HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2008-01-08l
Prepared: January 2, 2p8
Revised:
AGENDA
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. CONSENT
a. Approval of minutes dated December 4, 2007
b. Metes & Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue,
Yakutat Land Corporation/Applicant — Request by applicant for continuance to February
5, 2008 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting
c. Confirmation of Election of Officers held December 4, 2007 as follows: Chair for 2008—
John Lynch; Vice -Chair for 2008—Wayne Newsom
d. Appointment of Community Development Department Secretary or Designee as Recording
Secretary for 2008
3. REQUESTS
a. Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates 5th Filing
Owner: Stephen Benno
Applicant: Roger M. Thorp, Thorp Associates, P.C.
Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to
allow a residence to be built five feet from the eastern property line and a deck to
be constructed 19 feet from the western property line in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks
required in the E-1 — Estate zoning district
Staff Contact: Dave Shirk
4. REPORTS
5. ADJOURNMENT
Note: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not
available at the time the agenda was prepared.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch,
and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant
Chair Newsom; Members Dill and Lynch
Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Sign Code Officer McEndaffer,
Recording Secretary Roederer
Members Levine and Sager, Planner Shirk
Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of the minutes of the November 6, 2007 meeting.
There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as
submitted.
b. Metes and Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson
Avenue, Yakutat Land Corporation/Applicant — Request for continuance to
January 8, 2008 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Dill) to approve the applicant's request for
continuance to the January 8, 2008 meeting, and the motion passed
unanimously.
3. LOT 1, VENNER SUBDIVISION, 559 Landers Street, Owner: Richard & Shirley
Perkins, Applicant: Paul Brown — Request for variance from Estes Valley
Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal
Code Section 17.68.100(c) to allow placement of a 13.33-square-foot Identification
sign at a height of 14.17 feet in lieu of the maximum allowed 2 square feet and
maximum height of 6 feet in single -family -residential zoning districts
Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance from the Estes
Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.100(c), which establishes a maximum sign size of two
square feet and a maximum sign height of six feet for signs located in single -family -
residential zoning districts within Town limits. If approved, the applicant will install a 20-
inch-by-96-inch sign at the entrance to their driveway at 559 Landers Street. At 13.33
square feet, the sign significantly exceeds the maximum size of two square feet. The sign
would be hung at a height of 14.17 feet on a recently installed timber frame that is fifteen
feet tall.
Per the applicant's statement of intent, special circumstances particular to their property
exist. Approval of the variance would soften the impact of the transmission tower on the
neighborhood, preserve a sense of rural heritage, and allow placement of a sign that is
representative of other ranch gateways found throughout the Estes Valley. Reviewing staff
agrees that the applicant's property, although located within Town limits, has a rural feel.
The applicant provided a number of examples of similar signs in the area, although staff
believes many of the examples are of signs located outside Town limits, which are subject
to a different sign code that allows rural identification signs.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2007
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 Sign Code Officer Carolyn McEndaffer. No comments were received from
neighboring property owners. The Bureau of Reclamation did not comment on the request;
however, the proposed sign is located within a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation easement.
Future use of the easement may require the property owner to remove the sign and timber
frame at the property owner's expense.
Although a sign could be designed to meet the size and height limits, due to the
characteristics of the neighborhood, staff is supportive of the variance request. Sign Code
Officer McEndaffer stated the timber frame for the sign is not in conflict with the sign code;
it is the proposed size and height of the sign that requires approval of a variance.
Public Comment:
Paul Brown was present to represent the property owners. He stated the sign code allows
signs up to two square feet per face, up to a total of four square feet. The proposed sign is
single -sided; thus, the applicants are only requesting a variance of 9.33 square feet in the
size of the sign. He expressed concern about the lack of a uniform sign code for the Estes
Valley and lack of equality for all within the Valley regarding freedom and right of self-
expression via signs. He stated the cost of application for a variance is censorious of
signage. He requested that the Board direct staff to review the differences between the
County and Town sign codes and to adopt an equitable sign code for the Estes Valley.
Director Joseph acknowlledged the merits of having a uniform sign code; however,
placement of a rural identification sign in a densely developed neighborhood with small lots
would not be appropriate. It was appropriate for this request to come before the Board of
Adjustment.
Due to the rural character of the applicant's neighborhood, it was moved and
seconded (Lynch/Dili) to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Venner Subdivision,
to allow placement of a 13.33-square-foot identification sign at a height of 14.17 feet
in lieu of the maximum allowed 2 square feet and maximum height of 6 feet in
single -family -residential zoning districts, with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously.
CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the submitted application.
2. Compliance with Carolyn McEndaffer's comments In her memo dated November 21,
2007. The sign height is noted.
3. The sign is located in a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation easement. Use of this easement
may require that the property owner remove the sign and timber cross frame from the
easement at the property owner's expense.
