The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-04-03Prepared: March 28, 2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, April 3, 2007 9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall 1. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated February 6, 2007 2. REQUESTS a. Lot 2, Amended Lot 18 & a Portion of Lot 19, Hayden Resubdivision, & Lots 2 —16 and a Portion of Lot 1, Block 11, Ferguson's Subdivision, 1054 Middle Broadview Owner: Skylar Johnson Request: Variance from Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow an existing 10'x12' shed to remain entirely within the required front- and side -yard setbacks in the E —Estate zoning district Staff Contact: Dave Shirk b. Metes & Bounds, located in Section 18, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th P.M., TBD McCreery Lane Owner: Heather McCreery & Scott Carter Request: Variance from Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a residence to be built 5 feet from the western property line in lieu of the 50-foot setbacks required in the RE-1—Rural Estate zoning district Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 3. REPORTS 4. ADJOURNMENT Note: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 6, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Vice -Chair Lynch; Members Dill, Levine, and Sager; Alternate Member Grant Also Attending: Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Chair Newsom, Director Joseph Vice-Chalr Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the December 5, 2006 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2006 Estes Valley Board of Adjustment meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. LOT 5, AMENDED PLAT OF CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION, 1505 FISH CREEK ROAD, Applicant: Raymond and Shara Davies — Request for a post -construction variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.E.2 and Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the maximum height of a residence to exceed the allowable height by 3.42 feet. Member Levine recused himself from participation on this agenda item due to his status as de facto Homeowners Association president and due to ex parte communication he received regarding this request. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for variance from the building height limitations found in Estes Valley Development Code sections 1.9.E.2 and Table 4-2 to allow the height of a newly constructed residence to remain 3.43 feet in excess of the maximum allowable slope -adjusted height limit of thirty-seven feet. Approval of this post -construction variance request would allow the applicant to avoid destruction of the existing roof structure and construction of a new roof design. The residence was built farther up the slope than was shown on the approved site plan. Building permit approval required verification of the building location and height; this requirement was not met. During a pre -construction meeting with Chief Building Official Will Birchfield in June 2005, the applicants were informed of the need for height verification at the footing -and -foundation stage; this requirement was not met. In reviewing the building permit application, planning staff made a mathematical error in the height calculation. The height calculation was also based on the applicant's site plan, which was not followed. During a building inspection in November 2005, building department personnel discovered RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 6, 2007 2 the buillding exceeded the maximum allowable height. A stop order was not issued at that time. The applicants were advised to consider "hipping" the roof and were allowed to proceed with construction at their own risk. In considering whether special circumstances exist, it is planning staff's opinion that although the (lot is sloped, this is a self-imposed hardship because a code -compliant structure could easily have been designed for the site. The height regulation was in place at the time the design of the home was commenced. Changes to the Estes Valley Development Code were adopted several years ago to provide for slope -adjusted building height limits to accommodate structures built on slopes; few height variance requests have been requested since the adoption of these changes. Approval of the proposed height variance would have minor impact on the character of the neighborhood. Beneficial use of the property may continue without approval of a variance. It is planning staff's opinion that the requested variance is substantial because it exceeds the height allowed by existing language in the development code that provides a slope -adjusted height limit. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from one neighbor who is concerned about the precedent approval of this request would set. Letters in support of the request were signed by Willliam and Margaret Henderson of 1488 Creekside Court and Edmond Baisley of 1490 Creekside Court. Pllanning staff would support a modified request to limit the demolition of the existing roof structure to retain an existing load -bearing point; however, this request as presented does not represent the least deviation from the regulations that would afford relief. Planning staff recommends denial of the request. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicants. He requested clarification of staff findings 12, 13, and 14 in regard to their relevance to this variance request. Planner Shirk read findings 12 — 14 and expllained that the Board of Adjustment must find these standard items in order to approve any variance request. Mr. Sheldon distributed to the Board photos showing the residence from two different angles and how the appearance of the residence would be altered if a portion of the roof line was lowered. He stated the following: the steep slope and a drainage easement on the (lot left a small building envelope in which to build the house; the Town did not catch the height error in a timely fashion, and it would be a hardship on the applicant to change the height at this point; the requested variance is only 9.2% of the building height; the Town now has procedures in place to prevent an error like this from occurring again. Discussion followed among the Board Members, Planner Shirk, and Mr. Sheldon, summarized as follows: Town staff did not require a height certificate until the framing was essentially complete; planning staff can grant a variance of up to 10% for setback requirements but cannot grant any variances to the height limit due to existing EVDC allowance for sllope adjustment; the applicant was informed that an elevation certificate was required prior to placing the foundation walls, but Town staff did not ask for the certificate at that time; new review procedures are now in place to address such situations; changing the roof line of the residence would create an extreme hardship for the applicant; the appearance of the residence is similar to others in the neighborhood; changing the roof line to meet the height requirement would change the overall appearance of the residence very little. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 6, 2007 Recognizing that the small difference that would be made by lowering a portion of the roof line Is not worth the effort or expense to do so, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Grant) to approve the variance request for Lot 5, Amended Plat of Creekside Subdivision, to allow to allow the maximum height of a residence to exceed the allowable height by 3.42 feet, and the motion passed unanimously with Member Levine abstaining. 4. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Vice -Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:47 a.m. John Lynch, Vice -Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Johnson Front Yard Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 11111111101 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-5 77-3 721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: April3, 2007 REQUEST: A request by Skylar Johnson for a variance from the 25- foot front yard setback requirement along Mary's Lake Road. LOCATION: 1054 Middle Broadview, within unincorporated mer County APPLICANT/OWNER: Skylar Johnson STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: surveyor: None (using a previously prepared Rick England ILC) Parcel Number: 3535120002 Development Area: .35 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: "E" Estate (% acre) Adjacent Zoning - East: "E" Estate North: "E" Estate West: "E" Estate South: "E" Estate Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services - Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant, Skylar Johnson, requests a variance to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback along Mary's Lake Road of 12- feet in lieu of the 25-feet required. The purpose of these variance requests is to allow a 120 square foot shed to remain in place. Mr. Johnson inquired with the Larimer County Building Department if a building permit was needed for such a small structure. When informed a building permit was not necessary, Mr. Johnson began construction without knowledge building setback requirements applied. Staff has contacted the Larimer County Building Department and requested they inform the public that building and zoning requirements apply regardless of the need for a building permit. 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 areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The lot is significantly sub -sized for the "E" Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of .5-acres In addition, the lot is has a triangular shape, which is an awkward shape and minimizes the buildable area. Finally, the existing house is located on Mary's Lake Road, which has a setback of 25-feet instead of the typical 15-feet along a front yard. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Comment: The property may continue as residential use. Page tt2 Johnson Front Yard Setback Request b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Comment: The character of the neighborhood will not change with this small shed. Staff has received two letters of support from neighbors. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant has owned the property since 1995, prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Mr. Johnson inquired with the Larimer County Building Department if a building permit was needed for such a small structure. When informed a building permit was not necessary, Mr. Johnson began construction without knowledge building setback requirements applied. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The shed could be relocated to meet the setback, though it would be in a more visible location. 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. 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. Page 3 -Johnson Front Yard Setback Request STAFF FINDINGS AND " 'COMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing,, staff finds: 1. The size and shape of the lot and increased setback along Mary's Lake Road combine to create special circumstances that require a variance. 2. The property may continue to be used for residential use. 3. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be affected by this 120 square foot shed. 5. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 6. The Board should use their judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 7. The applicant has owned the property since before the adoption of the EVDC. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment, No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 9. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 10. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 11. Approval of this variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 12. Approval of this variance would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a front yard setback along Mary's Lake Road of 12-feet. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance(s) with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance because... (state reason for denial -findings). LAPSE: Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Page #4 -Johnson Front Yard Setback Request LARIMER NCONTY COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MEMORANDUM N I EERING DEPARTMENT TO: Dave Shirk -Town of Estes Park Planning Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 FROM: Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer DATE: March 23, 2007 SUBJECT: 1054 Middle Broadview Variance request Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 Project Description/Background: This is a request for a variance for an existing l20 square foot structure at 1054 Middle Broadview. The lot is also adjacent to Mary's Lake Road. Comments: I . This Department does not generally allow private structures, fences, landscaping, private signs, monument mailboxes, etc in the public right-of-way. The ultimate half right-of-way for this Section of Mary's Lake Road is a 50 foot half right-of-way from the approximate centerline of the road (100 foot full right-of-way). It appears that the existing structure may be just within the ultimate limits of the road right-of-way; however, there appears to be several other structures along this stretch of road that encroach even further into these limits. Therefore, the location of the structure should not pose a significant additional impact to the County as it relates to our future road improvement or maintenance needs. 2. From the submitted photographs, it does not appear that the existing structure or fence along the roadway obstructs sight distance along the roadway. 3. We expect that the existing drainage patterns in the area were not be altered with the construction of the structure. If drainage patterns were changed and there is potential impact to adjacent properties, a drainage plan should to be submitted for review and approval. 4. We expect that the structures location does not encroach into any utility easements. If any utility easements will be impacted, the utility companies should have the opportunity to comment. Recommendation: As long at the comments listed above are noted, our department has no objections to the approval of this submittal of this proposal. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or e-mail at tdowns@larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: Skylar Johnson, PO Box 3485, Estes Park, CO 80517 reading file file H:IDEVREVIPLANCHK\Referrals\CITIES\Estes\Skylar Johnson Variance Request.doc Water • . rt 1 Inter -Office Memorandum ESTES PARK ATER To: Bob Goehring From: Jeff Boles Date: 3/14/2007 Re: Skylar Johnson Residence Lot 2 and a Portion of Lot 1, Block 11, Ferguson Subdivision 1054 Middle Broadview After review of the Variance Request the Water Department has no comments. Memo To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 03-16-07 Re: Skylar Johnson Residence, Variance Request, 1054 Middle Broadview The Light and Power Department has reviewed the variance request for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1.) We have no comments. G G Y A. HITE Attorney at La North Park Place 1423 West 296 Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 March 22„ 2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Board of Adjustment — Variance Request — Skylar Johnson Residence Dear Mr. Shirk: I have no comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. V Truly Yours, 6.. ry A. White GAW/ldr CC: Skylar Johnson Fax: 970/586-5500 03/16/2007 FRI 16:10 FAX 970 586 4544 UPPER THOMPSON SAN DIST �001/001 March 16, 2007 Upper Thompson Sanitation District PO Box 568 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-4544 Dave Shirk PlannerU Town of Estes Park P.O Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Ref: Valance Request Skylar f ohnson Residence Lot 2 and a Portion of Lot 1, Block 11, Ferguson Subdivision 1054 Middle Broadview Dear Dave, We have reviewed the Valiance Request for the above -referenced property. The District has no objection to this request. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Reed W. Smedley Lines Superintendent Upper Thompson Sanitation Disuict Post ii° Fax Note 7671 1e 0 CC SkylarJohnson PO Box 3485 Estes Park, CO 80517 Fait 970.586-5500 aeze-w Jingoes► FfOT. 2.14134`— Co. Phone # Fax# Dave Shirk From: Ma22Corgis@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:29 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Variance Request, Skylar Johnson Residence Mr. Shirk: Page 1 of 1 This is in regard to the notice of a variance request for Skylar Johnson's property at 1054 Middle Broadview which I received in yesterday's mail. I live immediately east of this property, just across Mary's Lake Road. The storage/work shed in question is readily visible from my house and yard. It is located in an appropriate space in the Johnson's enclosed yard, is well built, well maintained, and matches the style and color of the existing house. It is certainly NOT detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. I strongly recommend that this variance be approved so that the shed can remain in it's current location in the Johnson's back yard, Joan E. Borel 1220 Mary's Lake Road Estes Park, CO ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. 3/19/2007 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Mick & Jane [micknjane@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:26 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Variance Request Skylar Johnson Hello We are the neighors next door to Skylar Johnson, and would like to let you know, we have no objection to the existing 8' x 10' work shed on his property. If you have any questions, please let us know. Jane & Michael Richards 1072 Middle Broadview Estes Park, CO 80517 3/20/2007 Statement of Intent (as required for variance application) Property address 1054 Middle Broadview Skylar Johnson 1054 Middle Broadview Estes Park, CO 80517 This is a request for variance of an existing structure at 1054 Middle Broadview. The structure is a 10' x 12' (120 sq ft) work shed built in the back comer of the property. It was placed in this spot due to the narrowness of the lot, and my wish to retain a clean and neighborly appearance to the front of the residence. This was the most unobtrusive spot on the property. This location is not easily seen from Marys Lake Road or existing properties as it is behind a fence and blocked by trees on most sides. It was also stained and shingled to match the residence. I built the shed this size and in it's current location after reading the codes stating that no permit was required for structures 120 square feet and under. I mistakenly assumed that this meant that no further action was required. Even then, 1 still tried to make the structure blend in as well as possible. The structure adds a benefit to us personally in providing hobby and storage space. I don't believe it detracts from the character of the neighborhood. The building does not adversely affect the delivery of public services. No other structures are planned for this lot. am requesting this variance so that the structure is in compliance and also due to the expense of possibly having to move the shed to another location. Thank you for your co / ''Skylar Johnson' tsideration, �u!ppDtl'd i�. Submittal Date: Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: Legal Description Lot: Subdivision: Parcel ID # Lot Size Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Block: Tract: Section Township Ranee Town r Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service "`, Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Zoning Well i...... Other (Specify) i...... Well D" Other (Specify) EPSD UTSD EPSD UTSD I Other L.w. None Specific variance desired (state development code section # Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person Mailin • Address w►l Attachments Septic r- Septic 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') ** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Names & maijing addresses of nei hboring property owners (see attached handout) * he silan shall include informatio in tes 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 -ei P.O. Box 1200 4.170 MarGregor Avenue ,s Estes Pork, CO 8051 '/ Community Development Deportment Phone' (970) 577-3721; 4. lax: (970) 586-0249 -s www.estesnen`,com/ComDev onlact'Information` Primary Contact Person is Owner IX. Applicant r Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) 'NCI to(" Mailing Address "j C° Phone 110 CeII Phone Fax Email 01p1',,'t Applicant r_ Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. 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. O. 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. P. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. P. 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 ValleyDevelopment Code Section 3.6.D receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and vold." (Estes Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT:: ` 6 Applicant PLEASE PRINT:: Signatures: Record Owner Applicant MOM Date Date Revised 10/13/06 i9l(pU1IlWmiapi,��, [2] [3] [4] [51 [6] [7] [81 [9] [10] Zoning Districts Max. Net Density (units/acre) 1/10 Ac. 1/2.5 Ac. § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts Minimum Lot Standards [1] Area (sq . ft) 10 Ac. ...................................... 