No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2007-06-05Prepared: May 28, 2007 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:00 a.m. — Board Room, Town Hall L PUBLIC COMMENT CONSENT a. Approval of minutes dated May 1, 2007 3. REQUESTS a. Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision, 675 Summerset Court Owner: Mark D. & Rebecca J. Elrod Applicant: Roger M. Thorp, Thorp Associates, PC Request: Variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 1.9.D.2.a, Stream and River Corridors; Section 7.6.E1.a(1), Building/Structure Setbacks; Section 7.6.F.1, Prohibited Activities; and Section 7.6.G, Preservation of Vegetation; to allow portions of a residence to be constructed across a stream corridor in lieu of the required 30-foot setback from stream corridors Staff Contact: Alison Chilcott 4. REPORTS 5. ADJOURNMENT Note: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2007, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Wayne Newsom; Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, John Lynch, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Chair Newsom; Members Dill, Levine, Lynch, and Sager Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer None Chair Newsom called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the April 3, 2007 meeting. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED IN THE SE 1/e OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 61/1 P.M., 2025 MORAINE AVENUE, Applicant: Steve Eck — Request for 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 8 feet, variance from Section 7.5.F.2.b(6) to allow development within five feet of the property line and within the required arterial -street -frontage -buffer landscape area, and variance from Section 7.6.E.1.a(2)(a) to reduce the required river setback from 50 feet to 45 feet. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) standards to allow a front -yard setback of eight feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required, to allow a driveway and portion of a detached residential/accommodations unit to be constructed within the arterial front -yard setback, and to allow decks and a retaining wall to be constructed within the river setback. The parcel is zoned A —Accommodations and the applicant has submitted a development plan application for nine residential/accommodations units. A significant portion of the property lies within the floodplain, and the applicant proposes to raise a portion of the site with three feet of fill material to be supported by a retaining wall. Revision of the floodplain requires approval of FEMA and issuance of a permit from the Larimer County Engineering department, and would allow construction of one additional unit. It is the opinion of planning staff that the applicant's justifications for the requested variances are based on the unit type and total number of units the applicant desires to build, rather than on the site itself. The property is owned by Anne Toft and is currently addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue; the designation of this road was recently changed from state highway to county road. Larimer County requires dedication of an additional ten feet of road right-of-way. In considering whether special circumstances exist, dedication of county road right-of-way does not constitute a special circumstance because it is a requirement throughout Larimer County. The floodplain does create a special circumstance, and staff would support a request to raise the floodplain in order to eliminate or reduce the need for setback variances and provide reasonably functional building sites. However, the applicant's proposal increases the allowable density on the property, which staff cannot support. Furthermore, the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2007 2 increased density results in Unit 1 being located within the setback --a self-imposed hardship. Staff does not support the request for a setback encroachment for Unit 1. Staff disagrees with three "special circumstances" lusted on the applicant's statement of intent. Eliminating the proposed two -car garages from the units wound alleviate the narrow lot "special circumstance." The property is zoned for accommodations use; two -car garages are not necessary or even typical for high -intensity commercial accommodations use and the site is too narrow for this type of design. Secondly, the applicant's statement of intent states the property to the north was developed with a zero tot line, which is misleading. That property was granted 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. The required river setback on the adjoining property was thirty feet rather than fifty feet because there was prior development on the property. Variances such as that granted for the adjoining property do not establish a precedent, but they do influence neighborhood character. Finally, the statement of intent contends "the proposal is to develop the land in accordance with the Code and the Comprehensive Plan." Planner Shirk stated this is not correct, as evidenced by the applicant's multiple requests to vary from the code requirements. The property is currently undeveloped, and the proposed development could be designed to meet all setbacks. The floodplain nets out significant density potential; there could be only six to ten units developed on the property regardless of whether the requested variances are approved. EVDC Section 1.9 states 'the number of dwelling or accommodations 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." It is the opinion of planning staff that the requested variances are substantial because three variances are requested for an undeveloped parcel, the entire length of the driveway will be located within the required landscaping setback area, and raising the floodplain results in an increase in allowable density. Also, staff suggests that the size of the proposed units (approximately 3,000 square feet, including garage space) is the primary reason for the variance requests. In considering whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining property owners would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, staff believes full) in the floodplain could have a negative flood storage impact on the neighborhood. The applicant does not own the property and is purchasing it with the intent to develop. Staff expressed concerns about proposed variances and referenced limits of disturbance standards in a pre -application meeting in October 2006 and in a follow-up meeting in November 2006. An application submittal made in November 2006 was not accepted because it did not meet code requirements. In considering whether the requested variances represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief, staff suggests the proposed retaining wall could be located outside the required fifty -foot river setback and the units could be made smaller, thus minimizing the variance requests. Specifically, EVDC Section 3.6.C.4 states "no variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result 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 that placement of the retaining wall within the fifty -foot river setback will allow an additional unit to be built in this condominium project (reviewed as a subdivision under the EVDC) and the variance should not be granted. EVDC Section 7.2.D also sets forth limits of site disturbance, including riparian habitat, stream corridors and wetland protection and buffering, and floodplains, floodways, flood fringes, and flood hazards. 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 Larimer County Engineering Department. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Mayl, 2007 3 Written comments, office visits, and phone calls expressing concem about the floodplain and requested road setback variance were received from neighboring property owners David Ranglos, Jay Lykins and Cheryl Wagner, Ben McTavish, John Menardi, and Richard Minker. Ranglos and Menardi both stated it is common for this property to flood for approximately one month each spring. Planning staff recommends disapproval of the requested variances for seven reasons (see Motion). Discussion followed between the Board members and planning staff. Planner Shirk stated the applicant proposes the maximum density of development that would be allowed with the increased land area provided by raising the floodplain and placing the retaining wall within the river setback. If the applicant proposed one less unit or combined the units (rather than the mix of attached and detached units proposed), the development could occur without the requested variances. It is the site design that is driving the variance requests. Public Comment: Zach Hanson, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. The applicant began designing plans for the property prior to the time FEMA adopted changes to the floodplain. Mr. Hanson showed drawings of the site's former, current, and proposed floodplain. The applicant has worked with FEMA and is proposing less fill on the site than is allowed by FEMA; the applicant is following FEMA regulations and believes neighboring properties will not be affected. The additional road right-of-way dedication required by Larimer County also impacts the development potential of the site. The proposed development is clustered at the east end of the property and allows for future widening of the county road, if it occurs. He quoted from comments received from the Larimer County Engineering department, which state there should not be any hindrances to future road improvements and the department has no major concerns with the variance requests. The proposed unit sizes are 2,100 to 2,200 square feet, a common size for accommodations units in the area; living space is proposed above the garages so removing the garages will not change the building footprint. The site disturbance proposed by the applicant is much less than that allowed on the adjacent Rambling River Condominiums development. Building clustering minimizes disturbance to the remainder of the site; approval of the requested variances would provide a trade-off for leaving the land open for wildlife access and less site disturbance. Discussion followed between the Board members and planning staff. Planner Shirk noted that Estes Valley Development Code standards are more restrictive than FEMA's. The EVDC and Comprehensive Plan discourage development in the floodplain. The volume of traffic on Moraine Avenue was discussed. Although the town and county are currently holding discussions about the right-of-way requirements for county roads within the Estes Valley planning area, the Board must base their decision on the standards that are currently in effect. Member Sager expressed his concern that the applicant's plans state the property line follows the centerline of the river but show a property line that does not. Director Joseph stated the property line was shown as prepared by a professional, licensed surveyor; the apparent discrepancy is the result of the way the deed has been prepared over the years. Steve Eck, applicant, stated he originally planned to develop ten 2,000-square-foot units on the property. He thought a thirty-foot river setback applied to the property but because there is no prior development on the land, the setback is fifty feet. He has reduced the proposal to nine units and will lose profitability on the development if one of the single- family units must be removed or joined to another unit. He is trying to save two trees, which must be removed if the units are condensed. The proposed units are similar in size to others in the neighborhood and were designed to fit the land. The additional road right- of-way required by the county has caused the site design to be out of compliance. The purpose of the retaining wall is to keep dirt from sloughing off onto vegetation and limit disturbance to natural areas; the highest point of the wall will be approximately four feet; the wall will be engineered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 1, 2007 4 Planner Shirk stated the required setback from the river has been fifty feet from the annual high-water mark of the river since the year 2000; prior to that it was 100 feet from the center of the river. Anne Toft, owner of the property, stated the parcel) does not flood and hasn't in 100 years. Nearby properties have development closer to the river and closer to the road. The property has been zoned and taxed as an accommodations property for years. The access easement for the property to the south is unllikely to ever be used. Adjacent property owners Tim Finnigan, Cheryl Wagner, Dave Ranglos, and Jane Miller expressed opposition to raising the floodplain due to possible impacts of altered river flows to their properties. They allso expressed concern about development close to the road, safety of vehicles and pedestrians, traffic volume, and availlability of parking