4. LOT 5, FOX RIDGE ESTATES, 2140 Ridge Road, Owner/Applicant: Paul L. & Judith
K. Tharp — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3,
Table 4-2, to allow construction of an attached garage 33.96 feet from the side -yard
property line and 41.76 feet from the front -yard property line, and also to construct
a deck 31.21 feet from the front -yard property Ilne, in Ileu of the 50-foot front- and
side -yard setbacks required in the RE-1 - Rural Estate zoning district
Chair Newsom recused himself from participation on this agenda item due to his
professional relationship with the applicants. Vice -Chair Lynch acted as Chair for this item.
Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a variance request to allow a two-
story garage addition to the north side of a residence and a deck to be constructed on the
east side of the residence, which is located at 2140 Ridge Road. The property is zoned
RE-1 -, Rural Estate, which requires 50-foot setbacks from all property Vines. The garage
would be built 41.76 feet from the front property line and 33.96 feet from the side property
line and would include a second -story balcony, which would be 37.76 feet from the front
property line. The deck would be located 31.21 feet from the front property line.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2007
3
Planning staff finds there are special circumstances associated with this property, which is
an unusual "L" shape. A portion of the existing residence is built within the setbacks. The
house was originally built as a corporate business retreat and meeting facility, with a floor
plan that was not suited to single-family use. The applicant converted the existing garage
to kitchen space in the process of remodeling to improve the floor plan.
Staff further finds that the variance request is not substantial. An 60-foot right-of-way exists
along Ridge Road, which provides approximately an additional fifteen feet between the
applicant's property line and the edge of the road. The adjacent property to the north is
undeveloped, so a neighboring house is not impacted by the variance request at this time.
The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered by approval of
the request.
The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received
from Larimer County Engineering Department and The North End Property Owners'
Association. A letter of support was received from neighboring property owner Thomas
Wood, 2115 Ridge Road, via email.
A significant redesign would be needed in order for the addition to meet the setback
requirements. Planning staff suggests the applicant's request provides the least deviation
from the code requirements when working with the existing floor plan of the residence.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request.
Public Comment:
Paul Tharp/owner noted the RE-1 zoning district and its associated setback requirements
are for ten -acre lots. His lot is 2.5 acres. Five residences in his neighborhood are located
within the required setbacks. The 50-foot setbacks were imposed with the Valley -wide
rezoning in 2000; this subdivision was developed prior to 2000. Per information provided to
him by County staff, the required setback was 25 feet from the road right-of-way centerline
at the time the subdivision was developed. An existing septic system and well, to the south
and behind his residence respectively, limit the area available for an addition. Of the
109,000 square feet comprising his property, 67,000 square feet lies within setbacks; of
that, he is requesting the use of less than 150 feet for the proposed addition.
Member Dill noted the applicant's driveway already exists and is paved. The proposed
garage addition is in the most sensible location. No neighbors have voiced opposition; he
stated his support of the request.
It was moved and seconded (Dill/Lynch) to approve the variance request for Lot 5,
Fox Ridge Estates, to allow construction of an attached garage 33.96 feet from the
side -yard property line and 41.76 feet from the front -yard property line, and also to
construct a deck 31.21 feet from the front -yard property line, In lieu of the 50-foot
front- and side -yard setbacks required in the RE-1 — Rural Estate zoning district,
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed
unanimously. Those voting yes: Dill and Lynch. Those abstaining: Newsom.
CONDITIONS:
1. Compliance with the submitted application.
2. 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. A copy of this certificate
shall be provided to the Estes Park Community Development Department.
5. METES & BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2515 TUNNEL ROAD, Owner: YMCA
of the Rockies Estes Park Center, Applicant: BHA Design, Inc. — Request for
variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E and Section 4.4, Table
4-5, to allow three new lodges to exceed the maximum slope -adjusted height limit
by the following amounts: Grand Lodge-1.66 feet, West Lodge-3.93 feet, and East
Lodge-2.25 feet. Applicant also requests a time extension to allow a construction
timeframe of 2.5 years in lieu of the standard one-year limit
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2007
4
Director Joseph summarized the staff report. This variance request is part of a planned
major redevelopment of the core area of the YMCA of the Rockies campus. The YMCA
recently completed a lengthy master planning process. The master plan was reviewed by
the Estes Valley Planning Commission and approved by the Larimer County Board of
County Commissioners. The three proposed new lodges, as well as a conference center
addition to the Ruesch Auditorium (which does not require a height variance), are
consistent with the approved master plan.
The relationship of the proposed new lodges and conference center addition to the finished
floor elevations of existing buildings within the core area constrains the applicant's ability to
meet the slope -adjusted height limit. The YMCA intends to meet ADA guidelines and
enhance the accessibility between existing and proposed buildings in the core area; a
height variance is necessary to accomplish this goal. Due to the large size of the YMCA
property and the location of the proposed buildings in the central area of the property,
approval) of the requested variance will not affect adjoining property owners.
