Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2008-10-07F „„„, Prepared September 30. 2008 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, October 7, 2008 9:00 a.m. — Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated August 5, 2008 3. REQUESTS a. Lot 5, Block 7, Amended Windcliff Estates Subdivision, 5th Filing, 3452 Eaglecliff Circle Drive Owner: Stephen G. & Pamalah C. Tipps Applicant: Owner Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the corner of an existing residence to remain 11 feet from the southern property line in lieu of the required 25-foot setbacks in the E — Estate zoning district Staff Contact: Dave Shirk b. Lot 25, Grand Estates Subdivision, less 1090-484, 530 Grand Estates Drive Owner: Daryl & Lorraine McCown Applicant: Owner Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a deck addition to an existing residence 12 feet from the southern property line in lieu of the required 25-foot setbacks in the E-1 Estate zoning district Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott c. Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts, Address To Be Determined Owner: Archdiocese of Denver Applicant: Our Lady of the Mountains Parish Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060(13), to allow placement of an off -premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue; Section 17.66.100(c), to allow construction of a 150-square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75- square-foot sign allowed in the R-2 — Residential zoning district; and Section 17.66.110(3)b, to allow the sign to be placed within the required 8-foot setback from property lines Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott 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. Wit. AT: Man t pmm'1 +,,'m m,,k slh provl Af;fprs haw ttact ) y" ' 11 ura� o IDeoaurf L*calp HEN Tuesday, Octunber 21, 20' 0:0 WHERE: Toin IBrd IIR . mmru„ T n «st ip t .s k, 170 w Estes Park Avenue, 0 Estes Park'To��J��' � �,«�r�d Estes�,.y «Ipanniong �C��u'unm°rop�sslfi�*�Irm; Estes ,,mm Valley Valley Bo' rd f Adjustment; Estes Park Uirbrm Re u rJeal Authripty;, Estes Park T Staff; Lrimer C lunty IHIurris sioners, oardIC m ummmliisspon em mbe:rs, nnud t,aff; Grand Lake ar/Com ummmliisspembers aStaff RSVP: ,y We nes ay, Oct gilder 15, 21 0 t June Roederer (iroederer,estes.orq gar 70-577-3721). training workshop provided , y DO A has b en rescheduled T orkshop ill be held as part of the lain g Com.f/ i;s ,t,,'n ,study sess n on O. r 21, /rr ase see the allc „ ��rar, r�:a enda,. ' ase» 'SVPy t/ e date shL,/n /,you will attend, Colorado's Future DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF SMART GROWTH PLANNING 101 WORKSHOP Tuesday, October 21, 10:00 a.m. - Noon Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 170 MacGregor Avenue AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Statutory vs. Home Rule Planning Authority 3. Role of Planning Commission in Relation to the Elected Board and Staff 4. Meetings and Decision Making 5. Basic Planning Tools a. Master plan b. Implementation of plans and policies • Zoning • Subdivision • PUD • Variances and other pitfalls • Intergovernmental agreements • Annexation policies and agreements 6. Legal and Ethical Questions 7. Questions and Discussion Office of Smart Growth 1313 Sherman St. Rm. 521 Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3785 www.dola.colorado.Qov/osg iN;e' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 5, 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, and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Sager, Planner Chilcott 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 June 3, 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 PARCEL, A PORTION OF STANLEY ADDITION, located at 561 Big Thompson Avenue, Owner/Applicant: Schrader Land Co., LLLP — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow the location of a 10-foot-by-1 o-foot storage shed within one foot of the northern and eastern property lines in lieu of the 15-foot setbacks required In the CO - Commercial Outlying zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow a small storage shed to be located near the northeast comer of the "Schrader's Country Store" property. As part of an overall store and site remodel, the Board approved a variance in 2006 to allow a new canopy to be located within the front setback. The remodel also included replacing the auto repair bays with interior retail space. The applicant's need for storage space has increased as a result of the additional retail space, and the applicant proposes to use a 10- foot-by-l0-foot shed for storage. The shed will be on skids. The applicant's submitted plan shows the shed located two feet from the property lines,but staff suggests the Board consider granting a variance to allow placement of the shed within one foot of the property lines, which will give the applicant some leeway when placing the shed "in the field." In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist, Planner Shirk stated the lot is oddly shaped. The shape of the lot and the existing building and circulation pattern combine to create special circumstances. Locating the shed such that it would conform with the required setbacks would impact the circulation patterns of the site. Circulation is restricted by the location of storage tanks, pumps, a narrow drive aisle at the back of the building, and a new ADA-compliant parking space on the west side of the building, leaving the northeast comer of the property as the only viable location for the shed. This location would also result in the least impact on the neighborhood. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 5, 2008 2 The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Public Works Department, which requested additional sidewalk be installed to complete the sidewalk poured near the southeast property corner. The Light and Power Department requested a short delay to allow removal of an overhead transformer prior to adding the shed, and the Building Department had several comments regarding building code requirements. These affected agencies' comments are included as recommended conditions of approval. No comments in support or opposition to the variance request were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff's findings appear in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance with two conditions of approval, Public Comment: John Howe of Schrader Oil/Applicant stated his agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. He noted the storage shed will be used for paper products only —no food will)) be stored in the shed. Members Newsom and Levine commended Mr. Howe on how nice the remodel (looks. Member Newsom noted what an improvement the recessed lighting has made, and Member Levine noted the Town had a real interest in the remodel) because the business is a gateway property and expressed his opinion that the remodel looks wonderful. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds Parcel, a Portion of Stanley Addition, located at 561 Big Thompson Avenue, to allow the location of a 10-foot-by-l0-foot storage shed within one foot of the northern and eastern property lines, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. A surveyor's certificate shall)) be presented to the building department within one week of placement of the structure on the site. This certificate shall verify the structure is located as delineated on the approved site plan. 2. Compliance with the following memos: a. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated July 25, 2008. b. From Tracy Feagans to Dave Shirk, Bob Goehring, and Scott Zurn dated July 25, 2008. c. From Greg Sievers to Dave Shirk dated July 16, 2008. 4. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL located at 974 Rams Horn Road, Owner/Applicant: William E. Monks — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the enlargement of an existing deck and stairs to be located 38 feet from the northern property line and 15 feet from the westem property line and to allow steps to access the residence to remain adjacent to the western property line, in lieu of the 50-foot setbacks required in the RE —Rural Estate zoning district Planner Shirk stated the staff report was prepared by Planner Chilcott, who was unable to attend the meeting, and he summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow repllacement and the slight expansion of an existing deck, which is attached to a 670- square-foot cabin built in 1960. A variance is also requested to alllow recently constructed stairs leading to the cabin from the parking area to remain adjacent to the western property line. These steps were recently replaced In the same location as the previous steps, which were in disrepair. The cabin is located on a 0.63-acre parcel zoned RE —Rural Estate (a 2.5-acre zoning district). The RE —Rural Estate zoning district establishes 50-foot setbacks from all) property lines. The applicant requests to (locate the deck 38 feet from the northern property line and 15 feet from the western property line. Steps to the principal entrance of a residence are permitted to encroach into the setback provided they do not extend more than six feet into the required setback; however, the applicant's entry stairs are located adjacent to the western property line. VIy;, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 August 5, 2008 In considering whether there are special circumstances associated with the lot, Planner Shirk stated there clearly are. The applicant's lot is much smaller than the 2.5-acre minimum lot size for RE -zoned