Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-10-02Prepared: September 26, 2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, October 2, 2007 9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated September 11, 2007 3. REQUESTS a. Metes & Bounds, located in the SE 1/4 of S34-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., 2025 Moraine Avenue Owner: Ann Toft Applicant: Steve Eck & Steve Williams Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.5.F.2.B(3) to allow portions of a driveway to be placed within the required arterial street landscape buffer at a distance of 11.5 feet from the property line in lieu of the required 25,, foot buffer Staff Contact: Dave Shirk b. Lot 2, Good Samaritan Subdivision, 2000 Ptarmigan Trail Owner: Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church Applicant: Owner Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E to allow a steeple structure and cross to extend 12 feet above the maximum slope -adjusted height limit of 32 feet, 9 inches 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. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment The next scheduled meeting will be held Tuesday, November 6, 2007. There are currently two items on the agenda. You can view information about all current submittals, including next month's Board of Adjustment items, on our web page: www.estesnet.com/comdev/CurrentRequests.aspx RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment September 11, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Newsom; Members Levine and Sager; Alternate Member Grant Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Members Dill and Lynch 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 July 10, 2007 meeting. b. Metes and Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue, Yakutat Land Corporation/Applicant—Request for continuance to November 6, 2007 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting There being no changes or corrections, the consent agenda was approved as submitted. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2760 FALL RIVER ROAD, Applicant: Inn Owners' Association, Inc. — Request for a one-year time extension for setback variances approved August 1, 2006. Planner Shirk stated the Inn Owners' Association for Fawn Valley Inn is requesting a time extension for variances granted in August 2006. Variance approvals typically expire after one year. The variance approved in 2006 included three requests for setbacks to property lines and was a "blanket" variance for all decks. The applicant has been in the process of replacing and expanding the decks, although construction was halted for the summer tourist season before all the work was completed. Planning staff recommends approval of the requested time extension. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve a one-year time extension for the variance approved on August 1, 2006 for the Metes and Bounds Property located at 2760 Fall River Road, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 8:05 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roederer, Reco Recording Secretary Rippling River Landscape Buffer Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Illoommossill Estes Park, CO 80517 111111111.•""1111111 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: October 2, 2007 REQUEST: A request to allow access drives to be located within the mandated 25-foot arterial landscaping buffer zone. LOCATION: 2025 Moraine Avenue, within unincorporated Larimer County (the site is just west of Dallman Drive) APPLICANT: Steve Eck (Littleton, CO) PROPERTY OWNER /ADDRESS: Anne Toft (2071 Spur 66) STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Zach Hanson), 586-9388 Parcel Number: 3534400024 Number of Lots: One Proposed Land Use: Multi -family accommodations Adjacent Zoning - East: "A" Accommodations West: "A-1" Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single-family West: Single-family Development Area: 2.55 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations North: "A" Accommodations South: "A" Accommodations North: Multi -family accommodations South: Accommodations (Glacier Lodge) Services - Water: Town Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer Sewer: UTSD PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant, Steve Eck, requests a variance to Section 7.5.F.2b(6) "No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow driveway access to be located within twelve feet of the property line, within the mandated 25-foot arterial landscaping buffer zone. The purpose of this variance request is to develop this property with nine residential/accommodation units, for which the property is zoned ("A" Accommodations). A separate development plan will be required. The applicant should be aware this variance request is not part of the development plan review, and in no way constitutes approval of the required development plan. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6.0 "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria set forth below: Page #2 --Eck Variance Request 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: Staff suggests the following special circumstances exist: • Topography (steep drop from the road). • Narrow lot considering river and arterial road setbacks. • Site plan has been designed to save an existing tree, thus pushing the drive closer to the highway. Staff reminds the Board that special circumstances do not equate practical difficulty, which is discussed below. 2. In determining "practical difficulty„" the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Comment: The property is currently undeveloped and could be designed to meet all setbacks. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment whether the variance is substantial; Staff suggests it is not. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Comment: This request would place the interior drive closer to the road, thus allowing more land area for buildings. Therefore, Staff recommends additional landscaping be planted to mitigate this. Staff recommends using the "district buffer" landscape requirement instead of the "arterial street" standard. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant does not own the property, and is purchasing with the intent to develop. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Page #3-Eck Variance Request Staff Comment: The property is currently undeveloped and could be designed to meet all setbacks. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment whether the variation affords the least deviation. Staff suggests the requested setback should be reduced even further to allow the drives to be twelve -feet wide. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist, as outlined in the staff report. 2. The property may be developed without the variance. 3. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4. This request would place the interior drive closer to the road, thus allowing more land area for buildings. Therefore, Staff recommends additional landscaping be planted to mitigate this. Staff recommends using the "district buffer" landscape requirement instead of the "arterial street' standard. 5. The Board should use their best judgment whether the requested variance is substantial; Staff suggests it is not. 6. The Board should use their judgment whether the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. Staff recommends additional variance to allow for twelve -foot wide drives. 7. The applicant does not yet own the property (the owner signed the application). 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 9. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer, and would provide greater area for the necessary septic system without disturbing the aspen stand. Page #4 Eck Variance Request 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. ApprovaI of this variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 12. Approval of this variance would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought; 13. A separate development plan will be required. The applicant should be aware this variance request is not part of the development plan review, and in no way constitutes approval of the required development plan. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to Section 7.5.F.2b(6) "No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow driveway access to be located within ten feet of the property line, within the mandated 25-foot arterial landscaping buffer zone CONDITIONAL TO: a. District Buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial street standards. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and condition recommended by staff. DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance because... (state reason for denial - findings). 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 #5Eck Variance Request COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 EEI EPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 FROM: Traci Downs Development Review Services Engineer DATE: September 20, 2007 SUBJECT: Rippling River Estates Development Plan: Variance — Estes Valley Planning Area Proiect Description/Background: This is a 9-unit development on 2.55 acres off of Spur 66, which is also known at 2025 Moraine Avenue in Estes Park. As part of the development plan, a separate variance application is being requested to have a landscape buffer from the right-of-way line at 11.5 feet in lieu of the required 25 feet. Review Criteria: Development review staff has reviewed the submitted materials per the criteria found in the Larimer County Estes Valley Development Code, County Rural Area Road Standards, and County Storm -Water Design Standards. Comments: Since the ultimate 40 foot half right-of-way for Spur 66 will be dedicated with this plat and the 11.5 foot setback for landscaping will be off of this line, there should not be any hindrances to future road improvements. The detailed landscaped plan and site design that is submitted with the next stages of review will need to verify and show that the proposed landscaping will not have any impacts to the sight distance at the access or along Spur 66. Staff Recommendation: As long as the comments noted above are addressed with the future submittals, the Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any concerns with this specific request. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or email me at tdowns@larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: Van Horn Engineering 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park CO 80517 reading file file H:IDEVREVIPLANCHKIReferrals\CITIES\Estes\Rippling River Estates\Rippling River Estates Variance Request.doc P.O. Box 568 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970)-586-4544 (970) 586-1049 Fax September 18, 2007 Dave Shirk, Planner II Town of Estes Park P.O. 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Variance Request Rippling River Development Metes and Bounds, located in the SE 'h of S34-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M. 2025 Moraine Avenue Dear Dave,. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits the following comments for the above referenced property: The District has no objection to the proposed variance request. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, &a9A— Chris Bieker Operations Manager Upper Thompson Sanitation District cc: Zach Hanson Van Horn Engineering Statement of Intent - Variance Ri lin River Develo ment - 2025 U.S. Hi hwa 66 Variance Request: (compliant with section 3.6 of the Estes Valley Development Code) Requested variances: Section 7.5.F.2.b.(3) Arterial Landscape Buffer -Existing: 25' property line -Requesting: 11.5' from County Required property line The property located in a portion of the Southeast 4 of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West is currently a vacant parcel of land with street frontage on U.S. Highway 66 (Spur 66) also known as Moraine Avenue. The Road has been transferred from the State to the County and the County Codes are to be used for the future development of this property. The land is zoned A — Accommodations under the current Estes Valley Development Code. 1. Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist Narrowness — The lot lies between Moraine Avenue (Spur 66) and the Big Thompson River the maximum width of the lot is 190' and the average width of the lot is approximately 135'. Trying to place an effective development with the code required setbacks would limit the area for a two lane road, a driveway, and dwelling units to 45'-110' with a majority of the lot having less than 60' to accommodate these required items. With a two lane road being a minimum of 22' wide, a driveway a minimum depth of 20' (to accommodate parking) and a dwelling of about 40' it would require at minimum an 82' wide buildable portion of the lot. With a majority of the lot 20' narrower than this, special consideration should be taken to provide for a buildable situation. Also the site drops off from the road at a rapid rate and has abundant vegetation near the road which would allow the drive to be tucked close to the property line so the view from the road would be less impacted. Common to other areas - This is not common to most parcels in the area however it is common to the neighboring lot to the north. The neighboring lot to the north was recently developed and was granted 0' lot line setback to the State Highway (code specifies 25' setback, section 4 table 4-5, to an arterial street, see arterial street definition 13.3.228) and also was determined to have 30' setbacks to the river by section 7.6.E.2(b). Nullify the intent of the Code - By granting the variance to allow small portions of the driveway to be placed within the Landscape Buffer the overall site will be less disturbed. 2. "Practical Difficulty" a. Whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance? The property is zoned A -Accommodations and has the potential for many units. Without the proposed variance, the property would not be functional to meet the driveway and parking standards of the E.V.D.C. due to the narrowness of the property. b. Whether the variance is substantial? The variance is not substantial, relative to other approved variances in the area. The neighboring property was granted a 0' Landscape Buffer on a portion of there lot for a driveway in 2004. This request is to be 11.5' away from County required property line (which would be 21.5' away from the original property line) in comparison the proposed driveways on this lot will be 21.5' further away from the road than a portion of the neighbors to the north. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or neighbors would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance? There would not be a substantially altering or a major impact on the surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are zoned A - Accommodation as well the neighboring property to the north, which is a more dense development with a greater impact on its site. The proposed development will be in character with recent developments in the area. d. Whether the variance would affect the delivery of public services? . There will be no adverse affect to the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. There currently exists a sewer main that runs along the eastern portion of the property. The proposed development will be extending the water main from the north onto their property and installing fire hydrants which will have a positive impact on the surrounding properties. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement? The applicant was not aware of the County requirement for the road dedication (when the development process started) as the road was originally owned by the State of Colorado. The neighboring property to the north was granted a variance to build on a lot that is similar in character. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some other method? There is no other easy alternative to this lot shape predicament. Even if this parcel went through the county process to appeal the right-of-way dedication there would still need to be a variance for the development of this parcel. 3. The variance requested is not general or recurrent in nature, the situation is site specific. Given the special circumstances associated with the request and the topography and vegetation on the site this is a unique request. 4. The granting of this variance will not cause an increase in density or create the ability to create new lots. 5. The proposed variance will be the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief and allow the applicant to use the property as the development code intends. 6. The proposed variance request will not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of the E.V.D.C. for its zoning district. The applicant would like to develop the property with condominiums which is allowed in the A- accommodations zoning district. 7. In granting such variances, the applicant realizes the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Additional information: 1. Additional trees and shrubs will be planted to shield the driveway (variance feature) from sight. 2. The variance is to allow small portions of the driveways within the landscape buffer. The buffer extends further into the property due to the County required road dedication. 3. An additional sheet is attached showing the unit layout (floor plan). This unit has been slightly altered or combined in a variety of ways to create unique building plans conforming to the site. 4. The property was originally shown on the FEMA maps to be almost entirely out of the flood plain,however in the process of trying to develop this property it was found that there was an error in the FEMA mapping. This error was corrected through the FEMA LOMR process. The result of this is that a significant portion of the lot is now within the flood plain. An application has been approved by FEMA to place fill on a portion of the lot to bring it out of the flood plain and provide for a buildable area on the lot. The amount of fill proposed is to accommodate the site layout and is considerably less than could be placed based on the FEMA mapping. Submittal Date: General Information Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: Legal Descrjption/ -zoo7 a Zo z 4/et r-ll...c..tu , i/� , c�-�-s � /14.4 Ci' rFOri 7 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Lot: Subdivision: Block: Tract: Parcel ID # 44y6 0 2 Section Lot Size _2 Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Townshi• Ran ' e Zoning r Town r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service plown Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service r" Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Variance r Well r Other (Specify) ✓ EPSD ✓ EPSD ✓ Other jl UTSD Septic UTSD r Septic F -- None r Yes .�C N Specific variance desired (state development code section #): -7, S • F , Z Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person 7gj .L Attachments 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) V 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) " The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park •ae P.O. Box 1200 •a,, 170 MacGregor Avenue •a Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone:'l970l 577-3721 -6 Fax: {970) 586-0249 www.estesnet.com/ComDev Di u'' l Vm'1irp� i7.11 111� Primary Contact Person is Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Applicant Mailing Address Phone CeII Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Ii Owner I— Applicant 4 Consultant/Engineer 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. Aug-21-07 02:56P ECK- PERTISE 7^h523'57 P_p1 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I hereby ify 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 cpniant of the owners of the property. In submitting the epplicetion rnahwiels and signing this application Rigreement. I acknowledge and agree that the application Is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Bath Valley Develeprnent Code (EVDC). IPA acknowledge that 1 have obtained or hens' access to the EVPC, end 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 Estee Valley Development Code is avaltable online at www,eestesreet.com/9ComDevipei Oee e.) 1 understand lhet acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for feting and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the appticalion 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 incomplests, inaccurate. or submitted alter the deadline date ► i understand that a nesubmittat fee will be charged if my aepptitatian Is incomplete. The Community Development Department wip notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant Partniatilon for Town Of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment web proper identaicatian aovese to my property during the review or this appiio*tiOn• ► 1 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 epprovel of my application becoming NULL and VOID. i understand that full fees will be Charged for the resubmittel of an application that has beaom* null end void. Op t understand that 1 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 dearly visible from the road. I understand that the comers of My property and the proposed building;structure comers most be field staked, I undsrsiend that the sign must be posted end the stoking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment ► 1 understand that if the Board of Acijustrnent Sperms my request, 'Failure of an applicant to apply fora bulkdlltg penult and eomm. nee construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of remitting approval of the varienee shell automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3,6 I)) Names: Record Owner PLEASE mom m AN r 70 - Apptieant user PRINT; Signatures: Record Owner Applicant cl Date sale Reviaer) 1 0r136)0 0 39d 9NIr3331.lIEr3 NdlJ-i 1lt7A t$t898!"3946 Ob:GT ceortrz/so LEGAL DESCRIPTION; (FROM LANDAMERICA TFiLE COMMFFMENT No. TNEP0D01360) BEGINNING AT THE CENTER 1 CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH. RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., THENCE SOUTH 36 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 712.11 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, A MONUMENT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY SPUR 66, THE BRASS CAP THEREIN IS INSCRIBED STATION 45+00; THENCE ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY SPUR 66 SOUTH 35 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 77.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 37 MINUTES WEST 258.6 FEET TO THE TANGENT POINT OF CURVE FROM WHICH THE POINT OF CURVATURE BEARS SOUTH 29 DEGREES 00 MINUTES WEST 172.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE WITH AN INTERSECTION ANGLE OF 6 DEGREES 46 MINUTES AND A RADIUS OF 1,462.5 FEET A DISTANCE OF 172.7 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE MENTION ABOVE; THENCE SOUTH 32 DEGREES 23 MINUTES WEST 188.6 FEET; THENCE SDUTH 26 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 13.2 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A LINE 99.0 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE SE 1 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 46 MINUTES EAST 143.69 FEET ALONG THE ABOVE MENTIONED LINE PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SE 1 TO THE CENTER OF THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER; THENCE ALONG THE CENTER OF THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER NORTH 50 DEGREES 23 MINUTES EAST 113.