The plan for the core area redevelopment, including the proposed new lodges and
conference center addition, will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission
(Development Plan 08-02).
Staff findings are as follows:
1. Special circumstances exist.
2. The accommodation use could continue without the variance.
3. The appllicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a
variance, though a building re -design may not be consistent with the architectural
goals set forth in the Master Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
4. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered.
5. The variance request is not substantial compared to the goal of achieving fully
compliant ADA access throughout the new lodges and conference center.
6. The requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief.
7. The applicant has owned the property since before the 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 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 this variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond
the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable
zone district regulations.
11. Approval of this variance would not allow a use not permitted or a use expressly or
by impllication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing
the property for which the variance is sought.
Director Joseph read the six recommended conditions of approval and stated planning
staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
Public Comment:
Mark HoIdt/YMCA Vice President for Planning & Development stated the core area
redevelopment is the most significant phase of the approved master plan, which
consolidates development within the existing core to minimize development near the
YMCA's borders with Rocky Mountain National Park. Given the aging population of its
visitors, the YMCA must be more sensitive to ADA accessibility requirements, which is an
essential limitation of the proposed site. The location of the proposed buildings shown on
the master plan will not work due to site constraints, including slope, the size of the area
for devellopment, the desired accessibility outcomes, and the need to maintain the
historical character.
Roger Sherman/BHA Design stated the proposed buildings will fit in with the style and
scale of key existing buildings and are consistent with the intent of the master plan.
Existing grades control the height and placement of the buildings; the 10')/0 cross -slope and
the YMCA's desire to provide ADA-compliant access between the buildings creates a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2007
5
challenge. Some older buildings, such as the "pinwheel" staff housing, will be removed
from the site prior to construction of the proposed Grand, West, and East lodges, which will
share access and parking. The orientation of the three lodges has been changed from that
shown in the master plan to eliminate the need for major cut and fill. The applicant has
made an effort to meet the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements but
could not provide ADA-compliant access and still do so. A component of the applicant's
request is for variance from proposed grades, rather than from existing natural grade as
required by the EVDC. He noted that stepped foundations will be used in order to work
with the grade of the site; the final heights of the buildings could be different than what is
requested today.
Director Joseph stated the EVDC regulations are in place to prevent manipulation of the
grading on a site such that the intent of the code is controverted. The applicant's request is
for the purpose of making the different elements of the core area fit together, not to
manipulate the height of the buildings.
Bob Hosan/Neenan Co. stated the YMCA has also worked on a master drainage plan for
the YMCA grounds. The proposed grading in the core area will address existing
stormwater runoff problems. The proposed roof pitches are 4:12, which are needed for
wind and snow loads in this area. After further evaluation of the site, the applicant has
revised their variance request as follows (at this time, an updated statement of intent was
distributed to the Board members and staff):
• Grand Lodge —original request: 1 ft., 8 in.; revised request: 5 ft., 6 in.
• West Lodge —original request: 3 ft., 10in.; revised request: 6 ft., 8 in.
• East Lodge —original request: 2 ft., 3 in.; revised request: 4 ft., 4 in.
The applicant is not sure what the specific heights of the buildings will be once they are
constructed; he requested the Board grant some latitude, such as 5%, for the final building
heights.
Jeff Chamberlain/YMCA Project Manager stated the existing elevation of Ruesch
Auditorium determines the floor elevations of the conference center, which in turn affects
the height of the three lodge buildings due to ADA accessibility concerns. He also
requested latitude for the final building heights. If the variance is approved, the time
extension requested will provide adequate time for construction.
Member Dill stated he is glad to see the applicant will maintain appropriate roof pitches.
Chair Newsom commended the YMCA on the redevelopment and noted the importance of
keeping elevations on the site as uniform as possible. Member Lynch stated regrading the
site is necessary and will not set a precedent. Director Joseph stated that the conditions of
approval would need to be modified to accommodate the applicant's request for latitude in
the final building heights.
Bryan Michener/3468 Mountainside Drive commended the YMCA for its work on the 20-
year master plan and stated his support of the requested height variance. He expressed a
desire for consideration of the environmental impacts of development on the YMCA
property, particularly where the property abuts Rocky Mountain National Park.
Further discussion followed between the Board and planning staff regarding the revised
conditions of approval. Director Joseph stated the variance approval should acknowledge
the entirety of the applicant's request, including the request to measure building heights
from proposed grades. He requested that planning staff have the discretion to approve up
to a 10% change in building heights after reviewing the applicant's building permit plans. If
staff is not comfortable with the proposed plans, the applicant will need to return to the
Board of Adjustment with a new application. Mr. Chamberlain indicated the YMCA has a
cooperative relationship with staff and will honor what was said at today's meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Dill/Lynch) to approve the variance request for the
Metes & Bounds property located at 2515 Tunnel Road, to allow three new lodges to
exceed the maximum slope -adjusted height limit from finished grade by the
following amounts: Grand Lodge-5.5 feet, West Lodge-6.66 feet, and East
Lodge-4.33 feet; to authorize Planning staff to approve additional variance to the
approved building heights by up to 10 percent; and to approve a time extension to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 6
December 4, 2007
allow a construction timeframe of 2.5 years in lieu of the standard one-year limit;
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff as revised below; and the
motion passed unanimously.