2.5 Ac. 1 Ac. [3] Ac. [3] R-1 8 5,000 R-2 RM Ord. 18- 01 #14) Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min =3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 Single- family = 18,000; Duplex= 27,000 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit [4] [5] [8] Senior I nstitution- al Living Uses: %2 Ac. Side (ft.) 50.... 50 Max. Building Height (W.l [10] Width (ft.) 200 ............. 200 100 6�; Lots Greater than 100,00 sq.. ft.: 200 Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks 121 141 `r Front (ft.) 50 50 25 25-arterials; 15-other streets 25-arterials; 15-other streets 25-arterials; 15-other streets 25-arterials; 15-other streets Rear (f.) 50 50 10 Notes to Table 4-2: [1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for 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 developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for 2-02 ##4 6) See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. Min. Building Width (ft) 30 20 30 20 30 Max. Lot Coverage n/a n/a .......... n/a Duplex 50% Multi- 30 20 [7) family... 50% single-family residential subdivisions clustered lots in open space attainable housing. development on steep slopes. (Ord. If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres, S §7.12, "Adequate Public Facilities." Town home developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual town home unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Multi -family developments shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30. Zero side yard setbacks (known as "zero lot fine development") are allowed for town home developments. Minimum building width requirements shall not applly to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. 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) All structures shall be setback from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is not applicable in the "MF" diistrict. (Ord. 11-02 §1) See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3) (Ord, 2.02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) ee also the regulations set forth in Supp. 4 4-7 Arel S Viewer Page 1 of 1 f, Iv, ay 911,1V !kik rEAC 88 89 4 09 II 124 So 164 RD 111 -1.97.015-- • 78 111r1 f Ma; created by La rimer County GIS and Mapping Department ,61.40:ormoo-Note, .,deeeere,48,- mr I .1, http://rnaps.latimer.org/website/parlocator/MapFrame.htm 'OflU ' 4 2/7/2007 02/10/2005 22:40 FAX 1054 MIDDLE BROADVIEW 9.04' Al8858 29 w, 122.05 SITE PLA FOR PROPOSED VARIANCE IF ,,111 11 1054 KIPPLE BROADVI! DATE: 2/10/2005 CLIENT: SKYIAR JOHNSON LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, & PORTION OF tor 1, BLOCK 1 1, FERGUSON SUBDMSION. COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COL0R400. JOB NO.: 1 RAM 2.1" NORTH SCALE: 1 =20' 0 FND. /4 REBAR W/ YELLOWY C4P, LS/ 15760 IND. /4 ROAR W/ YELLOW CAP, LSPLLEG. cr\ 11111111111111111111110„li�� llllllllm 0 Door 11 1111 4 `Il1,dp'g0 ry'; N 'Pil e= IR ,1114 Cd iumuo'°mum uId88888I 11'yv' umumuuuuuuuuumouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiii�i '�u I I I uuumi Nn u W' I,I,wWoi,vo„, ArriHrirro vvrr.11, okIII g SouIt d 0 IIIII11Ili411'!'„l'IIIIIi J i'°1I °4 fll lid Midd Sh w`2 u"m From corner of Riverside & Marys Lake Road 1,1,111,1 N. w w w w w ¥ mmmmGG GG 0000000NtO0CJ0000 OaCOCOCOmCO■ oCOgCOCO@CO 000 COO N000000O M0000000O0 Cia -1i.Y��-he '.�0��- s e micO■ e o§% G%% 2 m u)O�_n_ 0 0_z0_0_ofa __ to co to m< K_§ co co U3 � 2 a) 2 $ % � � � E 2 § $ 2 cAl E 2 Q W L W W if! J W alQ W O w w Bruce Jacobsen q -J § -E • 22 0 k 2C-88 §22kK2- 1¥°2�-I��Uw=/2 ,o>o›(.1I 04Tee 2 §-- •al cC0co o O � CC R O m 2 O-< m j I c u Johnson, Skylar Variance McCreery-Carter Side Yard Variance - - r Request Estes Park Community Development Department einummigi Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue Immummoil PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-5 77-3 721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com DATE: April 3, 2007 REQUEST: Variance from the "RE-1" Rural Estate 50-foot side yard setback requirement. LOCATION: TBD McCreery Lane, within unincorporated Larimer County APPLICANT/OWNER: Heather McCreery and Scott Carter STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Architect: BASIS Architecture (Steve Lane, 586-9140) Parcel Number: 2518000005 Development Area: 6.19 acres (plus 40-acre parcel adjacent to west) Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Old cabin, barn Proposed Land Use: Same, plus new single- family dwelling Existing Zoning: "RE-1" Rural Estate Adjacent Zoning - East: "RE-1" Rural Estate North: "0" Open (Larimer County) West: "0" Open (Larimer County) South: "RE-1" Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single-family dwelling North: Rocky Mountain National Park West: Rocky Mountain National Park South: Single-family dwelling Services - Water: Town (proposed) Sewer: Septic Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicants request a variance to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a west side yard setback of 5-feet in lieu of the 50-feet required to build a new single-family dwelling. 