Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-05-01Prepared: April 25, 200"' Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, May 1, 2007 9:00 a.m. - Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated April 3, 2007 3. REQUESTS a. Metes & Bounds parcel located in the SE 1/4 of S34-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., 2025 Moraine Avenue Owner: Ann Toft Applicant: Steve Eck Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to reduce the required setback from an arterial road from 25 feet to 5 feet and variance from Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(a) to reduce the required river setback from 50 feet to 45 feet Staff Contact: Dave Shirk 4. REPORTS 5. ADJOURNMENT Note: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 3, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Sager Chair Newsom 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 February 6, 2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. LOT 2, AMENDED LOT 18 AND A PORTION OF LOT 19, HAYDEN RESUBDIVISION, AND LOTS 2 — 16 AND A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 11, FERGUSON'S SUBDIVISION, 1054 MIDDLE BROADVIEW, Applicant: Skylar Johnson — Request for a post -construction variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow an existing 10' x 12' shed to remain entirely within the required front- and side -yard setbacks in the E—Estate zoning district. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a 120-square-foot shed to remain in its present location. The applicant, Skylar Johnson, inquired with the Larimer County Building Department whether a building permit was needed for the structure. When he was informed a building permit was not necessary, he constructed the shed without knowledge that building setback requirements applied. Planning 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. In considering whether special circumstance exist, Planner Shirk stated the lot is significantly sub -sized for the E—Estate zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of 0.5 acre. The applicant's lot is 0.35 acres in size and is triangular in shape, which further minimizes the building area. A sewer main easement runs along the west side of the property and an existing fence and trees limit the buildable area. Finally, the property is located along Mary's Lake Road, which requires a front -yard setback of 25 feet rather than the 15-foot front -yard setback required along non -arterial roads. Although the shed could be relocated to meet the setback, it would be in a more visible location. The essential character of the neighborhood will not change. 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 3, 2007 2 expressed by reviewing agency staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from Larimer County Engineering Department and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Comments in support of the variance request were received from neighboring property owners Joan Borel, 1220 Mary's Lake Road, and from Jane and Michael Richards, 1072 Middle Broadview. Planning staff recommends approval of the request. Public Comment: The appllicant, Skylar Johnson, stated he was present to answer questions from the Board; none were asked of him. It was moved and seconded (Levine&Diill) to approve the variance request for Lot 2, Amended Lot 18 and a Portion of Lot 19, Hayden Resubdivision, and Lots 2 —16 and a Portion of Lot 1, Block 11, Ferguson's Subdivision, to allow an existing shed to remain entirely within the required front- and side -yard setbacks, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. A METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6T" P.M., TBD McCREERY LANE, Applicant: Heather McCreery and Scott Carter — Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code 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 setback required in the RE-1—Rural Estate zoning district. Pllanner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated thus is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a new single-family dwelling to be located tie feet from the western property line in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE-1—Rural Estate zoning district. The adjoining 40-acre lot to the west is also owned by the applicants. The Ilot under consideration for this variance request contains a stream and an aspen grove; locating the residence as proposed would minimize overall site disturbance by avoiding the need for a driveway with a switchback, maintaining the stream setback, and preserving the aspen stand. A conforming structure could be built on the lot but it would result in greater impact to the site. It is planning staff's opinion the variance is not substantial due to common ownership of the adjoining lot. The essential character of the neighborhood would not suffer a detriment. 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 the Town of Estes Park Water Department and Larimer County Department of Health and Environment. A letter of support was received from the North End Property Owners Association, including support of the applicant's request to retain an historic cabin located on the property. Planning staff recommends approval of the request. Public Comment: The applicant, Heather McCreery, stated the property was homesteaded by her great - great -grandfather. The property was subdivided in approximately 1973, with ownership divided among the grandchildren. The historic cabin located on the property was built in 1874 by William James. Steve Lane, Basis Architecture, was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant's request to located the proposed residence as close to the western property line as possible is driven by their desire to retain the historic cabin and reduce impact on the site, and still have a residence on the property. He stated the location of the residence will be below the blue line ellevation, based on Town topographic maps. A septic system will be needed for the residence, as it is outside the Upper Thompson Sanitation District service area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 3, 2007 3 It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Levine) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds Property located in S18-T5N-R72W of the 6th P.M., to allow a residence to be built five (5) feet from the western property line in lieu of the required 50-foot setback, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with the appliicablle building code. 2. 