CONDITIONS:
1. Approval of Development PlIan 08-02.
2. Prior to any site work, a surveyor shall set a project benchmark.
3. A surveyor shall set the building corners prior to pouring foundation.
4. Planning staff shall review building permit plans for Grand Lodge, West Lodge, and
East Lodge and shailll have the authority to approve up to an additional 10% variance
from the maximum building heights shown in the revised statement of intent dated
December 3, 2007.
5. A surveyor shall provide stamped certification that the finished building height complies
with the approved building permit pllans. This verification shall be presented to the
Town of Estes Park Community Devellopment Department.
6„ The variance shall be valid for 30 months from approval.
7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2008
Chair Newsom nominated John Lynch as Chair for 2008, and as the only Town
representative present at the meeting, vollunteered to be Vice -Chair. He stated today's
action shall)) be subject to reviiew by the entire Board at the January 8, 2008 meeting.
There being no further nominations, the 2008 officers were approved by
acclamation: Chair ---John Lynch, Vice -Chair —Wayne Newsom.
8. REPORTS
Director Joseph reported on a resident's request to the Planning Commission regarding
how meeting minutes are prepared and approved. The resident had requested that draft
minutes of meetings be disseminated to the public for the public's review and comment
prior to review of the minutes by the Board or Commission. This is not the standard
procedure for any community. The minutes become a matter of public record following
their acceptance by the Board. If a member of the public requests a change to the
minutes, the Board can review the request at a meeting folllowing adoption of the minutes
and decide whether to make the change at that time. The Board members agreed that
minutes should not be disseminated until) they are approved.
Planner Chiilcott and Director Joseph addressed Paull Brown's request for a joint Estes
Valley sign code. Staff recognizes some of the issues Mr. Brown brought forward and
agrees that it is desirabile to have a unified sign code. There is not adequate staff time to
thoroughly review both codes and create and propose a unified code. Funding would
need to be provided if a consultant was hired for this work.
There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 11:01 a.m.
Wayne Newsom, Chair
Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary
Benno Front and Rear Yard aria
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
DATE: January 8, 2008
RE UEST: Allow a new single-
family dwelling with a 5-foot front
yard and 19-foot rear yard setback in
lieu of the 25-feet typically required.
LOCATION: 3323 Eiger Trail,
within unincorporated Latimer
County (invnediately south of 3265
Eiger Trail, in Windcliff Estates)
APPLICANT: Thorp Associates
PROPERTY OWNER: Stephen Benno (910 Colorado Dr, Allen TX, 75013)
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk
www.estesnet.com
SITE DATA TABLE:
Architect: Roger Thorp, 586-9528
Parcel Number: 3410115009
Number of Lots: One
Proposed Land Use: Single-family residential
Adjacent Zoning -
East: "E-1" Estate
West: "E-1" Estate
Adjacent Land Uses -
East: Single-family residential, open
space
West: Single-family residential
Development Area: .38 acres
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped (platted for
single-family residential)
Existing Zoning: "E-1" Estate
North: "E-1" Estate
South: "E-1 " Estate
North: Single-family residential
South: Open Space
Services -
Water: Town
Sewer: UTSD
Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer
PROJECT DESCRIPTION D 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 along Eiger Trail of 5-feet and Eaglecliff Drive of 19-
feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required. The purpose of these variance requests is to
build a new single-family dwelling on a steep, narrow lot in the Windcliff subdivision.
REVIEW CRITE A: 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:
L Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions,
narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other
areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not
have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific
standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The lot is sub -sized for the "E-1" Estate district, which has a
minimum lot size of 1-acre, for which the 25-foot setbacks were created. This lot, at
.38-acres, is closer to the "R" Residential district, which has setbacks of 15-feet.
The lot is skinny. The front -rear setbacks combine to provide a 23-foot wide building
envelope, which means without a variance a building could only be 23-feet wide, if it
were centered on the lot.
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: A narrow house could be built on the lot (the development code
has a minimum building width of 20 feet).
b. Whether the variance is substantial,
Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested
variances are substantial (the building is proposed to be over 100-feet long).
Page #2 n-Benno Setback Variance Request
c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a
result of the variance;
Staff Comment: Staff suggests the proposed house would be more in keeping
with the neighborhood character than a 23-foot wide house that could be built
without a variance.
d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Comment: The applicant has owned the property since 1997, prior to the
adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. At that time, the property had
setback requirements of 7-feet from the road centerline or 30-feet from the
property line, whichever was greater.
e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Staff comment: A narrow house could be built without a variance.