'irh'"��i�i•��"��u�j l��"da';,�d4.�.�"�''M✓"�,�,pp,P�i��VUtlli��1�;�'��'��'�r'�P,v��'P�i�"•�j'�,,��dflll( ��" "y,�,�'. liii'I1"�', 4111.11. Page #2 ••-McCreery-Carter Side Yard Setback Request 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 areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The lot has several natural features associated with it, and this site location is an attempt to minimize the overall site disturbance. The access road serving this lot is located in the southwestern corner of the lot, which is near where the applicant desires to locate the structure. This portion of the site sits on a "shelf' above a stream and an aspen grove. By locating the structure in this area, the overall site disturbance will be minimized by avoiding a driveway with a switchback, and will also maintain the stream setback and preserve the aspen stand. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Comment: A conforming structure could be built on the lot, though it would result in greater overall site impact. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. It is Staffs opinion it is not (due to common ownership of the adjoining lot). c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Comment: The character of the neighborhood would not suffer a detriment. Locating the structure in this area would have the least impact on the neighborhood because it would minimize impact on the stream and associated aspen grove. Furthermore, the applicant's own the property to the west, near the property line they wish to locate near. Staff has received a letter of support from the North End Property Owners Association. Page #3 McCreery-Carter Side Yard Setback Request d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant has recently purchased the property, and was aware of the setback requirement,. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: A conforming structure could be built, though it would have a greater impact on the overall site. 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. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist, as outlined in the staff report. 2. The property may be developed for residential use without the variance, though that would have a greater impact on the site. 3. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance, though that would have a greater impact on the site. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not change,. 5. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 6. The Board should use their judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 7. The applicant recently purchased the property. 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 McCreery-Carter Side Yard Setback Request 9. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer, and would provide greater area for the necessary septic system without disturbing the aspen stand. 10. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 11. Approval of this variance would not result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 12. Approval of this variance would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a side yard setback of 5-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO: a. Full compliance with the applicable building code. b. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. This certificate shall verify the structure complies with the approved site plan. c. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a Land Use Affidavit stating the historic cabin is not to be rented separately, and is for the use of only family and non-paying guests. Furthermore, this affidavit shall state the cabin is not to be used for sleeping purposes. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance because... (state reason for denial - findings). LAPSE: Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Page 05 -McCreery-Carter Side Yard Setback Request ater e• art ent Inter- • ice e oran •u To: Bob Goehring From: Jeff Boles Date: 3/19/2007 ESTES PARK WATER Re: Variance Request McCreery / Carter Proposed Residence Metes 8. Bounds, located in S18-T5N-R72W of the 6th P. M. TBD McCreery Lane Variance Request has been reviewed by the Light and Power and Water Departments. The following are their comments: Light and Power Department;. 1.) We have no comments. Water Departments 1) The property must show proof of inclusion in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and an Application for Water Tap Outside Town Limits must be supplied for each property to be serviced at the start of the permit application process. 2) The Blue Line elevation for this area is 7850. Any service above the Blue Line will require a supplemental pump system located at or below the blue line elevation to ensure adequate water availability for the pumping system. 