Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-12-04Prepared: November 28, 200" Revised: November 29, 2008 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, December 4, 2007 9:00 a.m. — Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated November 6, 2007 b. Metes & Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue, Yakutat Land Corporation/Applicant — Request by applicant for continuance to January 8, 2008 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting 3. REQUESTS a. Lot 1, Venner Subdivision, 559 Landers Street Owner: Richard & Shirley Perkins Applicant: Paul Brown Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.100(c), to allow placement of a 13.33-square-foot identification sign at a height of 14.17 feet in lieu of the maximum allowed 4 square feet and maximum height of 6 feet in single-family residential zoning districts Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott b. Lot 5, Fox Ridge Estates, 2140 Ridge Road Owner: Paul L. & Judith K. Tharp Applicant: Owner Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow construction of an attached garage 33.96 feet from the side -yard property line and 41.76 feet from the front -yard property line, and also to construct a deck 31.21 feet from the front -yard property line, in lieu of the 50-foot front- and side -yard setbacks required Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott c. Metes & Bounds, 2515 Tunnel Road Owner: YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center Applicant: BHA Design, Inc. Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E and Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow three new lodges to exceed the maximum slope -adjusted height limit by the following amounts: Grand Lodge-1.66 feet, West Lodge----3.83 feet, East Lodge-2.25 feet. Applicant also requests a time extension to allow a construction timeframe of 2.5 years in lieu of th standard one-year limit Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2008 5. REPORTS & 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. ELECTION OF OFFICERS I nominate Board Member as Chair of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, effective beginning in January 2008. I nominate Board Member as Vice -Chair of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, effective beginning in January 2008. I move that the Community Development Department Secretary or designee be appointed as Recording Secretary for 2008. The Chair for 2008 should be a County appointee: Cliff Dill or John Lynch The Vice -Chair for 2008 should be a Town appointee: Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, or Al Sager RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 6, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Sign Code Officer McEndaffer, Recording Secretary Roederer None 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 October 2, 2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes submitted. were approved as b. Metes and Bounds property located immediately north of 1895 Big Thompson Avenue, Yakutat Land Corporation/Applicant — Request for continuance to December 4, 2007 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting It was moved and seconded (Levine/Lynch) to approve the applicant's request for continuance to the December 4, 2007 meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 1, BLOCK 4, FALL RIVER ESTATES, 1400 David Drive — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060(13) to allow placement of an off -premise sign, and Section 17.66.110(3)b to allow the sign to placed 7.35 feet from the property line In lieu of the required 8-foot setback; and variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 7.6.E.1.a(2) to allow the sign to be placed 26.15 feet from the annual high- water mark of Fall River in lieu of the required 30-foot setback AND LOT 4, BLOCK 4, FALL RIVER ESTATES, 1516 Fish Hatchery Road — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060(13) to allow placement of an off -premise sign Applicant: Elizabeth Blanchard, Vice President of Operations, Estes Park Condos Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow off -premise signs to be located at 1400 David Drive and 1516 Fish Hatchery Road. If approved, the signs will advertise five condominium/accommodations properties: Bugle Point on Fall River; Bugle Point on Fall River, Phase II; Creekside; Creekside Suites; and Antlers Pointe; as well as the rental management company for the properties, Estes Park Condos. Estes Park Condos/Applicant operates offices at the two addresses mentioned above. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 6, 2007 Sign Proposed at 1400 David Drive: The applicant requests variances to three Code sectionsEstes Park Municipal Code (EPMC) Section 17.66.060(13), which prohibits off -premise signs; EPMC Section 17.66.110(3)b, which establishes an eight -foot minimum setback from any property line for free-standing signs; and Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 7.6.E.1.a.2, which requires accessory structures to be set back at least thirty feet from the annual high- water mark of river corridors. If these variances are granted, the applicant will modify the existing sign to advertise ail the condominium properties and the rental management company. The sign will remain 7.34 feet from the front property nine and 26.15 feet from the annual high-water mark of Fall River; the sign dimensions will not change. The current location of the sign is the most visible location to passersby on Highway 34. Sign Proposed at 1516 Fish Hatchery Road: If the requested variance to EPMC Section 17.66.060(13), which prohibits off -premise signs, is granted, the applicant wiii remove the existing Bugle Point entry sign and replace it with a larger, 56-inch-by-48-inch sign advertising dill the condominium properties and the rental management company. In considering the requirements of the EPMC in granting variances for signs, specifically whether special circumstances exist, the applicant has stated that the properties function as one; there is one on -site rental management company for all five properties. The proposed signage would reduce traffic in the neighborhood by better directing guests to the rental management offices. It will also assist town and emergency personnel in locating the correct office. Planner Chlilcott indicated the circumstances of this variance request do not apply to all businesses. Staff finds that at the 1400 David Drive location, the front property line setback and the river setback overlap at the corner of the lot where the sign would draw the most attention to the property. The impact of the sign to the river corridor is minimal. The Board must determine whether the requested variances wound be in general harmony with the purposes of EPMC Chapter 17.66, Signs. No comments in support or opposition of the variance request were received from neighbors or others. The Board must also determine if these are the minimum variances necessary to draw attention to the enterprise. The Board must consider the requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code in granting variances, including whether the variance would affect the delivery of public services. The Public Works department has stated both signs are located in utility and/or pedestrian hike/bike easements. Future use of the easements may require the property owner(s) to relocate the signs outside the easements at their own expense. In considering whether the appllicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance, staff suggests that adding "Estes Park Condos" to each of the two signs and instructing guests to look for the Estes Park Condos signs would alleviate the need for the off -premise sign variance. No options exist for locating a visible sign at the 1400 David Drive address that complies with setback requirements. The variance requests were routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Sign Code Officer Carolyn McEndaffer and from Town Attorney Greg White. Discussion followed regarding the hike/bike easements. A sidewalk is already in place at the Fish Hatchery Road location; there are no current plans to increase the width of the sidewalk. The hike/bike path has not yet been designed at the David Drive location. Public Comment: Elizabeth BlanchardNice President of Operations, Estes Park Condos provided information on the development and acquisition of the five accommodations properties. Guests request a particular condo location and know the names of the individual properties. The rental management company has not been successful in trying to instruct guests to check in at the Estes Park Condos office; guests create unnecessary traffic in the neighborhood by driving around looking for the check -in location. Guests have requested signs that list all the rental properties. The applicant may be interested in adding RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 6, 2007 a directional indicator to the signs to point guests toward the check -in offices. Ms. Blanchard provided copies of letters of support from neighboring property owners Craig and Keeley Hansen, owners of The Evergreens on Fall River, and a summary of Homeowners' Association Board votes on the proposed signs from Creekside Suites, Creekside Condos, Bugle Pointe Phase I, Bugle Pointe Phase II, and Antlers Pointe indicating approval of the majority of board members. There was discussion between Board members and staff regarding the signs for Fall River Estates and Fall River Center, also located at David Drive, and who is responsible for their maintenance. Member Lynch suggested a condition be added to state specifically that a non-contiguous property (if one should be purchased and/or managed by Estes Park Condos in the future) can not be advertised on the two signs under consideration. Ms. Blanchard indicated her agreement with this condition. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Lynch) to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Block 4, Fall River Estates; 1400 David Drive; to allow placement of an off -premise sign, to allow the sign to be placed 7.35 feet from the front property line, and to allow the sign to be placed 26.15 feet from the annual high-water mark of Fall River; and to approve the variance request for Lot 4, Block 4, Fall River Estates; 1516 Fish Hatchery Road; to allow placement of an off -premise sign; with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the addition of Condition #4; and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application, including the proposed sign plans. However, staff shall have the authority to approve minimal revisions to the signs in the future without further Board of Adjustment review. 