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 S 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.
Retaining Wall. The narrowness of the lot combined with the reduced setback result in a
tall, steep retaining wall supporting the driveway. Staff recommends this retaining wall
be redesigned to include planting pockets to provide visual relief.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
Page #3 - Benno Setback Variance Request
1. The size and shape of the lot create special circumstances that require a variance.
2. A conforming house could be built on the lot.
3. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
4. The proposed house is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
5. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial.
6. The Board should use their judgment if the requested variances represent the least
deviation that would afford relief.
7. The applicant has owned the property since before the 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 these variances would not result in an increase in the number of lots
beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the
applicable zone district regulations.
12. Approval of these variances would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly
or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district
containing the property for which the variance is sought;
Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances 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. This certificate shall verify the foundation complies with the approved
site plan.
c. The proposed retaining wall shall comply with Section 7.2.B6 of the Estes Valley
Development Code.
SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance(s) with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff.
LAPSE: Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action
with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall
automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.
Page #4 Benno Setback Variance Request
North Park Place
1423 West 296 Street
Loveland, Colorado
"
rj
„
1
RY A. W ITE
.Attorney at .Law
970/667-5310
0538 Fax 970/667-2527
December 20, 2007
DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
PO BOX 1200
ESTES PARK, CO 80517
Re: Board of Adjustment - Variance Request - Benno Proposed Residence
Dear Mr. Shirk
I have no comment.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
GAW/ldr
CC: Thorp Associates, PC - Roger M. Thorp
Fax: 970/586-4145
To: Bob Goehring
From: Mike Mangelsen
Date: 12-14-07
Re: Benno Variance Request, 3323 Eiger Trail
The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Board of Adjustment application
for the above referenced property and has the following comments:
1.) We have no comments.
December 18, 2007
Dave Shirk, Planner II
Town of Estes Park
P.O. 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
aSTRICT
ITK,
P.O. Box 568
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
(970)-586-4544
(970) 586-1049 Fax
Re: Variance Request
Benno proposed residence
Lot 9, Block 3, Amended Windcliff Estates 5th Filing
3323 Eiger Trail
Dear Dave,
The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property:
• The District has no objection to the variance request.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank You,
Chris Bieker
Operations Manager
Upper Thompson Sanitation District
cc: Roger Thorp
MMITTE DIT011EXC ELLENC,E
TO: Dave Shirk, Planner
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
EN O N EE
RIN
IA
RIM ENT
Post Office Box 1190
(Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
FROM: Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer
DATE: December 17, 2007
SUBJECT: Amended Windcliff Estates 5th Filing, Lot 9, Block 3, — Setback Variance
Estes Valley Planning Area
Project Description/Background:
This is a request for two setback variances from Eiger Trail and Eagle Cliff Drive for the construction of a
single family residence at 3323 Eiger Trail. The reason for the request is due to topographical and lot size
and shape constraints.
Comments:
1. The setback variance is from Eiger Trail and Eagle Cliff Drive, which are both local roads. It
should be confirmed that by the applicant that the building location does not encroach into
any existing road easements or rights -of -way for Eiger Trail and Eagle Cliff Drive.
Otherwise, the setback request should not create any issues for these roads given that the
orientation of the proposed garage is such that the vehicles will still be parked outside of the
road easement or right-of-way limits and there will be space on the property to maneuver the
vehicles in order to exit onto Eiger Trail in a forward manner.
2. Staff assumes that any subsequent improvements on this site would not adversely impact the
drainage patterns or create erosion problems in the area. If drainage patterns are going to be
changed, a drainage plan will need to be submitted to the Engineering Department for review
and approval. Any disturbance of the site should be reestablished to be equal to or better than
the preconstruction condition. Alt disturbed areas should be reseeded with a native dry land
seed mix.
Recommendation:
Other than the comments noted above, the Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any
major concerns or issues with the submittal of this proposal. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-
5701 or e-mail at tdowns@larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you.
cc: Roger Thorp, PO Box 129, Estes Park CO 80517
reading file
file
HADEVREV\Pt,ANCHK1Refegals\CITIES1EstesMndclift Estates Setback Variance.doc
HP
ave k
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Dave & Roger,
Stan Griep [sgriep@larimer.org]
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:23 AM
Dave Shirk
Benno Proposed Residence
The only comments I have on the proposed project are as follows:
1. The project is in a 138 mph exposure C High Wind Design Area.
2. The project is in a 50 psf snow load area. And Class B Roofing area with roof ice
barrier underlayment required.
3. Due to the sloping site and high wind design concerns with this project site, the
structure and its foundation plans will need to be stamped by a Colorado Registered
Engineer.