03/?6/2007 08:43 9704986772 LARIMER HLTH AND ENV PAGE 01/02 LAMER. C'D..v.,•1',ITFED TC) E.;:CELLEt]rE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 1525 Slue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524.2004 General Health (970) 498-6700 Environmental Health (970)498-6775 Fax (970) 498-6772 To: Dave Shirk, Town of Estes Park From: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner °1h146°1 Date: March 26, 2007 Subject: McCreery/Carter Proposed Residence — McCreary Lane This variance request would allow a new residence to be located 5' from the side setback where 50' Is normally required. In considering residential setback variance requests, our principle concern is to ensure that there is adequate area for the water and sewer systems. In this case the septic system is planned for an area east of the house. Water is to be supplied by the Town. Based on the site plan submitted, I would conclude that the proposed building location will be compatible with locating a sewer system on this 6.19 acre parcel. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. I can be reached at 498-6777 if there are questions prior to the hearing. Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Suzanne & Alan Miller [as.miller@beyondbb.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:42 PM To: Dave Shirk Cc: Linda McCreery; Rob Netting; Andie Andrews; Jack Fenelon; Jim Hughes; Betty Hull; Bill VanHorn; Phil Edwards; stave_lane@basisarchitecture.com Subject: Variance Request McCreery/Carter Dear Dave, As an Affected Agency, the North End Property Owners Association was asked to respond to the proposed Variance Request for the McCreery/Carter Proposed Residence. As President of the North End Property Owners Association I have polled our Board of Directors regarding their views on the submitted variance request and all seven members with one abstention(Linda McCreery) have supported the request as written. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to issues that effect the North End, thank you for keeping us well informed. Sincerely, Suzanne K. Miller 3/22/2007 North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 G G ";Y A. IT Attorney at Law 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 March 22, 2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Board of Adjustment — Variance Request — McCreery/Carter Proposed Residence Dear Mr. Shirk: I have no comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. GAW/ldr CC: Basis Architecture, Steve Lane Fax: 970/586-9149 s es V ,aia 4 of I jus ent Meeting Date: April 3, 2007 Statement of Intent Re: 113D McCreery e Single F y Residence Introduction This is a request for a variance from the requirements of Table 4-2 in the Estes Valley Development Code pursuant to the s dards and procedures ou ed in Section 3.6 of the s The proposed project is a new single-f y home on parcel #25180-00-005 at the end of McCreery e. This is a 6.19-acre parcel zoned -1, al -Estate. Variance Request Table 4-2 of the E 0 C, Density and Dimensional Standards for Residential Zoning Districts, delineates the Side setback in the -1, Rural -Estate Residential District as 50 feet. This request is for approval of the reduction of the setback to 5-feet along the Virst property line. The intent of this request is to allow consi ction of the home to preserve the ch cter d setting of an existing homestead cabin. Criteria fig Evaluation Special conditions not co on to other areas do st on this property. In p, .cular, the lot directly to the west — the lot most subs tially affected by this v • ce request — is owned by the applicant. One half of this lot sits in a conservation ement currently, and a conservation easement is being d ed for the remaining portion. The only s c e on this lot will be removed, as indicated on the site plan. The only 'development' on • lot be the driv ay access to the proposed house. The lot to be developed sits in the middle of the ori al McCreery ranch property. The cabin and barn are ong the ori:: al structures on the property and are used as the backdrop for summertime family gatherings. These buildings are not used for any residential purposes. ile the lot consists of 6.19 acres, only a very small portion is buildable. This building area is restricted by an aspen grove and electrical line to the south, the cabin and barn to the and by a str and the steep rocky cliffs of Lumpy Ridge to the north. Additional Factors There is adequate building area to cons r ct a single f y home without the v 'ance, however, not without sever h g the cher and se i .g of the historic cabin. The variance is obviously subs tial, however, in + `s sp. c ; - e there is no h impact to the adjacent prop as no development would .;e place th Adjoining properties would not suffer any de a ent as a result of the ance. N . er homes have recently been cons on und- -loped lots in the n -' borhood, so this project would not be out of ch er. a only structures close to the property (directly to the southwest) are two older outbuil r ,gs (cabin d b. , ) associa, +' 'th a single y home on ,+, scel 251 05- The `E .ce would have no effect on the delivery of public services. It would have a beneficial effect of allo g room for the placement of a septic field (since this area is not served by publics . i w, s er) without +', - .g any part of the aspen grove. x' ile the Owner was likely , e of the setback requirement, they have, on their own initiative, offered the adjacent :._ d into the conservation ement. Given the specific c' msr ces of this lot, a setback v; ce is the most appropriate process by which . icular issue may be solved. The only other onable avenue would be an ended plat. This is a more . e consu g and costly process, but most signifi« :tlywould affect the t of the conse lion : w eement Prepared by: Steve Lane, ALA BASIS Architecture, P.C. 1111 U�,G!lll Submittal Date: ;iPjVIIIDi General information of i��i°III III�i 1Ui If Ii ESTES VALLEY BOARD O' ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: Legal Description Lot: Subdivision: Parcel ID # 2.51SO• l Site Information IYI[i✓i71�1 �l ,� .dlrr"'LJ�` .. 