on the site. Mr. Ranglos stated his primary concem is the easement that provides access to his property; ingress/egress will be very important if he ever chooses to sell one of his parcels separately. Discussion followed between Board members and planning staff. Member Sager stated the development could be designed to meet the river setback, he is not supportive of the encroachment of proposed Unit 1 into the front -yard setback, and suggested the request be tabled pending further information from FEMA. Chair Newsom quoted from the Board of Adjustment Powers and Duties, noting that financial gain is not sufficient reason to sustain a variance. The property can still) be developed, and the devellopment could be designed to fit the property without variances. Member Levine stated he is sympathetic that some setback standards have changed since the appllicant began considering development of the property but the Board must consider existing standards. Member Lynch encouraged the appllicant to persevere and design the development to fit within the setbacks. Director Joseph noted lack of final information from FEMA would have to be central to the application to justify tabling it;. he encouraged the Board to render a decision based on current evidence as presented. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Levine) to disapprove the variance requests for the Metes and Bounds property located in the SE 1/4 of S35-T5N-R73W, addressed 2025 Moraine Avenue, for the following reasons: 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 the 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. The motion passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 10 :36 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary 675 Summerset Court Stream Setback Variance Requests 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 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONBACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: June 5, 2007 LOCATION: The site is located at 675 Summerset Court, within the Town of Estes Park. Legal Description: Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS: Roger Thorp, Thorp Associates, PC/Mark D. and Rebecca J. Elrod STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The property owner wishes to build a one-story, 5,520-square-foot house, which includes 3,638 square feet of finished space, a 912-square-foot unfinished garage and a 970-square-foot unfinished attic. The proposed house also includes approximately 840 square feet of deck, a 130-square- foot patio, and a portico over the driveway of approximately 240 square feet. An intermittent drainage runs through the property and the Estes Valley Development Code requires a thirty-foot stream setback from this drainage. As noted in EVDC Section 7.6.D.2 Stream and River Corridor Boundaries, "...Regulated stream and river corridors shall include only those streams and rivers as identified on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. ... Streams delineated on the Map include various named and unnamed streams and minor drainages, some of which are intermittent." A copy of this map is included with the staff report. I�. The petitioner requests variances to the following sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. § 1.9.D.2, Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridors and Wetlands, a, Stream and River Corridors Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated stream or river corridor, as set forth in §7.6.D.2, and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in §7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1-2. §7.6.E.1, Stream or River Corridors, a., Building/Structure Setbacks (1), Stream Corridors (except in the CD zoning district) All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream. Where defined banks are not readily discemible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. See Figure 7-10. §7.6.F, Development Standards, 1, Prohibited Activities No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stream or river corridors, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas, except as may be expressly allowed in this Section or Code. §7.6.G, Preservation of Vegetation All existing vegetation within the stream/river corridor or wetland buffer/setback area shall be preserved, and where necessary to provide adequate screening or to repair damaged riparian areas, supplemented with additional native planting and landscaping. II. SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels One Parcel Number(s) 35224-25-006 Development Area 0.9748 acres per plat 42,462 square feet Zoning "E" Estate Existing Land Use Undeveloped Proposed Land Use Single -Family Residential Page #2 _. Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court SERVICES Water Town of Estes Park..... Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park e Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Nest„ �,�,�w,�.......... LOCATION MAPS WITH ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES "E-1" Estate , ��i;l I Ulill ii III ',il�✓% 'liuuuuuwliillllllll I,','I',j!,!QlulpO" Iff "iiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I dJllll �iilllllll .,,I,I,gryl i�u''� /iliVlllllh IIVIIIIII iII��111111111111111�1i Illllllllllllllld I i g lllllllllllllll,III�IIIIUIIIIIIdlllllllllllllllb I lml aaali ";; Ulllllllllllllllllllll rill llllllilllllllllllllll , li l y11� 1p°°°°°u llllllllllllllllllll lh,,,,,lpwi°""""' ll�����lllllllll '{i 91111���III,IIIIIIIILuu11911111111gllllllpuuuu;i+ "R-2" Family Identlal st "' Mount L cRd. 11111uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulI i 1111111111111111111111111111 llll ry!!!!!!!!llllllllll!!!!!!!! !!!111111 !l11 l 11111 uuuuuuuuuli' " " * "...I111111 1111IIIIIIIIll1191111111ii1 "' H'Ill111111111111111111111 111111111111111 " 9°11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' 111111's 111111111111�; Page #3 Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court ''!!!!NNiY 1111111111111 �VUI lll�i� III`1A1!!„IdN;ull' AERIAL PHOTOS 11111111111100,. 