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41 DEGREES 42 MINUTES EAST 308.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10 DEGREES 07 MINUTES WEST 142.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17 DEGREES 42 MINUTES EAST 68.82 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE CENTER OF THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER NORTH 36 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 142.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. Genera! Development Standaras § 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers 5. Irrigation. All newly installed landscapes shall include a properly functioning automated sprinkler system with individual drip lines for nonturf areas. Other forms of irrigation may be approved on a case -by -case basis by Staff. A functional irrigation system is required for final approval of installed landscaping and release of associated collateral or assurances. (Ord. 8-05 #1) E. Landscaping Requirements For Multi -family and Nonresidential Uses. 1. All multi -family and nonresidential land uses, except in the CD Zoning District, shall install at least one (1) tree and three (3) shrubs for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area covered by impervious surfaces, excluding parking lots, but including drives, sidewalks and other hard surfaces. (Ord. 8-05 #1) 2. Planting beds may contain a combination of living plant materials and mulch. Living materials shall comprise no less than fifty percent (50%) of the required planting beds. 3. Plant materials shall be located to enhance views from public streets and sidewalks. F. Buffering and Screening. 1. Purpose. Buffering is intended to help mitigate the physical, visual and environmental impacts created by development on adjacent properties. Buffering and screening creates a visual buffer between incompatible or differing land uses. 2. Applicability. Buffering is required in the following circumstances: a. District Boundaries. (1) A landscaped buffer shall be planted on the boundary between the zoning districts set forth below, unless the abutting property is determined by Staff to be unbuildable or visually separated by topographic features. District buffers shall not be required for areas where street frontage buffer requirements are met. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (2) The buffer shall be planted within twenty (20) feet of the district boundary. (Ord. 8-05 #1) A minimum buffer consisting of eight (8) evergreen trees and eleven (11) shrubs per one hundred (100) linear feet of district boundary shall be installed between the following zoning districts: (Ord. 8-05 #1) (a) An industrial district and any other zoning district; (b) A commercial or accommodations district and any residential district; (c) A multi -family residential district and any other residential district; or (d) A commercial district and any accommodations district. b. Street Frontage Buffers. (1) Purpose: Landscaping in areas located adjacent to streets is intended to create tree -lined streets, provide shade, improve air quality and enhance property values through improved views for the traveling public. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (3) Supp. 6 7-21 General Development Standaras § 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers (2) Exemption: The following shall be exempt from these street frontage buffer requirements: "1"."1"1÷ (3) (a) Single-family developments and subdivisions, except in the RM Zoning District. (b) All development in the CD Zoning District. (c) Development in the CH and I-1 Zoning Districts shall be exempt from the nonarterial buffer requirements only. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Property Abutting Arterial Streets. All development on property abutting an arterial street shall provide a landscaped buffer with a minimum width of twenty-five (25) feet along the entire arterial street frontage. See Figure 7-8. (4) Property Abutting Nonarterial Streets. All development on property abutting a nonarterial street shall provide a landscaped buffer with a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet along the entire street frontage. See Figure 7-8. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Planting Requirements (See Figure 7-8). (a) (5) Arterial Street Frontage: (i) One (1) tree shall be planted for each twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage and one (1) shrub for each ten (10) lineal feet of street frontage, positioned to adequately buffer developed frontage as viewed from adjacent street or right-of-way as determined by the Decision -Making Body. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (ii) Side Lot Line Planting Area: Side lot line planting is required for premises abutting an arterial street, but not in the CD or CH Zoning Districts. Required sideline planting shall be provided within five (5) feet of the side lot line between the front lot line and the building line. (b) Nonarterial Street Frontage: One (1) tree shall be planted for each forty (40) lineal feet of street frontage and one (1) shrub for each fifteen (15) lineal feet of street frontage, positioned to adequately buffer developed frontage as viewed from adjacent street or right -of --way as determined by the Decision -Making Body. (Ord. 8-05 #1) (6) No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area. Within the street frontage buffer, there shall be no development, parking or drives, except for access to the portion of the site not in the buffer, which is approximately perpendicular to the right-of-way, underground utility installation, pedestrian and bicycle paths, allowable signs and necessary lighting. c. Service Areas. All multi -family and nonresidential service areas, such as dumpsters, other trash receptacles and ground -mounted mechanical equipment, shall be screened from public view on three (3) sides by a solid wall or fence at least six (6) feet in height and on the fourth side by a solid gate at least five (5) feet high. The screening structure and gate shall be architecturally compatible with the principal building(s) on the site. Supp. 6 7.22 General Development Standars § 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers d. Loading Areas. All commercial and industrial loading areas and docks shall be screened from view from public rights -of -way and residential zone districts. e. Berms. Berms may be utilized as part of street frontage landscaping, but shall vary in height over the length of the berm. (Ord. 8-05 #1) ARTERIAL STREET (t)TREE FOR EVERY MUNE&FESTOF SMUT FRONTAGE NON -ARTERIAL STREET 16 F23BUFFERNO REQUIREMENTS 11}S 1RUB FOR EVERY 10 LINEAL FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE (1) CHUM FOR E4ERY15 LMEM. FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE FLANTB MOULD eE GROUPED. NOTEYBLY SPACED Figure 7-8 3. Responsibility for Buffering. Buffering shall be the responsibility of new development. Existing land uses may be required to provide buffering if the use is changed, expanded, enlarged or in any other way increases the impacts on adjacent properties or rights -of -way over what is present at the time this regulation fs adopted. It shall be the responsibility of the expanded or changed land use to evidence what the uses and impacts were at the time of adoption of this regulation. Supp. 6 7-23 11 ''I1P11P"i' uu K ;4iil;Qii11 Image 1 Approaching site from North. 111111111,1,1101,4 Rippling River Estates Site Images Image 2 Entry Location. •.w Image 3 Approaching site from south. 0 N. w w w N. q¥ N. P N.