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. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit,, the applicant shah) record a Land Use Affidavit stating the historic cabin its not to be rented separately and lis 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. 5. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary PMRippling River Front Yard, Landscape Buffer, and River Setback Variance Requests 0 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: May 1, 2007 REQUEST: A request to allow a driveway and portion of a detached residentiallaccommodation unit within the arterial front yard setback, and to allow decks and a retaining wall within the river setback. LOCATION: TBD Spur 66, within unincorporated Larimer County (the site is just west of Dallman Drive) APPLICANT: Steve Eck (Littleton, CO) PROPERTY OWNER /ADDRESS: Anne Toft (2025 Moraine Ave) STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: Van Horn Engineering (Zach Hanson), 586-9388 Parcel Number: 3534400024 Number of Lots: One Proposed Land Use: Multi -family accommodations Development Area: 2.55 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Existing Zoning: "A" Accommodations Adjacent Zoning - East: "A" Accommodations West: "A-1" Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses - East: Single-family West: Single-family North: "A" Accommodations South: "A" Accommodations North: Multi -family accommodations South: Accommodations (Glacier Lodge) Services - Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant, Steve Eck, requests: 1) A variance to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback along "Spur 66" of 8-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required to build a detached residential/accommodation unit; 2) A variance to Section 7.5.F.2b(6) "No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow the aforementioned residential/accommodation units and a driveway to be located within five feet of the property line, within the mandated arterial street frontage buffer landscape area; and, 3) A variance to Section 7.6.E1a.(2)(a) to allow a retaining wall and patios to be located 40-feet from the edge of the river, within the mandated 50-foot river setback The purpose of these variance requests is to develop this property with nine residential/accommodation units, for which the property is zoned ("A" Accommodations). Page #2 —Eck Variance Request The applicant has submitted a development plan which is being reviewed at the staff level (not enough units to be reviewed by the Planning Commission). This review is pending, with no guarantee of approval. The property contains significant floodplain, and the applicant requests to raise a portion of the site with 3-feet of fill material to be supported by the proposed retaining wall. This revised floodplain, which requires approval of FEMA and a floodplain permit issued by Larimer County Engineering, would allow for one additional unit due to increased land area per density calculations. PAST FEMA CORRECTION. GRASS AREA 110,988 IN FLOOD PI/WI: 713587 kr 4 arr . 56,454 NEI ARFk 110.988-58,454 - 56.534 AVAILABLE DENSITY: SINGLE FAULT UNITS: 6.3 tours TWO FAMILY UNITS: 8.4 UNITS MULTI FAMILY UNITS 10.4 UNIS GROSS AREA: 110,9E16 N FLOOD PLAN: 49,461 608 - 39,560 DEDICAMON - 7,030 NE1 AREA: 110988-39,560-7.0Y! - 64.396 AVNI AEU F DENSITY,. SINGLE FAMILY UNITS: 7.1 UNITS TWO FAMILY UNITS. 9.5 UNITS MULTI FAMILY UNITS: 11.9 UM It is Staff opinion (and the focus of this report) that justifications stated by the applicant for the variances are based on the unit type the applicant desires to build, and not on the site itself. 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: Dedication of the road right-of-way does not constitute a special circumstance, as this a requirement throughout Larimer County. Page #3 —Eck Variance Request The floodplain however, does constitute a special circumstance. Staff would support a request to raise the floodplain in order to provide reasonably functional sites in order to eliminate or reduce the need for setback variances. However, this proposal would increase the allowable density on this property by one unit, which Staff cannot support. Furthermore, this increased density results in Unit 1 being located within the setback and is therefore a self-imposed hardship. Therefore, Staff does not support the request for a setback encroachment for proposed Unit 1. In the Statement of Intent, the applicant cites three conditions of "special circumstances": 1) Narrowness. The statement of intent claims there is a deficiency of approximately twenty feet in the width of the lot. Staff suggests eliminating the garages from the units would alleviate this "special circumstance." The property is zoned for accommodations use. While residential is an allowed use in this district, the EVDC states this district "applies primarily in highway -oriented commercial areas of the Estes Valley, and allows a wide variety of accommodation uses, including relatively higher -intensity accommodations such as multi -story hotels and motels." The primary intention of this district is for hotels and motels. Staff suggests two -car attached garages are not necessary or even typical for this type of intended use. 2) Common to Other Areas. The Statement of Intent states the property to the north was developed with a zero lot line, which is somewhat misleading. The Dal'man property to the north received a variance to allow a portion of the driveway to be located within the landscaping setback. No structures were located within the setback, nor were there any requested variances to the river setback (see below for additional information). Furthermore, prior variances establish no precedent, but they do influence the neighborhood character. 