken a jump into the future here. :o) Stan Stan V. Griep Lead/Commercial Plans Examiner Larimer County Building Department Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 voice: (970) 498-7714 email: sgriep@larimer.org This transmission, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information in this message, including any reliance thereon by you or any other third person, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy this message in both electronic and any hard copy formats. 11 112/2009 Inter -Office Memorandum To: Bob Goehring From: Jeff Boles Date: 11/10/2009 Re: Variance Request, Stonewood Properties, LLC Metes & Bounds parcel located at 2025 Moraine Avenue After review of the Variance Request the Water Department has the following comments: There are no additional comments regarding the Variance Request. The comments previously listed in Development Plan Reviews 07-07 and 08-05 remain in effect for water service to this property. Statement of Intent - Variance Rippling River Development - 2025 Moraine Avenue Variance Request: This variance request is for the renewal of a variance approved in 2007 (compliant with section 3.6 of the Estes Valley Development Code) Requested variances: Section 7.5.F.2.b.(3) Arterial Landscape Buffer -Existing: 25' property line -Requesting: 11.5' from County Required property line The property located in a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West is currently a vacant parcel of land with street frontage on U.S. Highway 66 (Spur 66) also known as Moraine Avenue. The Road has been transferred from the State to the County and the County Codes are to be used for the future development of this property. The land is zoned A - Accommodations under the current Estes Valley Development Code. 1. Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist Narrowness The lot lies between Moraine Avenue (Spur 66) and the Big Thompson River the maximum width of the lot is 190' and the average width of the lot is approximately 135'. Trying to place an effective development with the code required setbacks would limit the area for a two lane road, a driveway, and dwelling units to 45'-110' with a majority of the lot having less than 60' to accommodate these required items. With a two lane road being a minimum of 22' wide, a driveway a minimum depth of 20' (to accommodate parking) and a dwelling of about 40' it would require at minimum an 82' wide buildable portion of the lot. With a majority of the lot 20' narrower than this, special consideration should be taken to provide for a buildable situation. Also the site drops off from the road at a rapid rate and has abundant vegetation near the road which would allow the drive to be tucked close to the property line so the view from the road would be less impacted. Common to other areas - This is not common to most parcels in the area however it is common to the neighboring lot to the north. The neighboring lot to the north was recently developed and was granted 0' lot line setback to the State Highway (code specifies 25' setback, section 4 table 4-5, to an arterial street, see arterial street definition 13.3.228) and also was determined to have 30' setbacks to the river by section 7.6.E.2(b). Nullify the intent of the Code - By granting the variance to allow small portions of the driveway to be placed within the Landscape Buffer the overall site will be less disturbed. 2. "Practical Difficulty" a. Whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance? The property is zoned A -Accommodations and has the potential for many units. Without the proposed variance, the property would not be functional to meet the driveway and parking standards of the E.V.D.C. due to the narrowness of the property. b. Whether the variance is substantial? The variance is not substantial, relative to other approved variances in the area. The neighboring property was granted a 0' Landscape Buffer on a portion of their lot for a driveway in 2004. This request is to be 11.5' away from County required property line (which would be 21.5' away from the original property line) in comparison the proposed driveways on this lot will be 21.5' further away from the road than a portion of the neighbors to the north. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or neighbors would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance? There would not be a substantially altering or a major impact on the surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are zoned A - Accommodation as well the neighboring property to the north, which is a more dense development with a greater impact on its site. The proposed development will be in character with recent developments in the area. d. Whether the variance would affect the delivery of public services? There will be no adverse affect to the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. There currently exists a sewer main that runs along the eastern portion of the property. The proposed development will be extending the water main from the north onto their property and installing fire hydrants which will have a positive impact on the surrounding properties. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement? The original applicant was not aware of the County requirement for the road dedication (when the development process started) as the road was originally owned by the State of Colorado. The current owner/applicant did purchase the property knowing this variance was in place. The neighboring property to the north was granted a variance to build on a lot that is similar in character. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some other method? There is no other easy alternative to this lot shape predicament. Even if this parcel went through the county process to appeal the right-of-way dedication there would still need to be a variance for the development of this parcel. 3. The variance requested is not general or recurrent in nature, the situation is site specific. Given the special circumstances associated with the request and the topography and vegetation on the site this is a unique request. 4. The granting of this variance will not cause an increase in density or create the ability to create new lots. 5. The proposed variance will be the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief and allow the applicant to use the property as the development code intends. 6. The proposed variance request will not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of the E.V.D.C. for its zoning district. The applicant would like to develop the property with condominiums which is allowed in the A- accommodations zoning district. 7. In granting such variances, the applicant realizes the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Additional information: 1. Additional trees and shrubs will be planted to shield the driveway (variance feature) from sight. 2. The variance is to allow small portions of the driveways within the landscape buffer. The buffer extends further into the property due to the County required road dedication. 3. The property was originally shown on the FEMA maps to be almost entirely out of the flood plain, however in the process of trying to develop this property it was found that there was an error in the FEMA mapping. This error was corrected through the FEMA LOMR process. The result of this is that a significant portion of the lot is now within the flood plain. An application has been approved by FEMA to place fill on a portion of the lot to bring it out of the flood plain and provide for a buildable area on the lot. The amount of fill proposed is to accommodate the site layout and is considerably less than could be placed based on the FEMA mapping. Fill has been imported and erosion control measures are in place to protect sedimentation transport. Ik Submittal Date: 10/ 27/2009 lil?'IP General Information II ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION OCT 7 ZCp9 OC T 2 7 2009 Record Owner(s): Stonewood Properties LLC. Street Address of Lot: 2025 Moraine Avenue Legal Description Lot: Subdivision: Block: Tract: Parcel ID # 3534400024 Section 35 Township 5N Range 73W III Site Information li jl; Primary Contact Information Lot Size 2.55 Acres Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service r Town Proposed Water Service down 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? Variance Zoning A Vacant Accomodations! Residential ✓ Well r Other (Specify) r Well r Other (Specify) ✓ EPSD UTSD r EPSD 1K0UTSD ✓ Other Prrone N/A ✓ Septic ✓ Septic Yes la4 No Specific variance desired (state development code section #): 7.5.F.2.b.(3) Name of Primary Contact Person Joe Coop- Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, CO 80517 u4� Attachments pC Application fee (see attached fee schedule) M' 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') ** 'rC 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) ** The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park .. P.O. Box 1200 -9. 170 MacGregor Avenue .1. Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 -. Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estesnet.com/ComDev Contact Information Primary Contact Person is r Owner r Applicant Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) Stonewood Properties LLC Mailing Address 2220 Governors Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone (561)-676-9310 Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Don Chasen Mailing Address 2220 Governors Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone (561)-676-9310 CeII Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc. Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone (970)-586-9388 Cell Phone Fax (970)-586-8101 Email vhe(a4airbits.com 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 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. SINCtv,, .60b f oPe, -Tet. gLiztpluAi -nbAuzsr Liatrart.r- C- APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). I. 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. 1 understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. I. I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. I. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. I. 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 full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure comers must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. ► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) ames: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Applicant PLEASE PRINT.. gnatures: ` I Record Owner eJ'b agb .