¥¥ k$_cogcom@/&$�kkkkkkgk N0c,0,00o� i-000000 0 /2fi<'gl<6.88Z �--o „CO CO CD« m#> t m ci e m ca �cada as aoaaaa0_Qeo ca -c@ m- co mm a= R e (0co co m e° Q = 2 E g t k t t k§§ k o cn o co co 2 c k\ Q�QQw¢WW0m0�Lwwwwwu�u_ 8 p w a) z m a)2a) a in ea ■ ■■2 2 c > .c ■ R■ q/ 0 › 0>17— ka.o< 0 2 H • 7(3 w< 7 @ o 0- a) a" 2_ m e@ c Q E_ $ 2= I G$\ R% E/ 2» 9 E q §a 2 CO 2%\ b 0)— 2 E z n o^ 0§ 13 k 6 n§ z§ O& k�\k�oo1-o2k2oODCD cJ qqm—wCLaG-ODWr-CL_gCL—cc0 w z § g £m To RL _ iii k � m cR vf c§ a c co k e o / % a & 0 E t § $ § q a�0_ 2m 1dm R wgOw.2_JcA.22r ktias CLe5kk2ki'°3&3Emo■ jR w_c£_7 E M T .0c ®■ 2 0 k©>,0) o 0 e 0 20K2�a0F:2=c22X6(R§ 00 c% c; 2 I R k ° k f 2 0_J2�7ck2a—kk�kƒ0$20.> mmk=70_003 EEorr¥>O@2co � c/o Jim & Penne Ranglas Rippling River Variance2 Dear David Shirk, As the owner of two adjacent parcels to the property in question I have several concerns that I wish to share with Estes Valley Planning Department and the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment as they consider approval of the petitioners' request for Variance and future development proposal. 1. Any proposed alteration made to the property in the form of "fill" or '`retaining wall" that would change the natural course of water flow, specifically in peak run off periods and cause water to flow onto our property(s). Any change should include river mitigation of our property. 2. We own an undeveloped Ingress/Egress easement across the petitioners' parcel. When the easement was purchased the Colorado Dept. of Transportation included documentation that said driveway access to State Hwy 66 should be made through and to the North East corner of the parcel to provide maximum visibility along the highway in both directions. If the new owner should decide to access the property from a different location, what restrictions or allowances should be provided to allow multiple highway (driveway) access points within certain proximity of each other? I have spoken with the Larimer County Planning Department to make them aware of my concerns as well. Mr. Marc Lyons of the County Planning Department handles access and roads, also said that he would provide information to Tracy Downs of the County Planning Department to make sure she was aware of my concerns. I would encourage planning staff and the board to give thoughtful consideration to whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or if neighbors would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance? Although I am not immediately concerned with the possible impacts to my property value I am however very cognizant of the "essential character" of the neighborhood in which the variance is being requested. I believe this is one of the last remaining "Quintessential Estes Park" corridors in the valley, characterized by small accommodations adjacent to the river generally small in scale that create the identity in the planning area. I am concerned that any future development should maintain and enhance this well established character. I am fearful the continued unabated approval of variance requests will begin to establish precedent in the planning area and will lead to a significant departure from the current and very well established distinctiveness of the Spur 66 Corridor that is principally accommodations. Glacier Lodge, P.O. Box 2656, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Phone: 1-800-523-3920 www.GlacierLodge.com Section 7.8 of the Estes Valley Plan titled, Wildlife Habitat- states with the Purpose to maintain and enhance the diversity of wildlife species and habitat that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat for the economic, recreational and environmental benefit of the residents of and visitors to the Estes valley. I am keenly aware of the possible detrimental effect the proposed development could have on the "rental appeal" of my accommodations. The peace and tranquility of the corridor is only part of the "experience" for the nearly 16,000 visitors that I host annually from around the world. As stated in the Spur 66 — sub "There is abundant wildlife found in the planning area. Deer, ells bear, mountain lion and beaver all frequent the area." With RMNP forming the west, south, and a portion of the north boundary of the area, and the National Forest to east migration through the planning area is extensive and will be disturbed with development of the property. This parcel should be considered one of the only remaining open spaces amongst all river corridors in the entire Estes Valley. The Future Land Use section of the Spur 66 sub -area states the sensitive redevelopment of this area is important to promote a transition between the National Park and the Valley. I would encourage planning staff and the board of adjustment to take full advantage of this opportunity to maintain a balanced transition along the corridor before approving any request of variance to this lot. After living adjacent to the property in question for over 30 years I believe as a matter of Practical Difficulty- there is a single building lot on the parcel. Any other structure(s) placed on the parcel may be in danger of video documented natural water flow through the middle of the parcel during peak run of periods which would require mitigation to the parcel in question and both adjacent southern parcels as well those parcels downstream. If I can be of any assistance to either the Planning Department or the Board of Adjustment concerning this matter please feel free to contact me at home 970-586-8286 or office at 970-586-4401. In Thoughtful Consideration! Dave Ranglos, owner' Glacier Lodge, PO. Box 2656, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Phone: 1-800-523-3920 www. GlacierLodge. com jj� ippl�n tive C ev lopm ear Future Neighbors"" ............. .. .... ago'my wife Fin orrro hone uary eversEnc+,,,, We gave ortunate enouto eve proper dream come true, so it is especlaliy u ;when t p esented our plans to bwld increased traffic, aver d m ng a deve [ - t..:.... l rrr-..,,,. re spin years ur sanct w r am opmen wou o oe rt our plan would p serve maintaining tha rill a or ark, a plaice we have considered d this beautiful community and are Living rn Estes Park will be a ppositian rid easement encroach „ e community ather thr nag t l t th t r e nature;' ecause overt s foremost in ur land is located in ozone th Ov/ e, we couldaccommodate 3 r„rrrrr r,; steard-which would obvioush proximately 22Qft square=fee rrr rrr/ ,,,, _„ ,, e western region as reported // rrrr you r1'`1ight be concerned about th n ;on the edge of the hi burldi g g ay frorrr + iahwray an a at rs primarily tended f r hotel and rental units. Butou p position s reete -less of p t -`1`h+ h� /r t; welt under t he 24 squarer foot ay the National Association of Home l mien of he h me on th. p �CE',, ,,,,,;, �„ ,,,,, �/rrr; �hway in fact, our ortion'of the F iv r0000 % -east rr-'' ,rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr%///%%i/ Ve are absolutely"'riot rrectl `threatened 1 0 feet frofn'the edc y diverting the'floo a an ammin e event o e of the river water whist .rrrr ,. in moonedan Estes een frequent visitors under contract here. rrrrrrr ,rrrrrrr ��� etttng to have been confronted with so'much,� in g River 1 understand your concerns abou merit, and lieve that ur pro rrrrr„r, r , ; a roe y mprac rng a awn pirit of Fa In 0 0 to a trafficc im 2 ac 1 be iveway would rr r, Bend drivewa /;rrrr rrrrrrrraj'��%%%%//%///////O% rk ed: rotels Because of"its tobuidghomes .;............ rhos would be average size home In iuilders Also, some off" F elf a cured we are i ; ror ae 21.5 eet ffurther e neighbors to the % err r the:,riv r. +Currently, the homes op Dallman drive ai , rrr flood With our FEMA'approvedplarn, we'will burls it added fill, we believe we would protect those h now runs rrnm- diately.towards them a wa Many of you may°have heard about the concerns the langlos family'has rn regard the: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,rrr.. easement were granted to access their property, whirl i located directly behind mine In„ ,r nutshell, they are°worried that`my� proposed driveway would make it impossible for them get approval f r`ai"drivewa t access their rope should° the ±fiver decide to build abridge �f,,,,,r;�� 4 „,,,,, rra � � � /Door;;, id%////��� T e town(requires 250 feet betvireer driveways, the county requires 1U feet Ctur driveway would be 326 feet from the easementIt i worth mentioning that +en � wh��Ann �`oft'`famrl s0 ld. the property tc the Bari lc sec years ego, the easement was not included inthe sale In other , ,words, the anglo family slid not pray for r was given,to tiler%,,;lam, urchasing ld land from Ann'loft herselfa e aforementioned plans Mind, f should not be -barred from building R ,.....