Tots and is closer to the 0.5-acre minimum lot size required in the E—Estate zoning district, which establishes 15-foot setbacks from front and rear property lines and 10-foot setbacks from side property lines. If the applicant's lot was zoned E—Estate, the proposed deck would meet the setback requirements. Also, the existing residence was built prior to the adoption of any setback requirements and encroaches into the western setback, and the existing deck encroaches into both the western and northern setbacks. Staff finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered, adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment, and the requested variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from Larimer County Building Department, Planning and Building Services Division, and Department of Health and Environment. No comments in support or opposition to the variance request were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff's findings appear in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance with three conditions of approval. Chair Lynch questioned why the applicant's property had not been zoned E—Estate. Director Joseph stated at the time of the Valley -wide rezoning in 2000, that area was within a 2.5-acre zoning district. There is a hodgepodge of lot sizes in the area, and the decision was made not to change the existing zoning and create an area of spotty zoning. Public Comment: William Monks/Applicant asked if a variance would be required for any future changes to the residence. Director Joseph noted work could be done on the east side of the residence without a variance review and approval. Mr. Monk stated he had no further questions or comments. Member Newsom complimented Mr. Monks on the recently constructed stairs. It was moved and seconded (Levine/McCreery) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds Parcel located at 974 Rams Nom Road, to allow the enlargement of an existing deck and stairs to be located 38 feet from the northern property line and 15 feet from the western property line, and to allow access steps to the residence to remain adjacent to the western property line, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. Compliance with the submitted affected agency comments. 3. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes prior to construction, shall verify compliance with the variances, and shall provide a setback certificate. The applicant shall provide a copy of this certificate to the Estes Park Community Development Department. 5. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated that approximately two years ago the Board had heard an appeal of staff's interpretation of the Estes Valley Development Code regarding a proposed accessory dwelling unit. The Board upheld staff's determination but directed staff to "fix" the Code regarding accessory dwelling units. Staff has been working on a proposal to amend the Code language and will hold a series of public outreach meetings with various organizations and homeowners' associations to receive input on changes under consideration. Staff currently plans to present a formal request for Code amendments to J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 5, 2008 4 the Planning Commission in September and/or October, with public hearings before the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners to follow. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Tipps Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: October 7, 2008 REQUEST: Variances to allow a front yard setback of 15.9 feet and side yard setbacks of 11-feet. The property received variances in 1995, and the house was built with incorrect setbacks. LOCATION: 3452 Eagle Cliff Circle Drive (Larimer County) APPLICANT: Van Horn Engineering PROPERTY OWNER: Stephen and Pamalah Tipps STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (586-9388) Parcel Number: 3410118005 Development Area: .43 acre +/- Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family dwelling Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Zoning - East: "E-1" Estate North: "E-1" Estate West: "E-1" Estate South: "E-1" Estate Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Open Space South: Single-family residential Services - Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests variances to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback of 15.9-feet and side yard setbacks of 11 feet in lieu of the 25-feet typically required for the "E-1" Rural Estate district. The previous owner received a variance in 1995 to allow a front yard setback of 45 feet from the centerline of the road (which is how setbacks were measured at the time), a north side yard setback of 10-feet, and a south side yard setback of 15-feet. 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: After the 1995 approval, the applicant's surveyor incorrectly located the house during construction, hence the variance request at this time. Staff suggests the Board view this request as a "correction" request and not as a new variance. 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: Without the variances, the house would have to be relocated. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The house was built slightly out of alignment with the originally approved variances, and is similar to other variances granted in the neighborhood. 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: The character of the neighborhood would not be affected. Page #2—Tipps Setback Request d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant purchased the property in August. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The only option other than a variance would be to remove and rebuild the house. 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. 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: 1. Special circumstances exist. A variance was granted in 1995. However, the house was incorrectly located during construction. 2. Without a variance, the house would have to be relocated. 3. The Applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through methods other than a variance. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be affected. 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. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 8. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Page #3 —Tipps Setback Request 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 front yard setback of 15.9 feet and side yard setbacks of 11-feet, as delineated on the submitted site plan. SUGGESTED MOTION: 1 move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #4 Tipps Setback Request To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 9-24-08 Re: Tipps Residence, Variance Request, 3452 Eaglecliff Circle Drive The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Application for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1.) We have no comments. UPPER IrlOWIPSON SANITATION DISTRICT P.O, Box 568 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-4544 September 26, 2008 Dave Shirk, Planner IF Town of Estes Park FAX: 970-586-0249 RE: Tipps Residence Lot 5, Block 7, Amended Windcliff Estates Subdivision, 56 Filing 3452 Eaglecliff Circle Drive Variance Request Dear Dave, Following are the District's comments in regard to the above referenced variance request. There is an existing sanitary sewer easement along the south-east property line. The proposed variance request will not negatively impact the District and, therefore, the District has no objections to the variance request. If you have any additional questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the District office. Sincerely, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District TLK: ed Cc: Van Horn Engineering, Atny Plummer Statement of Intent — Variance Request 3452 Eaglecliff Circle Drive Requested variances: Section 4.3.C.5.Table 4-2 'RE' Zoning Front Setback -Existing 25' from current property line -Approved in 1995: 15.5' from southerly property line -Requesting 11.0' from southerly property line ISCEOVE AUG 2 7 2008 The legal description of the subject property is Lot 5, Block 7, of the Amended Plat of Windcliff Estates, Fifth Subdivision and the Replat of Lot 4 V2, Webster Bighorn Subdivision. Access is directly from Eaglecliff Circle Drive. The land is zoned E —1 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 slightly less than was approved in 1995. The existing house footprint totals approximately 3,000 square feet. A recent survey revealed that when the house was constructed in 1995-1996, the footprint was slightly rotated from the proposed location shown on the siteplan and approved variance, putting the most southerly corner of the house 11.0 feet from the property line instead of the approved 15.5'. Standards for Review: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist on this lot since it is under half an acre in one acre zoning. A small, steep allowable building area necessitated request of the 1995 variance, and now the small adjustment. 2. "Practical Difficulty Factors:" a. Without the variance the homeowner remains non -compliant with building setbacks. The homeowner wishes to become legal regarding the building setbacks. b. The variance is not substantial- the request is to change the approved southerly building setback from 15.5' to 11.0'. c. This action would not substantially alter or have a major impact on the surrounding properties. No change in the existing structure is proposed. d. There will be no adverse affect to the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. e. Only after a 2008 improvement location certificate was performed by Van Horn Engineering did knowledge of the non-compliance surface. f. The only option of mitigation other than a variance is removal of the portion of the house which is closer than 15.5' to the southerly property line. This option is obviously not practical nor desirable. Much disturbance would be required to remove the portion of the house which does not comply with the 1995 variance. 