2. Compliance with Carolyn McEndaffer's comments in her memo dated October 26, 2007. 3. Both signs are located in easements. Future use of the easements may require that the property owner(s) relocate the signs outside the easements at their expense. 4. Non-contiguous property owned or managed by Estes Park Condos shall not be advertised on the proposed signs. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:37 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary 559 Landers Street Sign Variance Requests Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, I70 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com I. PROTECT DESCRIPTIONIBACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: December 4, 2007 LOCATION: The site is located at 559 Landers Street within the Town of Estes Park. Legal Description: Lot 1, Venner Subdivision APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: Paul F. Brown/Richard and Shirley Perkins STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott and Carolyn McEndaffer APPLICABLE CODES: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) and Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC) REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting variances Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.100(c) Schedule of Requirements, which establishes a maximum sign size of two square feet and maximum sign height of six feet for a sign located in a single -family -residential zoning district. As noted in the statement of intent, if this variance is approved, a twenty - inch -by -ninety -six-inch, single -sided sign would be hung from a recently installed timber frame located at the 559 Landers Street driveway entrance. At 13.33 square feet the sign size significantly exceeds the maximum allowable size of two square feet. The sign is 14.17 feet tall and the cross - timber frame from which the sign would be hung is fifteen feet tall. II. SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels One Parcel Number(s) 35254-10-001 Development Area 2.74 acres per Larimer County Tax Assessor records Zoning "E-1" Estate Existing Land Use Single -Family Residential Proposed Land Use Same SERVICES Water Town of Estes Park Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Qwest Ad tit,/ acent Land Uses and Zonin rt$iu WO Id Rai Land Use: Single -Family Residential Neighborhood Character: Mix of low - and high -density residential. Zoning: "E-1" Estate Lot Size: 2.74 acres ii Page #2 -559 Landers Street Sign 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. All applications for variances from Chapter 17.66 Signs shall also demonstrate compliance with Section 17.66.160 of the Municipal Code. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff -level review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Estes Park Building Department See Carolyn McEndaffer's memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 21, 2007. Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated November 16, 2007. Page #3 —559 Landers Street Sign Variance Request STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 1. Reviewing Agencies. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section IV of this staff report, are incorporated as staff findings. 2. Municipal Code. Section 17.66.160(3) of the Municipal Code states, in every case in which a request for a variance from the requirements of this Chapter [17.66 Signs] has been filed, the Board shall not grant a variance unless it specifically finds each and every one of the following conditions to exist. a. There are special circumstances or conditions, such as the existence of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions must be particular to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and to not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Finding: The applicant's statement of intent describes the special circumstances they believe exist. These reasons include, but are not limited to: "The design is ... representative of numerous western cross timber ranch gateways found throughout the Estes Valley." The sign "soften[s] the impact of the [transmission] tower on the neighborhood and preserve[ssome sense of our rural heritage." Also as noted in the statement of intent the site is unique. Although it is within Town limits, it has a rural feel. The type of sign proposed can be found at driveway entrances to rural homes as shown in the examples provided by Paul Brown. Staff believes that many of the examples provided in the application are of driveway entrances located outside of the Town limits and requests clarification about the locations of the signs shown. Signs outside the Town limits are subject to a different sign code, which allows "rural identification Page #4 —559 Landers Street Sign Variance Request signs." Due to the characteristics of the area, staff is supportive of the variance request. b. The variance would be in general harmony with the purposes of this Chapter, and specifically would not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention is located. Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if this variance would be in general harmony with the purposes of Chapter 17.66 Signs. Neighbors have not commented that the proposed sign is injurious to the neighborhood. c. The variance is the minimum one necessary to permit the applicant to reasonably draw attention to this business or enterprise. Staff Finding: This is not applicable. 3. Section 17.66.160(d) No variance for maximum sign area on a lot or building states, "Other provisions of this section to the contrary notwithstanding, the Board shall not have any jurisdiction to hear, nor the authority to grant, any variance from any section of this Chapter which limits the maximum permitted sign area on a single lot or building." 4. Section 17.66.160(e) states, "The Board may grant a variance subject to any conditions which it deems necessary or desirable to make the device which is permitted by the variance compatible with the purposes of this Chapter." Staff Finding: If the Board chooses to approve this variance, staff has recommended three conditions of approval. 5. Development Code. In addition to the review standards in Section 17.66.160 of the Municipal Code, the following review standards from the Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.C. apply. a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Staff Finding: The existing use can continue. Page #5 -559 Landers Street Sign Variance Request b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if 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: The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered. Staff has not received comments from adjoining properties concerning the impacts of the requested variances. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Staff has not received comments from providers of public serves stating that the variance will adversely affect the delivery of public services; however, the applicant should be aware that the proposed sign is located within a US Bureau of Reclamation easement and future use of the easement may require removing the sign and timber cross frame at the expense of the property owner. 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 owner's ownership of the property. This standard is not intended to address whether or not the property owner reviewed the Code to determine which regulations are applicable to his/her property. The applicant purchased the property in 1986. Staff believes that the Code requirements were the same in 1986 as they are today, though we have not completed detailed research of prior codes. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A sign could be constructed with the words, "Elk Crossing," and it could be designed to meet the size and height requirements. The "Elk Crossing" sign that has been constructed Page #6 —559 Landers Street Sign Variance Request g. does not meet the size requirements and its proposed height does not meet the height requirement. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding: Staff does not find that a regulation should be adopted to address this situation. h. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: The variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. i. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. J, Staff Finding: The Board should use their best judgment to determine if the variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Under no circumstances shall the 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: Identification signs are permitted in the "E-1" Estate zoning district. k. Per EVDC §3.6.D, failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the Board of Adjustment null and void. Page #7 ---559 Landers Street Sign Variance Request VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. Compliance with Carolyn McEndaffer's comments in her memo dated November 21, 2007. The sign height is noted. 3. The sign is located in a US Bureau of Reclamation easement. Use of this easement may require that the property owner remove the sign and timber cross frame from the easement at their expense. Page #8 -559 Landers Street Sign Variance Request MEMOR To: From: Date: Re: UM Alison Chilcott Carolyn McEndaffer, Plans Examiner/Code Compliance Officer November 21, 2007 559 Landers Street, Perkins Residence Sign Variance The Department of Building Safety has the following comments regarding the Variance Request for the sign located at 559 Landers Street. 1. Are the examples shown located outside the Town of Estes Park limits? 2. Provide the height of the proposed sign. 3. The proposed sign is required to be attached is such a manor that it will not move in the wind. 17.66.060 Prohibited Signs (1) (Signs with visible moving, revolving or rotating parts ..) 4. If the variance is approved, a sign permit is required. To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 11-16-07 Re: Perkins Residence, Variance Request, 559 Landers Street The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Variance Request for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1) No comments. 