If you have any questions please feel free to email me back or call me at 498-7714.
A very Merry Christmas to both of you! :o)
Stan
Stan V. Criep
Lead/Commercial Plans Examiner
Latimer County Building Department
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
voice: (970) 498-7714
email: sgriep@larimer.org
Architectural Control Com
P.O. Box 3929
Estes Park, CO 80517
December 17, 2007
TO: Dave Shirk, Planner II
dshirk u,Estes.org
FROM: John Hiatt
Chairman, WPOA ACC
SUBJECT: Variance Request
Benno Proposed Residence
3323 Eiger Trail
Windcliff Estates
DATE: December 17, 2007
"1-tee
Our WindclifACC and owners adjacent to the Benno lot have approved the proposed
Benno Plan. Because E.1 Estate setbacks were designed for lots of 1 acre or more and
because they do not allow for differences in lot shape, steepness and surface geography,
our committee tries to be flexible where conditions warrant a variance. In this case we
believe a setback variance is truly justified.
We totally concur with the statement of intent contained within the variance application
and recommend that the variance be approved by the Estes Valley Development Board.
Sincerely,
John Hiatt
WPOA ACC Chairman
CC: Roger M Thorp
roger a,thorpassoc.com
Ken Allen, ACC
Page 1. of 1
Julie Roederer
From: Ken Pearson [pearsoninsurance@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:11 AM
To: Dave Shirk; Julie Roederer
Cc: mgetchell @ estesvalley.net
Subject: Requested Variance
recently received official notice regarding a request for two variances for a home to be built at 3323
Eiger Trail. I understand the Board of Adjustments is interested in the opinions of neighboring property
owners. We live at 1521 St Moritz and strongly feel that approving the requested variances from long
standing setback requirements is totally, absolutely inappropriate. What can be built on a lot , given
established setbacks, is a factor that should be evaluated BEFORE THE LOT IS PURCHASED. Once
purchased the lot owner should have to accept the setbacks as they are except in the very rarest of
circumstances. Requesting to build a home 5 to 12 feet from any property line is so outrageous and
arrogant it amazes me. Windcliff touts our green spaces and wide open areas so a natural "out in the
woods" feeling can be enjoyed. Building so close to the property line inside the established setbacks —
for either a house or deck — is just an inappropriate and inconsiderate request, sets HORRIBLE
precedent, and is strongly counter to the spirit of our community. It is a shame that some people are so
inconsiderate as to impose on their neighbors the necessity of expressing a common sense approach
to development. We paid a lot of money for our lot and I am certainly not interested in the quality of the
homes being cheapened by the granting of the variances requested for 3323 Eiger. Please give our
comments the most serious consideration before voting on this. Thank you.
1/2/2008
STATEMENT OF INTENT
Stephen Benno Residence
Lot 9, Block 3 Amended 5th Windcliff Estates Subdivision
3323 Eiger Trail
Special circumstances exist on Lot 9, Block 3 of the Amended 5ch Subdivision at Windcliff
Estates that make quality residential design and construction difficult due to the narrow
configuration of the lot. Without the variance, little more than a single wide modular home could
be placed on the lot within the remaining 23foot buildable width leftover after the 25 foot front
and rear setbacks are accounted for. In fact, due to the steepness of the lot and the practical need
to minimize elevation difference between Eiger Trail and the residential access, the setback
variance will need to be substantial. Similar to other homes along Eiger Trail, the residence is
proposed to be sited within 5 feet of the east property line ( still 12 feet from Eiger Trail), which
will hold the residence 41 feet away from the more heavily traveled Eaglecliff Drive to the west.
Actual requested setbacks to the property lines are called out on the Development Plan, Sheet
A01
The requested variance will not adversely affect the delivery of any public services,
Although at the time of purchase the Owner/Record Holder was aware that a setback variance
would likely be required in order to make the property buildable, he was informed that all other
setback variance requests along Eiger Trail and other areas in Windcliff Estates had been
successful and that there was no other way to mitigate the predicament.
Submittal Date:
ESTES VALLEY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION
November 20, 2007
Gel cr'8I Inio;0.18[Oon
Record Owner(s): Stephen Benno
Street Address of Lot: 3323 Eiger Trail
Legal Description Lot: 9 Block: 3
Subdivision:
Parcel fD # 344 10115009 Section 10
Site Information
Amended 5th Windcliff
,0011111„,
10V 2 0 20(n)°"
Front and Rear Setbacks
Name of Primary Contact Person Ito ger M. Thor , AIA Thorp Associates, PC 970. 586.9528
mein. Address129,
. I'0 Box Estes Park, CO 05�""�
prii°rH2P1•,r.
