The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2008-02-05Prepared: January 29, 2008 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:00 a.m. — Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated January 8, 2008 3. REQUESTS a. Metes & Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue Owner: Yakutat Land Corporation Applicant: Owner Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, and Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(b) to allow an existing fenced -in structure for hay storage to remain located 30.7 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 50-foot front -yard setback and 16.7 feet from the annual high water mark of the stream corridor in lieu of the required 30-foot setback Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott b. Lot 1A, Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2 & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision, 460 Prospect Village Drive Owner: Edward J. & Gisela Grueff Applicant: Bret & Jan Freedman Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow stairs to be constructed within the required 15-foot side -yard setback by up to four feet; variance from Section 7.5.G.2.b.2 to allow one parking space to encroach into the required 8-foot side -yard landscape buffer by seven feet; and variance from Section 7.5.G.2.b.3 to allow the parking lot and landscape buffer to be 40 feet from the annual high-water mark of the Big Thompson River in lieu of the required 50-foot setback/landscape buffer Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott 4. REPORTS 5. ADJOURNMENT Note: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 8, 2008, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch„ and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Sager Also Attending: Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Director Joseph 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 December 4, 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 February 5, 2008 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting It was moved and seconded (Levine/Dill) to approve the applicant's request for continuance to the February 5, 2008 meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. c. Confirmation of Election of Officers held December 4, 2007 as follows: Chair for 2008—John Lynch; Vice -Chair for 2008—Wayne Newsom It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to confirm the officers elected at the December 4, 2007 meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. d. Appointment of Community Development Department Secretary or Designee as Recording Secretary for 2008 It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Dill) to appoint the Community Development Department secretary or designee as the Recording Secretary for 2008, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 9, BLOCK 3, WINDCLIFF ESTATES 5TH FILING, 3323 Eiger Trail, Owner: Stephen Benno, Applicant: Roger Thorp — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code 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 Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance to allow a new single-family residence to be constructed with a five-foot setback from the eastern property line and a nineteen -foot setback from the western property line in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1 - Estate zoning district. Both setbacks are considered front - yard setbacks because streets front both the eastern and western property lines. Variance requests of this nature are common in this area of the Windcliff Subdivision due to the steep slope. Avqe RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 8, 2008 2 In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist, the llot is steep and narrow and, at 0.38 acre, is sub -sized for the E-1 zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre. The 25-foot front and rear setbacks combine to create a building envelope that is only twenty-three feet wide. A narrow house could be constructed on the lot. However, in determining whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered by approval of the variance, planning staff suggests that the proposed house would be more in keeping with the neighborhood than a 23-foot-wide residence. if the variance is approved, the narrowness of the lot, combined with the reduced setback, will result in construction of a tall, steep retaining wall supporting the driveway. Staff recommends that the retaining wall be redesigned to include planting pockets to visually soften the wall. The variance request was routed to all appllicablle reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Larimer County Engineering and Building departments. A (letter of support was received from John Hiatt of the Windcliff Property Owners Association Architectural Control Committee, stating the Committee's belief the "setback variance is truly justified." An email) opposing the variance request was received from neighboring property owner Ken Pearson, stating the established setbacks should be adhered to, the request is inappropriate and inconsiderate, and expressing concern about devalluation of neighboring properties. Given the special circumstances outlined above, primarily the width of the lot, planning staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Member Levine requested background information on zoning for the Windcliff Subdivision, particularly since the E-1—Estate zoning resullts in a majority of the lots being subsized for the zone district. Planner Shirk explained that with the valley -wide rezoning in 2000, planning staff corresponded with the Windcliff property owners' association, suggesting the subdivision be rezoned to a more appropriate zoning designation. The property owners expressed a desire to maintain the zoning. Given that downzoning may have resulted in further subdivision of the lots, staff agreed. Pllanner Shirk estimated that in the southern portion of Windcliff, approximately 75% of the lots have received or will require a variance from the required setbacks in the E-1 district for construction of a residence. When the land was originally subdivided, development was condensed via the creation of smalls lots with interspersed open -space lots. Although front- and rear -yard setback variances are common in this subdivision, staff attempts to ensure that side -yard setbacks are maintained. Chair Newsom noted that height variances are common in this subdivision due to the steep slopes. Public Comment: Roger Thorp was present to represent the property owners. He stated over the last 25 years he has brought setback variance requests to this Board whenever his work has been in the south end of Windcliff Subdivision. By dividing the total acreage of that portion of the subdivision by the number of Tots, including the open -space lints, the average lot size works out to be over one acre —that is why the Board of County Commissioners allowed that subdivision design for the zoning district. Member Levine pointed out that by retaining the E-1 zoning designation, Windcliff property owners have increased the cost of building in their subdivision [due to the expense of the variance process]. Mr. Thorp stated the Bennos have owned the lot for a number of years; the proposed design is the best possible for the site. The retaining wall wiIIV be constructed of boulders rather than concrete; additional shrubs and landscaping are planned to help break up the scale of the walll. He noted this is an aesthetic issue,; it is not a requirement of the Estes Valley Development Code for residential applications. Discussion followed regarding the slope of the driveway and connection to the sanitary sewer main. Mr. Thorp indicated the drive will have a siope of 10% or less and provided assurance that there will) be gravity flow to the sewer main. