Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2008-12-02Prepared:November 24,200H Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday,December 2,2008 9:00 a.m.—Board Room,Town Hall 1.PUBLIC COMMENT 2.CONSENT a.Approval of minutes dated October 7,2008 3.REQUESTS a.Metes and Bounds,1575 FaIl River Road Owner/Applicant:John Moynihan Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.4.Table 4-5 to allow construction of a roof over a proposed deck approximately 5 feet away from the southern property line,in lieu of the required 25-foot setback in the A-Accommodations Zoning District Staff Contact:Alison Chilcott b.Metes and Bounds,350 Joel Estes Drive Owner/Applicant:Richard K.&Joyce A.Harvey Request:Variance from EVDC Section 4.3,Table 4-2,to allow construction of a proposed garage 23 feet from the southern propery line in lieu of the required 50-foot setback in the RE -Rural Estate Zoning District Staff Contact:Dave Shirk 4.REPORTS 5.ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2009 Chair —Town Representative Vice-Chair —County Representative Recording Secretary 6.ADJOURNMENT Note:The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 7,2008,9:00 am. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair John Lynch,Members Chuck Levine,Bob McCreery,Wayne Newsom,and Al Sager;Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending:Chair Lynch;Members Levine,McCreery,Newsom,and Sager Also Attending:Director Joseph,Planner Shirk,Planner Chilcott,Recording Secretary Roederer,and Recording Secretary Trainee Karen Thompson Absent:None Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1.PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2.CONSENT AGENDA a.Approval of the minutes of the August 5,2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery)to approve the minutes aspresented,and the motion passed unanimously. 3.LOT 5,BLOCK 7,AMENDED WINDCLIFF ESTATES SUBDIVISION,5TH FILING,3452 Eaglecliff Circle Drive,Owner/Applicant:Stephen G.and Pamalah C.Tipps — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3,Table 4-2,to allow the corners of an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the eastern property line and 11 feet from the northern and southern property lines in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1—Estate zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report.This is a request for a variance to allow an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the front property line and 11 feet from the side property lines.A variance for this property was requested and processed by Larimer County in 1995;the request was approved to allow the proposed residence to encroach into the setbacks.The residence was built according to the proposed footprint;however,it was rotated slighting during construction,resulting in a greater encroachment than was approved.New purchasers of the residence discovered this tact when a survey was conducted recently.Staff considers the current variance request a corrective variance.The property is zoned E-1—Estate,which is a one-acre zoning district with 25-foot minimum setbacks.The applicant’s lot is approximately 0.5 acre in size and is undersized for the zoning district.The residence has existed since 1995 with no concerns expressed by neighboring property owners or utility providers.In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist,Planner Shirk stated the house was incorrectly located during construction,and without a variance,the house would have to be relocated. 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.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 without conditions.Planner Shirk noted that current practices require an engineer’s certificate at the footing and foundation inspection to ensure compliance with setback requirements prior to pouring of footings or foundation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 7,2008 Public Comment: Amy Plummer/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant.She stated the drawing prepared by Van Horn Engineerfng in 1995 was a part of the original variance request,not a setback certificate.Planner Shirk acknowledged this,as the drawing was dated July 5,1995 and the variance was not approved until August 1995. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine)to approve the request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3.Table 4-2,to allow the corner of an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the eastern property line and ii feet from the northern and southern property lines,with the staff findings,and the motion passed unanimously. 4.LOT 25,GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION,LESS 1090-484,530 Grand Estates Drive Owner/Applicant:Daryl and Lorraine McCown —Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3,Table 4-2,to allow a deck addition to anexistingresidence12feetfromthesouthernpropertylineinlieuoftherequired25- foot setbacks in the E—1 Estate zoning district Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report.This is a request to allow a 244oot-by-12- foot deck addition to an existing residence.A sliding glass door was installed when the home was constructed in 1977 to access the area where the deck is proposed.The applicants have owned the residence since the time it was constructed and have always planned a deck in this location. In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist on the lot and whether practical difficulty would result from strict compliance with Code standards,Planner Chilcott noted the proposed deck would be located 12 feet from the southern property line and would not encroach into the setback any farther than the existing garage.Special circumstances do not result from the lot shape,vegetation,or topography,and the lot nearly complies with the required minimum lot width.The applicant’s lot is zoned E-1— Estate,which is a one-acre zoning district.Therefore,special circumstances may result from the applicant’s lot size,which,at 0.38 acre,is significantly undersized for the zoning district.The lot size more closely complies with the minimum lot size required in the E—Estate zoning district,which provides for a minimum lot size of 3.5 acre with requiredsetbacksof10feet.The proposed deck would comply with a 10-foot setback.Based on this,planning staff finds that the requested variance for a 12-foot setback is not substantial.The existing character of the neighborhood would not be altered.The applicant did not purchase the property with knowledge of the setback requirement—at the time the residence was constructed,the side-yard setbacks for the lot were 10 feet. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment.No significant issues orconcernswereexpressedbyreviewingstaffrelativetocodecomplianceortotheprovision of public services.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,and staff recommends that any approval of the requested variance be conditioned on compliance with the submitted application. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager)to approve the variance request to allow a deck addition to an existing residence 12 feet from the southern property line,with the findings and conditions recommended by staff,and the motion passedunanimously. CONDITIONS: 1.Compliance with the submitted application. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 7,2008 5.LOT 19,BLOCK 3,LAKE VIEW TRACTS,Address To Be Determined,Owner: Archdiocese of Denver,Applicant:Our Lady of the Mountains Parish —Request for 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 17.66.1t0(3)b,to allow the sign to be placed within the required 8-foot setback from property lines Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report.This is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A,specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66060(13),to allow placement of an off-premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church.The church is located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue.The sign is proposed to be placed two feet from the northeast corner of Lot 19,Block 3,Lake View Tracts subdivision,The applicant also requests variance from Section 17.66.100(c)to allow construction of a 150-square4oot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2—Two-Family Residential zoning district,and variance from Section 17.66.1 10(3)b to allow the sign to be placed two feet from the eastern property line of Lot 19,Block 3,Lake View Tracts,in lieu of the required eight400t setback from property lines. The required setback from the property line adjacent to the Highway 34 right-of-way would be maintained. The Estes Park Municipal Code outlines findings that must be made in order for the Board to approve the requested variances.The applicant’s statement of intent describes the special circumstances they believe exist—specifically,the church parcel contains a paved parking area that extends to the property line and into the road rightof-way.Due to the existing development on the lot,the applicant states a suitable location for the sign is not available on that lot.In considering whether the requested variances would be in general harmony with the Municipal Code or would be injurious to the neighborhood,the applicant states it owns the adjoining properties,including the property on which the sign would be located,and the closest residences are located across Highway 34 or across Vista Lane. No written comments were received from neighboring property owners in support or opposition to the variance requests.Planning staff received a phone inquiry regarding proposed materials for the sign,whether the sign would be lit,and what impact the proposed sign would have on the view from their residence.Planner Chilcott noted that the sign is proposed to be lit;the lighting must comply with the Estes Valley Development Code and Building Codes.The sign is proposed to be a monument sign approximately six feet tall;it would be raised above existing grade by approximately two feet.It is proposed to be buff sandstone with black lettering.Planning staff does not believe the proposed sign would be injurious to the neighborhood. Planner Chilcott stated the Board should use its best judgment in considering whether the requested variances are the minimum necessary to draw attention to the church.The proposed setback from the shared property line with the church would allow the sign to be located as close to the pa4dng lot on the church lot as possible;it would not be easy to discern the sign is an off-premise sign.Town Attorney White provided comments indicating that it would be reasonable to apply the CO—Commercial Outlying zoning district sign standards to the proposed sign.The lot on which the church is located is zoned CC; the lot on which the proposed sign would be located is zoned R-2.The proposed sign would meet the size limit provided for the CO zoning district but exceeds the maximum allowed square footage for the R-2 zoning district.If the Board chooses to apply size standards set forth for the CO district,it would be reasonable to require that the sign be counted against the signage permitted on the CO zoned lot. Discussion followed regarding the proposed sign size,as the applicant’s statement of intent indicates the sign would be (50 square feet and Planner Chilcott estimated the sign would be approximately 90 square feet on each side.Sign Code Officer McEndatfer clarified that each face of the proposed sign is 84 square feet;however,because each sign face is separated by less than 24 inches,only one side of the sign is counted toward the total square footage allowance.She also noted that the sign code would allow RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estee Valley Board of Adjustment 4 October 7,2008 installation of an additional free-standing sign on the church lot,provided the total square footage of the signs did not exceed 150 square feet. Planner Chilcott went on to state the church has owned the property for approximately 50 years,and prior to adoption of a Town sign code.In considering whether the applicant’s predicament could be mitigated through another method,the applicant could apply for a boundary line adjustment to move the property line of the church lot such that it would .- encompass the area where the sign is proposed.Per comments received from the Colorado Department of Transportation,if the church were to sell the fl-2-zoned lot in the future,CDOT would consider the sign an off-premise sign and CDOT regulations would require removal of the sign,regardless of any variance approval from the Board of Adjustment. Planner Chilcott amended recommended condition of approval #1 such that compliance with the submitted site plan (rather than site plans,as shown in the staff report)is required.She also added recommended condition of approval #6 as shown below. Planning staff’s findings appear in the staff report.Staff recommends approval of the requested variances with six conditions of approval. Member Newsom noted that if the proposed location for the sign was moved onto the asphalt parking area,a variance to allow an oft-premise sign would not be needed. Planner Chilcott stated moving the proposed sign location could impact traffic circulation in the parking lot;also,the amount of provided parking provided for the church may just meet minimum parking requirements. Public Comment Jes ReetzJCornerstone Engineering was present to represent the applicant.He stated parking for the church can be an issue,particularly in summer.Placement of the sign in the current parking lot could require removal of some parking spaces and/or recently installed landscaping.The church owns the adjacent property where the sign is proposed and would like to use the property for that purpose.The church had considered a boundary line adjustment to accommodate the proposed sign but did not want to reduce the size of the R-2-zoned lot.Member Sager questioned the purpose of having a two- sided sign when one side of the sign would be facing the church rather than the road.Mr. Reetz stated the sign is proposed as per the applicant’s wishes. Virginia Almquist/Neighboring Property Owner expressed concern about the potential for a second sign to be placed on the church property,stating she did not want views from their property on Hillside Lane to be impacted by a future sign.She stated she would vigorously oppose a second sign on the property.Sign Code Officer McEndaffer noted the applicant could apply for a sign permit for a second sign.lithe sign met the Code requirements, there would be no further public review;the sign would be approved.Chair Lynch and Director Joseph stated Ms.Almquists’concerns are premature and are not part of the current variance requests being considered by the Board. Board and Staff Discussion: Member Newsom reiterated his opinion the proposed sign should be located on the church lot where a variance would not be required.Member Sager noted the proposed location for the sign is past the church for those traveling on Hi9hway 34 from east to west.He reiterated his concern that the side of the sign lacing the church would serve no purpose and stated his belief the applicant had not given careful consideration to the placement of the sign,given its intended use.Discussion followed regarding whether the Board should grant leeway in placement of the sign such that it could be visible from either direction along the highway.Planner Chilcott stated a specific location had been proposed for the sign;change of this location would require further review by the Board.Director Joseph agreed,noting the variance request should not be a moving target.Member McCreery stated his support for approving the variance as proposed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5October7,2008 It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Sager)to approve the variance request for Lot 19,Block 3,Lake ViewTracts,to allow placement of an off-premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue,to allow construction of a 150-square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2—Residentiai zoning district,and to allow the sign to beplacedwithintherequired8-foot setback from property lines,with the findings andconditionsrecommendedbystaffandasamendedbyPlannerChilcott,and the -motion PASSED. Those voting in FAVOR:Levine,Lynch,McCreery,Sager Those voting AGAINST:Newsom CONDITIONS: 1.Compliance with the submitted application,including the proposed sign size shown on the submitted Sign Site Plan.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. 