-- ;;;;;;;;;;;;;, ,,,,,,,.......... lyrwife and) want to retire in Estes Paris, „/ , a sronate about protecting the communi rove ourselves to'be„wonderful neighbors, hank you for;your consideration, .. eve t Rather, the Basemen nil l believe tha withrah ippling River.......... ............. iii�DOao� roo//OOP id we understand why We believe that when many ot, rrrc iven the or, /77 ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr%. Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Cherylwagner@aol.com Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:48 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Reference to Rippling River Development Request for Variance Dear Mr Shirk, I understand that we have another variance request from Steve Eck of the Rippling River Development. I was disappointed that he continues to persue this proposal, but do appreciate the variance process. would like you to be aware, that a letter was attached to my door on Friday and the same message was sent by e-mail to me on Sunday from Steve Eck. It was a very strange emotional request to us (potential neighbors) to support his requests for 9 condo units of 2422 square feet, etc. He emphasized that his development was the ideal solution for use of this land and stated that he "...could accomodate 36 rental units" on that property (veiled threat?). He mentioned NOT damming the river (which was never an issue), but that by building a wall with fill, it would protect us at Dallman Drive from flood? What? I feel that we should uphold the Estes Valley Development Code (which is stricter than FEMA) for building on a floodplane. He also talked about the easement granted Rangloses and intimated that because it was "given to them" that it was not a legal arrangement. I don't know if was given or paid for, but I don't believe that is pertinent. again cannot support Steve Eck's request for variance, with similar concerns as before. We do not need yet another condo development in this corridor, crammed into a very small area in a sensitive environment. Beaver Brook on Hwy 66 has been built for 2 years and has yet to be occupied. Rather than developing this wetland area we should be preserving it. Elk graze, calf there and sleep in that spit of land all the time. That is irreplaceable. We are out of space for nature. We do not need added traffic, pollution (light, noise and otherwise) in this area or on Hwy 66. His proposed building size of 2422 square feet is almost 700 sq feet larger than Dallman's Condo's. Why is he still proposing 9 units? Better to use the property to build his one "honeymoon" home for his and his wife, that would maintain the beauty and less stress the environment. Steve Eck claims that he is "passionate about protecting the community." I think he is a businessman that does not care for the environment or his neighbors. If he loved this beautiful area as he claims he would wish to conserve and develop the property in a less intrusive way. Thanks you. Cheryl Wagner, 1986 Dallman Drive, Unit 5, Estes Park See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 10/ 1 2007 4 9 fl�6 S k4a 5 n )(E(�)cp ED) 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81» 881 888 aay IVEr METIMMEMIN gray Di MI °8 WW9;i jai iFIR e3 IV8il3aiag8e gimp 0 0 a 83SaR DWI 0 0 0 m 0 TgEg D 0 0 0 111 0 HEMATIC DESIGN: RIVER BEND OaV80700 ` iiVd S31S3 P>70 RIVER BEND Estes Park, Colorado S44 Contructlon 7382 5. Delaware St. Littleton, CO 801 20 na... I9n91795_9957 r:.Il me -Awing- 1499 RIVER, BEND 5S5 Contruction 7382 5. Delaware 5t. C(1 An 1 2n C\ I Rig RIVER 5END Szt5 ContructIon 7382 5. Delaware St. 1.11-1A+nn rn PO GL,OR 00.0l00 ,13,1 S3153 . '021 >13380. HSU ,,OL oNumns ONV ONM33NION3 NtION NYA 3.1V0 Cal 'g 1,C.03S AO 1/I RS aILL AO NOLUDad A.L?IHd0Hd LIOL 103(1,6, Nind aids z (3 0 lii otjJct (flu 0 b- 01- r, LJ ° LJ N < w LLJ (f) I— Z Z < j cr o — w ±" z 0 a in " cn ° LJ_ (_) 0 CD I- < C1- 12C < (C5 2000 Ptarmigan Trail . _ Height Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue 111.101116 PO Box 1200 111011 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com PROJECT DESCRIPTIONBACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: October 2, 2007 LOCATION: The site is located at 2000 Ptarmigan Trail, within the Town of Estes Park. Legal Description: Lot 2, Good Samaritan Subdivision. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church/Same STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The petitioner requests a variance to Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E. Height, which establishes a maximum height limit with the following exceptions, "residential chimneys to the extent required by the Uniform Building Code; and wireless telecommunications facilities and structures, but only to the extent allowed by the specific provisions set forth in Use Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Chapter 4 and in §5.1.T of this Code." A twelve -foot variance is requested to construct a 45.25-foot-tall steeple capped with an aluminum cross. Per the application the maximum allowable height is 32.75 feet. The cross is approximately seven feet tall, five feet long, and one foot wide. BACKGROUND: In 2001, a larger parcel of land, which included this lot, was annexed into the Town, up -zoned, and subdivided as shown on Good Samaritan subdivision plat. Also in 2001, the Town and property owner entered into an annexation agreement that anticipated review of a rezoning and special review application to construct a church on Lot 2 of the Good Samaritan Subdivision. On August 13, 2002, the Town Board approved a rezoning and special review application submitted by the Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church for Lot 2. The application proposed constructing a 10,468-square- foot church in two phases; the first phase is 6,188 square feet and the second phase, 4,280 square feet. In 2007 the application was amended primarily to redesign the curb and gutter and landscape island design. The church is now under construction. Review of the requested variance needs to be balanced with the protections afforded by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which the U.S. Department of Justice summarizes on their website www nisdo ;Gov/ci t/h,9,11g /rluipaexplam htm as prohibiting "zoning and landmark laws that: (1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions; (2) discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination; (3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction." II. SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels One Parcel Number(s) 25202-59-902 Lot Size 3.756 acres per plat j 163,621 square feet Zoning "RM" Multi -Family Residential Existing Land Use Undeveloped Proposed Land Use Religious Assembly (Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church) SERVICES Water Town of Estes Park Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Qwest Page #2 Height Variance Request for 2000 Ptarmigan Trail LOCATION MAPS WITH ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Lot 2 Zoned "REV Multi -Family Residential 3.758 acres AERIAL PHOTO TAKEN IN 1999 PRIOR TO GOOD SAMARITAN DEVELOPMENT 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. Page #3 - Height Variance Request for 2000 Ptarmigan Trail 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 