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. The proposed variance proposes to approve the distance from the most southerly comer of the existing house to the southerly property line and no less. 6. The proposed variance request will not allow a use that has not previously been permitted on the property. The proposed variance will allow the applicant to continue to use this structure as it has been used since 1995 (residential single family). Submittal Date: 27-Au ar'mnw' I lio"1l0.,ralabOil -08 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION ECEOVED AUG 2 7 2008 Record Owner(s): Ste hen G. and Pamalah C. Ti Street Address of Lot: 3452 Ea lecliff Circle Dr. Legal Description Lot: 5 Block: 7 Tract: Parcel ID # ,a1WCeo l;11 o Subdivision: Amended Windcliff Estates 5th Filin 34101-18-005 Section 10 Townshi Lot Size 0.43 ACRES Zoning Estate: 1 acre min. (E1 Existing Land Use Single Family Residential Proposed Land Use Sin le Famil Residential Existing Water Service Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service fj Town r Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD F UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD I UTSD r Septic Existing Gas Service I Xcel r Other r None Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes f' No ,'yriRso�lo;',, Specific variance desired (state development code section #): EVDC Table 4-2„ Base Density and Dimensional Standards for Residential Zoning Standards- Minimum Building Setbacks 1..;" 1" 0 I" 1aI"", 01l ; 1 Il11101oII liC 1" Name of Primary Contact Person Am Plummer / Van Flom Env neerin! Mailin! Address 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, CO 80517 r Application fee (see attached fee schedule) r✓ Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') " r.--" 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Fe -Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VIl.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 -s 170 MacGregor Avenue .da Estes Park„ CO 80517 Communrly Deveiopm nt Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 sa Fax: (970) 586-0249 .ea www.estesnel.com/ComDev Contact Information Primary Contact Person is t'""" Owner r Applicant fP Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) Step hen G. and Pamalah C. Tipps Mailing Address 2113-B Kingston Street, Houston, TX 77019-6�411 mm Phone 713-229-1543 970-586-5991 Cell Phone Fax Email ste�.� t�i���sebakerbolt .com Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone 970-586-9388 Cell Phone Fax 970-586-8101 043 Fish Creek Road Email amvvhec airbits.com same as owner 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. 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). P. I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to fling 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.comlComDevlDevCode.) ► I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper Identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL_ and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmlttal 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.l understand that the comers 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 buliding permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance w 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 m e G. end Pemereb C. Applicant St p en G end Pemelah C. ter Ignatures: Record Owner Applicant Revised 10/13/08 Zoning Districts RE RM Ord. 18- 01 #14) 4 Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min =3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 Notes to Table 4-2: 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum" 'Aiding/Structure etbacks VIM 2.5 Ac. 1 Ac. [3] l 5,000 Single- family = 18,000; Duplex 27,000 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [4] [5] [8] Senior Institution- al Living Uses:'/2 Ac. 50 60 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25 25-arterials; 15-other streets 25 arterials; 15-other streets 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 & 10 30 10 [6] 10 30 20 [7] n/a Duplex = 50% [1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 202t1#1 6) [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] Town home developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual town home unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] Multi -family developments shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30. [6] Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero tot fine development") are allowed for town home developments. [7] Minimum building width requirements shall no apply to mobile homes located in a mobille home park. [8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14) [9] All structures shall be setback 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 not applicable in the "MF" district. (Ord. 11-02 §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.4 4-7 FOUND #4 REBAR HIATT SETBACK VARIANCE LOT 5, BLOCK 7, OF THE AMENDED PLAT .OF WINDCLIFF ESTATES FIFTH SUBDIVISION AND THE REPLAT OF LOT 4 1/2, WEBSTER BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 3, T4N, R73W OF THE 6th P.M.. LARIMER COUNT(, COLORADO. 25' REQUIRED] SETBACK PROPOSED LOT 4 SETBACK 90'00'00" E N 158.64' LOT 5 04) 10' UTILITY F EASEMENT ' ' ` 1 (TYPICAL) Q Z 1 1 LOT 9 o q 25' SETBACK FOUND #4 REBAR & PLASTIC CAP #4845 34.5' PROPOSED HOUSE DRAWN PROPOSED SETBACK SCALE: 1" = 40' DATE KKH 7-5-95 158.64' FOUND 1 #4 REBAR & \ PLASTIC CAP #4845 10' PROPOSED SETBACK r 1 1 r REQUIRED SETBACK 0'Ir"-------.4.\ S 90'00'0On r FOUND #4 REBAR & 6 PLASTIC CAP #4845 ROCK 25, REQUIRED OUTCROPPING SETBACK LOT 6 WILLIAIot G. 'Y HORN d VAN HORN ENGINEERING ntOtti� 1043 Fish Creek Rood — P.O. Box 456 — Estes Park, CO 80517 1" 40' Phone: (970) 586-9388 — Fox: (970) 586-8101 PROJ. NO. 95-2-15 2 ' t o k O @ 2 co E CL § w 0 I o to 2 A a c) Darling Enterprise, Inc. Houston, TX 77024 7 Hudson Circle & \ 0 0 as k w Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 Geneva, IL 60134 CD > .a) 2 e a 2 e $ f O Q R @ � ■ Esg o Ti � c Ts) la w w k 2 k co / 7 Bruce & Carmen Johnson Austin, TX 78703 901 W. 9th Street, #201 � w w cm co co / 0 x q E 0 2 a, k $ 0 $ \ W 1-11 3737 Massachusetts Avenue NW Estes Park, CO 80517 c ƒ o S ƒ w � 0 � e t ■ @ v ° '6oa)a k w k \ \ E0 William Walters Tipps-Hiatt Variance tote-99S (oze) j . me-99Y (OL6) 3NOHd L 1e08 OQPoD30O 'Nbtld 53153 r OYOtl N33tlO HS3 fi0l ONU3Aat1S ONY ONIa33NIDN3 NaOH NYA Aft 3LY0 Ocv210'IOO ' UNfl0✓ 21MIRl 1 H,LB .LarIDo nuei aaaNaJw `2, xaoza 's LO1 30NVIHVA 210,1 NS IddLIS 133 530 Grand Estates Drive Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: October 7, 2008 LOCATION: The site is located at 530 Grand Estates Drive, within the Town of Estes Park. Legal Description: A portion of Lot 25, Grand Estates subdivision. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: Daryl and Lorraine McCown STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The property owner has applied for a variance to construct a deck, which is approximately twenty-four feet wide by twelve feet long. As shown on the site plan below, the deck would located directly behind the garage, attached to the south side of the house, and would be accessed from the house via an existing sliding -glass door. Per the property owner, this deck was planned in 1977 when the house was constructed and the glass door was installed at that time; however, the deckwas never built. 25 Foot Setback Specifically, the owner requests a variance to Estes Valley Development Code Table 4-2, which establishes twenty -five-foot setbacks from all property lines in the E1eVEstate zoning district, in order to construct a deck twelve feet from the southern side property line; a thirteen -foot variance. II. SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels Parcel Number(s) Lot Size One 25301-05-025 0.38 acres 16,610 square feet per Tax Assessor records Zoning Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use SERVICES Water Sewer Fire Protection E-1—Estate Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Town of Estes Park Upper Thompson Sanitation District Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Qwest LOCATION MAP .46 • � w.. ��„maruo�lnr�r�lriti9111',I p fp Beach t n" w BVm Page #2 - 530 Grand Estates Drive Setback Variance Request ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING IIY�IJI�y�WiY '! n�h�wVtlr„Y„ o�tc itlon All adjacent lots are zoned E-1 and conµtain single familyliresidences Ia 9mnumm nIIIVI(OlhoiVNlerllul lava �ruVlV.u)L���;J�. Vll ,��� II�Y�w IIIII • 1 III. REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.0 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 and comment. The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Town Building Department See Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated September 19, 2008. Town Light and Power Department See Mike Mangelsen's memo to Bob Goehring dated September 23, 2008. Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated September 17, 2008. Page #3 530 Grand Estates Drive Setback Variance Request Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Todd Krula's letter to Alison Chilcott dated September 26, 2008. 