0 Y A. IT North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 Attorney at Law U.ISO1\ U IILCOTT, PL CO I TY DEVELOP TOWN OF ES FES P l'O BOX 1200 ESTES P ,CO 80517 A R November 16, 2007 DEPT 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 Board of Adjustment - Variance Request - Perkins Residence Dear Ms. Chilcott: I have no comment If you have any questions, lease do not hesitate to give me a call. ruly Yours, regory A. White GAW/ldr Cc: Paul Brown 254 Solomon Drive Estes Park, CO 30517 This is a request by the property owners at 559 Landers St. for a size and height variance for an identification sign in a single-family residential zoning district. d IA kilt, p Shown here is the 20" x 96" single -sided wood slab sign they wish to hang on the cross timber frame located at the entry of their driveway. The design is a classical style representative of numerous western cross timber ranch gateways found +1%l i 1 �1�ra■.+ 1Tn11o�� To make this variance decision, the Board should consider the precedent set by other existing similar identification signs found in the various single- family zoning districts within the jurisdiction governed by the Estes Valley Development Code. Please review the following examples: �iiiillil (' 4 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIII 1111111 '1111111 ^ 11IllII von 11IIII I III �ullll�p 1111111111111111111 11 llllllull l 0111llllll ° NI �kda'� 11 IA11I 1i1''ll� mm a'dr' ie �r Y�.'�IIll /1 Iii00111 IIII 111 INllllllllllu��^III um' V i ulliful it 011100 x''ulpi � � p'CidwIwlN „, P u wy 'r�� 111111111, 11111111111111,1,11,11,11,11)11 III �I1411Id IA�I V111111111 I ill Typically, the signs are nonconforming in some way to the current sign code and ordinances. However, they all share one thing in common, they're all beloved local "Landmarks" within our community. MYIIIIIIiIIIP" I;'liuNV IMIJIY� 111111111111��iiiumil���� IIIIIlllii�lllfll Illlllllllllllpll ll,lllk �IIII,kIIV wow dlll11111111 l�Ir��„'^I 11111111011 pIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11IIII III ry� .000000000000000111111111011111011111000001 MINNN'M'N"MMIMliiliilii"II"�°�' NlnMlf �m IMN Ili IINNIu 1011 i�I��A'nIll�llllll I' " 1H tester, „r r 11, ilk 11150004t7, 10'�u' fig!,I ,"go,II' I "rr IGP �.. ,..�,rtirne'np,ld 9 MuuuuumMNuuuuuuum I1Ir li Illllllllil II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IuVlul l�Ni4�vAV n luuV'IYir�lll'iiii1111,4II�II'VW'llidliVlillV'IN1,111e' VhIIII lir�w��a'r ' .l;11rd Y ,. Ilou��������,�i�,AVW' VIIII I° 11,1,1l� 11N"P'";ild'i°imu'IIIVi�Ii" Yii� ��' ��P�q ll� V'V01° vI llwlfl ''liuu I,,. ''I1 ,,„;110iIyiYIIIY',1,„ Ymu ,hob NM °' Illulilliiiu.I 'IINIIIII II'IhiV'", 110001111111 g1111111�IIIIII1IIuu Ililuiul ill uil MITI Indli 1,11 plll � 1p I uuIIIIIVuilNlu 111 11 i t l ' i u�I l l �uYil �/n ��of�,of �11( mM�1' They represent various aspects of the art, culture, history, family lifestyles, and the world of nature and wildlife found in the Estes Valley. They speak both to the Valley's past and to Its future, of dreams, memories, adventures, and folklore. pl 9i„Illuurnuuu YN�IIM'H �IIIIpIII�11I��1��1111IIIIIIIIIIoo u mit ��� ������ 'I�VIII�1j1I�Yy �llhO'I'I''�'P,V!''dilV'�''I I"I'��I'fvd au'' 'ul'hl"'I'6,u;„ Iyv' I ulogim�'.� l^l'IYY�,'1�i11uI"111� hV19�I� V vww "PI glk0,,00IIVI�pBY dluVdVli°a"Iill���u�" I,i IW�„Ih� idli,p6'N 000 IV d o �Id6, II ^I o luNl°'�ryi "' uuuN III ui IPI16YuuuN IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIUI0110 IIIIIII II IIIIuIII ul lllMll IvRI i� 11 II IIIII pl p ul l , III Mlll III III m �I II, I,II I Y� uV �II p „iil s itIli 1, Iy6 IIII��11°� iFy°l Ilr Imllll@I u�lllllll ul11, lll�01�o�ill1;ll�111111!111111,1iivl"IivvvvvIII�IIIIVIINIWIIIII,�,I�10'vld�!11u"I"0" 1�I�uo��" � � u' plRii�u,��h � If�IVV6�i�l��plpu9°r��i�41Nll'iu'ip�I,��W V'� uINwY'lliljw"V'PIhNIdIINVIIA��'mY6 dl �� III I ���6uph�' 111,1,111111,11 0001lllllll II III �1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��°°� 1111111 IoiVIII III IIII uu111Nl�ul�uum t 11' Inn.1' wpp,'III';', Nm11100' II11,1I,F,II II' ''I �NI,�IIi,IIIIIIIIU���;°�f'I��p��l�ll�gpmllllllllllliuwlNV,Iw��pllll� 1111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 411If 1'1'I0001 glq°u' nounnonnonnon IIIII111111111111111Illlonnohlluoli is FR/Flo. II'INI 1nlllll lI�II p�ui11pF I�„V 10 al"°nnnan They characterize the warmth, beauty, charm and solitude found in our countrysides and neighborhoods and in their own way help to preserve our local rural frontier heritage. Mlilii"l ""MMnNId AMIM n"�''lii�'UguMmn���"iPi' " Ill AYw��IIII� limn mil l lull'lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllmml uuuuuumuuuuul!I!Ilp......... lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll uuuuuuuuuum U l0llllllllllllll Huuuui,mmuuu °°°°uollliiiiiiiiiiili 000uuuuuliiiiiiiiuuuuu uuuuuiiiiiiuuuu ' f'dd did.)'Adii‘'dldi III , ,d‘ ( 1 u I(InN 1'(, �if� I55I II II0050HiioolloiiiiiiiiUl iiilimim loinawl 559 Landers St. is a unique site within the town limits with breathtaking views of the North Estes Valley and Lake Estes. It also has outstanding elk habitat amidst its trees, rock outcroppings and other natural features. Recognized as a natural landmark in its own right, it is juxtaposed with another overshadowing landmark at the end of Landers St., a transmission tower, a symbol of progress! Sl 1 dmio Ma MOM* , llllll'� Mlulo0001,1000011000000000001000 0101I0,,0111 l0dl I ulw Vouu 1i,,0 1N lit111051111111 lllllllllll�111100�� � ''l'lilll IIIII ,l ,1IIIIIINmd a./d, �d ✓�i .m The property owners respectfully ask the Board for their approval of this variance request because they feel it is their way of softening the impact of the tower on the neighborhood and preserving some sense of our rural frontier heritage. p ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: Legal Description Lot: Block: Tract: Subdivision: ei Parcel ID # Site Information OCT 2 4 2007 Section TownshiRan .7 " ."� Lot Size ��°µ�k� ��� ��,, u.��a Zoning Existing Land Use 51 Proposed Land Use 5� Existing Water Service Town 7 Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service TA Town 7 Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD run" UTSD I" Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD IC"""" UTSD Ir Septic Existing Gas Service , Xcel r Other r None Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r" Yes 1 No w� eui'iRot IIC(r Specific variance desired (state development code section #I q Cppti: 5E c.T)c' , ., E�,JE �' �°��wu`� '. "w::r� w �.�t l l n I� r��;� I r)u ", ".cr�1 rarnrm lion Name of Primary Contact Person °. Mailing• Address S i 0 /„.0 Ofg,, 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) " 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') '"" l'm"" 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11 '" X 17") r"'" Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) ** The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park 4, P.O. Box 1200 -, 170 MacGregor Avenue .R Estes Park. CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4, Fax: (970) 586-0249 4, www,estesnet.com/ComDev Primary Contact Person is OININIo19N1"ii)) °PSY,it !Po4yl� Uti hWn iv r• Nuu!aq(fl gp N1111 Yl�4l' il. iui4ljS1 1 o Y� r " OIfP; n'u!I il�lll.N�r ry j ri �) ryq fII,4 ! VNBV 4 Y r,+ � ! ,!n i qn 0y�illl+I!�iuk'9j�,vrm�Nylyl1hl�flliri�Ilil�i��'hi�i�ullU li u6'h u,. ! v1 q'n' a vii u H iliwuli i IIIIIIIIo.IidY i IVllltn�, 4dIV�,I,! !V!S64flillr VU NUIi'IoNON Ilnw� (uwlV!! m, '(( ,' , Owner "„ .,, Applicant r"""'" Consultant/Engineer liec11rd Owner(s) j Jj ja mm �9 F'LEv Mailing Address L.,., 1-1"1 Phone Cell Phone e Fax Email Applicant , L,, lr „ v/ig Mailing Address 2 4 '50 ►-0,M"'°4 Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email III APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both Inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. D OCT 2 4 2007 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION P. I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the`iSWners o 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). 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.) P. 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. P. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. ► I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Signatures: Record Owner Applicant V`). 114� Date Date t ch, 4/0 -7 Revised 10/13/06 1Q E gt`l- r10 f-4 or At- i so N trAy,teu er6afe rope Towel or g.`ai eS PAK com et IV( 1:Z116 o 'M elf De:Pr Olio Saco- a2-,41 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 applioation 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 Cade is available online at www.estesnet.c orn/Corr:Dev/DevCode.) ▪ I understand that acceptance of tea 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. O 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. le I understand that a resubtmttal tee 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 Perk Employees and Members of me Board of Adjustment with proper Identification access to my property during the review at this application. O 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 fu11 fees w18 be charged for the rssubmittal 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 arid 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) busindes clays prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Dearing. * I understand that k the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with resod to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render this decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Cade 9oatien 3.6,D) anise: Record Owner PEAS PRINT•: nlC� tsc.m �� S1\ ‘1'1�.ey Applicant !matinee; Record Owner Applicant Date I .e12-4 (4)1 Da to kV/ / TO 3E"dd SNI>te13d>1DIQ Revised 1of13/00 09L8179ELT8 TO:ET 900Z/TT/90 Signs § 8.1 Compliance with Town and County Sign Codes .1 •MLI IT T: A. igns in the To n of stes ar . All signs in the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the Estes Park Sign Code, set forth in Chapter 17.66 of the Town of Estes Park unicipal Code, as amended from time to time. B. igns in Larimer ounty. All signs in unincorporated Larimer County shall comply with the Larimer County Sign Code, set forth in §8.7 of the Larimer County nd Use Code, as amended from time to time. Zoning Section 17.66.090 (3) The maximum size for a subdivision identification sign shall be thirty-six (36) square feet (or eighteen [18] feet per face). (4) The signs shall only contain the name of the subdivision and not a pictorial representation of the subdivision. (Ord. 11- 76 §2(part), 1976; Ord. 25-76 §§2, 6, 1976; Ord. 17-80 §2, 1980; Ord. 21-82 § 1(I) and (J), 1982; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 17-02 §1(part), 2002) 17.66.100 District sign re, lations. (a) Use districts (zoning districts). The use districts, as set forth in this Title and amend- ments hereto, shall apply to this Chapter. The boundaries of these districts shall be determined by reference to the zoning map of the Estes Valley, to this title and amendments hereto and to sections on interpretation of such maps as may be contained in this Title and amendments hereto. (b) Establishment of district regulations. The type of signs permitted and the regulation of the number, placement, area and use of signs is established. No sign shall be erected except as provided in this Chapter and in the district in which it is permitted, nor shall any sign be used for any purpose or in any manner except as allowed by the regulations for the district in which such sign is proposed or maintained. Schedule of requirements. The follow - in chedule of "class of sign permitted," "type of sign permitted," "maximum sign area permit- ted per lot," "maximum area per sign face," "maximum number of signs permitted" and "maximum height of freestanding signs" regula- tions for the various zoning districts is adopted. (d) Total allowable sign area. The total area of all signs on a lot, or, in the case of a permitted use or uses occupying two (2) or more adjacent lots, the total area of all signs on all such adjacent lots shall not exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet per linealfoot of building frontage at ground level,, and three-quarters (0.75) square foot per lineal foot of second story building frontage. In no event, however, shall the cumulative total allowable sign area exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet per business. 1 7,-33 Supp. 9 Sec Schedule of Requirements j.7.66108 For all Nonresidential Zoning Districts (A, A-1, CD, CO, CH, 0, I -I) Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum Sign Area Maximum Area Per Maximum No. Maximum Permitted Permitted Permitted Per Business Sign Face of Signs Height of -Permitted Signs All in Subsection 17.66.040(25), except subdivisions j & s All in Subsection 150 sf for freestanding Suspended: 5 sf Freestanding: 2' 25 ft 17.66.040(25) except per Lot subdivision i 15 sf for projecting Time -temp: 10 sf 10 sf for suspended (5 per face) 1.5 sf per If of frontage (150 sf max.) for wall signs Temporary Temporary Temporary 12 ft Construction: 36 sf Construction: IS sf Construction: 1 per street Residential Multi -family (RM, R-2) Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum Sign Area Maximum Area Per Maximum No. Maximum Permitted Permitted Permitted Per Lot Sign Face of Signs Height of Permitted Siigns All in Subsection 17.66.040(25), except subdivisions h,j, m,s &t All in Subsection 75 sf for freestanding Suspended: 5 sf 17.66.040(25) except subdivisions g, i, & q 15 sf for projecting 10 sf for suspended (5 per face) 1.5 sf per if of frontage for wall signs (max. 150 sf) Freestanding: 1 25 ft per Lot For all Single-family Residential Zoning Districts Class of Sign Type of Sign Maximum Sign Area Maximum Area Per Maximum No. Maximum Permitted Permitted Permitted Per Lot Sign Face of Signs Height of Permitted Signs All in Subsection 17.66.040(25), except subdivisions h, j, m, s &t All in Subsection 4 sf- identification only All sign: 2 sf 1 per building 6 ft 17.66.040(25) except (Sec. 17.66.050) subdivisions a, g, i & q (Ord. 11-76 §2 (part), 1976; Ord. 25-76 §3, 1976; Ord. 8-81 §1, 1981; Ord. 15-97, 1997; Ord. 17-02 §1(part), 2002) ) 7-34 Suan. 9 c El .007 2 4 7 E j DET4J �� co T c r-OOr'r rI.� ti NO1I.ti I. I. I� r l\ CO T T ,- r-.` n O N T cDIn Li cc) N r) co TTflf) T O Ln T) c)OOOUl00O CO d' 00 OOOOO co moo 00000pOOCcO0OO T CO OD �O N OaQ 0Uc0g00NOQ0�c000g00c7D8a00� N0 UD 00L0O0cD000Qo0 oJ00co cif Y 5 0 :Y i X L c Y co p co Z U Y Y V 0 L ta Z Y i Z Na. O C7 O u) a_ IL co a' 2 a � a. a. -ci co co .� a o •E a a. c (aLiN3lOLf)i-YIiJILinL0 cp ; JIl co .c W WCCCcEi OWOZW us a) co'i it N 117 m bh m >7.-c > ND¢�bN a)Q Ij>llh ca c�> C0cico � ysaa LL O la Q Nrfn_ 'c0 lV ci0 O X ++ i o mQ0OU' `�0el0 JopL,Uco,-W0���m� rI*,rOOOcr)I-QCDrLnOrMt•CD r co" 0_r-I- r)�ccoccoor-l3r`cocoo1. NC0--zr Deco,)-CND0.0 CD a. C C Laura Luane Gulliksen 1 >. C r, J J E a) as c ~ N Z 6 J ! ` N L ` Q. Q. I- c ` i a)�it O O L Y a N Y O~ `— .Q c ai a tl 0_ 0 E H Cr) t N v c d C3 N Y hi g $ c 0 a) Q-c) Z Y c , 07 CCI C CLO 2 p) J fn Q, ' oco �wLii . 0-,.5 f li 8 iCL006Lig i3 mQa 2�O NQM �� 3-j+L-' CQQ v1NW ` U v) E O t Lc O O 0 O J,, a) a_ O co 0 Q. Q. C0 vvs N ›. co d v •N a0i m O t a�i t o�-cTs o o al o aa) c E� Y a) o U w o C 0 n a_ § fA 4= -' -, 2 03 CC N 0 W Z 1g u [C CC Z Y CC Perkins Sign Variance N N �Z$° II` 3.So° ',o 6, Z lo'? Jo HoI I' Jod V U° CP 0 •-kn // T nO 71 31 1 b b 7 Mg2140 Ridge Road Setback Variance Request lionimall Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONBACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: December 4, 2007 LOCATION: The site is located at 2140 Ridge Road, within unincorporated Larimer County. Legal Description: Lot 5, Fox Ridge Estates. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: Paul L. and Judith K. Tharp/Same STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The property owner wishes to add a twenty -four -by -twenty -eight -foot, two- story garage with a balcony to the north side of the existing house. The owner also wishes to build a deck on the east (front) side of the house. The owner requests variances to Estes Valley Development Code Table 4-2, which establishes fifty -foot front- and side -yard setbacks in the "RE" Rural Estate zoning district in order to build a garage 41.76 feet from the front property line and 33.96 feet from the side property line. The balcony attached to the garage would be 37.76 feet from the front property line. The owner also proposes a two-story deck addition to the front of the house, which would be located 31.21 feet from the front property line. IL SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels One Parcel Number(s) 25173-05-005 Development Area 2.50 acres including right -of- way per plat 108,900 square feet Zoning "RE" Rural Estate Existing Land Use Single -Family Residential Proposed Land Use Single -Family Residential SERVICES Water Well Sewer Septic Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Qwest LOCATION MAPS WITH ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Page #2 --2140 Ridge Road Setback Variance Request AERIAL PHOTOS Page #3 -2I40 Ridge Road Setback Variance Request SITE PLAN grPtac PROPOSED SETBACKS Garage with 2"d Floor kalcony; Front: 41.78 feet (Garage) Front: 37.78 feet (Balcony) Side: 33.88 feat ec Front: 31.21 feet s msls BOX Proposed arage with 2nd floor balcony R .138 98'. Proposed 4..203.44` C..197 78" S 13'30" E 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 Light and Power Department See Mike Mangelsen's memo to Bob Goehring dated November 16, 2007. Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated November 16, 2007. Larimer County Engineering Department See Matt Johnson's letter to Alison Chilcott dated November 19, 2007. Page #4 -2140 Ridge Road Setback Variance Request Owners of 2115 Ridge Road See Thomas Wood's email to Alison Chilcott dated November 14, 2007. North End Property Owners' Association, Inc. See the North End Property Owners' Association's memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 14, 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: 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. The lot is an unusual "L" shape and a portion of the existing house is located within the setbacks. In addition, as noted in the statement of intent, the house was built as a corporate business retreat/meeting facility and the floor plan was not ideal for single-family use. The property owner is remodeling to improve the floor plan and in the process removed the existing garage. 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. The existing use can continue. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Page #5 —2140 Ridge Road Setback Variance Request Staff Finding: The variance request is not substantial. The fifty -foot front setback is measured from the property/right-of-way line, not from the edge of Ridge Road. This right-of-way, at sixty feet wide, is unusually wide for a sub -local street serving only sixteen single- family residential lots. There is approximately fifteen feet between the property line and the edge of Ridge Road. In addition, the adjacent lot to the north is undeveloped so a house is not impacted by the variance request at this time. 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: The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered. Staff has received two letters of support for the variance request. Staff has not received any letters in 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. 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. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor records, the property owner purchased the property in 2007, after the February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code and with knowledge of the requirements. Page #6 --2I40 Ridge Road Setback Variance Request f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 1. Staff Finding: An addition could be built within 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 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. Page #7 -2140 Ridge Road Setback Variance Request 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 recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set, and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. A copy of this certificate shall be provided to the Estes Park Community Development Department. Page #8 mm2140 Ridge Road Setback Variance Request To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 11-16-07 Re: Tharp Residence, Variance Request, 2140 Fox Ridge Estates The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Variance Request for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1) No Comments North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 11 ` G .RY A. .r .:1Tl Attorney at Law November 16, 2007 ALISON CHILCOTT, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ES'1 ,S PARK PO BOX 1200 ES 1'ES PARK, CO 80517 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 Board of Adjustment - Variance Request - Tharp Residence Dear Ms. Chilcott: I have no comment If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. GAWildr Paul L & Judith K Tharp 2417 Longview Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 LARIMER COUN MOR f UM TO: Alison Chilcott, Town of Estes Park Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 170 Macgregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 EERING DEPARTM NT FROM: Matt Johnson, Development Review Engineer DATE: November 19, 2007 SUBJECT: Tharp Residence - Setback Variance (Estes Park referral) Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 Proiect Descrintion/Background: This is a setback variance request to allow a new garage and deck to be 42 feet and 31 feet, respectively from the front property line. The normally required setback is 50 feet from the front property line. This project is located west of County Road 63E (Dry Gulch Road) in the Fox Ridge Estates Subdivision and accesses off of Ridge Road. Comments: 1. The setback variance request from the front property line is adjacent to Ridge Road. Ridge Road is a local subdivision right-of-way. As a result, approval of the setback variance requests would not have an impact on any Larimer County public road right-of-way improvements or maintenance needs in the future. 2. Notification and approval from the proper utility authorities will be required if any utility easements are affected in association with the proposed structures. Staff Recommendation: Our department does not have any other comments or issues regarding this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at (970) 498-5724 or email me at miohnson@larimer.org. Thank you. cc: Paul and Judith Tharp, 2417 Longview Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517 File Reading file H:IDEVREVIPLANCHKIVARIANCEITharp Residence SBV.doc Alison Chilcott From: tom wood [thornaswood@sbcglobal.net) Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:31 AM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: Lot 5 Fox Ridge Estates variance My name is Thomas Wood and I have a house located at 2115 Ridge Rd. in Fox Ridge Estates. I am in favor of the variance request made by the petitioner- Paul and Judith Tharp (Lot 5, Fox Ridge estaLi,$). Please feel free to call me at 972-768-5898 if you have any questions. Thanks Thomas Wood lie/14/2 7 15:36 FAX 970 577 9 3 A —SUZ MILLER V1001/001 THE NORTH ND ROPE, TV OWNERS ASSN, INC. PO Box 3532, Estes Park, CO. 80517 November 14, 2007 To: Alison Chilcott, Planner II Town of Estes Park Community Development Department From: The North End Property Owners Assn, Inc. Subject: Variance request Tharp residence Lot 5, Fox Ridge Estates 2140 Ridge Road This letter is in response to a request of our organization to review the proposed variance application for the above -referenced property which is located within the North End. Upon reviewing the application and visiting the property we see no concern as long as the property owner of the adjacent Lot 6, Eric N. Olsen, 6247 Cambria, Las Vegas, Nevada 89108; has been duly contacted and given the opportunity as an affected agency to respond and comment accordingly that he is in agreement with the proposed variance request. We are assuming as well that there are no utility easement concerns to be addressed in this application. Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to this application request. Page 1 of 3 PA L.THARP 2417 LONGVIEW ES S PA , CO 80517 October 12, 2007 To: Estes Park Community Development and Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Subiect: Variance Application for Setback of Garage and Deck Reference Property: 2140 Ridge Road, Estes Park,, Larimet County, CO 80517 History: ➢ Purchased property May 15, 2007 ➢ Residence house built 1974 ➢ Built for corporate meeting/retreat residence Purpose of Remodel: ➢ House built to accommodate purpose of corporate business retreat/meeting facility ➢ Unusual floor plan of bedrooms and garage on first level and kitchen, utility room, eating area and a large general purpose room (22 ft. X 36 ft.) on 2"d level. ➢ Owners are converting to a more conventional floor plan of garage, great room, dining room, utility and furnace room on lst floor, and bedrooms and baths on 2"d level. Necessity of Variance Setback: ➢ To accomplish the above change, the existing garage was converted to a kitchen, utility and furnace room. ➢ In order to build an attached 2-car garage, it would require a variance for the setback. Related Setback Variance Information: > Due to the following criteria it is almost impossible to build a garage without encroaching into the 50 ft. setback. Irregular shape of lot and the road (street) curving toward front of house Page 2 of 3 ✓ Close location of well to existing g • Location of septic and leach field. ri The existing NE comer of house is already 42 ft. from property line (see attached plat). ■ An existing deck at front of house has been removed. It was 40 ft. from front property line - the new proposed deck would be 58 ft. to property line. Page 3 of 3 SUMMARY OF REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE The purpose of this variance request is to accommodate a small deck on front of house and an attached 24 ft. x 28 ft. garage. (We own 2 pick-up trucks, hence the 28 ft. depth). It is noted the requested setback distance is not unusual for the Fox Ridge Estates Subdivision. Converting the retreat/meeting type residence to a more conventional single-family estate residence would better fit the character of the North End area of Estes Park and Estes Valley. Updating and improving the appearance should enhance the value of adjoining properties. The variance would not affect access to the adjoining properties. It is respectfully requested the Estes Park Community Development Department and the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment consider the above information and grant a variance for the setback distance. Paul L. Tharp 2.5 acres = 108,887.5 sq. ft. Total 109,000 50 ft. setback = 66,921.5 sq. ft. Total = 67,000 Building Envelope = 31,966.0 sq. ft. Total - 32,000 Submittal Date: u" •:I�: I'mil Nma llo ii ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION rare ,Z5/ Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: 2,4 w e Legal Description Lot: Tj Block: Subdivision: o e ID# v„ arse � ��W o Section / 7 Township Lot Size Qar'eS Existing Land Use e 5 , c/4Z 7 Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service f°°°"` Town Well 'Il"" Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service I'"""" Town frn Well !f""" Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service i EPSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service I' EPSD Existing Gas Service J Xcel r"" Other Site Access (if not on public street)'', Are there wetlands on the site? n " Yes J. No Specific variance desired (state development code section # : uu 111 a. or' y 0 ruul .;;.11,cui Ilialkyrr.la`EllIan Name of Primary Contact Person ; 0 MailinAddress .2f/ ? Lowe view '12d p0 �uulnru"rPi ". 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) I""""' 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") I'"'"u. 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. Tract: Zoning r UTSD A< Septic UTSD .I"C Septic None Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 ... 170 MacGregor Avenue -as Estes Park CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 .a. Fax: (970) 5815-0249 www,estesnet.com/ComDev li ontact°Irifo'rmatio"n Primary Contact Person is Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email 1IfllYhiviY!�I'�611i' Iil�YvuYlYlu:'•', IIIi1IliuuuulUUl $F Owner Applicant i P. /- r Consultant/Engineer 2775" !&CI. IOW >6 2S 3S-fO ' D1 Gt d A ' /', iceL/ 11111 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. LI ' : T TI FI y 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). ► I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. • 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 tenbusiness 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: 74k/ rp Applicant PLEASE PRINT:� 1w/� Signatures: Record Owner Applicant J dd1/x /<' Mari Datae/fr /7—O'7 DateGp 7 o rf Revised 10/13/06 Zoning Districts § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Zoning District Net Density (units/acre) Mirdnirriuril Lot ;. nd um of StMax. . Minimum Buildingl8tnicture Setbacks [2] [4] E3] Max. Building Min. Building Width (fL) Max. Lot Coverage (%) Area (sq . ft) Width (ft.) Front (ft.) Side (fL) Rear (ft.) Height (ft.) [10] E-1 1/10 Ac. 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 n/a RE 1/2.5 Ac. 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 30 20 n/a E-1 1 1 Ac. [3] 100 25 25 25 30 20 n/a E 2 % Ac. [3] 75 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 30 20 n/a R 4 'A Ac. 60 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 30 20 n/a R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20 n/a R-2 4 Single- family = 18,000; Duplex= 27,000 60 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 10 30 20 Duplex = 50% RM Ord. 18- 01 #14) Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [4] [5][8.1 Senior Institution- al Living Uses:' Ac. 60; Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 [6] 10 30 20 [7] Multi - family= 50% Notes to Table 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 ##1 6) [2] See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) [3] If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." [4] Town home developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual town home unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot tot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] Multi -family developments shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30. [6] Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot line devetopment") are allowed for town home developments. [7] Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14) [9] All structures shall be setback from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or Tots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is not applicable in the "MF" district. (Ord. 11-02 §1) [10] See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) Supp. 4 4-7 i L f9 zg ZD 9£' 321R1�n�I1S �NIISI�X3 z ,� , Q -9lfr£' a30 �3SOdO l 100'Lg Z .11, 96T£' ww opco NOO £.