3) Nullify the intent of the Code. The Statement of Intent states "the proposal is to develop the land in accordance with the Code and the Comprehensive Plan." This is not correct, with evidence being the multiple requests to vary from the code requirements. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Comment: The property is currently undeveloped and could be designed to meet all setbacks. The applicant states "without the variance there can not be a beneficial use based on the zoning of the property. The property is zoned A -Accommodations and has Page #4 -Eck Variance Request the potential for many units." This is not a correct statement. The floodplain nets out significant density potential, and there could be only 6-10 units without the variances. Section 1.9 "Density Calculation" clearly outlines the requirement to net out eighty percent of land located within the 100-year floodplain. Furthermore, this section states "the number of dwelling or accommodation units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that all other applicable standards shall be met. The maximum density established for a zoning district is not a guarantee that such densities may be obtained, nor a valid justification for varying other dimensional or development standards." b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: It is Staff's opinion this is a substantial request because: • Three variances are being requested for a currently undeveloped parcel; • The entire length of the driveway will be within the required landscaping setback area; • The raising of the floodplain results in an increase in allowable density; • Staff suggests the size of the units is the primary reason for the variance requests (the size of the units is larger than an average house in the western region). The Statement of Intent again references the Dallman Drive property, and that this request is "substantially less encroachment than the neighboring property." This proposed development will have more linear feet of driveway encroachment into the pre -right -of -way -dedication landscape buffer than that adjoining property. Furthermore, regardless of the right-of-way dedication, proposed Unit 1 will be closer to the road than adjoining units (it would require a variance regardless of ROW dedication). 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: Fill placed in the floodplain could have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The Statement of Intent notes "the proposed development will be relatively small compared to many properties surrounding it." This property is bordered on the west and east by single-family residential, residential/accommodation to the north, and accommodation to the south (this is the Glacier Lodge, which sits on 11 acres of land and was primarily developed in the 1930's, with structures dating to the 1800's). Page #5 Eck Variance Request d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant does not own the property, and is purchasing with the intent to develop. Staff first met with the applicant in October 2006. At that time, Staff noted concern about the proposed variances and referenced Limits of Disturbance Standards (see below). Similar concerns were reiterated during a November follow-up meeting. Finally, an application submittal made in November was not accepted because it did not meet code requirements. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The Statement of Intent states "the only other alternative to this predicament is an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners to not dedicate the additional right-of-way." Staff suggests otherwise. Because this property is undeveloped (a "clean slate"), it could be designed to meet all applicable setbacks. One option would be to build smaller units. The proposed units are each to be 3,000 square feet, with two -car garages (according to the National Association of Homebuilders, the average size of a house in the western region is 2,422 square feet). As noted above, another option would be to eliminate the two -car garage, thus "freeing" the 20-feet of "narrowness" the applicant referenced in the statement of intent. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Comment: Staff suggests the proposed retaining wall could be located outside of the required 50-foot river setback and the units could be made smaller, thus minimizing the requested variances. 