6.Compliance with the comments from CDOT dated September 25,2008.This includes the requirement if the church sells the parcel containing the sign,and the property develops,the sign will be relocated onto the church’s property since the second parcel will no longer have the same principal activity as the church’s property. 7.REPORTS None. There being no further business,Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:58 a.m. John Lynch,Chair Julie Roederer,Recording Secretary 1575 FaIl River Road (Highway 34) Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Town FlaIl,170 MacGregor Avenue POBox 1200 Estes Park,CO 805 17 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING:December 2,2008 LOCATION:The site is located at 1575 FaIl River Road (Highway 34), within the Town of Estes Park.Legal Description:Metes and Bounds. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS:John Moynihan STAFF CONTACT:Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The property owner requests a variance to Estes Valley Development Code Table 4-5,which establishes a twenty-five-foot setback from arterial streets in the A—Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning district,in order to construct a roof over a proposed deck 4’6”feet from the southern front property line;a 20’6”variance. This property is approximately 0.76 acres in size and contains two single- family residential structures.The eastemmost structure has been converted to retail use per Laritner County Tax Assessor records. The property used to contain three single-family residential structures.The westernmost structure was destroyed by fire on Saturday,October 20,2007. Demolition Permit #D017-08 was issued by the Building Department on September 23,2008 and this residence has been removed.Below are photos of the burned residence. The property owner is building a new single-family residence in the same location as the old residence.The old residence was located six feet from the front property line and was non-conforming as to the front-yard setback. Per EVDC §6.6 Damage to or Destruction of a Nonconforming Structure or Structure Containing a Nonconforming Use,nonconforming structures can be rebuilt (without Board of Adjustment approval)if work begins within one year from the calamity and is completed within three years. Staff approved Building Permit #8664 on October 31,2008 for construction of the new residence.The proposed house is similar in design to the old house;however,some design improvements have been made such as Page #2 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request eliminating the negative roof pitch.Construction of the proposed house, which is 1,727 square feet in size and does not have a garage,has not begun. The property owner may be waiting until the Board of Adjustment hears this variance request to begin construction.Below is a comparison of the old and new side elevation. The property owner would like to make further design improvements to the house,i.e.,they would like to add a roof over the porch.This design change requires Board of Adjustment approvai.Below is a comparison of the proposed side elevation with and without the roof over the porch. WITh POC lO©F NORTHEAST ELEVATION FINISH DETAILS -w t LUJ __ AS fEZ IL,2AZ%AL (Ctt k,E Ci’gi womcuii Pccl=a rocw NORTHEAST ELEVATION FINISH DETAILS Page #3 —1575 Fall River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request The addition of a roof over the porch will: 1.Move the house closer to the front property line.The cave will extend 1’ 6”beyond the porch,changing the front-yard setback from six feet to 4’ 6”:and 2.Increase the pitch of the roof thereby increasing the height of the building by eleven inches,changing the height from 25’10”to 26”9.” II.SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels One Parcel Number(s)35233-00-009 Lot Size 0.76 acres 33,119 square feet per Tax Assessor records Zoning A—Accommodations/Highway Corridor Existing Land Use Single-family residential and retail per Tax Assessor records Proposed Land Use A single-family residence will be added to the property SERVICES Water Town of Estes Park Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Qwest LOCATION MAPS WITH ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING Page #4 —1575 Fall River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request Page #5 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request ( III.REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.C and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff-level review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. IV.REFERRAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and neighboring property owners for consideration and comment.The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Town Park Building Department See Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 17.2008. Town Public Works and Utilities Departments See Tracy Feagens’ memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 21 2008. Town 12,2008. Attorney See Greg White’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated November Town Fire Department See Derek Rosenquist’s email to Alison Chilcott dated November 10,2008. Page #6 —1575 FaN River Road (US 34)—Setback variance Request Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Todd Krula’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated November 14,2008. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)See Gloria Hice Idler’s note dated November 11,2008 on the All Affected Agencies memo. V.STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g.,exceptional topographic conditions,narrowness,shallowness or the shape of the property)that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards,provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards,this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. Special circumstances may result from the triangular shape of the lot, from the fact that at approximately 0.76 acres this lot is undersized for the A—Accommodations/High way Corridor zoning district,which has a 40,000-square-foot minimum lot size for new lots,and/or from the fact that the lot is steeply sloped and has many rock outcroppings. 2.In determining “practical difficulty,”the BOA shall consider the following factors: a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Staff Finding:Staff finds there can be a beneficial use of the property without the requested variance.The house could be rebuilt as approved with Building Permit #8664 without a roof over the porch. Page #7—1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request b.Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding:If approved the variance will reduce the setback from the front-property line from six feet to 4’6.”The Board should use their best judgment to determine if this variance is substantial. c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, Staff Finding:Staff finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered and that adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment.The roof over the porch could improve the look of the residence from the arterial street. Staff has not received any letters in support or opposition to the request,and adjoining property owners have not stated that they will suffer a substantial detriment. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding:This application was routed to providers of public services,such as water and sewer. Significant safety concerns were expressed by the Light and Power Department due to the proximity of three-phase primary electric power with high voltages.On October 26,2008,the applicant’s consultant wiLl meet on-site with the Light and Power Department to discuss how to resolve this problem. Gloria Rice-Idler stated in her note on the All Affected Agency memo that projected right-of-way is seventy-five feet from the highway centerline,but that CDOT would defer to the Town.The Public Works Director has not expressed any concerns about the impact of this variance request on projected right-of-way.Right-of- way in this area may be constrained by steep slopes on the north side of US 34 and by Fall River on the south side. Page #8 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding:This standard addresses whether or not the Code requirements changed during current property owners’ownership of the property.For example,did the property owner purchase the property prior to adoption of the required setbacks? This standard is not intended to address whether or not the property owner reviewed Estes Valley Development Code to determine which setbacks are applicable to his/her property. The property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the twenty-five-foot setback.Per the Larimer County Tax Assessor records,the owner purchased the property in 1998.At that time the property was zoned E-Estate with a twenty-five-foot minimum required setback from arterial streets. f.