- ƒco kQ&u E co co $_ co �$ uiI I � co • f 0 2 k t cc / 22 0 ■ ■ CC CC m o=cis 0 \ /22k/E EL°.61r# > _ T -ono 0 E q = iXCDX XX X 08n m$m703onF)m2o¥coin v0co070080gP.n.oE —a_0_a4-0-0.1#CO0-1.0 Tharp Variance N 01-48'00" co c5 N 0148'00" .-- --. .......................... .... _- As5do ):).t . . / _ — — r --- a .... 2 1-11 7:111 1).10 \ \ - -- — — 0 r.n •--.1 cn 6 ' \ - --- vo -• (A ." Cr4 .C.01 6 'CD 0, \ (.00'•1 (A C.7) z tr% r- 0 cr) 4112.4., '4 1 YMCA eight Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: December 4, 2007 REQUEST: A request by the YMCA of the Rockies for a height variance for three new lodge buildings. LOCATION: 2515 Tunnel Road, within unincorporated Larimer County. APPLICANT: BHA Design, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: YMCA of the Rockies STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Design Group: BHA Design (Cara Morgan, Fort Collins office, 223-7577) Parcel Number: 3404200022 Development Area: 09$ acres (+/-) Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Accommodations/Conference Center Proposed Land Use: Same, with a conference center and three new lodges with 200 rooms. Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations Adjacent Zoning - East: "RE" Rural Estate, "E-1" Estate, "A" Accommodations North: "0" Open (Larimer County zoning) West:: "0" Open (Larimer County zoning) South: "E-1" Estate, "A-1" Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses - East: _Single-family residential North: Rocky Mountain National Park West: Rocky Mountain National Park Services - Water: YMCA treatment plant (licensed by the State of Colorado) Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer South: Single-family residential Sewer: UTSD PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a maximum building height of: Grand Lodge: West Lodge: East Lodge: 36'8" in lieu of the 35' allowed. 45' in lieu of the 40' allowed (would be 43 '' 10" if code did not impose 40' limit to adjusted maximum height). 32'3" in lieu of the 30' allowed. The purpose of these requests is to facilitate the redevelopment of the core area of the YMCA of the Rockies. Last year, the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approved a master plan for the YMCA of the Rockies. This master plan set forth the future development philosophies for the YMCA grounds, including this core area development. That plan included architectural guidelines, which this variance request attempts to comply with. The master plan also includes a goal to comply with the ADA where possible. The cites compliance with the ADA as a major factor in this variance request. The ADA has a slope limit of 5% for accessible routes, where this portion of the campus has an average slope of 10%. Therefore, the applicant proposes to bring fill material into the eastern portion of the site. The buildings on top of this fill material would then exceed the maximum allowed building height, even after being adjusted as allowed per code. In a nutshell: the maximum building height is 30-feet from existing grade. This can be exceeded by half the amount of elevation drop over the run of the building. For example, if the elevation drops by 20 feet over the run of the building, the maximum downhill height would be 40 feet (30 feet plus half of 20). REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria set forth below: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other Page #2 —YMCA Height Request areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a campus development of three new lodges and a conference center. The ADA requires routes of 5% or less, whereas the site has an average slope of 10%. Therefore, certain amounts of fill material are required to allow for the ADA routes, which raises the overall building height. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Comment: The property may continue as accommodations use. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The variance request is not substantial compared to the goal of achieving fully compliant ADA access throughout the new lodges and conference center. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Comment: The variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The development site is within the main YMCA grounds, and is not visible from the road. Nearby buildings include the Wind River Lodge, which is 37 feet tall at its crest, and the Ruesch Auditorium, which is 57 feet at its highest crest. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant has owned the property since 1907, pre -dating the Estes Valley Development Code by 93 years. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The applicant could design buildings that meet the code requirement, though a building re -design may not be consistent with the Page #3 YMCA Height Request architectural goals set forth in the Master Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Time Extension. The applicant requests a 2 'A year timeframe instead of the typical one year. This is to allow phased construction of the three new lodges. Neighbors. Staff has received one email from a nearby property owner. This neighbor inquired if the variance request was for any building along Tunnel Road. After responding to this inquiry, Staff has not received any additional comments. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist. 2. The accommodation use could continue without the variance. 3. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance, though a building re -design may not be consistent with the architectural goals set forth in the Master Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered. 5. The variance request is not substantial compared to the goal of achieving fully compliant ADA access throughout the new lodges and conference center. 6. The requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 7. The applicant has owned the property since before the adoption of the EVDC. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Page #4 YMCA Height Request 9. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 10. Approval of this variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 11. Approval of this variance would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances CONDITIONAL TO: a. Approval of Development Plan 08-02 b. Prior to any site work, a surveyor shall set a project benchmark. c. A surveyor shall set the building corners prior to pouring foundation. d. A surveyor shall provide stamped certification the foundation complies with the approved variance. This verification shall be presented to the building official, and a copy submitted to the Estes Park Community Development Department. e. A surveyor shall provide stamped certification the finished building height complies with the approved variance. This verification shall be presented to the building official, and a copy submitted to the Estes Park Community Development Department. f. The variance shall be valid for 30 months from approval. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #5 YMCA Height Request st„. n m 2 o u $ L' �,tii $ I a m �,.. ,m sE m ER A m E 0E. mmi ,0$ .co a Pg $$ $a . 00 m �� � is n 1 'S„ 11 ��+ rg 4 p $ �; H 8 82 al .2` WW! pv 88 s ce -1 0- m i •$ 1.2 ,$clWS c Ili 11 1m E Q.c E 1221 p m c4 m m a g m m: efts-itigE.:11L21.ieu gmoo43°rilia 3c -orc E m Smc L/c� f 2 gt Ina:0- 11 git € 1 g 1a Aq0 tE o R._ . m 2 a U z 8 ei 8 0 0 0 C7 O O 0 0 0 0 0 2 2fg� c � 0 ��igC$a � �mLm$�E oosg C S g $ $' lig c a~ is dal Q E ciao$ - 8 �j m�� •- � 55 rem UT -55 Qv as g3 a mo0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 " m . doHi ni 4.2 MP 21:€s 11"airli trpi sp 8 m.02 $` Mt U 5 .EA W j 0 0 R1 a c 1 21 ma8 O 0 ii CI It 0; gl m> g a A 0 8 . $ 5 c c Lig�c o Oouaa;° o 0 o • `m c� a a Ol 1 0.21 2 1 0 1 c & Its c gi h S. .� § -sQ 8= uw ii E Wgi tP �$gi8t g2 L C N C C L g 0 .0.- yE W� � U m XX m C IpS a O , ' 1 all t. C pe R e 8 c e C d, • rfit.c F, 02 4 �8'si pi �L !4 mE c `•G� L'5 30 o3_ aC t 3oarLL!iiog E v415 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 c Si Uo �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • B c 0 eEte ice2212. OJ8�j V! PIM HidC2•c /c H o 0 0 u. ▪ o 0 0 0 0 N g w m c0 cZ L m g 00 a 0 41 a ggCE. t g8 BF- 3g 11 0 0 0 10111111 \/ \ \� > in4 09.1: 1111L 1LL„: 7"1 ,,... 0 111 O 0 gni a CO g E W Ru • m ° = mp m me � m �-- 0. diac h� �a E� /0 v a c p n Q ° E m g a< W 9a.P = o , o s A t ° L gcg `a a 2= FAI§ 31� rot$ �_ 16 g° 2 D 2> o2 g 2°1 g Lcg 5 p �' a - 2 �E as ih �z C e N C 1g = V.Gl g _ 1 $_ m � a�i J. 2 Q Fs7 ° W . ▪ 0 0 0 0 vBgil LARIMER COUNTY COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE TO: Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 FROM: Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer. Development Services Engineer DATE: November 21, 2007 SUBJECT: YMCA Building Height Variance Project Description/Background: The YMCA is requesting a variance for the minimum building height state in the Estes Valley Development Code, which states that 30 feet is the maximum height. Recommendation: Height variances are not typically engineering related. Therefore, the Larimer County Engineering Department offers no specific recommendation regarding the approval/disapproval of this variance. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or e-mail at tdowns@larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: reading file file North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 November 16, 2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Board of Adjustment - Variance Request - YMCA of the Rockies Dear Mr. Shirk: I have no comment If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. GAW/ldr Cc: BHA Design, Inc. - Cara Morgan Fax: 970-223-1827 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: SCOTT G CAST [scottanddiane@q.