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 do not result from the lot shape, vegetation, or topography. This lot is rectangular, has minimal vegetation, has no rock outcroppings, and is relatively flat. Also, at ninety-nine feet wide, the lot almost meets 100 ,foot minimum lot width requirements for the E-1 Estate zoning district. Special circumstances may result from the fact that at approximately 0.38 acres this lot is significantly undersized for the E-1—Estate zoning district, which has a one -acre minimum lot size for new lots. The lot is closer to the 0.5-acre minimum lot size for E—Estate-zoned lots. Setbacks in the E—Estate zoning district are ten feet, rather than twenty- five feet, from side property lines. The proposed deck, at twelve feet from the property line, would comply with the ten -foot setback in the E— Estate zoning district. Also, special circumstances may result from the fact that the existing house and garage encroach into the side -yard setbacks and that a sliding glass door was installed in 1977 to access the proposed deck. The deck will extend no further into the setback than the garage. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: Page #4 am 530 Grand Estates Drive Setback Variance Request 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 existing house could continue to be used. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the variance request is not substantial. The proposed twelve -foot setback is greater than the minimum required ten -foot setback in the E-Estate zoning district. 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. 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, and no concerns were expressed about adverse impacts to the delivery of public services. 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 the property owner reviewed Estes Valley Development Code to determine which setbacks are applicable to his/her property. Page #5 — 530 Grand Estates Drive Setback Variance Request The property owner purchased the property without knowledge of the twenty five foot setbacks. Per the Larimer County Tax Assessor records, the owner purchased the property in 1975 and built their home in 1977. In the 1970s, the minimum required side -yard setback was ten feet. It has since increased to twenty-five feet. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant cannot build their proposed deck without a variance. 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. 5. If authorized, a variance shall 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. Page #6 - 530 Grand Estates Drive Setback Variance Request 6. Under no circumstances shall 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 recommended one condition 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. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 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. Page #7 530 Grand Estates Drive Setback Variance Request MEMORANDUM To: Alison Chilcott, Planner fi From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official Date: September 19, 2008 Subject: Variance Request McCown Residence 530 Grand Estates Drive The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment application for the above -referenced property and has no comment at this time. To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 9-23-08 Re: McCown Residence, Variance Request, Lot 25 Grand Estates Sub., 530 Grand Estates Drive The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Application for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1.) We have no comments. 11 G " GORY A. ITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 September 17, 2008 ALISON CHILCOTT, PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 D SEPI9 Re: Board of Adjustment - Variance Request - McCown Residence Dear Ms. Chilcott: I have no comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Ve T y Yours, Gregory White GAW/ldr CC: Daryl & Lorraine McCown Fax: 970/577-3573 UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-4544 September 26, 2008 Alison Chiicott, Planner II Town of Estes Park FAX: 970-586-0249 RE: McCown Residence Lot 25, Grand Estates Subdivision, less 1090-484 530 Grand Estates Drive Variance Request Dear Alison, Following are the District's comments in regard to the above referenced variance request. The proposed variance request will not affect UTSD sewer main or easement and, therefore, the District has no objections to the variance request. If you have any additional questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the District office. Sincerely, A44.- Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District TLK: ed Cc: Daryl & Lorraine McCown TO: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment FROM: Daryl and Lorraine McCown DATE: August 21, 2008 RE: 530 Grand Estates Dr, Setback Variance Request Our house was built in 1977. Since then the zoning and setbacks have changed. Setbacks are now 25' as compared to 10' in 1977. We are seeking to add a small deck on the back of the house to just fill in the area between the offset of the house from the garage to the end of the garage. You will see when visiting the property that a sliding glass door is already in place to access the deck and the deck has just never been built. The house met all requirements when built in 1977. This deck will not extend beyond the current residence. The deck being located where we propose will not impede anyone's view and will only enhance the looks of the house. All adjacent property owners would have to be in their backyards in order to even see the deck. All views in this area are focused on the lake. We do not want to wrap the deck around the back of the house because then the view from our large living room windows will be blocked and it may cause us to remove the cement patio we have in the backyard. The deck also cannot be shortened to fit the 25' setback, as doing that would make it almost nonexistent. Another thought would be the safety issue of the large glass living room windows. We don't know what would happen if a person would fall against one of them. So, for these various reasons we would just like the small deck where we have it planned. We appreciate your consideration and are hoping for approval in this matter. ECEDV15 AUG 2 5 2008 J, ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: eneral Informat Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: • „', Legal Description Lot: ctQ5 Block: Subdivision: Parcel ID # w #5'-/_ Site Information Lot Size , 3 Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Pt -Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service MTown r Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD I. UTSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD UTSD Existing Gas Service r Xcel r Other 15X. None Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes v. No ECI D V lu AUG 2 20008 Specific variance desired (state development code section #'I: • Name of Primary Contact Person Mailin Address Attachments R Application fee (see attached fee schedule) R. Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) ✓ 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1 = 20') ** r" 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. Zoning 5 ✓ Septic ✓ Septic Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 .e. 170 Mac.Grgar Avenue - Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 -cf. Fax: (970) 586-0249 .a% www.estesnet.com/ComDev Contactrinformat orl Primary Contact Person is Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email AA - Consultant/Engineer Ci orK, '©ill 356.6, 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/PlanningApplliicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. TECIEDVE1 AUG 2 5 2008 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and 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 filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. 1 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) �t Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT. 3(11 k Lo k R ili f e, 1' ) Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Sn fine, Signatures: Record Own Applica ECEOVEJ 2 5 2008 AUG AU4±.1 Date D ) 4? Revised 10/13/06 Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Zoning District Net Density (units/acre) MinimumLotFvlinimum Standards [1] iit Buldng/S ructure Se_tbacks (2] pi (9.1 Max Btigon. g Height (ft.) [10] Min. Bmax uilding . Width (ft.) Max. Lot Coverage (%) Area (sq . ft) Width (ft.) Front (ft.) Side (ft.) Rear (ft.) RE-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 nla RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 n/a E-1 1 1 Ac. [3] 100 25 25 25 30 20 n/a E 2 Yz Ac. [3] 75 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 30 20 nla R 4 % Ac. 60 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 30 20 n/a R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 n/a R-2 4 Single- family = 18,000; Duplex= 27,000 60 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 10 30 20 Duplex = 50% RM Ord. 18- 01 #14) Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 40,000, 5.400 sq. ft./unit [4] [5] [8] Senior Institution- al Living Uses: 'A Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 [6] 10 30 20 [7] Multi family= 50% Notes to Table 42: [1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction In minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2 02 #f/4 6) [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] Town home developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual town home unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] Multi -family developments shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30. [6] Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for town home developments. [7] Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 stand 27,000 s.f., res. :«'vely. (Ord 18-01 #14) [9] All structures shall be setback 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 not applicable in the "MF" district. (Ord. 11-02 §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. 