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding:The applicant could shift the house further back on the lot.This is likely to require further grading as it is a steeply sloped lot with rock outcroppings. 3.No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding:The Board should use their best judgment to determine if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the applicant’s property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 4.No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision,pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding:The variance would not reduce the size of the lot. Page #9 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback variance Request 5.If authorized,a variance 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. 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 a number of conditions of approval. 8.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff,referred to in Section IV of this staff report,are incorporated as staff findings. 9.Code Compliance The Board should be aware that staff believes there are ongoing code violations on this property.Staff believes that the property owner is manufacturing and assembling log furniture on site.This is an industrial use,which is not permitted in the A—Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning district (see the Community Development Director’s June 27,2008 letter to John Moynihan addressing this use.) The Board may choose to continue this application until this violation has been corrected.Below are photos of the property taken on Monday November 24,2008 showing outside storage related to this business. Page #10 —1575 Fall River Road (US 34)—Setback variance Request Page #1!—1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request One option would he to require that: 1.Logs and plywood not be stored outside; 2.No more than three cords of firewood be stored for personal use. The amount of wood and location of storage could be discussed further with the applicant.This firewood is appears to be a by product of the wood-furniture manufacturing operation. The dumpster could be relocated to a code compliant location and screened once construction of the house is complete. VI.STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Board chooses to continue this application to the next regularly scheduled meeting,staff recommends that it be conditioned on: 1.Removal of logs and plywood from the outside of the property. 2.Removal of all but three cords of firewood.Firewood shall be neatly stacked to the side of the building to aid in screening from the street. If the Board chooses to recommend APPROVAL of the requested variances,staff recommends that it be approved CONDITIONAL TO: 1.Compliance with the submitted application. 2.Compliance with the affected agency comments.This may require the applicant to relocate or bury the three-phase primarily electric line. 3.A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms.After the footings are set,and prior to pouring the foundation,the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 4.This variance does not extend the three-year time frame,required per EVDC §6.6,during which construction of the house must be complete, i.e.,Certificate of Occupancy issued. 5.Any dumpsters on site shall be located in a code-compliant location and screened as required by code prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Page #12 —1575 FaIl River Road (US 34)—Setback Variance Request r Town of Estes Park I _____ Department of Building Safety MEMORANDUM To:Alison Chilcott,Planner II From:Will Birchfield,Chief Building Official Date:November 17,2008 Subject:Variance Request Moynihan Residence 1575 Fall River Road The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application for Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for the above-referenced property and offers the following comments: 1.Please see letter from Community Development Director Bob Joseph dated June 27,2008 regarding an ongoing violation. c’. Estespa,k,Co.80511 ©kft hk June 27,2008 Mr.John Moynihan 1575 FaIl River Road Estes Park Colorado 80517 Dear Mr.Moynihan: I have reviewed the attached documents and I find that the non-conforming commercial use at 1575 Fall River Road is legally grandfathered as of the date of this letter.As a non-conforming use thecontinuationofthiscommercialuseissubjecttotherelevantprovisionsoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode,in particular Chapter 6.Nonconforming uses,structures and lots. Please take note that the use of this property to manufacture and assemble log furniture constitutes aviolationoftheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(see Chapter 5,home occupations;and Chapter Four,Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning Districts).Nothing in this letter should be construed to condoneorallowthisviolation. Sincerely, Bob Joseph Community Development Director E S T E S P A R K COLORADO Memo Room 100,Town Hall P.O.Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 To: From: Date: Re: Alison Chilcott,Bob Goehring,and Scott Zurn Tracy Feagans November 21,2008 Moynihan Residence Variance Request,1575 FaIl River Road Background: The Public Works and Utilities Departments have enclosed progress comments regarding the submittals received to date and remain general as the submittals are not complete and construction drawings for the public improvements have not been submitted.It is important to note that these Departments reserve the right to make additional comments and revise comments as more detail is provided in the subsequent submittals and development plans. Engineering: After review of the variance request the Engineering Department has no comments. Light &Power: We object to the requested variance for the following reasons,the deck is already against the existing power pole with is our main line three phase primary pole.This particular pole has at the top high voltages of 7200/12470 and is extremely dangerous,proper clearances must be maintained.We have safety concerns that must be addressed. Water: After review of the Variance Request the Water Department has no comments. •Page 1 ‘7 North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland,Colorado 80538 GREGORY A.WHITE Attorney at Law 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 Re:Board of Adjustment —Vanance Request —Moynihain Residence D Ms.Chicuit: I have no comment. If you have mv ques6ons.please CC:Michl1e Acers do not hesitate to g:vc mc a Jail. (ii Noventher 12.2008 ALISON (IIILCOfl,PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT iO’Y’’,OF STES PAR} flf-’i-i .