Dave Shirk dated September 21, 2007. North End Property Owners' Association See letter from Betty Hull, North End Property Owners' Association Secretary, to Dave Shirk dated September 17, 2007. V. STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The are no special circumstances related to the lot such as narrowness, shallowness or shape. The only special circumstance is that the proposed building is a church and an integral part of the character of many churches is a steeple and/or cross. The proposed steeple and cross is in scale with the building. Staff would like to review the following information prior to making a recommendation of approval or denial: a. Photo simulations of the proposed church taken from Dry Gulch Road and Red Tail Hawk Drive. b. An analysis of whether the church will be visible from Stonegate Drive and if it will be visible, submittal of a photo simulation taken from Stonegate Drive. Page #4 - Height Variance Request for 2000 Ptarmigan Trail c. A written description of any proposed illumination plan for the steeple/cross and a description of whether or not the cross will be constructed with a non -reflective material. One of staff's considerations is how much impact the steeple and cross would have in comparison to a chimney or wireless telecommunication structure that is permitted to exceed the maximum allowable height limit. 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 that there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. A church can be constructed on the lot that complies with the height requirements. The plans submitted for church construction with the special review application and rezoning request demonstrated compliance with the maximum height limit. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: Staff would like to review the requested information prior to making a determination about whether or not the variance is substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Staff Finding: As noted above, staff would like to review photo simulations to better understand the impact. During the 2002 special review and 2007 amended special review, no public comment was received expressing concern about potential adverse impacts of the church design. However, the neighbors are concerned about possible impacts of the proposed redesign (see the North End Property Owners' Association's letter dated September 17, 2007). Page #5 -- Height Variance Request for 2000 Ptarmigan Trail d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance will not affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement and submitted architectural elevations with their special review and rezoning application demonstrating that they could meet the requirement. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Other design options exist that could eliminate or minimize the variance request, including the approved design. 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: This circumstance may arise with other churches. According to the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service, some jurisdictions exempt steeples from their height requirements. 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. Page #6 - Height Variance Request for 2000 Ptarmigan Trail Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if the variance offers 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 by special review in the "RM" Multi -Family Residential zoning district. 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. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section IV of this staff report, are incorporated as staff findings. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff will make a recommendation once we have reviewed the requested information. If the Board chooses to recommend APPROVAL of the requested variance staff recommends the following conditions at a minimum: 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 height certificate. Page #7 Height Variance Request for 2000 Ptarmigan Trail To: Dave Shirk, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official Date: September 21, 2007 Subject: Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church Steeple Lot 2, Good Samaritan Subdivision 2000 Ptarmigan Trail The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the application for Variance Request for the above -referenced property and has no comment at this time. THE .O TH tN PO Box Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Dave, A 51 September 17 07 .„ ps Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church 42 foot high Steeple and Cross variance request. We discussed this at our last Board Meeting, and we are quite concerned that by granting this variance, the Board of Adjustment continues the dangerous precedent it allowed with the 50 foot high ham radio tower on Haybarn Hill Road last June. However, we believethis request would be even more obtrusive than that. The Board of Adjustment granted the ham radio tower variance (and we quote from their minutes of July 11th, 2006) with the following conditions: 1) The tower was not a solid structure —this steeple would be; 2) The tower had to be painted green to match the surrounding trees and in a matte finish —this would be impossible at this location and the aluminum cross certainly would not present a matte surface; 3) No lighting could be allowed on the tower —we can almost guarantee this cross would be lighted in some fashion, probably uplighted, which would violate the EVDC lighting code (Section 7.9). We do have a positive suggestion. We think either mounting the aluminum cross on the facade of the building or installing it at ground level would present an attractive appearance and achieve the same purpose and impact. We sincerely hope the Board of Adjustment will consider these sensible alternatives. Very Sincerely Yours, Betty Hull, Secretary Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Meeting Date: October 2, 2007 Statement of Intent Re: Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church 2000 Ptarmigan Trail Introduction This is a request for a variance from the requirements of maximum building height as described in Section 1.9.E of the Estes Valley Development Code pursuant to the standards and procedures outlined in Section 3.6 of the same. Church steeples are not indicated specifically as an allowed exception in the code. The proposed project is a new church facility located at the corner of Ptarmigan Trail and Dry Gulch Road; lot 2 of the Good Samaritan Subdivision. Variance Request This request is for approval of a height variance beyond the slope -adjusted maximum allowable height per the EVDC. A five-foot variance is requested for a steeple structure along with an additional seven feet (a total of 12-feet) for the cross. The steeple is to be a hipped roof structure, with materials to match the rest of the building; the cross will be pre- fmished aluminum. Criteria for Evaluation The special condition in this case applies to the type of building, rather than the property itself. A steeple is an iconic and integral component of traditional church architecture and has been so well back into history. This is essentially a one story building and outside of the steeple, fits within the 32-feet allowed by the EVDC calculation. It would be impractical to reduce the height of the building such that a steeple and cross would fit within the limit — the result would be an awkward building inside and out. Virtually all zoning codes recognize the ability of a place of religious assembly to place a steeple structure on its building, either by specific inclusion in the code, or by variance as in this case. Please see the attached letter written by the Lutheran Church's national synod architect in support of this request. D ECE DVED AUG 2 7 Additional Factors The variance is not substantial