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment January 8, 2008 3 Member Levine referenced the Board's powers and duties, specifically, "In order for an applicant to be granted a variance, he must show that, by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or slope of his property, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or another extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of his property, he will be denied the use of his property for any economic use." He stated his belief that the applicant's request qualifies. Member Lynch acknowledged the concerns expressed in Ken Pearson's letter of objection and noted the proposed residence will not block views from neighboring properties. Member Sager stated that even if the property were zoned appropriately for the size of the lot, the variance would be equally justifiable. It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Sager) to approve the variance request for Lot 9, Block 3, Windcliff Estates 5th Filing, to allow an eastern property line setback of five feet and a western property line setback of 19 feet In lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with the applicable building code. 2. 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. 3. The proposed retaining wall shall comply with Section 7.2.B.6 of the Estes Valley Development Code. 4. REPORTS None. Chair Newsom stated that Member Lynch will take over as Chair at the February meeting. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:34 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roede�„ro,,,,,,,,,,,,,,�,,�,�,�,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,�,�,�,�„�:.................................... rer, Recording Secretary rift, Sombrero Stables Hay Shed Front and Stream Setback Variance Requests Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: Feb. 5, 2008 LOCATION: The site is located immediately north of Sombrero Stables at the intersection of Dry Gulch and Hwy 34 (1895 Big Thompson Ave). Legal Description: Metes and Bounds (25200-00-003). APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: Yakutat Land Corp. STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The property owner wishes complete construction of a metal hay shed to protect hay in the historic location used for hay storage for the horse stables. Construction was started without a permit and then halted pending resolution of this variance request. The owner requests variances to Estes Valley Development Code Table 4-2, which establishes fifty -foot front- and side -yard setbacks in the "RE-1" Rural Estate zoning district. A 30.7-ft. front setback is proposed from Dry Gulch Road. Also, a variance from the 30-ft. minimum stream setback requirement (Section 7.6.E.1.a) is requested to allow the hay shed to be located 16.7 ft. from the thread of the Dry Gulch drainage. This location is in a mapped flood plain and flood way regulated by Larimer County. The applicant has acquired a flood plain approval from the Larimer County Flood Review Board (see minutes from this hearing attached). Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.6.E.1.a.2 River Corridors, which states, All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high- water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. II. SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels Parcel Number(s) Zoning Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use SERVICES Water Sewer Fire Protection Electric Telephone LOCATION MAP One 25200-00-003 "RE-1" Rural Estate Agriculture/Stables same Well none Town of Estes Park Town of Estes Park �ppTo�.�u, 'J�� Ii0 Bob Joseph Page 2 1/31/2008 PHOTOS 111111111111111111,, Bob Joseph ��MIIIIIIIIIV�ouou"'I��pu„uiuP°". �IIIUuumu INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NN II DuiHI \\\NIN‘N t INN pl Page 3 11,1 1111 '111 111glllllll U IIIIIIIUIIIIIuip, ilgg puu ININNINNNNNNNNN 11111111111,11111111111111 "1,11,11tipplirr 114 II ..a o JJ� 110 1 /31 /2008 SITE PLAN SITE PLAN Mc, Od' I,w'.wr w»~•'.°A. Cu UMW 'w u'aw1lr 1 .SGCMICM'u' :HO VACUUM V',i Nu MMUC kuccu i 'r';8 W'µ'UT., �ww"u'IfM IO'MMX II° 4d. MOM al I'.a"nuddW, MCC , 0 III C3 MMM, OCC Barn is 16.7 Feet from Creek III. REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.0 and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff -level review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Larimer County Flood Review Board. See minutes of hearing held on Jan. 3, 2008. Bob Joseph Page 4 1/31/2008 V. STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that there are no special circumstances associated with this property other than the historic pattern of use and the convenience that this proximity provides. However, practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards and 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. The lot is more than 185 acres in size. However, the hay shed serves the stables on the parcel adjoining on the south and proximity to this use is a factor to consider. 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 is a beneficial use of the property without the requested variance. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: The variance request 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. Bob Joseph Page 5 1/31/2008 Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered. In fact the historic use would remain unchanged except that the historic hay storage is improved with a roof. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: This variance will not adversely affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding: The historic use and ownership pre -date the setback standards in question. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 1. Staff Finding: A conforming location for a hay shed could be found elsewhere on the property. The applicant should address the operational implications of moving the structure to a conforming location in order to demonstrate a hardship that a variance might be based on. 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 submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the applicant's 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. 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. Bob Joseph Page 6 1/31/2008 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The variance, if granted, represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief if the historic use is to continue. 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 recommends the following condition of approval. In particular, a central purpose of the stream setback standard is to protect naturally occurring vegetation along the stream. The historic usage of this location for hay storage has resulted in the loss of this vegetation. Any motion for approval should be conditioned with the restoration of a similar sized area along the stream back to a naturally vegetated condition to offset the long-term loss under the footprint of the shed as proposed. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No comment was received. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. The applicant shall successfully re -vegetate and restore an area of 3000 square feet along the stream. Returning a presently non -vegetated stream bank area back to a naturally vegetated condition to offset the long-term loss under the footprint of the shed as proposed. The applicant shall prepare this restoration plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the structure. Bob Joseph Page 7 I /31 /2008 VAN' HORN G T -R i'G 1043 Fish Creek Road — Estee Park. CO 80517 01/14/200 15:50 9784987986 LC EN IN LAMER COUNTY FLOOD REVIEW BOARD THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2008 AT 8:00 A.M. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WATSON LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM Persons Present: Mr. Greg Koch (Chairman), Mr. Chris Carlson, Dr. Chester Watson, Dr, Chris Thornton, Mr. Rex Bums, Mr. Ld Woodward, Ms. Christie Colemaaa, Ms. Traci Downs, Mr. Lonnie Sheldon. Mr. Aar= Cvar, Ms, Shetyl Sheafor, Mr. Alan Stahmer and Mr. Bradley Ott. Mr. Koch brought the meeting to order and introduced the Flood Review Board members. ReatWplker Variance Dr. Watson made a motion to untable the item. Dr. Thornton seconded the motion. The vote Was 4 to 0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Sheldon of Van Ian Engineering, representing Rex Walker, addressed the Board and recapped the three items that went requested from the previous meeting. He said a revised site plan with the stationing for the cross sections and BP;C-RAS data is being provided, along with the norther!' and southern limits of the rise in the 100 year water surface elevations. nem are two HEC RAS runs with profiles and field data cross sections. The prof ies show the eturant FEW. water surface and channel as compared with the modeled water surface and field measured channel thalweg. He said he brought some aerial photos dated 1974 and 1978, but they are not of very good quality. Me. Koch asked if cross section number one came out of the PEMA model. Mr. Sheldon replied it was a field generated erosa sectlon. Mr. Koch said he warted a disk to be provided for tie file with the technical information on it. Mr. Sheldon replied he would provide the disk for the file. The Board discussed at length, various cachalot' aspects of the new information with Mr. Sheldon, Dr. Watson was of the opinion that oo harm would be dope by approving the structure, because the haystack has been an obstruction for quite Some time anyway. The other members agreed. Dr_ Thornton made a motion to approve the variance for the hey storage structure. with a condition that no walls would be allowed and the footprint of the haystack remain at it's argent size of 37 feet by 68 feet. Dr. Watson seconded the motion. The vote was 4 to 0 in favor of the motion. Sbegvi Slbeafor.yariance Mr. Woodward explained to the Board that Ms. Sheafor had recently purchased this home which was built in 1968. When she tied to apply for a building permit to build an addition, she found out that she was io a regulatory floodway. Because it would be a fiaancial hardship to do a hydraulic analysis showing no rise, Mr. Woodward suggested that she hire an engineering firm that could define the existing elevation of the home and property. The finished floor of the existing homt'e is 1.36 feet above the 100 year base flood elevation of 4918.00 and the adjacent grade is 0.10 feet to 0.40 feet above the base flood elevation. Ms. Sheafor addressed the Board and explained why she was trying to expand the existing horse. She has recently moved here from Denver with four children and this home is what she could afford. The addition would provide a kitchen and living room space. Her plan was 10 eventually apply for a LOMA after the addition was constructed. CO 39Vd 9N1d33NI9N3 NelOH NBA TOT89890L6 OP:VT 800Z/TZ/T0 0,1/14/2008 119:9' 97 4987986 LC ENGINEERING PAGE_ 03 Mr. Cvar of Northern Engineering. representing Ms. Sheafor, said that the flood study done by Anderson Consulting Bn inects used 2 foot contours which can be in error as much as one foot. A field survey has been provided to the Board that shows the house and where the proposed addition is to be placed is in reality out of the floodplain by elevation. He said the direction he received from Michael Baker, Jr. engiineering was to pursue the variance first. Mr. Burns thought a LOMA would work in this oast as it has on some recent similar projects he has been involved in. Mr. Koch shared his thoughts about the survey data with the other Board members and felt that a LOMA Should be pursued first, which may allow the County to issue a building permit based on FEMA's findings, without needing to come before the Board a second time. After muoh technical discussion between the Board and the applicant's engineer, Mr. Carlson made a motion to table this items for 6 months with a recommendation that a LOMA be applied for by the applicant and approved by ?EMA prior to construction with the Board's support of staff approval of the LOMA, Mr. Koch seconded the motion. The vote was 4 to 0 in, favor of the motion. Dr. Watson monde a motion that the Flood Review Board approves designating the official posting location for notice of Board meetings will be the same as the official posting location for the Board of County Commissioners. Dr.. Thornton seconded the motion. The vote was 4 to 0 in favor of the motion, Dr. Thornton made a motion to oleos Mr. Koch as chairman of the Mood Review Board for 2008. Mr. Carlson seconded the motion. The vote was 3 to 0 in favor of the motion with one abstention. The meeting adjourned at 10;00 a.rn. Respectfully submitted, op/awl,' Ed Woodward Senior Engineering Technician PO 39Vd SNI833NION3 MOH Neill TOT898SOL6 00:VT 800Z/TZ/tO Statement of Intent - Variance Sombrero — Dry Gulch Road Variance Request: (compliance with Section 3.6 of the Estes Valley Development Code) Requested variances: Section 4.3.C.5.Table 4-2 `RE-1' Zoning Front Setback -Existing 50' from current property line -Requesting 30.7' from property line Section 7.6.E.1.a.(2)(a) Stream Corridor Setbacks -Existing 30' Stream Setback -Proposed 16.7' Stream Setback The property located in a portion of Section 20, Township 5 North, Range 72 West is a parcel of land with street frontage on Dry Gulch Road. The land is zoned RE-1 — Residential (10 acre) under the current Estes Valley Development Code. The variances are requested in order to be able to replace an existing fenced in structure for hay storage with a new structure for hay storage. The location of the new structure is in the same location as the previous structure. 1. Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist There is a limited area for this structure to be built. Only one location on this portion of the lot that would allow the building to meet all of the applicable standards is used for vehicular access to the structure and would inhibit that access if it was required to be placed in that location. Nullify the intent of the Code - The proposal is to replace the existing hay storage structure with a new hay storage structure, the new structure is not located any closer to the road or the creek than the previous structure. By granting the variances to the road and the creek it would allow the historic use of the land to be continued. The intent is to improve a covered hay storage area. 2. "Practical Difficulty Factors:" a. This portion of the property has been used for hay storage for many years and granting this variance would allow a historic use to continue, in the same location on the property. b. The variance is not substantial relative to the previous structure that was on the property. The proposed structure will occupy the same location. c. There would not substantially alter or have a major impact on the surrounding properties. They hay storage area has been in this location for many years and replacing the old structure with a new structure will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. d. There will be no adverse affect to the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. There currently is no water or sewer service on the lot and replacing an existing structure in the same location will not adversely Juju ... 