—‘:S5 II.)1)yA.I_u ESTES PARK,CD 80517 V White Fax:970/577-0755 r Alison Chilcoti From:Derek Rosenquist Sent:Monday,November 10,2008 10:36 AM To:Alison Chilcoti Subject:Moynihan Residence variance request Allison, The Fire Department has no comments for the variance request for the Moynihan Residence at 1575 Fall River Rd. Derek Rosenquist Training Captain Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department 970-577-3690 1 November 14,2008 Alison Chilcott,Planner II Town of Estes Park PU Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 Re:Variance Request Moynihan Residence Metes &Bounds property located at 1575 Fall River Road Dear Alison, The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1.The District has no objection to the proposed variance request. If you have any questions or need further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, Todd Krula 1JL Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District —-. ___ /-êP D DISTRICT1’ L) -P.O.Box 568 Estes Park,Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 (970)586-1049 Fax cc:Michelle Acers (( V Town of Estes Park Board of Adjustments Re:Variance Request for 1575 Fall River Rd. Joim Moynihan Family Residence October20,2008 -LETTER OF INTENT Our home burned down a year ago and we are now undertaking the process of rebuilding it.We would like to request a very small variance for our proposed new residence. Our construction plan has been approved only to rebuild the house in its exact original footprint and location,and we are complying with that.We are also wanting it to be both a more practical plan and more aesthetically pleasing to the curbside corridor.The home will be covered in log siding with the use of log posts and railings for a pleasing Mountain design. We have already been approved for a better and more sensible Architectural Plan,which includes a much nicer roof line than was existing originally,but are hoping to add one small item,a covered front porch. There will be a 4’wide deck rebuilt to the front of the house as it was previously existing, with log posts and railing.We are hoping to extend the roof trusses over the 4’wide deck to achieve the covered front deck. In doing this with the use of longer trusses,it will only increase the overall height of the house by 11 inches to the originally submitted plan.The total building height would be 26’-9”.This proposed building height is still well within the height limitations mandated by the Town of Estes Park. With this proposal we are hoping to: 1.Make the outdoor space more usable throughout the year. 2.Improve the overall look and vaLue for the neighborhood. 3.Improve the value of the residence. 4.Make the front of the residence more aesthetically pleasing to the main corridor. We are hoping that you will agree that this request will have only a positive impact to the area.And that this small improvement would bring an increased value to this residence, the neighborhood,and the corridor view. We sincerely thank you for your consideration of our proposal. 42 ,ff7 /f /27 Y/’J--——7lohn Moymhan a7il family / O.7& Lot: ___________ Subdivision:Metes 3our1S AcresLotSize Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service T’Town Proposed Water Service r Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service V Xcel Site Access (if not on public Street) Are there wetlands on the site? Specific variance desired (state development code section #):EVPC TaRe 4—5 Variance [c’25’Frôn+Vet—cf 3ebcck Name of Primary Contact Person Mailing Address JJ’hr,Movn,i,cs.n 1575 Pa//PiverRd.jJtc6 Pork,CO 8051T Application fee (see aft ached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code) 17 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=20’)**G L”30’l 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.Vll.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded. ( Submittal Date: S ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION r—-——; OCT 22 2008 1J U______________ii! Record Owner(s):An Mc;knn Street Address of Lot:l 7’5 Pnii /9•veC fEsec Legal Description ___________________________ Parcel ID #35733 - Pnrh’ Block. ________________ f7n 8Otcn Section 23 Tract: Town ___ n _______________ ;flj Site Information Pcsidenlth I S Corn rne-c’aI Zoning A r r same -Rebuild Resfr/cn9aI /?Uir/, (Specify) (Specify) Well Well F r F r Other F Other EPSD EPSD Other Vr F UTSD UTSD None r r Septic Septic r Yes No Town of Estes Park s P.O.Box 1200 ..170 MacGregor Avenue ..Estes Pork,CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone:(970)577-3721 -Fox:(970)586-0249 -www.esfesnet.com/ComDev C’ Contact Person is Record Owner(s)ç ZAn Moykihan Mailing Address /çirj-Rn,Piger Pd Phone qqn-•zjc-1237 Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email iConsultantlEngineer M/ehe He Acers Mailing Address Po,Bo’4/c4 Phone g 97o-’5E3&-5236 Cell Phone 72c-93a-noc Fax gzO-571-c’7sfc Email Ma,4ccrs5ki g)c20/c-crn C N. K Owner r Applicant F Consultant/Engineer Cell Phone Fax I’ 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 firing the application I am acting-with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. I 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 ot 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 ol Estes Park for tiling and receipt of the application tee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date. I I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. I The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my properly 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 lam required to obtain a “Variance Notice”sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my properly where it is clearly visible from the road.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 n4l nJ Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) B) I ([U/L Names:r OCT 22 2008 Record Owner PLEASEPRINT:bhn A—ioyn/kan 1L1 L Applicant PLEASE PRINT:/‘L’/,nhc//p Accr’c I Signatures:I, Record Owner 7/(741 ‘i4.-..—--Date /‘2 c —ob” Applicant/J /j0Jfl 4ehs.Date JchccJc Revised 10/13/06 Zoning Dis(dcis 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4.Table 4-5:Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Minimum Land Area per Accommodation or Residential Unit (sq.ft.per unit) Zoning District Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Building/ Minimum Lot Size [7] Area (sq ft) a, Structure Setbacks [4][8] A Width (ft.) Front (ft.) Accommodation Unit =1,800 [I]; Residential Units: SF =9,000; 2-Family =6,750; MF =5,400 Side (ft.) Max. Bldg Height Max. (ft.)[9]FAR 40,000 [2] Rear (ft.) 100 [3] Arterial =25 [5]; All other streets IS Max. Lot Cover age idJ’o 5015[6]10 [6]30 N/A Arterial =25 [5]; A-i 10,890 15,000 [2]50 [3]All other 15 10 30 .20 30 streets 15 Accommodation UnitsOnly=I I1,800; (stand-alone) =2-Family I If lot If lot SF &2-Family SF& 9,000; Accommo-(stand-Mini-abuts a abuts a Dwelling Units dation uses alone)=25;mum =residential residential CD (1st Floor)1 unit =20,000 MF (stand- 8 property =property =30 2.0 ‘n/aper2,250 square feet of gross All other alone)=Maxi-10;10; land area uses =n/a 100;mum = All other All other All other cases =0 cases =0DwellingUnitsuses=n/a(2nd Floor)No Fminimumgross land area per unit (Ord.15-03#3) I -Lots fronting arterials =I 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Fronting Arterial Commercial arterials ==25 [5]; I CO n/a Recreation!I 200; All other 15 [6]1516)30 25 65 Entertain-All other streetsmentIots=50 =1540,000 [21 All other lots =15,000 [2] Supp.5 4-21 20/3/ny Dishicts 4.4 1’Jo,vtsidcntial Znningj Dist,icts Minimum Land Minimum Area per BuildinglStructurc Accommo-Minimum Lot Size [73 Setbacks 141 [8]Max. dation or ——Building Max.LotZoningResidentialUnitAreaWidthFrontSideRearHeightMax.CoverageDistrict(sq.ft per unit)(sq ft)--(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)(ft.)[9]FAR Residential Units Fronting Arterial --- (2”Floor)15 000 Arterials ==25 [5]; 0 1 unit 2,250 sq.r1 200;All other 1516]15 [6]30 .25 50 .ft.GFA of All other streets ‘ principal use.lots =50 =IS — CII n/a 6M00[2]50 15 0[6]Q[6]30 .50 80 Fronting Arterial 15 000 Arterials ==25 [5]; I-I n/a [2]200;All other 10(6]10 [6]30 .30 80Jls=50 (Ord.2-02 #6;Ord.11 -02 §1;Ord.15-03 #3) NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1]For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use That have full kitchen facilities,the minimum land area requirement per guest unit shall be 5,400 square feet.See also5.1 .P below. [2]If private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations set forth in §7.12,‘Adequate Public Facilities.’ [3]For lots greater than 2 acres!minimum lot width shall be 200 feet. [4]See Chapter 7,§7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands.(Ord.2-02 #5;Ord.11-02 §1) [5]All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in §7.5 of this Code. [6]Setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary. [7]See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area)for development on steep slopes. (Ord.2-02 #6) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than tour dwellings or lots.Thesetbackshallbemeasuredfromtheedgeofpublicorprivateroads,or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way orrecordedeasement!whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback.This setback is applicable only in the A-1”district.(Ord.11-02 §1) See Chapter 1!§1 .9.E,which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes.(Ord.18-02 #3) 5.Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development ParceL a.Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted.One (1)or more principal uses shalt be permitted per lot or development parcel,except that in the A zoning district,only one (1)principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel. b.Permitted Mix of Uses.Where more than one (1)principal use is permitted per lot or development parcel,mixed-use development is encouraged,subject to the following standards: (1)More than one (1)principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or established together on a single lot or site,or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code and all other applicable ordinances are met. Supp.5 4-22 Ow n e r Ow n e r ii Su n n y s i d e Kn o l l Re s o r t Da n i e l G St r o h Ca s t l e Mo u n t a i n Lo d g e Pi n e Ha v e n Ca b i n s C L & Ca t h e r i n e Fi n c h e r Th e In n on Fa l l Ri v e r Jo h n & Ma r t h a J Tu c k e r Da n i e l S De c k e r Ad d r e s s 16 7 5 Fa l l Ri v e r Rd 75 0 Ca s t l e Mo u n t a i n Rd 18 4 9 C NW Ro o m 24 4 4 36 2 0 Ca p u l i n Dr 15 2 0 Fa l l Ri v e r Rd 15 8 0 Fa l l Ri v e r Rd 11 2 1 E Ha r r i s o n 16 6 0 Fa l l Ri v e r Rd 66 4 Ca s t l e Mo u n t a i n Rd P0 Bo x 44 4 1 Ci t y , St a t e , Zi p Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Wa s h i n g t o n , DC 20 2 4 0 Lo v e l a n d , CO 80 5 3 8 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Ha r l i n g e n , TX 78 5 5 0 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , Co 80 5 1 7 Mo y n i h a n Re s i d e n c e Va r i a n c e Un i t e d St a t e s of Am e r i c a Na t i o n a l Pa r k S La n d Re s o u r c e Di v i s i o n Br i a n Mu r p h y , LL C Ge o r g e B & Jo a n E Ha n s e n Ne i l s C Mc D e r m o t t N I CI) C H r.n H tTl H It C 0 ‘El 0 n 0 0 (Z1 MOYNIHAN RESIDENCE RESIDENCE DESIGNED FOR: II JOHN MOYNIHAN j 1575 FALL RIVER RD.,ESTES PARK,CO 80517 970—215-7237 PraftECH Pesfgn© P.O.BOX 4604,ESmS PARK,CO 80517 970-586-5230 720-9384100 N (ID C H ETI (12 H H C ci 0 -—-_C9’ 0 0 7Th fln c • (fl cc C MOYNIHAN RESIDENCE NN RESIDENCE DESIGNED FOR-—— _____________________________ tPr DraITECH Pesian© 1575 FALL RIVER RD.,ESTES PARK.CO 8051 ESTES PARK,08051? 970—215-7237 -586-5230 720-938-1100 -‘I 0 H L/) H H 0 0 H LI’) Tj H 0 0 ‘El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tj Ln L/) L/) —H ci) ft c I MOYNIHAN RESIDENCE RESIDENCE DESIGNED FOR: JOHN MOYNIHAN 1575 FALL MVER .,ESTES PA,Co 805I 970—2 5-7237 pf DF-aITECH Desiyn©-)POBOX 4604,ESThS PARK,CO 8057 970-586-5230 720-938-1190 1 9 0 SI T E PL A N IS RE P R E S E N T A T I O F J IT IS NO T TO BE £ 0 AS A LA N D SU R V E Y PL A T NO R AN IM P O V E M E N T PL A T . PR O P E R T y IS ZO N E D A. SE T B A C K S AR E 25 FE E T I E R L ST R E E T S , 10 FE E T FR O M RE A R LO T LI N E S FE E T FR O M SI D E LO T LI N E S . AS E M E N T RE S E A R C H OR FU R T H E R BA C K G R O U N D *1 WA S CO N D U C T E D AS PA R T OF TH I S SK E T C H PL A N . 6 0 ( :1 FO U N D VA N HO R N 2* ME T A L CA ? RO C K MO Y N A N 1. 5 W 15 ’ c’ JN , 00 ) 0@400( I , fl < l O > No . St o . 35 7 + 2 0 a 77 2 5 . 6 2 • ‘ — FO U N D CO O T 3 BR A S S SC A L E : 1” 3 0 ’ 3 0 DATE: Harvey Sid,e Yard Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com December 2,2008 REQUEST:Vary from the “RE” 50-foot side yard setback requirement to allow a detached 30x40 foot garage located within 23- feet of the side lot line. LOCATION:350 Joel Estes Drive, within unincorporated Larimer County. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER /ADDRESS:Richard Harvey (350 Joel Estes Drive) STAFF CONTACT:Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer:Van Horn Engineering,586-9388 Parcel Number:2529109010 Development Area:The lot is .94 acre, though due to the shape only .10 acre is within the allowed building setback area. Number of Lots:One Existing Land Use:Single-family residential Proposed Land Use:Same,with 1,200 s.f.Existing Zoning:“RE”Rural Estate detached accessory structure Adjacent Zoning- East:“RE”Rural Estate North:“RE”Rural Estate West:“RE”Rural Estate South:“RE”Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses- North:Single-family residential South:Undeveloped portion of a large single-family tract (316 acres) East:Single-family residential West:Single-family residential PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard setback of 23-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required.The purpose of this variance request is to allow a detached 1,200 square foot garage (30’x 40’)to house a recreational vehicle. Development Code,triangular shaped lots 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: A note on the lot line:Per the Estes Valley have two side lot lines,and no rear lot lines. Page #2 —Harvey Side Yard Setback Request 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 nulliing or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards,this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment:The lot is significantly sub-sized for the “RE”Rural Estate district. which has a minimum lot size of 2.5-acres,for which the 50-foot setbacks were created.This lot,at .94-acres,is closer to the “E-l”Estate district,which has 25-foot setbacks. In addition,the lot has a triangular shape,which is an awkward shape and minimizes the buildable area.In this particular instance,the buildable area represents about 10% of the overall lot area,with the remainder being in the “corners.” Therefore,Staff suggests there are special circumstances associated with this lot. This leads to the question of “practical difficulty.” 2.In determining “practical difficulty,”the BOA shall consider the following factors: a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Comment:The property may continue as residential use,and a code compliant building could be built. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment:The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. The Board should consider that a typical 2-car garage measures 24’x 24’(576 s.f.).The applicant desires a structure more than twice that size located less than half the required setback from the property line. Staff suggests this proposed variance is substantial. c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Comment:The character of the neighborhood is that most dwellings do not have garages,and none have a detached structure as large as the one proposed for this lot.The Board should careffilly consider the impact this proposal would have on this neighborhood,and whether or not this structure would substantially alter the character of this neighborhood. Page #3 —Harvey Side Yard Setback Request Another factor to consider is that the building is intended to house the RV that is currently located in the yard area (the RV in the current location does not meet code requirement for parked RV’s to be located out of the front yard setback area). d.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment:The applicant purchased the property in 2004,with the current setback requirements in place.Prior to 2000,the property had a setback requirement of fifty feet. e.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Conu,,ent:The proposed structure could be built in a conforming location, though that would have a greater impact on the neighborhood. 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. Staff Comment:Should the Board vote to approve this request,Staff recommends the Board consider certain design elements (color,finish,and exterior lighting)in an effort to minimize the visual impact.Another option would be to require the RV to be stored inside the garage./ REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: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. Accesso;y Use/Structure Standards.Per the Estes Valley Development Code (Section 5.2.A),accessory structures “shall be clearly incidental”to the principal use.The existing house is approximately 990 square feet,and the proposed garage structure would be 1,200 square feet. Page #4 —Harvey Side Yard Setback Request The Board should consider this requirement in determining whether the request is significant or whether it will have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. The RV is currently pai-ked in a non-conforming fashion.The development code requires that all RV’s parked outside be no closer to the street than behind the front setback in a side yard. Neighbors.Staff has received a letter of support from a neighboring property owner (across the road),who “encourage [the Board]to grant the request.”Staff has not received any other correspondence. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:Based on the foregoing,staff finds: 1.The size and shape of the lot combine to create special circumstances. 2.The property may continue to be used for residential use. 3.The Applicants predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4.The proposed expansion would be larger than other houses in the neighborhood, which appears to have developed primarily for summer cabins. 5.The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 6.The Board should use their judgnwnt if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief 7.The applicant purchased the property after adoption of the EVDC. 8.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 9.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 10.The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 11.Approval of the variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision,pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 12.Approval of the variance would not allow a use not permitted,or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought; Therefore,Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a rear yard setback of 23-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO: a,Full compliance with the applicable Building Code b.Prior to pouring foundation,submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. Page #5 —Harvey Side Yard Setback Request c.There shall be no outside storage of recreational vehicles or recreational equipment. d.The building plans shall be revised to include a matte fnish and neutral color,and shall be subject to Staff review and approval.Appeal to Staff determination shall be made to the Board of Adjustment. e.Exterior lighting shall be concealed,with no portion of a bulb visible from off site. SUGGESTED MOTfON I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. LAPSE:Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1)year of receiving approval of the variance shallautomaticallyrenderthedecisionoftheBOAnullandvoid. Page #6 —Harvey Side Yard Setback Request Date:October 22,2008 To:Estes Valley Board of Adjustment From:Richard and Joyce Harvey Re:350 Joel Estes Drive,Setback Variance Request This property is described as Lot 10,Replat of Portion of Park Hill Subdivision,Plat of the Resubdivision of Lots 4 through 17 inclusive and portions of Lots 18 through 22 inclusive,Park Hill Subdivision,County of Larimer,State of Colorado.The land is zoned:RE —Rural Estate Residential (2.5 acres)under the current Estes Valley Development Code with allowable setbacks being 50’from all lot lines.This variance is being requested in order to build a 30’by 40’garage on the South East side of the existing house.The EVDC allows a maximum cumulative gross floor area for accessory use of 1440 square feet on this lot under the RE zoning. The location of the proposed garage was picked due to the minima!amount of disruption to the neighborhood and this location also allows for the least amount of modification and disruption to the grading of the property and minimal excavation of the ground.With this variance there will be no removal of existing trees.This location also puts the garage on the opposite side of the existing house from the two closest neighbors,and next to a large parcel of vacant land owned by Crocker Ranch.The proposed garage will be no closer than 300’from and around 40’lower than Highway 36 its highest point.A large rock outcropping screens much of this property from the highway (and vice versa). 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist. The existing house was built in 1945 originally,before the current zoning was established.The area of Lot 10 is less than an acre,yet RE zoning assumes 2 /2 acre parcel areas.The current zoning requires a 50’building set back from every property line, leaving 0.10 acres of area within the allowable setbacks,which is only 10.7%of my total lot area of 0.94 acres.It was built as a summer rental and has no garage.Now it is occupied year round and a garage is desired for parking,(out of the weather)and storage. I have a motor home that is parked on the property that would be placed inside the garage out of view of neighbors.I also have several trailers and some equipment that would also be parked inside the garage.We are in the process of relocating from California and we need a place to store household items until we can get relocated and build a house on another property in the Estes Valley. 2.“Practical Difficulty Factors:” a.Due to the current zoning and the size and shape of the property,no satisfactory garage could be built without this variance. 1’ Page 2 350 Joel Estes Drive h.The variance is not substantial relative to the large parcel of vacant land adjacent to the property in question.The existing neighbors are located on the opposite side of the proposed location of the garage. c.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered due to the proposed location of the garage.It’s tucked back to the rear and on the opposite side of our house,away from our closest neighbors.Earth tone colors are planned for the outside of the garage to match the colors of the house.Low level lighting will also be used to avoid any disturbance to the neighbors. d.This variance would have no adverse effect on the delivery of public services of any kind. e.Current zoning was established prior to the purchase of this property. E Due to set backs required,no other option exists for building a garage without a variance. 3.The variance requested is not general or recurrent in nature.The situation is site specific. 4.Approval of this variance will not alter the density of the subdivision or create the ability to create new lots. 5.Authorizing this variance represents the least deviation from the regulations and provides for minimal site disturbance. 6.This variance will not allow a use not permitted or prohibited under the terms of this code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. We appreciate your consideration and are hopping for your approval of this matter. 22 20DB ( LD-J hsubmittaI Date:za Oct IIIIIL•J 1 Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: ______ Legal Description Parcel ID # 2008 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Lot Size 0.94acres Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service r Town Proposed Water Service F Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Services. Existing Gas Service iV Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? IV’Well Well F r F F Yes jPtNo 17’Septic F/’Septic Specific variance desired (state development RE Zoning (side setback) code section #):Section 4.3.C.5.Tab’e 4-3 Name of Primary Contact Person Richard Harvey Mailing Address 350 Joel Estes Drive,Estes Park,CO 80517 Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 36.C of the Estes Valley Development Code) 1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=201)** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (lix 17”) Names &mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded. uTOCT222008 Li Li Harvey,Richard K./Joyce A. 350 Joel Estes Drive1 Estes Park,CO 80517 Lot:10 Subdivision:00901-Park Hill Block:Tract: 25291-09-010 Section 29 Township 5N Range 72W Single Family Single Family Residential Zoning RE Residential F Other (Specify) F Other (Specify) EPSD F UTSD EPSD F UTSD Other F None V P Town of Estes Pork -a P.O.Box 1200 -a 170 MacGregor Avenue .e.Estes Pork,CO 80517 Community Development Deportment Phone:(970)577-3721 -a Fax:(970)586-0249 -a www.estesnet.com/ComDev KtWs11T1m1.Tt1ITut.11 Primary Contact Person is K/Owner F Applicant F ConsultantlEngineer -Record Owner(s)Harvey,Richard K.1 Joyce A. Mailing Address 350 Joel Estes Drive,Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone 714-812-1421 Cell Phone Fax Email estesboundca.rr.com Applicant Richard Harvey Mailing Address 350 Joel Estes Drive,Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone 714-812-1421 Cell Phone Fax Email estesbound(äca.rr.com .ConsultantlEngineer Van Horn Engineering -Amy Plummer Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road,Estes Park,CO 80517 Phone 970-586-9388 Cell Phone Fax 970-586-8101 Email amwheairbfts.com APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area,both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.comlComDev/Schedules&FeeslPlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing.All fees are due at the time of submittal. C. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement,I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDCJ 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 buildtnglstructure 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 alan 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 Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:Richard Harvey Applicant PLEASE PRINT:Richard Harvey Signatures: Record Owner Date ,/e/4Ar 7 1 Applicant Date i&A%s I Revised 10/I 3(06 Zoning Districts §4.3 Residential Zoning Districis Zoning District Table 42 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum •Minimum Lot Standards [1]Max.Net Density (units/acre) Area (sq ft) Building!Structure Setbacks [2][41 [91 Width:’ (ft.)Front (ft.) Side Rear (ft.)(ft4 Max. Building Height (ft.)[10] Mm. Building Max.Lot Width Coveraga (It)(W RE-I 1/lOAc.lOAc.200 50 50 50 30 j 20 —.n/a — RE 1/2.5 Ac.2.5 Ac.200 50 50 50 :E-1 1 1 Ac.[3]100 25 25 25 30 20 n/a 25-arterials; I E 2 1/2 Ac.[3]75 15-other 10 15 30 20 n/a streets 25-arterials; R 4 ¼Ac.60 15-other 10 15 30 20 n/astreets R-1 8 51000 50 15 30 2011 Single- family =25-arterials; .=R-2 4 18,000,60 15-other 10 10 30 20 Duplex Duplex=streets I 5O/ 27,000 ..40,000,Residential 5,400 sq.60; Uses:ft/unit i Lots RM Max =8 and [4][5][8]Greater 25-arterials;MultiOrd.18-Mm =3 Senior than 15-other 10 30 20 [7]family=01 #14)Senior Institution-100,000 streets 50% Institutional at Living sq.ft.: Living Uses:Uses:‘/2 200 I IMax=24 Ac.jj_____ Notes tD Table 4-2: [1](a)See Chapter 4,§4.3.D,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for single-family residential subdivisionsthatarerequiredtosetasideprivateopenareasperChapter4,§4.3.D.1. (b)See Chapter 11,§11.3,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for clustered lots in open spacedevelopments. (c)See Chapter 11,§11.4,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for attainable housing.(d)See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area)for development on steep slopes.(Did.2-02 ##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.” [41 Town home developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet;however,each individual townhomeunitmaybeconstructedonaminimum2,000 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. [6j Zero side yard setbacks (known as “zero lot line de’ielopment”)are allowed for town home developments. [7]Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. (81 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 shallbemeasuredfromtheedgeofpublicorprivateroads,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/structuresetback.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 ( To:Dave Shirk,Bob Goehring,and Scott Zum From:Tracy Feagans Date:November21,2008 Re:Harvey Residence Metes &Bounds property located 350 Joel Estes Drive Background: The Public Works and Utilities Departments have enclosed progress comments regarding thesubmittalsreceivedtodateandremaingeneralasthesubmittalsarenotcompleteand construction drawings for the public improvements have not been submitted.It is important to note that these Departments reserve the right to make additional comments and revise comments as more detail is provided in the subsequent submittals and development plans. Engineering: After review of the variance request the Engineering Department has no comments. Light &Power: Any relocation or upgrade of existing power facilities will be at the developer’s request or expense. Water: After review of the Variance Request the Water Department has no comments. P A R K ( ESTES COLORADO Memo Town of Estes Park PublIc Works &Utilities •Page 1 C DISTRICT P.O.Box 568 Estes Park,Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 (970)586-1049 Fax November 14,2008 Dave Shirk,Planner II Town of Estes Park P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 Re:Variance Request Harvey Residence Metes &Bounds property located at 350 Joel Estes Drive Dear Dave, The Lpper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1.The District has no objection to the proposed variance request. If you have any questions or need further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, Todd Krula Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation District •0 cc:Amy Pltimmer,Van Horn Enginerring LARIMER COMMITtED TO EXCELLENCE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins,Colorado 80522-1 190 (970)498-5700 FAX (970)498-7986 TO:Dave Shirk.Platmer Town of Estes Park PU Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 MEMORANDUM FROM:Traci Shambo 73 Development Review Services Engineer DATE:November 12,2008 SUBJECT:Harvey Residence Variance —Estes Park Refenal Project DescriptionJ.Backround: This is a setback variance for a proposed building at 350 Joel Estes Drive in Estes Park. Review Criteria: Development review staff has reviewed the submitted materials per the criteria found in the Larimer County Estes Valley Development Code,County Rural Area Road Standards,and County Storm-Water Design Standards. Staff Recommendation: The Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any concerns or issues with the variance requests.Please feel free to contact me at (970)498-5701 or email me at tshambo1arimer.org if you have any questions.Thank you. cc:Van Horn Engineering 1043 Fish Creek Road,Estes Park CO 80517 reading file file C:\Documents and Settings\Dave Shirk.ENGINEERING\.Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK24 1\Harvey Residence Variance.doc C C November 19,2008 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,Colorado Estes Valley Board of Adjustments I am writing in support of a request for variance submitted by Richard and Joyce Harvey of 350 Joel Estes Drive.My wife Valerie Lambiase and Town the property located at 345 Joel Estes Drive which is directly across the road from the Harvey Property. We have looked at the request,the drawings,and we have also looked at the property with the garage staked out.The location on the property will not affect the view of any other property owners.Our home has a more direct view of the proposed addition then any other neighbors.Checking the sightline from our home,we will barely notice the new building because of placement and trees.The garage will give the Harvey’s a place to store their motor home and other equipment inside.These items will otherwise be stored outside which would be much more noticeable to neighbors. Any quality additions to properties in our area are good for all of us.Knowing the Harvey’s we are very confident that the addition will be well constructed and well maintained and thus an asset to our neighborhood. My wife Valerie and Tencourage you to grant the request for variance you are considering for the Harvey property.Tf you have any questions or would like any frirther input please feel free to contact me at gregg(evd.com or at my office 586-8191. Sincer ly, Gregg M.Farmer Ow n e r Ow n e r II Ma n n Ha m i l t o n Pa t r i c i a Gr e e n Gr e g g Fa r m e r Jo s h u a & Ma r s h a We a v e r Ge r a l d & Cl a y o m a Gi l l i l a n d Es t e s Pa r k Ba p t i s t Ch u r c h Un i t e d St a t e s of Am e r i c a De p t . of th e ln t € do Fo r e s t r y Se r v i c e Co u n t y of La r i m e r El m e r Ph i n n e y Do n a l d Pi l k i n g t o n Th e o d o r e St u a r t Ad d r e s s P0 Bo x A P0 Bo x 86 1 34 5 Jo e l Es t e s Dr PC Bo x 97 2 39 5 Jo e l Es t e s Dr PC Bo x 14 8 1 P0 Bo x 13 6 6 20 0 W Oa k st 30 9 Jo e l Es t e s Dr PC Bo x 89 1 20 6 1 N St . Vr a m Av e Ci t y , St a t e , Zi p Wa y n e , PA 19 0 8 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 - 0 8 6 1 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Ft Co l l i n s , CC 80 5 2 2 Ft Co l l i n s , Co 80 5 2 1 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Sc o t t s b l u f f , NE 69 3 6 3 - 0 8 9 1 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Je s s & Br i a n Pi l k i n g t o n Ha r v e y Re s i d e n c e Va r i a n c e c3f I! SITEPLAN FOR HARVEY VARIANCE LOT 10,PORTION OF PARK HILL SUBDIVISION LARIMER COUNTY,COLORADO