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. Page #6 --Eck Variance Request Density. Section 3.6.C4 states "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." It is Staff's strong opinion allowing the retaining wall within the required 50-foot setback area would result in one additional unit being built in this proposed condominium project (reviewed as a subdivision under the Estes Valley Development Code). Therefore, that variance should not be granted. Limits of Disturbance. Section 7.2.D of the Estes Valley Development Code sets forth several criteria for establishing limits of site disturbance. These include "riparian habitat, stream corridors and wetland protection and buffering" and "floodplains, floodways, flood fringes and flood hazards." Neighbors. Staff has received correspondence (phone calls, e-mails, office visits) from several neighbors concerned about the floodplain, as well a building closer to the road than what is typically allowed (Dave Ranglos, owner/operator of the Glacier Lodge visited the office, and provided a letter of concern. Jay Lykins and Cheryl Wagner, Dallman Drive property owners, submitted an email. Ben McTavish, Dallman Drive property owner, phoned. And John Menardi, Spur 66 property owner, phoned). Dallman Variance. In April 2004, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow development within the landscape setback area for the "Dallman Drive" roject adjacent to this property. That project requested a variance only to the landscape buffer area in order to locate a portion of the drive closer to the highway than typically allowed. No structures were proposed in setbacks, nor were any variances to the river setback requested (because it was previously developed, that property was subject to a 30-foot river setback). 'Jowp RIVER BEND ON SITE PI. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Approval of these variances would result in an increase in the number of lots (condominium units) beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision (condominium), pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 2. The floodplain constitutes a special circumstance that requires a variance. However, the proposed fill would result in an increase in density. Page #7 —Eck Variance Request 3. The property could be designed for a beneficial use without the requested variances. 4. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through methods other than variances. 5. The change in the floodplain could have a negative impact on the neighborhood. 6. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial. Staff suggests they are, due to the proposed increase in density, length of driveway within the landscape setback, size of units, and fact the lot could be designed to meet required setbacks. 7. The Board should use their judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. It is Staff's opinion they do not. 8. The applicant does not own the property, and is aware of the requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code. 9. 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. 10. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 11. 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. 12. Approval of these variances would not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought; Therefore, Staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of the requested variances. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance because: 1) The site could be designed to meet or minimize setback reduction requests. 2) The floodplain fill within the river setback would result in an additional unit. 3) The impact of the proposed development outweighs any special circumstances. 4) The variances are substantial. 5) The applicant is aware of the code requirements prior to purchase of property, thus any hardships would be self-imposed. 6) The variances could be mitigated by methods other than a variance. 7) The variances do not represent the least deviation that would afford relief. APPROVAL: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance(s) with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. LAPSE: Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Page #8 Eck Variance Request North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 GORY A. HITE Attorney at Law 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 April 20, 2007 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Board of Adjustment — Variance Request — Rippling River Estates Dear Mr. Shirk: I have no comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. GAW/ldr r cc: Van Horn Engineering, Zach Hanson Fax: 970/586-8101 LARIMER COUNTY COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Shirk, Planner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 N IN RING D ARTMENT FROM: Traci Downs Development Review Services Engineer DATE: April 17, 2007 SUBJECT: Rippling River Setback Variance Estes Park Referral Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 Project Descriotion/Background: This is a setback variance off of Spur 66 to allow a corner of a proposed building to be 5 feet from the ultimate 40-foot half right-of-way for a minor collector. This is also a request to be setback 45 feet from the river in lieu of the required 50 feet. The site is located 2025 Moraine Avenue in Estes Park. Review Criteria: Development review staff has reviewed the submitted materials per the criteria found in the Larimer County Estes Valley Development Code, County Rural Area Road Standards, and County Storm -Water Design Standards. Comments: 1. Since the ultimate 40 foot half right-of-way for Spur 66 will be dedicated with this plat and the 5 foot setback will be off of this line, there should not be any hindrances to future road improvements. In addition, the drive isle and building are oriented such that vehicles will not be able to impede the County road right-of-way. Staff Recommendation: The Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any major concerns with the variance requests. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 498-5701 or email me at tdowns@larimer.org if you have any questions. Thank you. cc: Van Horn Engineering 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park CO 80517 reading file file H:IDEVREVIPLANCHK\Referrals\CITIESEEstes\Rippling River Estates Setback Variance.doc Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From: Cherylwagner@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:26 PM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Variance Request, Rippling River Estates Mr. Shirk, Thank you for being available to answer questions regarding the variance request. I live at Rambling River, 1986 Dal!man Drive, Unit 5. I have concerns about approving the variance which decreases the setback from the road (Hwy 66). Rambling River has been my residence year round for over 2 years, and I have a good idea of the traffic patterns, road shoulders, etc. The traffic moves along very fast along hwy 66 and approaches a curve immediately after the property. There is virtually no shoulder on the river side road, and even though I enjoy walking and biking, it is dangerous to do so along that section. I have seen cars spin out as they approach each other in that section on more than one occasion. I can't imagine placing buildings so close to this road as is indicated on the plans! It sure feels dangerous to me. It surprised me to read that they compared Rambling River development to their own request. It does not appear to me that we have buildings as close to the road as they are planning nor did we know that it was a floodplane. Can you direct me to where 1 can research the variance allowances for Rambling River development. The property is very narrow and is in a floodplane (as I have sadly discovered since moving here - an added worry and expense). I realize that the issue of the floodplane is not the stated reason for the meeting on May 1, but it is definitely related to the variance request and is mentioned in the request. It does affect the plans and the need for the variance request. If you fill (raise) the property to meet FEMA requirements it will logically affect the river and the opposite property. If the water rises, it must go somewhere else, and my guess would be that it would flood to the lowest point, which is across the river, thus impacting that Glacier Stables property. Well. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Cheryl Wagner See what's free at AOL.com. 4/20/2007 4/16/07 Dear David Shirk, As the owner of two adjacent parcels to the property in question I have several concerns that I wish to share with Estes Valley Planning Department and the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment as they consider approval of the petitioners' request for Variance and future development proposal; 1. Any alteration made to the property that would change the natural course of water flow, and cause water to flow onto our property(s). Any change should include river mitigation of our property. 2. Ingress/Egress easement. When the easement was purchased the Colorado Dept. of Transportation included documentation that said driveway access to State Hwy 66 should be made through and to the North East comer of the parcel to provide visibility along the highway in both directions. If the new owner should decide to access the property from a different location, what restrictions or allowances should be provided to allow multiple highway (driveway) access points within certain proximity of each other? 3. I had originally considered purchasing the property myself and decided against the purchase when the possibility that some portion of the property may include "Wet Lands". Given the required setback both from the river, highway, and possible wet land areas did not provide adequate building space to justify the cost of the purchase. Thoughtful consideration should be made when seeking developmental approvals for this parcel given the combination of the Colorado Department of Transportation reconunendations for ingress/egress to highway 66, possible wet land issues, and the natural water flow of the Big Thompson River. After living adjacent to the property in question for nearly 30 years I believe there is a single building lot at the far North and East corner of the parcel. Any other structure placed on the parcel may be in danger of video documented natural water flow through the middle of the parcel which would require mitigation to the parcel in question and both adjacent southern parcels. If I can be of any assistance to either the Planning Department or the Board of Adjustment concerning this matter please feel free to contact me at home 970-586-8286 or office at 970-586-4401. Sincerely, David J. Ranglos Glacier Lodge, P.O. Box 2656, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Phone: 1-800-523-3920 www. GlacierLodge. com Page 1 of 2 Dave Shirk From: jaykins@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:45 AM To: Dave Shirk Cc: greatonewon@aol.com; William.cooper@purina.nestle.com; wcoop@charter.net; bryce@dallmanconstruction.com; cherylwagner@aol.com; janie.miller@gmail.com; LykinsJA@state.gov; jaykins@aol.com; arrowhead123@msn.com; jblazek@hhtomaha.com; lindadrums@gmail.com; lori@dallmanconstruction.com; rminker@rdminker.com; robdd@aol.com; cjet@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: Variance Request: Rippling River Estates Mr. Shirk, Thanks for your response and for forwarding my comments on. My main concern is the infrastructure that is already over taxed. This included roads, utilities, safety, police coverage, etc., as well as a continual build up of the flood plain. Asking for a variance that allows building closer to the river and closer to the highway is only asking for problems down the road, and we can be sure, the problems will occur at some point. If these requests are going to be granted, I believe we should first seek to improve the existing infrastructure or Estes Park will become a disaster area as opposed to a tourist area. Thank You, Jay Lykins Jay A. Lykins, Ph.D. jaykins@aol.com Original Message From: dshirk@estes.org To: jaykins@aol.com Sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 3:51 PM Subject: RE: Variance Request: Rippling River Estates Hello Mr. Lykins- The proposed development is a use by right. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to build both closer to the highway and closer to the river. Regarding the floodplain: the applicant is applying to FEMA to modify the floodplain, which would require filling a portion of the site. The floodplain maps were recently updated, and revealed this area to be in the floodplain. This error was discovered after the development of your condominium. I will forward your comments to the Board of Adjustment. From: jaykins@aol.com [mailto:jaykins@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:08 AM To: Dave Shirk Subject: Variance Request: Rippling River Estates Mr. Shirk, 4/13/2007 Page 2 of 2 My wife and I are owners of Unit 2, Rambling River, 1986 Dallman Dr., Estes Park, CO 80517. Our condo is located next to the proposed Rippling River Estates. We live overseas, and will not be able to be available for the May 1 meeting. However, if we are allowed to vote, we would vote against the construction and development of this property. When we purchased our condo, we were told it was above the flood plain and there would be no problem. However, a year later, we found it necessary to purchase flood insurance due to a change or error. I feel more developments in this area will jeopardize this entire location. I could go into other reasons of why we are against this proposition, but I'm not sure this is the venue for that, and I don't want to waste your time reading this if there is another way to respond. Please feel free to contact us if you have any other questions or we are allowed to provide other input. Thank You, Jay Lykins Jay A. Lykins, PhD. jaykinsgaol,com AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. 4/ 13/2007 AR 2 W�mwx uvmwexmwm Statement of Intent - Variance 2025U.S. Highway 66, Variance Request: (compliant with section 3.6 of the Estes Valley Development Code) Requested variances: Section 4.4.C.4.Table 4-5 'A' Zoning Front (Arterial) Setback -Existing 15' from current property line -Requesting 5' from County Required property line Section 7.6.E.1.a.(2)(a) River Corridor Setbacks -Existing 50' River Setback -Proposed 45' River Setback The property located in a portion of the Southeast 'A of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 73 West is currently a vacant parcel of land with street frontage on U.S. Highway 66 (Spur 66) also known as Moraine Avenue. According to the Larimer County Engineering Department the Road has been transferred from the State to the County and the County Codes are to be used for the future development of this property. The land is zoned A — Accommodations under the current Estes Valley Development Code. 1. Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist Narrowness — the lot lies between Moraine Avenue (Spur 66) and the Big Thompson River the maximum width of the lot is 190' and the average width of the lot is approximately 135'. Trying to place an effective development with the code required setbacks would limit the area for a two lane road, a driveway, and dwelling units to 45'-110' with a majority of the lot having less than 60' to accommodate these required items. With a two lane road being a minimum of 22' wide, a driveway a minimum depth of 20' (to accommodate parking) and a dwelling of about 40' it would require at minimum an 82' wide buildable portion of the lot. With a majority of the lot 20' narrower than this, special consideration should be taken to provide for a buildable situation. Also the site drops off from the road at a rapid rate and has abundant vegetation near the road which would allow the drive to be tucked close to the property line so the view from the road would be less impacted. Common to other areas - This is not common to most parcels in the area however it is common to the neighboring lot to the north. The neighboring lot to the north was recently developed and was granted 0' lot line setback to the State Highway (code specifies 25' setback, section 4 table 4-5, to an arterial street, see arterial street definition 13.3.228) and also was determined to have 30' setbacks to the river by section 7.6.E.2(b). Nullify the intent of the Code - The proposal is to develop the land in accordance with the Code and the Comprehensive Plan. By granting the variances to the road and the river the overall site will be less disturbed and will retain a greater amount of the natural habitat of the land by clustering all of the units to the northern portion of the property. �U 2. "Practical Difficulty" a. Without the variance there can not be a beneficial use based on the zoning of the property. The property is zoned A -Accommodations and has the potential for many units. Without the proposed variances, the property would not be functional to meet the driveway and parking standards of the E.V.D.C. due to the narrowness of the property. b. The variance is not substantial, relative to other approved variances in the area. The neighboring property was granted a 0' lot line setback to the Road in 2004 and also has a 30' setback to the river. This request is to be 15' away from the original property line and 45' away from the river which is substantially less encroachment than the neighboring property, also the proposed development intends to leave a majority of the southern portion of the lot in its natural state. c. There would not substantially alter