4 4-7 /V a t ye c k r y l M `L"o wry @ 530 G rA,id €stAtes 11,-r'v.q E stes .?,4r4t Cv/or,gdo 80S, K- 99r 6.10 Q�1 { .Lj stir' iia rea asp $tl 6,,ck Ate• Co/Act-CS DrJJB Ns. -fit 94 it o7Lsfg,j Block N/A Gj -ANE 5tNliS An; tied f /rertit i4re�t, of Prue" 4 47' ECEDVEll AUG 25 2008 J GrANd ESfRted. ]).-i•c t 5A/e i" = ao rt R P. rle a4'ire . tititiNN-tititiN-titi tinny r r r O O O O O O O O O O Osnmmm000koomo„ O ', 0 0 0 co0O o OOOom00mocooNOCvO =000000000000Oo)000 N U U U U U U U U U U U °0 O v-U U U - Y - Y Y- 0 Y Q Y Y JL (a co co as (6 cO co co (o co co co ( ) cG cG cC NO_aadaaaaaCLa to aaa Z., a) W m 0) 0) CO 0)) CO w a) a) C CO c CO CO CD W W CO CO a) CO W W CO W" CO O GO CO CO V w w w w W w w w w w w( w m w w w 0(vWWWW 0)d �G) WWW > > > > > > > > a > > > > 1:..7.` .c .c .c .` .i o ` .L c .0 Ul W 0) W W W W 0) W lB W U) (� a)Y) a) a)0) 0) .0- 0)) CDa1 lU 451 t6 c6 C r O rgrgr0 W W W W W lA W W WWCWWW W W W W W W N W W 8) W O W W W 52a a v'o-v v 0-a•a V 0-o V V , c c c c c c,tc C N L c L c c c !XO fl N 2 2 O G d' ti m c`d c`d e op C7{.'3CJoC3i3.UC. m,,,aocn o . Q 0 0 (D 00 r f- 0 1 CV '(0 M P M C) CNr) N �" N r r r Q a% u� uA cn G G a Lo w a r u) cV e1) L 4n c o 0e c W o 0 U O ca Y Q W 1) c , OOi a) c N y y •c N 0) 7 z 7 3 O H (n s— 2 1— 1- 8 c c to as m O E (0 ocm U t� Nj J C U 0.0 c 0�.� 7 N(n 0) w U❑ c c c 2 c� J> -�ccQ a) Q U a T m o lG 0) 0) (OA { c O o c` W w' E l asGCi - o O O E U c VJ Co2sod�c0.62 k`o k E c �od00 W0—. .0 06 °1U �Ois<2 dots a) W I—a)>,c g °06 r❑ N c 3 yE Ponc Em E' E(co iU cp O cd 7 O O i ) 1 w ) OHU-,T❑❑2Cczi-I_ILJ McCown Residence Variance 0 Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church Sign Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONBACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: October 7, 2008 LOCATION: Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church is located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue, within the Town of Estes Park. An off -premise sign for this church is proposed to be located on an undeveloped lot at the corner of Vista Lane and Big Thompson Avenue. An address has not been assigned to this lot, which is legally described as Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts subdivision. APPLICANT: Our Lady of the Mountains Parish PROPERTY OWNER: Archdiocese of Denver as Trustee for the Parish CONSULTANT/ENGINEER: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott (staff report preparation) and Carolyn McEndaffer (application review) APPLICABLE CODES: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC) REQUEST: Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church owns the property bounded by Big Thompson Avenue (Highway 34), Hillside Lane, and Vista Lane. This property is divided into five parcels; the "church" parcel, zoned CO — Commercial Outlying, and four R-2,,,,,,Two-Family Residential zoned parcels. The church wishes to locate a sign on the northwesternmost residential parcel, Lot 19, Block 3 of the Lake View Tracts subdivision, and is requesting variances from the Estes Valley Development Code and Estes Park Municipal Code in order to do so. The approximate sign location is shown on the aerial photo below. A roximate Location of Pro , osed Sign Specifically, the applicant requests a variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A Signs in the Town of Estes Park. This section of the Development Code requires compliance with Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66 Signs and the applicant requests variances to three sections of the Municipal Code as described below: 1. Section 17.66.060(13), to allow placement of an off -premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church; 2. Section 17.66.100(c), to allow construction of a 150-square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2—Residential zoning district. The proposed sign size is approximately ninety square feet (forty-five square feet per face); and 3. Section 17.66.110(3)b, to allow the sign to be placed within the required eight -foot setback from property lines. The proposed sign will be located two feet from the shared property line between the "church" parcel and Lot 19. Page #2 —Our Lady of the Mountains Sign Variance Request as a L 0 C) a o I Cl "CI CC Existing Land Use Religious Assembly (Catholic Church) Undeveloped with the exception of a meditation path 0n 11 a E p c,i 0000 O Square Feet 130,675 34,935 b d 920 Big Thompson Ave. (US Highway 34) To Be Determined 0 0 to. A To 3 Metes -and -Bounds parcel shown on Lake View Tracts subdivision lat Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts P. o. N7 0o F o rn WI N Town of Estes Park Estes Park Sanitation District Town of Estes Park to 3 w ea Ad'acent Land Uses and Zonin m��ri,, 5inyle Faiiiyy9a /iroiii�rpop/�i III. REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.0 and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. All applications for variances from Chapter 17.66 Signs shall also demonstrate compliance with Section 17.66.160 of the Municipal 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 and comment. The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Estes Park Building Department Carolyn McEndaffer reviews sign permits and may provide comments and additional recommended conditions of approval at a later date. Town Attorney See Greg White's email dated September 17, 2008. Estes Park Sanitation District See James Due11's letter dated September 23, 2008. Colorado Department of Transportation See Timothy Bilobran's email dated September 25, 2008. V. STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 1. Reviewing Agencies. 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. 2. Section 17.66.160(3) of the Municipal Code states, in every case in which a request for a variance from the requirements of this Chapter [17.66 Signs] has been filed, the Board shall not grant a variance unless it specifically finds each and every one of the following conditions to exist. a. There are special circumstances or conditions, such as the existence of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions must be particular to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and to not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Page #5 Our Lady of the Mountains Sign Variance Request Staff Finding: The applicant's statement of intent describes the special circumstances they believe exist. These reasons include: m The Church parcel is currently paved with parking stalls along the right-of-way property line; therefore, a suitable location for the sign cannot be attained on the Church parcel. b. The variance would be in general harmony with the purposes of this Chapter, and specifically would not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention is located. Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if this variance would be in general harmony with the purposes of Chapter 17.66 Signs. As noted in the statement on intent, the Catholic Church owns all the adjoining properties, including the one on which a sign is proposed to be located. All other properties are separated by right-of-way so the sign will not be in close proximity to any non -church -owned property. Neighbors have not submitted written comments in support or opposition to the proposed sign. Staff did receive a call from one neighbor who had questions about sign design and potential off -site lighting impacts. Sign design (materials/colors) and lighting were not addressed in the application. At staff's request the applicant has now addressed this. Lighting is now proposed with electric service provided via a service line connection to the "church" parcel. c. The variance is the minimum one necessary to permit the applicant to reasonably draw attention to this business or enterprise. Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if these are the minimum variances necessary. The setback from the right-of-way is being maintained and the requested variance to the eight -foot setback from the shared property line with the church property will allow the sign to be located as close as possibly to the "church" property without impacting the adjacent parking lot. The proposed sign location will make the sign appear to be an on -premise sign to people driving by. Page #6 —Our Lady of the Mountains Sign Variance Request 3. Section 17.66.160(d) No variance for maximum sign area on a lot or building states, other provisions of this section to the contrary notwithstanding, the Board shall not have any jurisdiction to hear, nor the authority to grant, any variance from any section of this Chapter which limits the maximum permitted sign area on a single lot or building. Staff Finding: The Town Attorney, in his letter dated September 17, 2008, stated that it is his opinion that "the Board of Adjustment may consider that the CO zoning classification applies which allows for a maximum sign of 150 square feet." He also recommends that this sign be counted against the signage permitted on the CO -zoned lot. 4. Section 17.66.160(e) states, the Board may grant a variance subject to any conditions, which it deems necessary or desirable to make the device which is permitted by the variance compatible with the purposes of this Chapter. Staff Finding: If the Board chooses to approve this variance, staff has recommended a number of conditions of approval. 