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:59 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: YMCA variance request Dave, Concerning the variance request by the YMCA on the lodges,are these lodges to be constructed on the main YMCA grounds? I want to know if they are to be constructed on the controversial piece of land adjacent to Tunnel Road. If they are on the main body of the YMCA grounds I would have no objection to the variance, although it seems like the YMCA cant seem to just follow the established guidelines. Please let me know what the situation is. Thank you very much. Scott Cast 11 / 1442007 November 2, 2007 Town of Estes Park Estes Park Municipal Building P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Ave Estes Park, Colorado 80517 RE: Height Variance - Estes Park Center, YMCA of the Rockies To Whom It May Concern, The YMCA is respectfully requesting a deviation from Chapter 1.19.E. and Chapter 4, Table 4-2 contained in the Estes Valley Development Code that limits building height to a maximum of 30 feet. Our design team has worked very hard in developing solutions that support the vision of the recently adopted Estes Park Center Master Plan, and solutions that are visually integrated into the context of the YMCA campus and its surroundings. The following pages contain information contained in the Estes Code, the YMCA Master Plan and images of the proposed development for your review in this matter. Excerpts from the Estes Valley Development Code Table 4-2 found in Chapter 4 of the Estes Valley Development Code limits building heights to a maximum of 30 feet. However, Chapter 1.19 allows an increase in building height for buildings on slopes. The following information is contained in Chapter 1.19.E. of the Estes Valley Development Code: 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 fmished 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) Page 1 of 1 1 Landscape architecture I planning I urban design y"' WEIGHT OMIT IMLfMS PROMF / F KOVNO MAMMAL ORADE 1 OUIDINO M'LT FI TFIOMOYF I{E16HT L/WI ROSE INO UPTURN. IkRIAN cur IN YennAll `f=BIM INTO TRARNIi PRIOR TO ORALSOG All IN ILIWOLIN Figure 1-3 meow umnr FOLLOWS PROFILt OF PAVING NATUW1l rrnakti ewaf)I mimeos 2. Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes. The maximum height of buildings on slopes 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..Elevation at highest point of natural grade of proposed building location b=Elevation at any given point Page 2 of 11 Landscape architedure I planning I urban design w..../p.I1I:MYY:p.--..- ---d. 10' 20' b Original ground surface Figure 1-4 YMCA Master Plan The Estes Park Center Plan was approved and adopted by Larimer County in September of 2006. This project represents the first step in the implementation of the master plan. Core Area The proposed new facilities will be located in what the master plan refers to as the "Core Area" which is defined as "...the central campus area of the Center. This area includes the largest amount of site development, including conference facilities, guest lodges, food services, and most of the developed program and recreation areas." Master Plan Vision and Goals The following are few of the guiding statements that were utilized in the formation of the YMCA Master Plan. • Build upon past successes and the Center's Character - not creating radical change, but intentionally creating ways to enhance success. • Create a strong sense of environmental stewardship, balancing environmental protection and land use. Page 3 of 11 Landscape architecture I planning I urban design • Promote and preserve the natural environment and beauty of the site. • The Rocky Mountains are what attract guests to the area. Use every chance to reinforce the mountain experience. Get users outside into the environment. • Create a more accessible site. People are living longer and accessibility is becoming more difficult; consider proximity of facilities that are used together. • The core area should be developed for safer and efficient pedestrian circulation and enhanced aesthetic and visitor experience. • New facilities should fit into the environment. Concepts and Overall Features of the Master Plan Architecture: • Buildings that should be used as a precedent, setting the architectural standard for the future: Administration, Women's Building, Texas State House, Jellison, Mountainside, Hyde Chapel, Walnut Room/Pine Room, The Museum. • The Ruesch Auditorium is out of character with the surroundings and could be modified at some point to help it blend in more effectively. Parking: • Parking areas consolidated outside the pedestrian core and directly accessed from the main loop road. • Accessible parking areas included throughout the site to meet current ADA requirements. • Develop improved bus circulation, drop-off and parking areas. • Parking lots delineated with landscape islands and landscape buffer areas from roads and pedestrian areas. • Parking lots should be designed to accommodate turning radius of large trucks and buses, with designated areas for drop-off and pick-up. Pedestrian Areas: • Pedestrian areas should be developed to meet Americans with Disability Guidelines (ADA) where possible. Design Proposal This project will include a renovation and expansion of the Ruesch Auditorium/Dining Hall, a new conference center attached to the back of the Ruesch building, and 3 new lodge buildings containing a total of 202 guest rooms (Grand Lodge-100 rooms, West Lodge-62 rooms, East Lodge-40 rooms). The new facilities are intended better serve groups looking Page 4 of 11 Landscape architecture I planning 1 urban design for large corporate conference facilities. The new buildings are clustered together so that the meeting rooms in each facility can be shared. The design team began the process by reviewing the adopted master plan, by walking the site, and by reviewing the site survey. It quickly became clear that the configuration of the New Guest Lodge Buildings shown in the Master Plan did not fully consider the existing topography, ADA access, existing vegetation and other details - this is typical for most master plans. So the site plan was re -worked and massaged in consideration of the existing site conditions. The foundations of the Grand Lodge and the West Lodge were stepped to fit with the existing site contours. Building orientation and floor elevations were established to minimize disturbance to the surrounding areas. Buildings, parking lots and sidewalks are positioned with the goal of preserving as many trees as possible. An added benefit of the building locations is that they will buffer views to the parking lot from adjacent areas. The most influential design factor related to the building height discussion is the importance of providing ADA accessible parking and ADA access between each of the new lodges and to the new conference center and the Ruesch Auditorium. Five percent (5%) maximum gradients are proposed within the new parking lot and for the sidewalk around the perimeter of the parking lot in order to provide the access as discussed above. ADA access is also provided from the parking lot to the primary lodge entries. The average slope of the existing topography is approximately 10%. On a site like this, the 5% ADA grading criteria eliminates our ability to keep the floor elevations close to the existing grades, and has required that we raise floor elevation of the East Lodge 8 to 9 feet above existing grade. An additional consideration given to the building locations and sizes was the desire to create a campus core that supports the increased pedestrian circulation which will reduce the need for vehicular use. This consideration required the larger footprint for the lodge buildings with more rooms in less buildings. Smaller buildings would be spread out requiring more disruption of the site, more driveways, and wider spread facilities requiring greater automobile use. The proposed building designs support the pedestrian friendly campus core described in the master plan. Currently much of this site drains to the north, and in large events the runoff causes flooding problems for the Walnut Room and the Administration Building. So one of the project priorities is to redirect stormwater runoff to the south which will alleviate the flooding problems to the north. To make this happen the crest of the existing hill will be pushed to the north allowing the water to flow south. This condition has also influenced the proposed floor elevations of the lodges. We explored the possibility of lowering the floor elevation of the West Lodge and the Grand Lodge in order to bring the floor elevation of the East Lodge closer to existing grade, but this concept pushes the West Lodge down into a hole and eliminates views out of the lower rooms. We did not feel that this was not a practical solution. Page 5 of 11 Londscape architecture 1 planning 1 urban design Variance Request Based on conversations with the members of the planning staff, the general purpose of the building height code requirement is to preserve the character of the area and to protect the views of adjacent land owners. Building height is measured using existing grade in order to prevent a property owner from drastically modifying the natural topography (filling) in order to capture a view that they may not have had otherwise. We believe that this variance request will not negatively affect any neighbors of the YMCA's or any of the facilities located on the YMCA campus. The Estes Valley Code and The YMCA Master Plan have influenced our design decisions throughout the process, and we are striving to meet the intent of both documents. Even with our best efforts we have found that it is necessary to request a variance to the building height requirements in the code. The specifics of the variance request are outlined on the following pages. Page 6 of 11 Landscape architecture 1 planning 11 urban design Grand Lodge: Change in Floor Elevation due to slope: 10 feet Max height with increase for slope: 30 feet + 5 feet for slope-35 feet Proposed building height: 36'-8" # of feet above maximum building height: 1'-8" oi.ijr �.;nM ,. - n r/ �rrt'rm�rie ur flair o�iq; lomip+rc w,d�i. ra � "� � '4"rmm Yn'eai ViPN 017c"dff Grand Lodge Front View Portion of Grand Lodge roof extending above plane 35' above proposed grade Page 7 of 11 Landscape architecture 1 planning 1 urban design rylII1I 11111111 11111 111111111 111111111tItt West Lodge: Change in Floor Elevation due to slope: 13 feet Max height with increase for slope: 30 feet + 6.5 feet for slope=36.5 feet Proposed building height: 45 feet. # of feet above maximum building height: 3'40" 1 011 01111110111,1 110 '.'em ,,,e; 10; .t 1, .8111 tit.. 1111$14VIIII '01 '11 11 11 11 1111111 1111 11.1111.0 11 111 1111 01P1 11 011 111111 111111111111111101 1r VIII III III r‘.111 ja'101111111d1;1111 1,1 1 11111111111.11111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 