� �i L[.G Date s4 i.,7/ ®�' Applicant A r 1�-t Date / 0/z7 /Jf 0 7111 Revised 10/13/06 Minimum Land Area per Accommodation or Zoning I Residential Unit District ` I "[sq. .ft per;unit); A A-1 CD Accommodation Unit =1,800 [1]; Residential Units: SF = 9,000; 2-Family = 6,750; MF = 5,400 Zoning Districts y 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Building/ Structure Setbacks [4] (8] Minimum Lot Size [7] Area Width [so ft) [ft,) 40,000 [2] 100 [3] Front Side Rear (ft-) (ft.) (ft.) Arterial = 25 [5]; All other 15 [6] 10 [6] streets = 15 Arterial = 25 [5]; 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] All other 15 streets = 15 Accommodation Units Only = 1,800; SF & 2-Family (stand-alone) _ 9,000; Dwelling Units (1st Floor) 1 unit per 2,250 square feet of gross land area Dwelling Units (2nd Floor) No minimum gross land area per unit (Ord. 15-03 #3) CO n/a Accommo- dation uses = 20,000 All other uses = n/a Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commercial Recreation/ Entertain- ment = 40,000 [2] All other lots = 15,000 [2] SF & 2-Family (stand- alone) = 25; MF (stand- alone) = 100; All other uses = nla Mini- mum = 8 Maxi- mum = 16 Fronting Arterial arterials = = 25 [5]; 200; All other All other streets lots = 50 =15 If lot abuts a residential property 10; All other cases = 0 15 [6] 10 If lot abuts a residential property = 10; Ail other cases = 0 Max. Bldg Height (ft-) (93 Max. FAR Max. Lot Cover- age (° ) 30 N/A 50 30 30 15 [6] 30 .20 30 2.0 .25 n/a 65 Supp. 5 4-21 Zoning Districts Zoning District 0 CH 1-1 Minimum Land Area per Accommo- Minimum Lot Size [7] dation or Residential Unit Width (sq. ft. per unit) (f-) Residential Units (2nd Floor) 1 unit 2,250 sq. ft. GFA of principal use. n/a Area (sq ft) 15,000 [21 6,000 [2] 4.4 onresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Max. Front Side Rear (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) = 25 [5]; All other 15[6] 15[61 0 [6] 0 [6] u25[5j; All other 10 [6] Arterial streets al Fronting Arterials = 200; All other Tots = 50 -15 50 15 Fronting Arteri 15,000 Arterials = n/a [2] 200; All other streets lots = 50 [ = 15 (Ord. 2-02 #6; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 15-03 #3) NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: 10 [6] Building Max. Lot Height Max. Coverage (ft.) [9] FAR (%u) 30 .25 50 30 .50 80 For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that have, full kitchen facilities, the minimum land area requirement per guest unit shall be 5,400 square feet. See also"§5.1.P below. 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." For Tots greater than 2 acres, minimum tot width shall be 200 feet. See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from streamlriver corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in §7.5 of this Code. Setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary. See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 #6) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is applicabile only in the "A-1" district. (Ord. 11-02 §1) 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 or development parcel. 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 or established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code and all other applicable ordinances are met. Supp. 5 4-22 n I--O N i•r.r. i. i•Qr•=nnNn NE: r.8 r r r r C9 r r r Q r r r r O gi r 0 r N N• OooCOON opo,ca.000OOOn,jj000Dapv0c' ,o CO CO CO N CO O (DCO 0 CO t CO CO CO CO r 0 O O CO Q N 1- CO O aOOOcOOaoO<O 2000OcDr�°OO2oro01W NOOOU U co(a-O 3000O N OU c,,c°SUa3—I Clr cLa L tLo OV Z L .= 1.cc; F— L N cLd (LD F- O Q y L w Or Z �` • QU rn 0aaa CCL CO O tva o0-°aaaara c cCL d ci dCL da y N y,a) as �O ,2 a) E t 0 m W U to (n to N O a O Q V) N }' L • 0 a) E N N co= co O E N w to O co co m co .r a O to _c Y E in O a UW W WJWJOWOWOW W W WLLLLZLLWO<QW(3m W Z ai L • CC aN8ZC°wn > J =ocococDcoc°u9.+ 16 U Lp�.6 asasrEoya moU°Umoccg,�•$EC�w 33313wra)�°)w3ElmO• ° f ZIlL0L)LLaiOcram• cD�oramd (Jrn6t0rDI ...=r�.1L1U3v2lga ===zu}zW<X,w222aw¢ o=mow▪ co NrCOCO cDCDmrcDcONLOCO rUcO EOcoCOQ -•rcOI•IDNNNod1-NCDalNIV NCO OCC0 lAh[OC7Ol}MrO) iooN 1- 1- (ON rNNN NrN d d rL.0 c/o Wells Fargo Bank N lC Kimberly Cavanagh Glacier Lodge, LP 'O E y a) o L n�I w co = co 2 co = a .r tC v roo CC 0 U >., c to s7 _ g> .L-. V 7 Q) J.0 N N VN L .�Dc 0 o L V F- MI W U Lw coH O c0 N N a, rn N= Y J' J c j n c C N Ur Z 7+ co OI Y w G cc 2 .0 O N C) O Q a v 5 L a 2 O°6'g2 ca°tSrE c T,E2 Gat 5,1 o c�06 coo a) d ECIc cwcii°5 cr iitm `—° N 0. •E- E°ts� =ots°6 CY O `) vt t ai cp N= CD tg„ U a, j aw= wLL t-0 c 8 O •- O O 2 O «. O To cd N o. .— L O O es ccULL2F---2mC!?co(LCi>�CC0-irnc 0 H-)EC Benjamin & Donna MacTavish Stonewood Properties Variance ri V e) co 0 ui RE n c 3 000, - Pt ao 0 Ig r, r tcy �gIr Rippling River Condos 66 Spur Street Estes Park, Colorado 80517 rig®■ WWI OEM MIME e g li 7^ r WI Rippling River Condos 66 Spur Street Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1 Ip I IZIO l# uoisJaA Z# uoisJaA rarararararsa 0 4 arm.. F 0 0 A Rippling River Condos 66 Spur Street Estes Park, Colorado 80517 0151.,1 .E2e4.2I '9S '9e'O3S ,3O i'/T 3S 3HS dO NOLL2IOd S3,LVIS3 213AIH ONPIddIH Nv'Id "ILLR ` aNv'I "(WHO a IdiIaoN 3H5 es (o<s7 vd , escb-?.. 9 103 rNVd 53iS3 a 'ON rnai� rsij�cro� 9NIA3MflSONV ONIN33NI0N3 N IOH NVA ,,w>a\�u E.