5. In addition to the review standards in Section 17.66.160 of the Municipal Code, the following review standards from the Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.C. apply. a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Staff Finding: The church can continue to operate without the proposed sign. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: Staff does not find that the variance requests are 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: See Staff Report Section V.2.b on Page 6. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Page #7 —Our Lady of the Mountains Sign Variance Request Staff Finding: This application was routed to providers of public services, such as water and sewer, and no concerns were expressed about adverse impacts to the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding: Per the statement of intent, the applicant has owned this property for approximately fifty years. It is very likely that regulations have changed during this period and that the applicant did not purchase the property with knowledge of the requirements. Per the Community Development Director, the first sign code was adopted in the late 1960s/early 1970s, and these regulations have been revised over time. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant could submit an application to combine the two lots into one or to adjust the boundary line between the lots. Both applications require Town Board approval and concurrent review and approval of a rezoning application to rezone the land proposed to be combined with the "church" parcel to CO — Commercial Outlying. g. 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: Staff does not find that a regulation should be adopted to address this situation. h. 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, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. Page #8 —Our Lady of the Mountains Sign Variance Request i. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. J. Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if the variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment 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: Carolyn McEndaffer reviews sign permit applications and is the staff person most familiar with the sign code, to date she has not stated that this is a concern. k. Per EVDC §3.6.D, 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 Board of Adjustment null and void. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted application, including the proposed sign size shown on the two submitted Sign Site Plans. However, staff shall have the authority to approve minimal revisions to the signs in the future without further Board of Adjustment review. 2. This sign shall be attributed to the lot addressed 920 Big Thompson Avenue, rather than Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts, i.e., the sign shall count towards sign allowances, such as the number of allowable signs and maximum allowed sign area, at 920 Big Thompson Avenue. 3. A sign permit shall not be issued until a draft sign easement and a draft electric easement are approved by staff. 4. A recorded copy of the sign and electric easements shall be submitted to the Town within thirty days of sign installation. 5. The applicant shall obtain any required electric permits and inspections. Page #9 Our Lady of the Mountains Sign Variance Request Y A. TE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 September 17, 2008 ALISON CHILCOTT, PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 1 SEP 9 2008 SEP 9 J, Re: Variance Request - Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church Dear Ms. Chilcott: I have the following comments: 1. Section 17.66.160 (e) provides that no variance maybe granted for enlargement of the maximum sign area on a lot or building. Technically this request is for a variance of a maximum sign area of 150 square feet from the 75 square foot maximum sign area on Lot 19 which is zoned R2 Residential and may not be granted by the Board of Adjustment. However, since this is a sign for the Catholic Church property which is zoned CO, it is my opinion the Board of Adjustment may consider that the CO zoning classification applies which allows for a maximum sign of 150 square feet. 2. In granting the variance for the off -premises sign, it is my recommendation that if the variance is granted that the condition be that the 150 square foot sign be attributed to the Catholic Church lot and not count against the allowable number of signs or sign area on Lot 19. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Truly ours, Greg i A. White GAW/ldr cc: Cornerstone Engineering & Sury g, Jes Reetz Fax: 970/586-2459 Estes Park Sanitation District PO Box 722, Estes Park, CO 80517 September 23, 2008 Alison Chilcott, Planner II Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517-1200 RE: Our Lady of The Mountains Catholic Church Dear Alison Chllcott, Upon review of the Variance Request for the above mentioned properly the Estes Park Sanitation District has the following comments: 1. The District has no problem with the above request. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this review, Sincerely, elk /I James Duell District Manager IECEOVE SEP 2 4 2008 Office: 12016raves Avenue 970.586.2866 / Plant: 610 Big Thompson Ave 970.586.3516 G....• 11711 RR? A719 Alison Chilcott From: Sent: To: Subject: Alison Chilcott Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:49 PM 'Bilobran, Timothy RE: Official CDOT Comment regarding Our Lady of the Mountains Parish sign variance request Thank you for your comments! Alison Chilcott, Planner Community Development Department Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue (970) 577-3720 (phone) (970) 586-0249 (fax) achilcott@estes.org www.estesnet.com EP From: Bilobran, Timothy [mailto:Timothy,Bilobran@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:48 PM To: Alison Chilcott Cc: jreetz@ces-cc.com Subject: Official CDOT Comment regarding Our Lady of the Mountains Parish sign variance request Alison, I have reviewed the referral request submitted to me regarding the Our Lady of the Mountains Parish sign variance request. CDOT has no issues with this proposal. Specifically: EVMC 17.66.060 (13)- off -premise sign: In the vast majority of instances, off -premise signage is illegal without a state permit along State Highways. Luckily however for this case, CDOT interprets this sign as an on -premise sign. According to our Rules and Regulations pertaining to Outdoor Advertising (2 CCR 601-3), section 5, paragraph 1, sub -paragraph c: "A sign that is located within approximately 50 feet of the premises and advertises the primary activities, goods, and services available upon the premises is presumed to be an on -premise sign unless the land upon which the land upon which the sign is located is used for, or devoted to, a separate purpose unrelated to the principal activity advertised." t Slice the parcel where the sign will sit both owned by the church h and u wed tor vaI sous spiritual activ'ities as evidenced by the meditation path and shrine on the property, CDOT interprets the sign as on -premise sign under the above regulation. Please hate that in the future, if for some reason the church sells the parcel containing the sign and that property redevelops into something else such as condominiums or a commercial business, this sign wiII have to be relocated onto the church's property since the 2nd parcel will no longer have the same principal activity as the church''s property. CDOT does not permit on -premise signs, merely regulates them so there is no state permit the applicant needs to obtain. Finally, regarding the "Maximum Sign Area Permitted Per Lot" and "Minimum Setback" requirements, as long as the sign sits fully on private property, CDOT has no numerical criteria for these categories and thus no comment/issues. Please give ma call if you have any questions. Tim Bilobran Assistant Access Manager & Roadside Advertising Inspector, CDOT Region 4 Office- (970) 350-2163 Mobile, (970) 302-4022 Timothy.Bilobran@dolstate.co.us 2 C OR 1692 Big Thompson— Suite 200 1�F1d. Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-2458 Fax: (970) 586-2459 _siyouas$wrec fs„ ( PuRvenrro, FP: September 09, 2008 Mrs. Alison Chilcott Community Development Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Letter of Intent for the "Our Lady of the Mountain Catholic Church Sign Variance" Dear Alison, Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (CES) on behalf of our client Our Lady of the Mountain Parish, are pleased to submit a variance request for a proposed sign to be installed. Owners/Lien Holders The subject property is currently owned by Archdiocese of Denver, a Colorado Corporation Sole, as Trustee for the Parish, Our Lady of the Mountains. Adiacent Properties & Zoning Current zoning of the subject property is "R2" Two -Family Residential. Surrounding properties are also owned by Archdiocese of Denver and are zoned R2-Two-Family Residential with the exception of the property that holds the church to the east being zoned CO -Commercial Outlying. Project Description We are proposing to construct a new sign for the Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church on the lot directly adjacent to the Church parcel. The Church parcel is currently paved with parking stalls along the right-of-way property line; therefore a suitable location for the sign cannot be attained on the Church parcel. The sign will be a minimum distance from the Church parcel property line but will still maintain the 8-foot setback from the right-of-way. An easement will be prepared and recorded after sign installation is complete. As outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code 3.6 C.2 Standards for Review "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; b. Whether the variance is substantial; -Minimal impact to subject property, sign "outside" any building area 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; -The Catholic church owns adjoining properties with gublic right-of-way separating privately owned properties. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer -Water currently exists in the State Highway Right-of-way and a sewer main currently runs on the southern portion of the subject property e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; -The property has been owned by the Catholic Church for approximately fifty years. d. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance; -A boundary line adjustment could be performed but it is our opinion this would adversely affect the subject property with the need to have the property lines honor sign setbacks and altering the building setbacks for the subject property Requested Variances We are requesting variances to the following codes from the Estes Valley Municipal Code: EVMC 17.66.060 (13) - Off premise sign This sign will be constructed on an adjacent lot to the church that is also owned by Archdiocese of Denver, a Colorado Corporation Sole, as Trustee for the Parish, Our Lady of the Mountains EVMC 17.66.100 (c) - Maximum Sign Area Permitted per lot The code limits the square footage of a sign on a residential lot to 75 sf, our sign will be 150 sf that is allowed within a CO zoning (The Church parcel is zoned CO) EVMC 17.66.110 (3)b. Minimum Setback We are proposing to construct the sign within the 8-foot setback from the common property line between the two lots owned by Archdiocese of Denver, a Colorado Corporation Sole, as Trustee for the Parish, Our Lady of the Mountains. The setback from the State Highway Right-of-way will still be maintained. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Senior Draftsman ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: General Information Record Owner(s): 4n,.! .'do�R ary✓er Gor,,c�ti Street Address of Lot: cl .LD -rho „ o,_ Legal Description Lot: / 9 Block: Subdivision: AA_ . cot/ 'TTac Parcel ID # a5193 -0.; - i' 6 Section 1 Township S/(! Ran s e W Tract: -- Site Information Lot Size O. 3o * f}c_ Zoning :Ra- Res de , Existing Land Use V: r1- Proposed Land Use �4-6 rt - tirii1 Existing Water Service 6z Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service r Town f Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service IR Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) EPSD r EPSD r Other Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes Variance ✓ UTSD r Septic ✓ UTSD 1- Septic ✓ None Specific variance desired (state development code section # : PM . (. 0 OC''9O Pre r � EPMG 17 66.,.. - are .0+ EP/I C. 17. 66, l'10 (3 - Pro, ' (1-- tba Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person e5 IRee-1- Mailin t Address /6fQ 14. tw Sr rt,. ;e. Manic enis ✓ 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') ** ✓ 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 4. P.O. Box 1200. 170 MacGregor Avenue -a Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 5864249 -es www.estesnet.com/ComDev r� ark /p„f��y„ 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. i SEP 1 1 2008 SEP 1 2008 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. O. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, 1 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. l 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.) 1111!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 understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a 'Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed 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 of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT Lest', ,`I 1.1 je ( Co Applicant PLEASE PRINT. Q) LA1,Y d f W l,oi 4 TA-1 s pit �( ( Signatures: Record Owner Applicant E CIS iteAl Revised 10/1 W Signs § 8.1 Compliance with Town and County Sign Codes CHAPTER 8. SIGNS § 8.1 COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN AND COUNTY SIGN C S A. Signs in the Town of Estes Park. All signs in the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the Estes Park Sign Code, set forth in Chapter 17.66 of the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. • • B. Signs in Larimer County. All signs in unincorporated Larimer County shall comply with the Larimer County Sign Code, set forth in §8.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended from time to time. 8-1 Zoning (17) Signs commonly associated with, and limited to information and directions related to the permitted use on the lot on which the sign is located, provided that each such sign does not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square inches in total area. (This cate- gory shall be interpreted to include such signs as "no smoking," "rest room," "no solicitors," "self-service" and similar informational signs.) (18) Signs which identify items such as credit cards, menus or prices; limited to one (1) such sign for each use, not to exceed four (4) square feet per face or eight (8) square feet in total area. Such signs may be attached to the building, as projecting or wall signs, or included as an integral part of a freestanding sign. (19) Regulatory signs erected on private property, such as "no trespassing" signs, which do not exceed two (2) square feet per face or four (4) square feet in total surface area, limited to four (4) such signs per use or per building. (20) Text or copy changes on signs specifically designed to permit changes of the text or copy thereof; (21) A sign, which does not exceed six (6) square feet per face or twelve (12) square feet in total surface area; limited to six (6) feet in height and limited to one (1) such sign per lot and which does not propose, concern, reflect or promote a commercial purpose. (22) Vending machine signs, provided that such signs are limited to the product being vended, (Ord. 11-76 §2(part), 1976; Ord. 36-76 §1, 1976; Ord. 17-80 §1, 1980; Ord. 21-82 §1(A), (B) and (C), 1982; Ord. 1- 87 §1, 1987; Ord. 6-87 §1, 1987; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 17-02 §1(part), 2002) Section 17.66.050 17.66.060 Prohibited signs. The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained in the Town: 17-29 (1) Signs with visible moving, revolv- ing or rotating parts or visible mechanical movement of any description or other appar- ent visible movement achieved by electrical, electronic or mechanical means, except for time -temperature -date signs, traditional bar- ber poles, and gauges and dials which may be animated to the extent necessary to display correct measurement; (2) Signs with optical illusion of move- ment by means of a design which presents a pattern capable of reversible perspective, giv- ing the illusion of motion or changing of copy; (3) Signs with lights or illuminations which flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity, vary in color or use intermittent electrical pulsations; (4) Strings of fight bulbs used in connection with commercial premises for commercial purposes, other than traditional holiday decorations except as provided in Subsection 17.66.050(9); (5) Wind signs and banners; (6) Signs which incorporate projected images, emit any sound which is intended to attract attention or involve the use of live animals; (7) Any sign which is installed or erected in or projects into or over any public right-of-way, except in the case of a sign for which a permit has been issued in confor- mance with the requirements of this Chapter; Supp. 9 Zoning Section 17.66.060 (8) Signs not permanently affixed or attached to the ground or to a permanent structure, (for example, banners, sandwich boards and handheld signs). Temporary real estate signs attached to posts driven into the ground and temporary safety barriers arc excepted. (9) Any sign or sign structure which: a. Is structurally unsafe, or b. Constitutes a hazard to safety or health by reason of inadequate mainte- nance or dilapidation, or c. Is capable of causing electrical shocks to persons likely to come in con- tact with it; (10) Any sign or sign structure which: a. Obstructs the view of, may be con- fused with or purports to be an official traffic sign, signal or device or any other official sign, or b. Creates an unsafe distraction for motor vehicle operators, or c. Obstructs the view of motor vehicle operators entering a public roadway from any parking area, service drive, private driveway, alley or other thoroughfare; (11) Any sign which obstructs free ingress to or egress from a required door, window, fire escape or other required exit way; (12) Roof signs, except as specifically permitted by Section 17.66.110; Supp. 9 (0 3) Oft -premises advertising signs. (14) Signs not pertinent and or not clearly related to the permitted use on the property where located, except for temporary political signs, as permitted and regulated by Section 17.66.070, and except for signs permitted under the provisions of Section 17.66.130. (15) Except as provided in Subsection 17.66.050(8), any sign having direct illumination, including but not limited to visible neon tubing. (Ord. 17-02 §1(part), 2002) 17.66.070 