due to the nature of the element - the steeple ---- located above the limit. Essentially, the cross and steeple have no `bulk' and therefore should be considered differently than a more typical building roofline variance request. Adjoining properties would not suffer any detriment as a result of the variance. The Good Samaritan Village bounds the property on the north and west, while the southern line is dedicated open space and of course, the east is bounded by Dry Gulch Road. The variance would have no effect on the delivery of public services. The Owner was aware of the EVDC code when the property was purchased. However, discussions regarding the desire to construct a steeple took place as early as the initial Planning Commission approval. It was only until the applicant formerly applied for a building permit (indicating that the project was in fact moving forwards after years of fundraising) that the determination was made that the variance process would be required. The height variance is the only Community Development vehicle for constructing the steeple. Prepared by: Steve Lane, AIA BASIS Architecture, P.C. MISSION INVES - ENT FUND OFTHE EVANGELICAL WTHERAN CHURCH IN RICA i 5 Arington Street West Caldwell New Jersey 07006 (973) 226-2474 Wednesday 8 August 2007 The Rev. Dan Manglea Shepherd of the Motmtains Lutheran Church P O Box 4399 Estes Park, Colorado, B0517-4399 Dear Dan, • This is in response to your question about what I have experienced regarding height limitations and new church bn ih ings. In my 304- years as Staff Architect for Church Building in the Lutheran Church1 have completed and reviewed design work for hundreds of church buildings. In the vast majority of the cases the zoning code involved set the one-story chmth building height limitation at the highest point of the roof ridge. Any tower, steeple, cupola, emss, spire , lantern, or other decorative structure above that height has, in my experience, been allowable. Some codes have required churches to apply for a variance pennitling a steeple, and some codes may limit the size of the structure. It has been my practice during consulting and design to assure congregations that a steeple is allowed in most jurisdictions. As you know, we have churches in all states in the country. The only time that C can remember having to comply with a steeple height limitation is when a church was in the fight landing pattern of an airport. I hope that this information is clear enough and that it is helpful to you. Let me know if you have questions or require additional assistance. Cc: Mr Harvey Olson Ms Carol Schneider Sincerely, 110 r Peter Norgren, Staff Architect Mission Investment Fund of the ELCA EOEUVEin AUG2". 7 lil III ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: General Information Record Owner(s): -5, .rc iz 9 c. Du T - S 1-1/ Street Address of Lot: Z 000 ° A d.Ml GA M I - Legal Description Lot: � Block: Tract: Subdivision: SAIAA R.( S r/r,5 fd Parcel ID # Section Townshi . Ran . e Site Information Lot Size 3 . 756 Ao26.s Zoning Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use - A Existing Water Service own r Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service Town r Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service 1 EPSD UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD UTSD r Septic Existing Gas Service Xcel r Other r None Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes rL' CS. Variance Specific variance desired (state development code section # : SccIiOI J J. ` . E No �• A:' tutc.OW6 . E1GH I Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Mailin! Address 164 Z : tG Attwhments -5Je A ' .�k ar 00 A31r 5 c 2E hR S9Si • Application fee (see attached fee schedule) rlf/Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) rvi1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** �1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) ** The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VIl.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park .� P.O. Box 1200 -a 170 MacGregor Avenue -en Estes Park. CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 ..1% Fax: (970) 586-0249 ,a www.estesnet.com/ComDev Contact Information Primary Contact Person is r Owner r Applicant Record Owner(s) S'If61° ens .. Mailing Address Phone ��. $11,. Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant AM E Ass Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer E Address --� � Z A 'E Si s r l Mailing LA 00 Gin ea Phone ei Cell Phone Fax '?o S 81 - I H Email 561/6 L-,d/I/E LL ,; ,SIS A • CO l TrcrA&'- ', co.+n 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 co and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the ect t ners 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). O. 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. 0. 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. 10- 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, Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Record Owner Applicant Revised 10/13/06 General Provisions �E. Figure 1-2 § 1.9 Rules of Measurement Height. 1. Measurement of Maximum Building Height. Height shall be established by a plane measured vertically above the existing natural terrain elevation prior to grading. Height shall be measured as the vertical distance in feet from the original natural terrain within the building footprint to the highest point of the finished roof situated directly above the point of measurement. Small areas of rugged terrain inconsistent with this plane shall not increase or reduce building height. "Small areas" are those features with a maximum width of twenty-five (25) feet. See Figure 1-3. (Ord. 18-02 #3) Figure 1-3 Supp. 4 1-7 General Provisions § 1.9 Rules of Measurement 2. Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. The maximum height of buildings on slops may be adjusted up to a maximum of forty (40) feet using the following calculation (see Figure 1-4). This adjustment requires submittal of a site plan containing the following information: building elevations, roof design, finished floor elevation, and grading plan with existing and proposed contours. Mb=30+[.50(a-b)] where: Mb=Maximum height in feet at any given point above original grade a= fevation at highest point of natural grade of proposed building location b=Elevation at any given point Mb=30 Mb=3Y MON VON Original ground surface Figure 1-4 K-30.1.50 1 (Ord. 18-01 #2) 3. Exemptions from Height Standards. a. Residential chimneys to the extent required by the Uniform Building Code; and b. Wireless telecommunications facilities and structures, but only to the extent allowed by the specific provisions set forth in Use Tables 4-1 and 4-4 in Chapter 4 and in §5.1.T of this Code. F. Spacing Requirements. The required minimum space between a proposed use and an existing use or lot shall be measured from the edge of the principal structure housing the proposed use to the closest edge of the principal structure housing the existing use or to the closest lot line. G. Signs. For measurement provisions applicable to outdoor signs and advertising, see Chapter 8 of this Code. (Ord. 18-01 #1, 2, 10/23/01; Ord. 18-02 #3, 12/10/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) § 1.10 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS This Section addresses the applicability of new substantive standards enacted by this Code to activities, actions and other matters that are pending or occurring as of the effective date of this Code. (For definition of "effective date of this Code," see Chapter 13.) Supp. 6 1-8 Shepherd of Mtns Church Variance IS08 opemoo .4.1ed SOIS3 001. alms 1anuaity uosdtuoqi 6113 Z691. SisJv a 4 4 61; g LI A g 0 17: w 9 W F- u) w 2 a , LI•908 opeiolop 'ved sals3 ue5pield tiainto uweinni sumpinow ;o paagclegs 5 PG 1 kit! 2 1, g EAST ELEVATION NORTH (Ptarmigan Trail) ELEVATION `ar ~ ,xr