or have a major impact on the surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are zoned A - Accommodation as well the neighboring property to the north is a more dense development with a greater impact on the site. The proposed development will be relatively small compared to many properties surrounding it. d. There will be no adverse affect to the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. There currently exist a sewer main that runs along the eastern portion of the property. The proposed development will be extending the water main from the north onto their property and installing fire hydrants which will have a positive impact on the surrounding properties. e. The applicant was not aware of the County requirement for the road dedication as the road was originally owned by the State of Colorado. Also the purpose of this variance is to maintain the same setback from the road that would apply if this was only under the jurisdiction of the E.V.D.C. The neighboring property that was recently developed was able to build on a lot that is similar in character. f. The only other alternative to this predicament is an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners to not dedicate the additional right-of-way. Recently a similar request was put infront of the B.C.C. and was deferred indefinitely until the Town and County can work out a solution. 3. The variance requested is not general or recurrent in nature, the situation is site specific. Given the special circumstances associated with the request and the topography and vegetation on the site this is a unique request. 4. The granting of this variance will not cause an increase in density or create the ability to create new lots. 5. The proposed variance will be the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief and allow the applicant to use the property as the development code intends. 6. The proposed variance request will not allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of the E.V.D.C. for its zoning district. The applicant would like to develop the property with condominiums which is allowed in the A- accommodations zoning district. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Additional information: 1. The southern portion of the lot will be left in its natural state other than a single gazebo. 2. The variance is to allow driveways, trash enclosure, postal cluster box and a portion of one unit to be within the setback that will result from the road dedication. 3. Without the requirement by the County to dedicate road right-of-way (20' of buildable area is being lost because of this) this proposal could continue without a variance request. • 4. This proposal has included extra landscaping to help hide the proposed building that will be the closest to the road and also around the entire developed area to help the development blend into the natural surroundings. 5. An additional sheet is attached shown the change in density on this property. There have been many changes to the property recently. The property was origionally shown on the FEMA maps to be almost entirely out the flood plain however in the process of trying to develop this property is was found that there was an error in the . FEMA mapping. This error was corrected through the FEMA LOMR process. The result of this is that a significant portion of the lot is now within the flood plain. There is currently an application into FEMA to place fill on a portion of the lot to bring it out of the flood plain and provide for a buildable area on the lot, the minimum amount of fill (disturbance to the site) has been proposed. ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: General Information Record Owner(s): if/ 7.--oiG'r Street Address of Lot: ZO Z 4./A/E Legal Des ripti n Lot: Block: Tract: Sew subdivision: Parcel ID # Section 5— Township J1) Ran.e Site Information Lot Size 2 . ss aA..¢_� Zoning A - Existing Land Use V'..rN. - -- Proposed Land Use ,.r Eprfry AA' / ;c Existing Water Service r Town r Well r Other (Specify) 4 %/.4 Proposed Water Service g,Town r Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service ftJ/.4- r EPSD r UTSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD [37, UTSD Existing Gas Service r Xcel r Other pi None Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes M'' No Variance r Septic r Septic Specific variance desired (state development code section #): _St . •S/ y.e • y rz41, y .s'44tc� 4 .�. S _ 7. E. /. . (A)(4-) /. vee ,5rr iaa.G4- Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person ZA, , j — f i le-exi if Si/ad/Km/jai 4 Mailin• Address i 5„ 4241> Attachments it 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) ix 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" 20') •• I 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") rc 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 -6 170 MacGregor Avenue -6 Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (9701 577-3721 .6+ Fax: (970) 586-0249 Kf. www.estesnet.com/ComDev Contact Information Primary Contact Person is r Owner r Applicant pze Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) 40A/ /� 7 Mailing Address _2 2 V/ ,e4,tzfe/br _;"Phone 070 Ti'5- bZ kg Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address 1307 . -2)Ez_ L/i z J j 30 /Z4 Phone (Lc) log - _/q22, Cell Phone 001 70 _/y` ?- Fax (A ) 7157- Z 35 Email Consultant/Engineer �, ,jy,/ iy4i/t/ .///2f, 1,5ajevv`'y/f9/f, ,',t,t Mailing Address //QLf. �./5`AF-- k- , " / MS`/ 1 Phone (y`40) .sue - � .re- Cell Phone Fax 67) ,. t -5/ d / Email ✓/.Q . cow, - 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.comlComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule.pdf. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fess are due at the time of submittal. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION P. 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). P. I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) ► I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the comers of my property and the proposed building/structure 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: Signatures: AFT Applicant PLEASE PRINT: s; eve Record Owner ���.� ,,; " Date Applicant Revised 10/13/06 LEGAL DESCRIPTION; (FROM LANDAMERICA TITLE COMMITMENT No. TNEP0001360) BEGINNING AT THE CENTER i CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., THENCE SOUTH 36 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 712.11 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, A MONUMENT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY SPUR 66, THE BRASS CAP THEREIN I5 INSCRIBED STATION 45+00; THENCE ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY SPUR 66 SOUTH 35 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 77.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 37 MINUTES WEST 258.6 FEET TO THE TANGENT POINT OF CURVE FROM WHICH THE POINT OF CURVATURE BEARS SOUTH 29 DEGREES OD MINUTES WEST 172.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE WITH AN INTERSECTION ANGLE OF 6 DEGREES 46 MINUTES AND A RADIUS OF 1,462.5 FEET A DISTANCE OF 172.7 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE MENT10N ABOVE; THENCE SOUTH 32 DEGREES 23 MINUTES WEST 188.6 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 13.2 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A UNE 99.0 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE SE } OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 46 MINUTES EAST 143.69 FEET ALONG THE ABOVE MENTIONED UNE PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SE i TO THE CENTER OF THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER; THENCE ALONG THE CENTER OF THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER NORTH 50 DEGREES 23 MINUTES EAST 113.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41 DEGREES 42 MINUTES EAST 308.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10 DEGREES 07 MINUTES WEST 142.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17 DEGREES 42 MINUTES EAST 68.82 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE CENTER OF THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER NORTH 36 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 142.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. Zoning Districts § 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts 4. Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-5 Density and Dimensional Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts Zoning District A 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 Minimum Lot Size [7] Area (sq ft) 40,000 [2] Width (ft.) 100 [3] Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks [4] [8] Front (ft.) Arterial = 25 [5]; All other streets = 15 Side [ft.) 15[6] Rear 10 [6] Max. Buildin` g Height (ft.) [9] 30 Max. FAR N/A Max. Lot Coverage (%) 50 A-1 10,890 15,000 [2] 50 [3] Arterial = 25 (5); All other streets =15 15 10 30 .20 30 CD 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 Accom- modation uses = 20,000 All other uses = n/a SF & 2- Family (stand - atone) 25; MF (stand- alone) = 100; AU other uses 7- n/a mum 8 Maxi- mum = 16 If lot abuts den- tial prop- erty = All other cases If lot abuts a residen- tial property = 10; All other cases = 0 30 2.0 n/a CO n/a Lots fronting arterials = 40,000 [2]; Outdoor Commer- cial Recreatio nI Entertain- ment = 40,000 [2] All other Tots = 15,000 [2] Fronting Arterial arterials = = 25 [5]; 200; Alt other 15 [6] All other streets lots = 50 =15 15 [6] 30 .25 65 SUM, 4 General Development Standanis (2) § 7.6 Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection Figure 7-10 River Corridors (except in the CD district). (a) General Rule. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. (b) Exception for Lots Developed Prior to the Adoption of this Code. All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the river. See Figure 7-10. (Ord. 2-02 #5) (3) Stream and River Corridors in the CD Zoning District. In the CD district, all buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream or river corridors or, if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream or river. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. Where a principal building in the CD district provides public access, including a primary entrance, on the side of the building facing a stream or river corridor, the setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with the approval of the Decision -Making Body. (Ord. 2-02 #5) Supp. 3 745,, 0 ¥ 2N wr- gr-�¥�¥r. v- k 20co00 �GGgoc3c) �$ cJcoo)0cCVODcocomcococo�« NOb OkQOo/k F.EEE000CO a�LL�< ,.~a0oz,_,,,� 82 cn■22%2%%«oQ�temmmmo= a.a@o_au_a�2�aoa.a_a0-a.Qc _—__ cc ©a R CO n CO CO c g o 2 E o t k t t\§§ f o 2 o a) o w 2= o U w O O w< w w c coa Q L w w w w W w.j L 8 w a) 2 2 2$0 a c r6 ° #■¥ T'3>2 tea) c /±� u)<-0I■co a00- \ �� k kCC 2 _ � t 7 (D� 1: M I= � ■ � ■ o ?±arc g�k »���2aJEC') o�- a co a c 0 2". co e•E 'w/2cDCI �2i/k/$§2z§cwk� CM @E�In�■E sg 2\gk7/CL?\kk\7-E4-%E,-/0� •c E c/o Jim & Penne Ranglos k cc 5 a \a o R m NJ o a)a)43 as� �o� k as -JU§$-0 0_nrd2lzk�� k 2 /-J0w _J c2=_��m % EEk2%2a_o§M§§$/�b �� °I==m��c�22o%k�2&%2� 7m<c/§�g ,cI�k«�-�55§ ■ 0 c%\ 3 2& k 2 0§& 2 a) 2 c a as— c- _ 0 c e f E LL 7 2 ■_12=2Ekco�g=§og■%k2�5� o■m�=Ectb11mli1g=o=w>O@�li Rippling River DP 07-07 & Variance eas (DLO . cras6-385 (0ce) 010100 'N ONIA3AtIfOS ONV ONI I33NION3 N21OH NVA M£62I 'SJ. '1t£'03S fi/i 3S ELL .CIO NOLLZIOd A,LIddO Id 130,L ne NoIsIA21a 31,0 NTH d.LIS 133,15