4►,..t Block: Tract: Section Township Range 2, Lot Size 1p . l9 ke.4-es Zoning Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Variance rr t, 1..... Town V b..." Well r"` Other (Specify) f ... Well l' Other (Specify) r EPSD 1"""" UTSD 1., EPSD UTSD IT Other None it 14 Yes No Specific variance desired (state development code section # :'S P 1[ E so Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person j Mailin• Address iliarA2 Attachments .�1 ru Iran Septic X. Septic ►t • kir =lam III :aL.. Irk 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') "' 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Names & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) "" The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. •• L. 0 C�7 $mil Town of Esres Park 4 P.O. Box 1200 .6 170 MacGregor Avenue 4, Estes Park, CO 80517 Commun!Yty Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 4, Fax: (970) 586-0249 .e. www.estesnet.com/ComDev iMlillilhl1M Contact Information 11 1111111duo',i Primary Contact Person is 1... Owner Applicant 1K. Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone CeII Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone CeII Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Mailing Address Phone CeII Phone Fax Email 6E1,14ctrG APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both Inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeschedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION ► I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the appllication 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.) 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. PA 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. P. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. • The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become nuli 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) 'lames: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: > c� Applicant PLEASE PRINT: -t t" ;jay I ce-et Y 3lgnatures: Record Owner Applicant fl Date Date / 1-0 Revised 10/13/06 Zoning Districts Zoning District RE-1 RE E-1 R-1 R-2 RM Ord. 18- 01 #14) § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 ase Density and Dimensional Standards esidential Zoning Districts Max. Net Density (units/acre) 1/10 Ac. 1/2.5 Ac. 1 2 4 4 Residential Uses: Max = 8 and Min = 3 Senior Institutional Living Uses: Max = 24 Notes to Table 4-2: Minimum Lot Standards [1] Minimum Building/Structure Setbacics j2j1 RI [9] Area (sq . ft) Width (ft.) Front (IL) Side (ft.) Rear (ft.) 10 Ac. 200 50 50 50 2.5 Ac. 200 50 50 50 1 Ac. [3] 100 25 25 25 Y2 Ac. [3] 75 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 1/4 Ac. 60 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 15 5,000 50 15 10 15 Single- family = 18,000; Duplex= 27,000 60 25-arterials; 15-other streets 10 10 40,000, 5,400 sq. ft.lunitLots . Pi Pi [81 Senior Institution- al Living Uses: 'A Ac. 60; Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200 25-arterials; 15-other streets .io (6] 10 Max. Building Height (ft-) [1O] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Min. Building Width (ftd 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 [7] M. Lot Coverage (%) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Duplex = 50% Mu Iti- fam ily= 50% [1] (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 ##4-6) [2] See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1) [3] 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, individual town home unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. [5] 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 development') are allowed for town home developments. [7] Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park. [8] Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., res • ively. (Ord 18-01 #14) [9] All structures shall be setback from public or private roads that serve more than four dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded ement, 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 B Peggy A. Reichert PO Box 601 ƒ a k >>, c EE p as as 0 TT k2 2 3404 E. 5th Street T'rzEt5 m 2�Iq, 3 2 E 1 a £ 0 0 0 0 0--, CI % ci 0, ® &kg0NCk 11) m CzWcw4t£@ p cmoo oo 0 0E 0 0 0 -1-J-=cw>O McCreery-Carter Variance 1 GARAGE 26' X 23' I ' ' I ROOF BELOW, rry I •' I = 1 /1 6"= 1 1-0" 1 L Bops SHELVES Second FIB 1 /1611= DRIVEWAY F vox: 970.586.9140 faoc 970586.9149 breoam Amhit ut PC Issue: Board of Adjustment Date: 2.21.2007 4 Fa Estes Park,Colorado Sheet Title: Plan Sheet No: I_pll t6SF Garage A2.O 1 /1 a-0't 0 611 to to of O 2 ID m E Q O O C V O Q Off' L � H � r vox: 970.588.9140 fax 970.588.9149 ba$adectieoom Issue: Board of Adjustment Date: 2.21.2007 Estes Park,Colorado Sheet Title: Elevations Sheet No: A3.0 L1909 opeJolo3 `)1.ied sa;s3 001. alms `anueny uosdwoyy 619 Z69L ,h- opeJolo3`IJed sels3 e3uap!saa as;ae3-A(aaaa3aw m Z d � dim