2 5 2 7 affect the delivery of public services. i e. The applicant has owned the land for many years and has used this location for a hay storage structure for a long time. f. Due to the location for vehicular access, necessity to be near the stables, and proven historic usefulness the location of the structure a variance is the appropriate process. 3. The variance requested is not general or recurrent in nature, the situation is site specific. Given the special circumstances associated with the request and the topography and vegetation on the site this is a unique request. 4. The granting of this variance will not cause an increase in density or create the ability to create new lots. 5. The proposed variance will allow the applicant to use the property as it has been used for many years, with the least deviation to afford relief. 6. The proposed variance request will not allow a use that has not previously been permitted on the property. Submittal Date: Record Owner(s): treet Address of Lot: egal Description.. 4-� Subdivision: zm Site Information Lot Size ± 1 $7 s ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Block: Section 2.0 Existing Land Use , Proposed Land User, erg Existing Water Service r Town r Proposed Water Service f Town r Existing Sanitary Sewer Service -71.O7u Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service -rt.er"-1- Existing Gas Services r Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Townshi Zoning Well r Other (Specify)-�. ✓ EPSD ✓ EPSD ✓ Other Specific variance desired (state development code section #): ' z R'u^rirby Contact infom ation Name of Primary Contact Person Lew., Mailin,•, Address V3 Attachments ✓ UTSD ✓ UTSD r None ✓ Septic ✓ Septic IA Application fee (see attached fee schedule) IF Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) R 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ""` r 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) " The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. town of ENtes Park .ss P.O. Box 1200 -A 170 MacGregor Avenue . Estes Park. CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 -A Fax: (970) 586-0249 w‘ www.eslesnet.com/ComDev 'rrl��i9iefu�� Nmou �rii� I pIiiI N1V�d!YIiY � o 1l,, VIP u0�1tifi�� Ikou�@ I'IVI�I��IIIIfcBn u�V 9,°JWIINIIppVX�P� /j; lllllh �i�ino(I�'lp0l(Illllfll/Jlh illllyillliliii4jlfujiliilllllYlruGGllll�l h9piIlAiiy"u'IIIIVIIdlyllillll l l h ilnl4lu, piRn,ni"�,Yld,Y�i��J�III(Idi�ml,u,�nutifill��,o ��aIIdIN1��Ni�16�rolGlll�lil Primary Contact Person is I Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) 1.,40" (e4.,1 y gAi4-L .re- ^) Mailing Address r: �,.,yY. c' Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer )1,Avo Naory iNc, _u,� l,v 1-Ay' .. Mailing Address n�#� �•� (d y±w._ 1 .- ` it— r Phone (one)) Cell Phone Fax (000") 5 Bi Q- el tS 1 Email � l,A a:Ar loins •C.rnt APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online ' at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► 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. P. 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 1 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 corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. ► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void," (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: L b y Applicant PLEASE PRINT: 4¢D y v✓.f�i /L.�� Signatures: Record Owner Applicant ECEOVE JIHU Date 7/zsitoo7 i�►.� Date 7/ 5 %e ao 7 Revised 10/13/06 Leaal Description: (from Larimer County Records) W 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF SEC 20 & W 1/2 OF SEC 20 LY E OF DRYGULCH RD DESC: BEG AT S 1/4 COR 20-5-72, N 88 25'36" W 683.65 FT, N 1 37' E 361.76 FT, N 85 34' W 581.61 FT TO E ROW DRY GULCH RD, TH ALG SD ROW N 13 25' E 2279.44 FT, N 0 48' E 38.44 FT, N 88 53' 52" W 19.99 FT, N 0 7' 7" E 221.94 FT, TH 173.05 FT ALG CUR R, RAD 780 FT, D/A 12 42' 42", L/C N 6 28' 28" E 172.70 FT, N 12 49' 49" E 124.80 FT, TH 242.24 FT ALG CUR L, RAD 450 FT, D/A 30 50' 35", L/C N 2 35' 29" W 239.33 FT, TH 90.75 ET ALG CUR R, RAD 250 FT, D/A 20 47' 56", L/C N 7 36' 48" W 90.26 FT, N 7 20' 17"W 173.61 FT, N 1 41' 52" E 120.06 FT, N 113 44' 39" E 87.95 FT, N 17 29' 44" E 252.58 FT, TH 107.31 FT ALG CUR L, RAD 119588 FT, D/A 5 8' 29", L/C N 14 55' 30" E 107.27 FT, N 12 21' 15" E 222.66 FT, TH 218.62 FT ALG CUR R, RAD 796.30 FT, D/A 15 43' 49", L/C N 20 13' 10" E 217.93 FT, N 28 5' 4" E 632.95 FT, TH 108.94 FT ALG CUR L, RAD 1080 FT, D/A 5 46' 47", L/C N 25 11' 41" E 108.90 FT, TH LEAV SD ROW S 89 15' 8" E 315.47 FT TO N 1/4 COR SEC 20, S 89 15' 8" E 1380.19 FT, S 1 49' 40" W 2666.94 FT, N 88 54' W 1352.87 FT, S 1 49' 40" W 2666.91 FT TPOB CONT 186.75 AC M/L yr - —.,r .- 'h LAID SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING January 29, 2008 • VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING Bob Joseph Estes Park Planning Department Estes Park, Colorado RE: Flood Review Board Application for Sombrero Ranch. Dear Bob, The attached letters were submitted to the Flood Review Board for the hearing. These letters explain our process and conclusions regarding the floodway issue. If you have any questions or need any more information please let me know. Sincerely, Lonn'e A. *:_eldon For orn Engineering Inca 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • Fax 970-586-8101 • VHE@AIR ITS.CO LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING • October 25, 2007 Flood Review Board Larimer County, Colorado VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING RE: Flood Review Board Application for Sombrero Ranch. Dear Flood Review Board, l D The applicant is in the process of constructing a pole barn to store hay for the current use on the property which is a riding stable. Hay has been stored in this location for many years (over 50 years according to the owner, Mr. Rex Walker — see attached letter). Construction was started without a permit. The owner now realizes that a permit is required and Flood Review Board approval given for this action. The current FEMA floodway covers the entire footprint of the proposed structure. The approach taken for examining the Flood Plain started with a field survey of cross -sections along Dry Gulch. Then the sections were tied into a known FEMA benchmark, benchmark LL0567, located on the bridge abutment on Highway 34. Next the sections were entered into HEC-RAS. Once entered into HEC-RAS it was determined that the thread of Dry Gulch is 3.8 feet lower than the thread used for the FEMA Mapping, apparently due to erosion over the years. The next step taken was to run the model with FEMA's flow volume to determine the existing flood plain based on our field data. The result of this was that the flood plain was 2.5 feet lower than the mapped flood plain. Once this was determined we proceeded in placing the obstruction (proposed pole barn) in the floodway to determine the effect it would have on the flood plain elevation. The result of placing the obstruction in the floodway was that it increased the water surface elevation 0.43 feet over the existing model run. Also, a comparison was done between the three conditions, FEMA data, existing condition, and the proposed obstructed condition to determine the overall effect the placement of the obstruction would have on the surrounding area. It was determined that even with the obstruction in place the flood plain elevations remain more than 2 feet lower than the mapped FEMA elevations. In conclusion there would be no adverse impact from placing the structure in the floodway as it will not increase elevation of the recognized FEMA flood elevations or increase the horizontal location of the floodway. Further, as the attached letter states the owner of (he vast majority of the land upstream is the applicant. Sincerely, Lonnie A. Sheldo For Van Horn E ring Inc. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • Fax 970-586-8101 • VHE@AIRBITS.COM 444 LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING December 20, 2007 • VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING Flood Review Board Larimer County, Colorado Re: Additional Submittal Information -- Sombrero Ranch Dear Flood Review Board Member: Attached is additional technical information as related to the Sombrero Ranch hay barn/stack item tabled from your November meeting. 1. The site plan has been revised to not include a scan underlay of the FIRM map, rather a tracing of the same to provide a cleaner, clearer product. Stationing for the cross -sections and HEC-RAS data is included. Also, the northern and southern limits of the rise in the 100-year WSE are noted on the site plan. 2. Two HEC-RAS runs with profiles and field data cross -sections are included. The profiles show the current FEMA water surface and channel as compared with the modeled water surface and field measured channel thalweg. As you can see by comparing the two result tables, the highest vertical difference between the water surface elevations (no barn vs. barn) occurs at Station 4.0 with a vertical increase of 0.43 feet. This increase drops to 0.06 feet at Station 4.5 and is not measurable at Station 5.0. As you can see, we have modeled the haystack as a complete rectangular block in the channel at cross -sections 2.0 and 3.0. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, Colorado 80517. 970-586-9388 • fax 970-586-8101 • E-mail: vhe@airbits.com 3. Also included is a copy of an aerial map image obtained from the "County Store" of Larimer County. This image was taken in 1974 prior to the FEMA mapping effort and the 1976 Big Thompson Flood. It is difficult to see on the print (the CD image is better), but we believe the shadowing on the west sides of the structures and the wear paths visible on the ground indicate that there was hay storage occurring at the subject location prior to FEMA's mapping. Thank you for your continued consideration of this proposal. I will be at the hearing on January 3, 2008 to discuss this further. Sincerely, LonnfV.W Eldon Van Horn Engineering & S For Rex Walker, Sombrero 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, Colorado 80517. 970-586-9388 • fax 970-586-8101 • E-mail: vhe@airbiis.com 11111.11111111111111111 Zoning Districts Zoning District .......................................... RE-1 RE E-1 Max. Net Density (units/acre) 1 /10 Ac. 1/2.5 Ac. 1 2 '4 Ac. [3] Bass Density Resid Minimum Lot Standards [11 Area (sq . ft) 10 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 1 Ac. [3] 4 R-1 R-2 RM Ord. 18- 01 #14) 4 Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min =3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 14 Ac. 5,000 Single- family = 18,000; Duplex= 27,000 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [4] [5] [8] Senior Institution- al Living Uses: Ac. Width (ft) § 4.3 Residential Zoning i.) Table 4-2 and Dimensional Standards ntial Z wning Districts 100 60 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 Minimum BulldinglStructure Setbacks [2] (4) ''l93 Side Front (ft.) (ft.) 50 50 25 25-arterials; 15-other streets 25-arterials; 15-other streets 15 25-arterials; 15-other streets 25-arterials; 15-other streets Rear (ft.) 50 50 50 25 10 10 [6] 50 25 15 Max. Building Height (ft.) [101 Min. Building Width () Max. Lot Coverage (%) 30 20 n/a 30 20 n/a 30 20 n/a 30 20 n/a 30 20 nfa 30 20 n/a 30 20 Duplex = 50% Multi- 10 30 20 [7] family= 50% Notes to Table 4-2: [1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 ##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] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 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." Town home developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual town home unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Multi -family developments shall also be sulb)ect 10 a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of ..30. Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line development") are allowed for town home developments. Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum liot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14) 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. Th setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is not applicable in the "MP' 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 General Development Standards § 7.6 Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection Figure 7-10 (2) River Corridors (except in the CD district). (a) General Rule. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. (b) Exception for Lots Developed Prior to the Adoption of this Code. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. See Figure 7-10. (Ord. 2-02 #5) (3) Stream and River Corridors in the CD Zoning District. In the CD district, all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stream or river corridor, the setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with the approval of the Decision -Making Body. (Ord. 2-02 #5) Supp. 3 7.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 Cr CO CO CO CO 2-000000 N U U U U U U d Y Y Y Y Y c0 a3 CO 0co 0cO yaaacaao- N N N N N N a) a) a) a) a) a) N N cN N N N 0 W W W W W UJ 1825 N. Lake Avenue Sombrero Hay Barn Variance HSZ a 00011 3lradn NO SIA3a z n� THE V ) 9a°Z/6Z/ 0 cn n o OF LARIMER, STATE OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY COLORADO Iota-999 (0L6) 06'd . 99f9-999 (0(6) 3H0Hd L1909 00090'100 'NWd 03103 . 09 93390 H511 0601 ONIA3AtlfiS ONtl ONIi133NI0N3 NtlOH NVA 034v __ (329 Nn00 2f3W1Nib-1) py AW] I2L I 'RI '08 'ONS 'Z/T IL .IO NOLLWIOd SEEMS OZIEG tOS-]LRINdOUd &um .H (n W J CO 0 z Q CC 0 0 W co 03 0 0 �,060, WPY 460 Prospect Village Drive Setback Variance Requests Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: February 5, 2008 LOCATION: The site, addressed 460 Prospect Village Drive, is located behind the Estes Park Brewery, and adjacent to Fun Trax and the Big Thompson River. It is located within the Town of Estes Park and the legal description is Lot 1A, Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Prospect Village Subdivision. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: Bret and Jan Freedman/Edward J. and Gisela Grueff STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The applicant has submitted Development Plan Application #08-03 to develop a two-story, 2,000-square-foot real estate office with a 450-square- foot garage and ten parking spaces on an undeveloped lot. The lot is approximately half an acre in size. The development plan application will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission at their February 19, 2008 meeting. In order to construct the building and associated parking as proposed on the development plan the applicant is requesting that the Board of Adjustment approve the following three variances: 1. A variance to EVDC Section 4.4.C.4 (Table 4-5), which establishes a fifteen -foot minimum side -yard setback in the CO -Outlying Commercial zoning district in order to build secondary fire escape stairs eleven feet from the side property line. This is a four -foot variance. 2. A variance to EVDC Section 7.5.G.2.b(2) which requires that "All parking areas shall be separated from side and rear property lines by a planting area at least eight (8) feet wide." The applicant proposes to construct one parking space one foot from the side property line. This is a seven -foot variance. 