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)
rX 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20')'*
rX 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17")
rR 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).
he 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 .3% Estes Park, CO 80517
Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577.3721 .. Fax: (970) 586-0249 . www.estesnet.com/Compev
Primary Contact Person is n""""'° Owner g Applicant
Record Owner(s) Stephen Benno
Mailing Address 910 Colorado Dr, Allen TX 75013
Phone 214 n495.8264
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
N°""'°° Consultant/Engineer
Applicant
Mailing Address
Roger M. Thorp, Thorp Associates PC
PO Box 129, Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone 970.586.9528
Cell Phone 970.679.7810
Fax 270.586.4145
Email rager@thorpassoc com
Consultant/Engineer
Mailing Address
Phone
Cell Phone
Fax
Email
APPLICATION FEES
For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits
See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the 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.
D
E
CEO V EI
el 2. 0 7007
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 comers of
my property and the proposed building/structure comers must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be
posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
hearing.
► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building
permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of
receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decisio P.•. _- r •� LF�Itab
Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D)
Names:
Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:
Stephen Benno
NOV 2 0 2007
Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Roger M. Thorp
Signatures:
Record Owner
Applicant
Date
Date
Nov", 20. 200.7
Nov. 20. 2007
Revised 10/13/06
Zoning Districts
§ 4 3 Residential Zoning Districts
Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards
Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning
District
Max. Net
Density
(units/acre)
Minimum Lot
Standards 111
Minimum
Building!' . cture
Setbacks [2] [4]
[9]
Max.
Building
Min.
Building
Width
(ft)
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Area (sq
. ft)
Width
(ft)
Front (ft.)
Side
(ft)
Rear
(ft)
Height
(ft.) [101
RE-1
1/10 Ac.
10 Ac.
200
50
50
50
30
20
n/a
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
25-arterials;
E
2
Y2 Ac. [3]
75
15-other
streets
10
15
30
20
n/a
25-arterials;
R
4
1/4 Ac.
60
15-other
streets
10
15
30
20
n/a
R-1
8
5,000
50
15
10
15
30
20
n/a
Single-
family =
25-arterials;
R-2
4
18,000;
Duplex=
60
15-other
streets
10
10
30
20
Duplex =
50%
27,000
Residential
Uses:
40,000,
5,400 sq.
ft./unit
60;
Lots
RM
Max = 8 and
[4] [5] [8]
Greater
25-arterialls;
Multi -
Ord. 18-
Min .,.. 3
Senior
than
15-other
10
10
30
20 [7]
family=
01 #14)
Senior
institutional
Institution-
al Living
100,000
sq. ft.:
streets
[6]
50%
Living Uses:
Uses: %
200
Max = 24
Ac.
Notes to Table 4-2:
[1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which alliows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-famlly residential subdivisions
that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3111.
(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)
2-02
See Chapter 7, §7.1,
##1 6)
which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord.
[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 f; : ; 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] MA -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 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 §11)
[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
N N
�xGi 1113 c u� iV use OOD
D
I-t$tp� o 0, up _pmp°oCn7 om CD co
N C? g UUU ^U Sr C)—tpUU„zs v 0 v,
g ba--i c xx i�g 3r t P E °
N p O Nam d4 a¢ °' -Oa p 'Fd cr �0 a75
l° y y fA Vjtsco U�oNgYg EL
a
$ b'�EwHas Ew"mOE523C)WWpau1C7m2=Lom3C3 gCgQa
co
m a • a, i m215
t7 U
U c c a — 0d3 o Cp
• C s-m``o iqi . m
ag a1a 08"S2 E
O gEi°,eU`sit,-it,6c2k3 11)
L 29 e v €?irnza8Sc¢aNr02
ac��i=3X�rn°m_
253aan�C5LEJu.Zui "accui3 P. m afP CD Cr 8 7.1.t CDCD808Ta§cc�oo
E 2 -
a ▪ . ag ~
U CO H a, b
> c i.E
eam• Y c0U, - 10 2 t c J a1 aC 2
Cow°=" td�aasN �'a rFi s-
a,a �L° `Icy yZ caiN %'2 E00 � w U c
sE c2ai1L1 CYY was � pd acg cci aa)a) co
�,a:o t In pl 3•s V .,Lx NQ¢3 z� M ei
as,3,7>g ,mn•ccgra€,`3°d`@E�amc8
c c3EEto$2Eo2cvc1°6m0Cf0
O4()00CJGn iiC7blc- 22H 3g6cY60aUJ} ai
Benno Variance
Az C/)
rD
(-4,
y� �W A^"
c`ti v o v)rn �V 7" N l ,,
onoPy'" ,`rDo O WO
coo '� ru O �' � v� ° �° C O �cop � �
Cr
(\li$
w • 1 N Oo o ��7 rat �'t
00
N E .c P~ r2i1 rt W W )-1 •
41.11111111111
rn
CU
03
NR
.Apa 11Pa18e3
BENNO RESIDENCE
3323 Eiger Trail
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
l Thorp As;,uui lies
d,,p,r f c r .;uitM B'f AriNEVdS
"I kV
5-
Z1
BENNO RESIDENCE
3323, Eiger Trail
Esres. Park, Colorardo 80517
Thorp•Associates P.C.