driiP 111011 11 /ON 1 JO lit 111111141 ? #111 West Lodge From View 1,111 111 01110 lir/ 11,111110,,d111. I 111 1:0)111 III ',/A ,(r Portion of West Lodge roof extending above plane 36.5 feet above proposed grade Page 8 of 1 1 Landscape architecture ptannirlg 1 urban design East Lodge: Change in Floor Elevation due to slope: 0 feet Max height with increase for scope: 30 feet Proposed building height: 32'-3" # of feet above maximum building height: 2'-3" III011 011`°dVi V61,„ A 1 h •611X� II�I� G�h;:�, East Lodge - Front View tl!u111aG I! r N , JCi,1:"rVX: P'r,„d1,11,11. Portion of East Lodge roof extending above plane 30 feet above grade. Page 9 of 1 1 Landscape architecture I planning I urban design lull g11�d 'ul 11,111,1111111,1111111111,1,1,1„11111111,1111111,1,1„1„11111111,11,1„1111,111,y,yol,v,v,v,v,111,1,1,1,y, you' ,1111,1,11,1'a�e4 1^.. Context The context of the proposed facilities is important to consider, and the physical relationships to their surroundings. We believe that these building will fit nicely into the scale of the surrounding "Core Area" buildings, and that they will add to the vitality of the campus center. in 100 Concept Site Plan showing context Height of surrounding buildings: • Wind River Lodge is 37 feet tall at its crest. • The Ruesch Auditorium/Dining hall is 57 feet tall at its highest crest. • The H buildings located to the south are two story buildings with gable roofs. Page 10 of 11 Landscape architecture 1 planning 1 urban design Character Sketch of the Ruesch Renovation and Conference Center with the Grand Lodge in the background Variance Timeline At this time we plan to construct the new lodges, conference center and the Ruesch expansion over a two year period beginning in the spring of 2008. Therefore we request that the timeline for the variance be extended to 2.5 years We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and we look forward to your comments. Thank you, Roger Sherman BHA Design Page 1 1 of 11 Landscape architecture 1 planning 1 urban design ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION SubnnUal ,.• R 77377.7.4: ) 717 zj >i „,;1,,iir rv)4 6).114i „i, ti (.)°"' t I k CI* t•154 /1 Atidta SI tf..ke'f40E1 Parcht D - filPetiOn NOV - 5 2007 CEOV J Ski ItYWn81111 Rn 044; ,00,1 A 01,1, 14" V§ /pew Old 011111111*1 11 pki.01.1s.) USt= Yak-4 Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service fa Town Proposed Water Service r- Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer service Existing Gas Service Xcel E Well rY Other (Specify) r Well Other (Specify) r' EPSO UTSD r Septic EPSO FX UTSD I" Septic Other None Site Access (ir not on public street} No,iirisfiar) . Are there woila%, iarviyi„ 72 v 1;) Filtrog yt't Ad , ds on the site? 7yo8i, rNo „„v viv. v „ iSsivvvvviivi 8,1 is rf i,siee attached rev_ so,lheduIe) r.---iStatement of intent(must con)* with standards set forth In Section 3.13..0 of the Estes Wiley Development Code) 17../ 1copy (foil led) ot svle pint) (drawn at ngrinivi.frii of 1" v,vvi ?D) I (Aril/ of this Nifil'X ,4j ttrIvdi ()f ririviiii.016rovOili„1il.7iyityvvM [Kin „Pi„prifii:ipit..1•N ' viv•r v" v rrIv I, rfrr rrr, , IThr rrr r", rr,r,0^ rlerr, rrh,rrr,ri 0"qvivir v. ... ... • .. , 116 "-"NarrallringyMONIEMI,01,1,010,,A411" 'Iltohlii• 4110,,,,,putp, inupp,1,1,y,i(iiipisr 01110111iitfiokliitarT1',M!!'itii'd10:,,,,wm,°•rd,r, illl,(01 tc,'6,44,filiVtf,', '',1"1:••iri"IfFiT 11110y41104 III woir•rluor•7110,1,,,••••411,11,pir 0 6hrirolrol•114lioyvhOgiOpvil,r,Prr*,1,,,yprivi '••••101,9.4.0,•• dr?1,40, . ', '0,, !Ii,1 444.1, i 'WV ', '',rr \ '41 ', 41, ,i''' r 1,1n0R.,„.141111, 6..,,,,p..0 ,f,,,i kw, IP nuf p 1„•,,,,, 10,,,...,„.,01„11w • dl,,,••,•,',11r•'••:"'",V• 40,•••,•rv,,••ly,••,11 of 4.u• ,r, • ..*,,M1111111..11* E©EIIV NOV - 5 2007 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and Te no the test of my knowledge and that in fling the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. 1 In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, 1 acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) 1 I acknowledge that 1 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.comIComDev/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 epplicalion is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. O 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 resubmrtial fee will be charged if my application is incomplete le The Community Development Department wilt 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 Adjustrnent 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 Vanance Application Schedule and that failure to meet this deadlines sown sn said schedule shall result in my application olr"the approvallll of my rsl;tislllical.kon b_ „nriiiiy t,%11 i rnd VOID. B understand that Ifull fees will be charged for the resuubbmitlrrt cif an ellsbpliswatlon that Ihos become dull ag, ','O;`,1. ► I understand that I am requited to obtain a'Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Deaart,ment and that this sign moist be posted on my properly .:here it is clearly visible from the goad, 1 understand that the comers of thol _ ty grid Iihe pg,picited Imil i.ingfstiucc4uin itnrners must be field ;;gotteked I a uusrti.tirr„lsaurd that the sign lint l be rissioo roth i rfnplit . thi r nog ten (10) b.+ , asts Fr days pnor Ps ;he Estes '' Vane,/ Hoard of Adjustracci rthortho P I L:rda ^t,.nrJ 11"k, r, rth,> i sit ;rlrl>rcoos ray request "Failure of tun crifillentalio "il'r'�f p g i f�ev°r'ut�au�'it�toii� permit And '.Orrimetr(,.�7 r'e..orst si�r-,rn r�r act (Ve yttti re�arrr to the ^4 �" �n e Approve � � W ttrl1� wu w'�+�rwu t�� twaumi�r w:"� roc (2 y.rrc uPat of this itricieit if hitu 11 automatically render r the dog f do of Ilia tsi„ar'u null; and void." ;Estes s _ t7 Slgnateres: Applicant pLEAsL•'Nrtm ilreN ' g/11/i / �3b4A p�°'si6N , iaei, Record Ownery: v '] sly Applicant (f I,I. Lf / .tom ' Fo►R /t/I3 ,t3 Pi5Si a.v, iav C. YM,A- „or Y4t, i eti(5 (Maw F401(10 Date Date Rev ;ri asiO3,%6 General Provisions 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 thB 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. "Smallareas" are those features with a maximum width of twenty-five (25) feet. See Figure 1-3. (Ord. 18-02 #3) SO ISO mow Figure 1-3 Supp. 4 Zoning Districts Zoning D[strict A A-1 CD CO § 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 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 Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Size [7] Area (sq ft) 40,000 [2] 15,000 [2] Accom- modation uses = 20,000 All other uses = n/a Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commer- cial Recreatio ni Entertain- ment = 40,000 [2] All other Tots = 15,000 [2] width` (ft.) 100 [3] 50 [3] SF & 2- Family (stand- alone) 25; MF (stand- alone) = 100; All other uses = n/a Fronting arterials = 200; All other Tots = 50 Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Front Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 Mini- mum = 8 Maxi- mum = 16 Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets =15 Side 15 [6] 15 If lot abuts a resi- den- tia! prop- erty 10; All other cases =0 1516] Rear 10 [6] 10 If lot abuts a residen- tial property = 10; All other cases = 0 15 [6] Max. Buildin g�. Height (ft) [91 30 30 30 30 Max. FAR N/A .20 2.0 .25 Max. Lot Coverage (%) 50 30 n/a 65 Zoning Districts 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts Minimum Land , Minimum Zoning Area per dati mmo- or Size Minimum Lot[7) �uiIdinglS Setbacks Building/Structure ` Se [4] [81 '� Max. Max. Lot YotNdth ti Building District Residential Unit ft. Area . Front ° Side Rear height Max. ;.`Coverage ': (sq. per unit) (sq ft) (ft.) (ft.}' -:. .'(ft•) ,F„ (f.) (ft.) [9] FAR (%) : Residential Units Fronting Arterial (2fld Floor) 15,000 Arterials = = 25 [5]; O 1 unit 2,250 sq. ft. GFA of principal use. l2) 200; All other lots = 50 All other streets = 15 15 [6] 15 [6] 30 .25 50 CH n/a 6,000 [2] 50 15 0 [6] 0 [6) 30 .50 80 Fronting Arterial 1-1 15,000 Arterials = = 25 [5]; n/a [2] 200; Ali other lots = 50 All other streets = 15 10 [6] 10 [6) 30 .30 80 <eit rrirrl i_rl') 4in• n...-, 44 nn re% NOTES TO TABLE 4-5: [1] For guest units in a resort lodge/cabin use that have fig kitchen facilities, the minimum land area requirement per guest unit shall be 5,400 square feet. See also §5.1.P below. [2] If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities? [3] For Tots greater than 2 acres, minimum lot width shall be 200 feet. [4) See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) [5] All front building setbacks from a public street or highway shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in §7.5 of this Code. [6] Setback shall be increased to 25 feet if the lot line abuts a residential zoning district boundary. [7] See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase In minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 #6) [8] All structures shalt be setback from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is applicable only in the "A-1" district. (Ord. 11-02 §1) [9] See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) 5. Number of Principal Uses Permitted Per Lot or Development Parcel. a. Maximum Number of Principal Uses Permitted. One (1) or more principal uses shall be permitted per lot or development parcel, except that in the A zoning district, only one (1) principal residential use shall be permitted per lot or development parcel. b. Permitted Mix of Uses. Where more than one (1) principal use is permitted per lot or development parcel, mixed -use development is encouraged, subject to the following standards: (1) More than one (1) principal commercial/retail or industrial use permitted by right or by special review in the zoning district may be developed or established together on a single lot or site, or within a single structure, provided that all applicable requirements set forth in this Section and Code and all other applicable ordinances are met. Supp. 4 422 "f- fir`% I. [-I, 4%, 101 e ,I, t..5";1'"/ 25:1,...,E'?.:A/V1172)A.) 06$y loZ,6)/110.,""e75;71.!::!“2:::, 5 u o c DIIVW3HDS N rn 30a01 aNVb9 3H1 111 NOIIVA313 H1(lOS NOIIVA313 H1IION NOIIVA313 1SV3 NOIlVA313 1S3M )11 N O IIVA313 1S3M NOI1VA313 Hif1OS NOI1VA313 H11ON m 3 _ n o ; m rn ^T cn orn gC: 0 Z 0 A 70 — m • m N m —•I m m N —i r 0 v c� m o' 70 0 0 N N O IlVA3l3 IS3M o: NOIIVA313 Hlfl S NOIIVA313 H11ON V/1 „.„ [ N t.v) uJ 0 LU < u- u..1 iFL.)