3. A variance to EVDC Section 7.5.G.2.b(3) which requires that "All parking lots or areas shall be separated from the high water mark of all river banks by a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet, except in the CD Zoning District ..." The applicant proposes to construct the parking lot forty feet from river. There is a platted thirty -foot -wide river setback for beautification and public access to the river; however, this may only apply to buildings and structures, not parking lots. Staff agrees with the reasons for the variance requests outlined by the applicant and is supportive of the requests. II. SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels One Parcel Number(s) Lot Size Zoninfi Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use SERVICES 35253-69-001 0.47 acres CO -Outlying Commercial Undeveloped Real Estate Office Building 20,51 1 square feet per development plan Water Town Sewer Fire Protection Electric Telephone Upper Thompson Sanitation District Town of Estes Park Town of Estes Park Qwest Page #2 —460 Prospect Village Drive Setback Variance Request LOCATION MAP WITH ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES ��oj%f Y;liliiilllllllu illllijjlll�,/l�l�iijiiilll,lllllll�� y 1. 1111filirri41641:"111:11(filitilliir()Ili Will '')!1.) ;ill,: 0,0 !ci.iiiiiiiiiirli.(i) : iiii, 1,:il , g/1114,1,114,1111111 w. I 0S0 ro i ofez i')1)vIAV•ilf(1 1 i) 1 00 ' ' ' . ' 1 iuiffrooffili fb ' IF AERIAL PHOTOS 110101100000000 ittlitlespeoreetteft Page #3 —460 Prospect Village Drive Setback Variance Request SITE PLANS 5' BUILDING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR STAIRS N i�,An lyl;y III' pu�m�Ru�ol�u��Vm�mui�(4uoiltW�,��h„ N89 59' 13.E 91.09' J' (N159'59'13'E 01.0,0 V E REQUEST IVII�' 10' UTRRY ,,,SEE NOTE /5 /4 REBAR 11I1EASEMENT "r, w WITfi PLASM CAW LS O4B5 it III LOT 2A �, IIII��Ialirlk'ml� i pace 1 k' t it e AMENDED PLAT OFF"m opIIP TR Page #4 —460 Prospect Village Drive Setback Variance Request III. REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.0 and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff -level review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Estes Park Building Department See Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated January 28, 2008. Estes Park Light and Power Department See Mike Mangelsen's memo to Bob Goehring dated January 21, 2008. Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated January 21, 2008. Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Chris Bieker's letter to Alison Chilcott dated January 21, 2008. Page #5 —460 Prospect Village Drive Setback Variance Request V. STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: I. 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: Staff finds that there are special circumstances associated with this property. Practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards and 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 agrees with the special circumstances outlined in the applicant's statement of intent, i.e., that the developable land is significantly reduced by setbacks and easements. The lot shape (flagpole) and existing trees also add development constraints. 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 is a beneficial use of the property without the requested variance. A development could be proposed that complies with the setbacks. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: The variance request is not substantial. One parking space, 17.5 feet long, encroaches into the eight -foot planting area and about 68 square feet of stairs encroach into the fifteen -foot side - yard building/structure setback. The variance to the river setback would allow a small portion of parking lot to encroach into the river setback. Page #6 —460 Prospect Village Drive 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 Finding: Staff agrees with the comments in the statement of intent that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered. 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 variance will not adversely affect the delivery of public services. Prior to approval of development of this lot, the Upper Thompson Sanitation District wants to ensure access to the sewer main adjacent to the Big Thompson River. This can be addressed with development plan review. 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 regulations are applicable to his/her property. The applicant has not purchased the property yet and is aware of the Code requirements. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 1. Staff Finding: A smaller scale development could be proposed that complies with the setbacks. 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 Page #7 —460 Prospect Village Drive Setback Variance Request formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding: The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the applicant's 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. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: The variance would not reduce the size of the lot. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The 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. Page #8 —460 Prospect Village Drive Setback Variance Request VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. Planning Commission approval of the development plan application. 3. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes prior to construction, shall verify compliance with the variances, and shall provide a setback certificate. Page #9 —460 Prospect Village Drive Setback Variance Request ( FREEDMAN VICINITY MAP DRAWN JWC DATE 12-31-2007 VAN HORN ENGINEERING 1043 Fish Creek Road — Estes Park. CO 80517 Phone: (970) 588-9388 — Fox• (970) 586-8101 SCALE 1 " - 200' PROJ. NO. 2007-10-02 111 1111111 11 To: Alison Chilcott, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official Date: January 28, 2008 Subject: Freedman Commercial Building 460 Prospect Village Drive The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application for the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for the above -referenced property and has no comment at this time. To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 01-21-08 Re: Freedman Commercial Building, 460 Prospect Village Drive, Variance Request The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Application for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1.) The Light and Power Department needs to know the service characteristics volts, amps, and phase requirements. Otherwise we have no comments North Park Place 1423 West 290h Street Loveland, Colorado :0538 G 1" I GORY A. WHY 'E Attorney at Law January 21, 2008 ALISON OFIELCOTT, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 970/667-53:L0 Fax 970/667.-2527 Re: Board of Adjustment - Variance Request - Freedman Commercial Building Dear Ms. Chilcott: I have no comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. GAW/ldr CC: Van Horn Enginee Fax: 970/586-8101 Ve Tjuiy Yours, Grego. A. White oe Coop Qsr -41111 P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 (970) 586-1049 Fax January 21, 2008 Alison Chilcott, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Variance Request Freedman Commercial Building Lot 1A, Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, & 3, Prospect Village Subdivision 460 Prospect Vill: _e Drive Dear Alison, JAN 2, 5 2008 The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: 1. The miniature golf course fence and rock landscaping is currently located within the public utility easement. Because it is a public utility easement and must be shared with other utilities, future access to the collection main via this route may become an issue. Access via the public utility easements to the West may also have similar issues and warrant further investigation and discussion. 