Alflc31ITLC S and f1 F,EN.N I0
AI0 JET 12-03-07 14:30
0
O y
as
r-m
G
t
r Level Floor
$ f
tt
O
`Y
g.
ib y
I
N
�
n
L--
10
d
i
e
1
8
77
7
m
X
N
A
El
4,
ITS
N
Ega
pg�@�
1-P
m
AW
0
lJ
J
N_
(12
_ 1�!\
J
❑
I
pi,
r,�
lak
fwl,
I
�
r
I7
J
y
1
0 IN
o
2-1341
o
BENNO RESIDENCE
3323 Eiger Trail
Fctr>c Pnrk C'nInrnrin $10517
TA Thorp Associates P.C.
AIaCHi TFC: T ::ePiv;1 I"i.f'AIYV°!1•f•i2
BENNO RESIDENCE
3323 Eiger Trail
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
11;A.V1
•
rtlit
..,� ARCHTECTS and PLANNERS
TA ThorpAssociates P.C.
A30 JET 10-25-07 16:58
R —
I
6 ii1ji
T
g P N i E ui n
pp
n
O
0 0 N
�al
! N
LE
3 N
n
BENNO RESIDENCE
3323 Eiger Trail
Estes Park. Colorado 80517
o-Jongs on. yquFcs
Lr
1
Lr
Thorp Associates P.C.
s. TAI ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS
L O
r f
D-
om
e
4
} an a cn �F n
A. a T
1
0
73
CD
N
rh
m_
CD
N
r-r
O�
FCC
r" L.
Lr
L.r
a
VnipaismarairAirig
�rll--
r
BENNO RESIDENCE
3323 Eiger Trail
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
TA1Thorp 'Associates P.C.
ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS
sf-
BENNO RESIDENCE
Windcliff Estates
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Measurement of Maximum
Building Height on Slopes
Point "b" on thc Site Plan Sheet A01 is thc highest point of thc building's
roof abovc existing grade (not including chirmcg 5).
Roof Elevation at "b"
Existirg Grade at "b" -
Ridge Weight at "b" -
8606.5'
656(5.0'
38.5'
Calculation of rnaximule height joer Estes Valley Development Gode
Section 1.9E2. Point "e 5 the highest existing grade at building perimeter,
Mb - 30° 5 x (a-b)
a is Highest Exist. Grade - 0591.0'
b is Existing Gradc.:at "b" - 05680'
Mb - 30+ .5 x 23:0' , 41.5'
Mb may not exceed 40' Per EVDC., - 40.0'
Actual height oF 30.5' < maximum allowable height of 40.0'
a )5qk
4‘.
r
17v,410.4e) 4 85.GE5
12riaoc 4?)506+ 20‘-6'it
13(0 06 5
Sc,f3 67"
-7'30-r:5(91-C.8)
o" (may pe., 17, coote..)
WELL COMPACTED
NATURAL SOIL
ROCK RETAINING WALL DESIGN
FOR THE BENNO SITEPLAN
LOT 9, BLOCK 3, WINDCLIFF 5TH
NOT TO SCALE
SWALE TO
DIRECT RUN—OFF
////NAOj`//%/`jj`/MMOO. _
/OVOMOR
`j/\//\j/`\j/`//`//`\//`//\\//`\//\\//�//�//4 4:
i��j/.j/..//.//.///•,, ////.j/.//.//.j/ //,�
//\//��j/ //\//��//��\`j/\//�\//\\/'• \jj��j/��//��4\k
V\`//\/` 4//`�/`//\/` •4/v\//\//`�/`�/
WAj4//`//`//`j`//`//;y`//`//�//;//i.._ ..
//��/\\//�//Q�/�\�\\�/��/� \\�/�\'4`<
\+���s�\j\\%\\j\\j\\/\\j\\j\\%W`j�\%'.
-\\.' .'..`/``�' `j`&. //:,w;"
\\��\//`////\//m~,b
%ow*
*44
\/\/off \�/�
\//`\!/\,/\\'/`�/�'/\\�/Q<` >`/
r+//////
. y_
36"-48' DIAMETER ROCK
(BIGGER ROCK AT BOTTOM OF WALL)
7
2
t!L4iE
SOIL TO BE WELL COMPACTED
AROUND ROCKS AS THEY ARE SET
±20' ROCK WALL
18" MINIMUM
DRAWN
DATE
ZSH/ALP
12-03-2007
VAN HORN ENGINEERINC-
1043 rlsh Creek'Road — Estes Paric, CO 80517 '
Phone: (970) 588-9388 — Fox: (970) 586-8101
SCALE
PROJ. NO.
NTS
2006-11-01