Temporary signs. Temporary signs in all zoning districts shall be subject to the following specific require- ments: 17-30 (1) Construction signs. Signs advertis- ing subdivision, development, construction or other improvements of a property shall be permitted in any zoning district and shall comply with the following: a. Such signs shall be limited to free- standing, wall or window signs, shall not exceed thirty-six (36) square feet in total area nor eighteen (18) square feet per face, and shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height. No riders or attachments to such signs shall be permitted. For residential developments consisting of five (5) dwelling units or less, the maximum area permitted for a construction sign shall be three (3) square feet per face for each dwelling unit being constructed. Zoning Section 17.66.090 (3) The maximum size for a subdivision identification sign shall be thirty-six (36) square feet (or eighteen [18] feet per face). (4) The signs shall only contain the name of the subdivision and not a pictorial representation of the subdivision. (Ord. 11- 76 §2(part), 1976; Ord. 25-76 §§2, 6, 1976; Ord. 17-80 §2, 1980; Ord. 21-82 §1(1) and (3), 1982; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 17-02 §1(part), 2002) 17.66.100 District sign regulations. (a) Use districts (zoning districts). The use districts, as set forth in this Title and amend- ments hereto, shall apply to this Chapter. The boundaries of these districts shall be determined by reference to the zoning map of the Estes Valley, to this title and amendments hereto and to sections on interpretation of such maps as may be contained in this Title and amendments hereto. (b) Establishment of district regulations. The type of signs permitted and the regulation of the number, placement, area and use of signs is established. No sign shall be erected except as provided in this Chapter and in the district in which it is permitted, nor shall any sign be used for any purpose or in any manner except as allowed by the regulations for the district in which such sign is proposed or maintained. (c) Schedule of requirements. The follow- ing schedule of "class of sign permitted," "type of sign permitted," "maximum sign area permit- ted per lot," "maximum area per sign face," "maximum number of signs permitted" and "maximum height of freestanding signs" regula- tions for the various zoning districts is adopted. (d) Total allowable sign area. The total area of all signs on a lot, or, in the case of a permitted use or uses occupying two (2) or more adjacent lots, the total area of all signs on all such adjacent lots shall not exceed one and one- half (1.5) square feet per lineal foot of building frontage at ground level, and three-quarters (0 75) square foot per lineal foot of second story building frontage. In no event, however, shall the cumulative total allowable sign area exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per business. 17-33 Supp. 9 Zoning Section 17.66.100 Scheduk of Requirements For all Nonresidential Zoning Districts (A, A-1, CD, CO, CH, O, 1-I) Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum Sign Area Maximum Area Per Maximum No. Maximum Permitted Permitted Permitted Per Business Sign Face of Signs Height of Permitted Signs All in Subsection All in Subsection 150 sf for freestanding Suspended: 5 sf Freestanding: 2 25 ft 17.66.040(26), except 17.66.040(26)except per Lot subdivisions j & s subdivision i 15 sf for projecting Time -temp. 10 sf Residential Multi -family (RM, R-27 Class of ign Type of Sign Maximum Sign Area Maximum Area Per Maximum No, Maximum Permitted Permitted Permitted Per Lot Sign Face of Signs Height of Permitted Signs 10 sf for suspended (5 per face) 1.5 sf per If of frontage (150 sf max.) for wall signs Temporary Temporary Temporary 12 ft Construction: 36 sf Construction 18 sf Construction„ 1 per street All in Subsection 17.66.040(26), except subdivisions h, j, m, s &t All in Subsection 17.66.040(26) except subdivisions g, i, & q 75 sf for freestanding t � 15 sf for projecting 10 sfforsuspended (5 per face) 1,5 sf per If of frontage for wall signs (max. 150 sf) Suspended: 5 sf Freestanding: I 25 ft per Lot For all Single-family Residential Zoning Districts Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum Sign Area Maximum Area Per Maximum No. Maximum Permitted Permitted Permitted Per Lot Sign Face of Signs Height of Permitted Signs All in Subsection All in Subsection 4 sf - identification only 17.66.040(26), except 17.66.040(26) except (Sec.17.66.050) subdivisions h, j, m, s subdivisions a, g, i & &t All sign; 2 sf 1 per building 6 ft (Ord. 11-76 §2 (part), 1976; Ord. 25-76 §3, 1976; Ord. 8-81 §1, 1981; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 17-02 §1(part), 2002) Supp. 11 Zoning 17.66.110 Sign regulations in nonresidential zones. The following regulations shall apply to all uses in nonresidential zoning districts. (1) Total allowable sign area. a. The total area of all signs on any face of a building shall not exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet per lineal foot of building frontage at ground level, and three-quarters (0.75) square foot per lineal foot of second story building frontage. b. The maximum allowable total cumulative sign area for any one (1) business shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (2) Signs or uses with multiple frontage. The total area of all signs on any face of a building shall not exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet per lineal foot of building frontage at ground level, and three-quarters (0.75) square foot per lineal foot of second story building frontage. (3) Freestanding signs; a. Maximum height: twenty-five (25) feet. b. Minimum setback: eight (8) feet from any property line, four (4) feet from any building. c. Number: One (1) freestanding sign per street frontage, not to exceed two (2) per lot. d. Maximum area: No freestanding sign shall be larger than one hundred fifty (150) square feet. 17-35 Section 17.66.110 The combined total of all freestanding signs on an individual property or single lot shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (4) Signs on canopies, awnings and architectural projections. a. Maximum area: The total area of such signs shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the width of the projection multiplied by the vertical height of the projection. b. Projection: 1. The face of any such sign shall not project above or below the face of the canopy, awning or architectural projection. Signs may project horizon- tally beyond the face of a canopy or architectural projection the distance necessary to accommodate the thick- ness of the letters, but no more than twelve (12) inches. 2. Signs displayed on architectural projections which extend fifteen (15) inches or less from the face of a build- ing may be considered wall signs, and are subject to those provisions. (5) Projecting signs: a. Minimum setback: four (4) feet from street property line in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District, or eight (8) feet from property lines in all other zoning districts, and no closer to a sideline of the building or storefront than to the centerline of the same building or storefront. b. Minimum clearance: Nine (9) feet from the ground to the bottom edge of the sign. Supp. 9 M co co ohA Ahh A cvm AhN A�I�hI�A AAAp AAhhhhh h h O O- 0 0 0 0 M m 0 m m O 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 t, O O O O O O O N O MMc02rWMM(00000 0c003 MOWMMWOOOWM WWWWMMOMW 20000Oo0000000W0'do000N000000M000 00000000ao0 P0000W0000000Va00O J0000000000 oaop0000000 DU N y- UO-•g'gUOiO C•O�Y L C—."-CYYYYY43 OYY C0 1.LCYYY�CY W,.L H c0 R R "o ro ro ro V R 'O C ro ro_ ro ro R as ro 0 R U m 0 ro 2 0 ro ro N id m 0 ro z c0 yLL.aa N �aaa ca e0 o ro ?aa`O�aaaaaa aaa c aaaaaaa nsa X N N > N N N - N— 0 b— N N O CO 0) N V) tlJ CO N N N 6) Q N 0 N N U) CO rya N•C CO - O i O N in t O) d O N O O O d y (4 O N U U N (q (ii m j, (il O m N Z U U N N V) vi N E (il UfAWWJ❑WWW( JW—iW>jOWWLL.UWWWWWWJW WWW0WWWWWWWOW m co co t0 w z N N M r m Ea G> 0 m N 7 7 7 >, .o 7C MC C c c V N N c > U 9 > o Q N N > N N > N > m c c Q •_ ? O c i N Q G vJ Q L Ain c �� y ro m13 0 � ? co.UU'c > m a)U > ; ? m m •c >, N N a uci g N— R N N p p 4 W N tE as a Q O C a R N •c 3 N m Cv0 CM9 Q c O V N .c O 00 V c O' R E E -8 .�- O CA O J O E❑ R❑❑ (A ow c � h r a 0 t o OU 3 M •E 0N .c -i0 0 col N (z'N2 m ._,..,,_c o � w� oY1aj o o�vVi a'�JJQ ppUQ Q'3 �'Z � R � G rno % 7OCL.OM c'MYM . iinmmMCMMWO M000CAOmOr NfnmTtSaa(immpaUpmacn>000C/)og 1,O hMo AMCIMOON �1-N >OoMNCOMM O N ohuoo OCI Qra�Nr-ddLo,---IiomIon,-Nlt a.NNmulmmacomaaoTI ilk QoOMMI•Mvtwmda m a v J J E Q N a e x �i r E m (6 N m.- p c C O1 m J e d m R N — ro — v c U4 M C ❑ ; c E. N N J 0 - m Q 0 m ( CC c43 g o N 2 a f o c o c = -a O -8 a o = �i U Q N 7 i N m I0 O R x . O N ` O �' N N m u 7 m N i0 ofx U w @ m m v R t C c o EO mw °Q c ro ~ N 2) wa�.o aN w EO .�¢Q . U' C'3 ro N .E a -co , n:: a `° fin Q J> c R m W. c R E O N J Y J N o _ 2 ?'-i>+Rc OcO2 N� (99 mr R 7UU°.`1N U c7,� `m H ro C m 'G N U R (3 of C N a N J 7 o N N j Z N _I o. N ' 2- ..E . E c2 c rn c RN. • ce' NL E 2 c S 2 r d . gaf (n2,Q'� Z'ro— c N N R^ c E-,r c E R 0 ,, - N .Y Qy.=�� a 1'mY _ �e0�tf =��a 2 Ray �m o E ; F'-�tn�"(0 F .0 o e =m Nm Em'ay c m c RH=— N .$n=._ N zasay•,s o R` 82 ��mZ Na NafW aQ uaS rZ y2 �xZO� JJ(jW j°iSsLaJ c ay _ of ay J W GI 2 O— C R N J m N O U N U ❑ p C Y= Jj J C J a C C» O m C i J J ay O J N 3m20 EEE0md00C )omo=o.eRma,a0U moe m0ymx 00m❑2QY U1 RJx❑❑❑-,ww2a0Emmz2mw0E5z❑m20ii-, 7c .000m0- Our Lady of Mtns Catholic Church Sign Variance gas