2. The District has an existing collection main on the north side of the property and reserves all rights agreed upon in easement (B 1591, P 307, Reception No. 81748). The District will not allow the placement of any landscaping (especially trees) on the easement without prior approval. Fencing or any other structures on the easement must be designed in a way to allow the access of District vehicles to maintain the collection line. 3. The District is requiring an adequate access route to the collection main located on the north side of the property. In the past, the District has accessed the main where the proposed building is to be located. Because of the environmental sensitivity and close proximity of the collection main to the river, the District requests that an access easement or similar agreement be granted to allow guaranteed access to the collection main for maintenance purposes. District approval therefore hinges on the development of this agreement. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank ou, C Chris Bieker Operations Manager Upper Thompson Sanitation District cc: Joe Coop, Van Hom Engineering 1111111111111 Variance Request Statement of Intent The Freedman Development Plan is a 2000 square foot office building with an attached 450 square foot garage. The building is planned to be a real estate office. The property is zoned commercial (CO) and this use is permitted in the zone. The project requires ten parking spaces which have been provided along with one van accessible space. The project is adjacent to the Big Thompson River and also within the floodplain. The building is planned to be raised to an elevation that will bring it above the base floodplain elevation. This project will be asking for a variance to the side yard setback for deck stairs to the second floor and to the parking lot landscape buffers along the south side of the parking area and along the river. Section 4.4.C.4 (Table 4-5, side setback) and Sections 7.5.G.2.b.2 and 3 are the specific sections of the code that the variance requests are for. The stairs to the second floor on the south side of the building are planned to be in the setback up to 4.0'. The stairs would provide for a secondary fire escape in addition to a secondary access to the second floor. They are not necessary but would provide an important function for the building. The neighbor to the south, Ed's Brewery would not be impacted greatly since the building is 75' to the south of the property line. Regarding Sections 7.5.G.2.b.2 and 3, the Estes Valley Development Code's landscape buffers require an eight foot landscaping buffer between a parking lot and a side yard and a fifty foot landscaping buffer between a parking lot and a river. There is one space that will be encroaching on the side yard eight foot parking lot buffer by seven feet; therefore this variance request is for a one foot side yard buffer. This variance is not needed because the parking space could be placed on the northeast side of the parking lot however this would increase the variance request for a buffer along the river. In addition it would also require the removal of another large ponderosa tree. The side yard buffer variance request is for the purpose of preserving the large ponderosa's on the property. The building has been designed to save as many of the large ponderosa trees as possible. The variance request for the parking lot landscape buffer along the river is for forty feet. This need is due to the size of the lot, the amount of available building area and parking spaces that are required to accommodate the building. This lot is only 0.47 acres (20,511 sf) and it is along a river. The river and its setbacks alone consume 8,500 square feet of this lot leaving little land to build on. This building is not large either. The buildable ' square footage (allowable floor area) for the property is 4,900 sf and this project is only proposing 2,450 - roughly half. Seven hundred square feet is upstairs in order to decrease the building footprint and 450 sf is a garage that provides a parking space. The main reason only half of the allowable square footage is proposed is because of the lack of buildable space. We feel this proposal is small enough in nature that it is not a substantial variance request. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered by this variance. All the neighboring properties are commercially zoned. There is a miniature golf course next door that has some putt -putt holes within ten feet of the river. There are also buildings and parking lots upstream and downstream that are within 30 feet of the river. The use would not be inconsistent with the neighboring properties. This project meets 30 foot setbacks from the river for the building and will be 40 feet for the parking lot. It also will not be impacting the utilities any more than without the variance. The applicant is not the owner, but they do know about this requirement as they are trying to propose a workable sized development project on this property. This is a small beneficial use for the property. Thank you for your consideration of this request. III ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: /2 Z(9 Zeo ` - 41(000 0iIII;IIiii0r:000rm0i0EiD: Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: O 9 Legal Description Lot: IA Subdivision: Parcel ID Site Information Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Town r Well Proposed Water Service (Town r Well Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? ✓ EPSD ✓ EPSD ✓ Other O 74 r Yes Zoning ✓ Other (Specify) ✓ Other (Specify) UTSD Septic UTSD r Septic r None Specific variance desired (state development code section # rLf.'u Primary Contact formation Name of Primary Contact Person Mailin. Address Application fee (see attached fee schedule) r Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) rV 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** IV 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.VI1.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park w P.O. Box 1200 d+ 170 MacGregor Avenue .4+ Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 -s+ Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estesnet.com/ComDev l ur! 9[1 8Q" r i v ° ID Nd !kdYPJ v� a i1y� �h�Ndl NY fillI�ijrlrnurilllllllNN!I tii, Ir-ifprf71atl0lu /lllullr-'^ Ylllu 1v II,Piui'�i� UII IIIIUIIi IdNr ir�.,,ll mii w; IIIIII 101IIIIld111111(Iltil yNInIII0IIIIIUIilgl ili alii 114i rrhll lillvN'ryII Primary Contact Person is r' Owner r Applicant Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) f (,%qrd adt d . ir. fsP (a Ede* 9 el r Mailing Address 3 Zz 5- I)a yr is %-fr. k. Fr° .$: arGC u.> .' Phone . , , _ £- Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant to Mailing Address ?D. ,G C Phone 610 -- Cell Phone Fax 5s- 30 Email b . , L Re anti. , ,, • Gm Consultant/Engineer , t „",, . e Mailing Address /oti dc" . Phone Cell Phone Fax '..e v �... a,: c.ovs& Email VIIlillll(111111 APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► 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. P. 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. ► 1 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 decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) ECEOVE Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT. 2 ;; U[�=� Applicant PLEASE PRINT: ‘/.6EL,4 - [ t) Signatures: Record Owner Applicant D Date /2 3/ - wrap Date /.2 mm. � ,—.Z4,07 Revised 1 i)»13/Ur LIC T C ":TIFI TI �► 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). 10, 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. P. 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. kb The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board .of Adjustment hearing. ► 1 understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance app receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT. Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Record Owner Applicant li A null and void." (Este Date k) Date f 'a y° — (3'7 Revised 10/13/08 Zoning Districts Zoning District A A-1 § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4. Table 4 , 5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Minimum Land Area per Accommo- dation or Residential Unit (sq. ft. per unit) Accommodation Unit =1,800 [1]; Residential Units: SF 9,000; 2-Family = 6,750; MF = 5,400 10,890 Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Size [7] Area (sq ft) 40,000 [2] 15,000 [2] Width (ft) 100 [3] 50 [3] Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Front (ft.) Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets =15 Arterial = 25 [5]; Ail other streets = 15 Side (h.)w �. 15 [6] 15 Rear ,(ft.) 10 [6] 10 Max Bulidin Height (ft.) [9] 30 30 Max. FAR N/A .20 Max. Lot Coverage (%) 50 30 CD CO Accommodation Units Only = 1,800; SF & 2-Family (stand-alone) = 9,000; MF = 9,000 + 2,250 for each dwelling unit located on ground floor n/a Accom- modation uses 20,000 All other uses =n/a Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commer- cial Recreatio n/ Entertain- ment = 40,000 [2) All other Tots = 15,000 [2] SF & 2- Family (stand- alone) = 25; MF (stand- alone) = 100; Ail other uses = n/a Fronting arterials = 200; All other Tots = 50 Mini- mum = 8 Maxi- mum = 16 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets =15 If lot abuts a resi- den- tial prop- erty 10; All other cases =0 15 [6] If lot abuts a maiden - Oaf property = 10; All other cases = 0 30 15 [6] 30 2.0 .25 nla 65 Genera! Dev lopment StandarL... § 7.5 Landscpin,g and Buffers 4. Method of Calculation. Graphic 7.1 shall serve as a guide for measuring distances for calculation of buffer requirements. B B. 1i—[' A= Distnet Buffei B= Street Buffer C= Parking lot screening (different zone district) B (Street) • • • • Graphic 7.1 (Ord. 8-05 #1) G. Parking Lot Landscaping. 1 Purpose. Parking lot landscaping is intended to improve the views from adjacent properties and public use areas, alter the microclimate of parking areas by providing shade and reducing reflected heat, and break up large areas of impermeable surface, allowing areas for water infiltration. 2. Perimeter Landscaping. a. Applicability. All parking lots containing six (6) or more spaces shall provide perimeter landscaping pursuant to the General Requirements below, except where abutting property is determined by Staff to be unbuildable or visually separated by topographic features. Parking lots in the 1-1 and CH Zoning Districts shall be exempt. See Figure 7-9. (Ord. 8-05 #1) b. General Requirements (See Figure 7-9). All parking areas shall be separated from property lines at the street by a planting area at least twenty-five (25) feet wide on arterial streets and by a planting area at least fifteen (15) feet wide on other street property lines. All parking areas shall be separated from side and rear property lines by a planting area at least eight (8) feet wide. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Supp. 6 7.24 General Development Standaio. ' Landscaping and Buffers ) All parking Tots or areas shall be separated from the high water mark of all river banks by a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet, except in the CD Zoning District where the setback shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet. The required perimeter landscaping shall be provided within this setback area through retention of existing vegetation, or through additional new tree and shrub plantings as needed to meet the required minimum quantities of perimeter plantings. See §7.6.E below. (4) Perimeter landscaping shall provide a semi -opaque screen during the winter season. (Ord. 8-05 #1) c. Berms. Bemis may be utilized as part of perimeter landscaping, but shall vary in height over the length of the berm. (Ord. 8-05 #1) d. Walls/Fences. Where walls or fences are used, a minimum of one (1) evergreen tree or three (3) shrubs is required for every forty (40) linear feet of wall or fence and shall be planted on the side of the fence or wall facing the surrounding streets, walks, parks, trails or other public use properties. e. Perimeter Planting Requirements: (1) A minimum of one (1) tree per twenty (20) lineal feet and one (1) shrub per five (5) lineal feet shall be planted along the perimeter of any parking lot area located adjacent to an arterial street. A minimum of one (1) tree per thirty (30) lineal feet and one (1) shrub per ten (10) lineal feet shall be planted along the perimeter of any parking lot area located adjacent to nonarterial streets. See Figure 7-9. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (2) For parking lot areas that are adjacent to a side or rear lot line, one (1) tree per thirty (30) lineal feet and one (1) shrub per five (5) lineal feet shall be planted along the perimeter of any parking area located along the lot line. Plants should be grouped, not evenly spaced. (3) 3. Parking Lot interiors. a. Applicability. All parking lots with thirty (30) or more parking places shall comply with these interior parking lot landscaping requirements. Interior parking lot landscaping requirements shall be in addition to all other landscaping requirements; no other landscaping requirement may be used to fulfill interior parking lot landscaping requirements. (Ord. 8-05 #1) b. Minimum Requirement: A minimum of six percent (6%) of the total interior parking lot area shall be landscaped with planted islands. A minimum of one (1) tree and two (2) shrubs must be planted in interior islands for every two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of parking lot, exclusive of perimeter plantings. See Figure 7-9. c. Landscaped Islands: (1) Individual landscaped islands shall include a minimum of one (1) tree, an automated sprinkler and raised concrete curbs. (2) Landscaped islands shall be at least one hundred (100) square feet in size, with the smallest dimension being six (6) feet to allow for adequate root aeration and expansion. See Figure 7-9. Supp. 6 7-25 n� r-nnr.r•r�nNi.rN. rou7 roroLou7u7u)u7u)tONto O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co co M a0 co co co co co co CO CO • CO 0•0000000000000 N O O N O O O O O O O O O o 0 27 Y Y< Y Y Y Y Y .Y Y C •2 ` r(U m ai > cd c0 co co co M al LE 8O c (i) L xaaatLaaa -0- c0. M u) RI co b) co co co co co O co < co a1 a) 'C a) a) a) a) a) a) a) - a) c a) (A v) co co co u) co co co co o N co u1 OWwrLwwwwW WWU. WCI W to r• v *k t• u CC I• VO a);.74 U U 0- a) — 01 W 0 Wiz+ c ❑OZ' 00 (p N O r-J N a)w y E ✓ Oco r, CO c1) O) N. co ;a ,p y) M 5 d N N N co o. 1- 9 O 1 cox • O O O XpL • O Cm❑ 2 c �mu,r.mmmmUmmq� QwQ- TgONrn00000000))��co dC700rlddd et 0-d. N,-,r-ao .a c c 0 c4 v 6U Y C J O M 0 C J V= J C) atCnU)W lfl 7 V a) ff (7o c) O co 0 v N cl3) U C � !L) N co c N E u) c c O C p c o c p a) p c ro U ` J p as 2 y !O� r2 J a Wots i ti c*5CO waif C) X°d �'�-o td C y a) «. Y N 'L pNj °� fd a) y 3 U •N al Q N t U) - N o 0 0 0cnoncma2cnccnc❑cc� Freedman Variance AS JAVO oeLS S es (Ow) ave . aecs—sss (ocs)xaaae aNO. us esid �a0, 9NI)3A8fIS�ONV `JNIN33NION3 N210H NVA 0 OD `)IHVd saisS aDVT IA J.0ads021d 'VT 10T ,,3f0, N`rld ,I,NaNdOTaa NY➢Qaaa213 1,15 gt