4111 �v11�^1u1�`11�iVlll Irr rdrrii'Il'ib q I119 011111110110111110110011111111011011101100lulil �� uuIIIIIIV uumvii111111111111 Ir mm11116 sllllll0�l l�.ol III Page #4 - Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court III. REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.0 and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff -level review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Estes Park Building Department See Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated May 25, 2007. Estes Park Public Works Department See Greg Sievers' email to Alison Chilcott dated May 21, 2007. Please note this memo questioned the reference to two forty -eight -inch diameter culverts. Per a conversation with Roger Thorp on May 30, 2007, these culverts were considered to pipe the water through a portion of the lot and allow a portion of the drainage swale to be filled. This design option is no longer being considered. Page #5 Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court Estes Park Light and Power Department See Mike Mangelsen's memo to Bob Goehring dated May 23, 2007. Estes Park Water Department See Jeff Boles' memo to Bob Goehring dated May 22, 2007. Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated May 22, 2007. Alpine Anglers See Keith Keenan's letter to Alison Chilcott faxed on May 18, 2007. Owners of 670 Summerset Court See Michael Harris's email to Alison Chilcott dated May 29, 2007. V. STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that there are special circumstances associated with this lot; however, staff does not find that the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty sufficient to justify the requested variances. Staff is supportive of significant reductions in setbacks, but not as significant as those proposed by the applicant. Staff may be supportive of a building design that proposes building within a few feet of the bank and perhaps over the existing drainage channel if the portion of the structure crossing the channel is high enough to allow wildlife such as elk to pass under the structure. Staff is not supportive of the submitted design, which includes reconfiguring/relocating portions of the drainage and building over the drainage. Staff recommends redesign of the proposed house. Page #6 - Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court This lot is almost twice the minimum lot size in "E" Estate zoning district, i.e., it is an approximately one -acre lot in a half -acre zoning district. Despite the large lot size for the zoning district, there are special circumstances associated with the lot, i.e., the drainage and steep slopes, which reduce the buildable area. A water line easement on the eastern property line also reduces the buildable area. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Staff Finding: Staff finds that defined banks are discernable and that setbacks should be measured from banks rather than thread of the existing drainage. This would further reduce the buildable area. It is very likely that a variance is needed to build a house on this lot. The question is how much of a variance is needed. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: The variance requests are substantial. The request involves reducing the setback from thirty feet to zero feet for the full length of the house, and building a deck and a portion of the house over the drainage. This request also includes reconfiguring/relocating a portion of the drainage, which per the submitted drainage report is estimated to carry 236 cubic feet of water per second with a 100-year flow. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Staff Finding: This area has a mix of older homes that tend to be smaller than the newer homes. However, this proposed house is significantly larger all others in the immediate area, new or old, and may impact the character of the neighborhood. Existing house sizes and locations are provided below. Page #7 — Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court House Size (Sq. Ft.) Garage Size (Sq. Ft.) Proposed House 3,638 912 240 sq. ft. approx. portico 1 Undeveloped Lot 2 2,603 576 3 2,358 924 4 2,858 572 5 441 None 6 495 None 7 441 None 8 1,064 None 9 609 None 10 609L None 11 630 None 12 609 None 13 624 None 14 Condo Unit: 2,096 484 15 Condo Unit: 2,316 484 16 Duplex Unit 1: 2,223 Unit 2: 2,102 Carport 340 368 Note: The square footage information for existing units is summarized frn m the Larimer County Tax Assessor Records. The square footage information for the proposed house is summarized from the submitted building permit application and does not include attic space. Page #8 — Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court Per the property owner's statement of intent, the Summerhill Property Owners Association Architectural Control Committee approved the building plans on March 13, 2007. Also, the owners of 670 Summerset Court have submitted an email supporting the variance request. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variances will not affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding: This standard addresses whether or not the Code requirements changed during current property owners' ownership of the property. For example, did the property owner purchase the property prior to adoption of the required setbacks. This standard is not intended to address whether or not the property owner reviewed Estes Valley Development Code to determine which regulations are applicable to his/her property. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor records, the property owner purchased the property on November 10, 2004 after the February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code and after the adoption of the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map in 2002. Since the Estes Valley Development Code is a public document, the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirements. If the property owner had purchased the property prior to implementation of these setbacks, staff would conclude that the purchase was without knowledge of the setbacks. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Other design options exist that could minimize the variance request. Below is a summary of a few design options. 1. The proposed setback from the front property line could be reduced. The closest portion of the house is proposed to be Page #9 mm Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court setback approximately fifty-two feet from the front property line. The minimum required setback is only fifteen feet. This greater setback moves the house closer towards the drainage. 2. The driveway could be redesigned. This driveway takes up a significant portion of the buildable area. 3. The deck proposed over the drainage could be removed/relocated. 4. The shape and/or size of the home could be redesigned, which would result in more options for siting the home on the lot. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding: The thirty-foot stream setback, which applies to the drainage running through this lot, is the same setback that applies to year-round streams such as Fish Creek and Black Canyon Creek. Staff is supportive of a Code revision that distinguishes between year-round streams and intermittent drainages, with reduced setbacks for intermittent drainages. However, staff is not supportive of eliminating setbacks for drainages altogether and permitting relocation/reconfiguration of those drainages. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: The variance would not reduce the size of the lot. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The variance does not represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. As noted above, other design options are available. Also as noted above, staff is supportive of significantly reduced setbacks on this property; however, staff is not Page #10 Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court supportive of the current proposal. Staff recommends redesign to minimize the variance requests. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The proposed use is permitted. 7. In granting this variance, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standards varied or modified. Staff Finding: If the Board chooses to approve this variance, staff has recommended a number of conditions of approval. S. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section IV of this staff report, are incorporated as staff findings. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested variance. If the Board chooses to recommend APPROVAL of the requested variance. Staff recommends that it be approved CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans, with the exception that the site plans shall be revised to: a. Accurately reflect the proposed building location. Per a conversation with Amy Plummer, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, on May 29, 2007, the field staking includes a slight shift in building alignment to better match the existing drainage swale and result in less grading than shown on Sheet A02. b. The house design shall be revised so that the no portion of the building encroaches into easements. Utility and water line easement encroachments shown. Significant modifications to design will require addition Board review. Page #1 1 — Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court c. Show all setbacks and show them accurately. This includes showing all property lines setbacks, i.e. the fifteen -foot, rather than thirty-foot front setback, and the fifteen -foot rear and ten -foot side setbacks. This also includes showing the thirty-foot stream setback measured from the defined edge of the bank rather than the thread of the drainage. 2. A Colorado registered engineer shall stamp the drainage report and site plan. 3. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation forms. After the footings are set, and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. 4. The plans submitted with the building permit application shall comply with the comments in Will Birchfield's memo to Alison Chilcott dated May 25, 2007. 5. The plans submitted with the building permit application shall comply with the comments in Greg Sievers' email to Alison Chilcott dated May 21, 2007. 6. Compliance with Mike Mangelsen's memo to Bob Goehring dated May 23, 2007. Public Works Department has the ability to waive any requirements that they determine are not applicable to this project. Page #12 - Stream Corridor Setback Variance Request for 675 Summerset Court To: Alison Chilcott, Planner II From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official Date: May 25, 2007 Subject: Elrod Proposed Residence Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision 675 Summerset Court The Department of Building Safety has reviewed the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment application for the above -referenced property and offers the following comments: 1. Foundation and site drainage to be designed, inspected and approved by a Colorado design professional. Page 1of1 Alison Chilcott From: Greg Sievers Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:10 AM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: Elrod residence I have a few preliminary comments on this Board of Adjustments request and the site plan provided: 1. due to the topographic issues presented on this site, they must provide a vicinity map. It should also provide info. on the adjacent property to the east; as the runoff may impact that lot. 2. label the separation in feet, between the main house and Master Bedroom. 3. show 'where' the drainage goes when it leaves this lot. 4. Must provide a cross section of the swale both under the house bridge and also under the deck. 5. the drainage report references 2 x 48" culverts where are they located? 6. site plan must show & label Summerset Court, the neighboring driveway, gate, old James McIntyre Drive, culverts and ditches. 7. Legend should include "see drainage report, page x " in reference to the "Engineered Swale Cross-section" (A thru H) 8. the drainage reports closes with a statement I don't understand: "its premature to carry the design further at this point"??? this items should be address prior to PW providing any further review. Greg Sievers Town of Estes Park Public Works Engineering P.O. Box 1200 (mail) 170 MacGregor Avenue (shipping) Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586 0 970-586-6909 f 970-227-0437 c sievers@estes.org http://www.estesnet.com/publicworks/Engineeringidefault.asm 5/21/2007 Memo To: Bob Goehring From: Mike Mangelsen Date: 05-23-07 Re: Elrod Proposed Residence, 675 Summerset Court, Variance Request The Light and Power Department has reviewed the Application for a Variance for the above referenced property and has the following comments: 1) The infra -structure to this lot does not exist. The developer needs to complete the process (see comments below) 2) Developer to install all trenches & conduits, all materials, truck hours and mileage will be purchased from & installed by Town of Estes Park. 3) No building permits will be approved by Light & Power until the entire Electric infrastructure has been paid for and installed. 4) We will in the future need accurate As-Builts in electronic, Mylar, and paper versions. 5) The submitted plan needs to show all existing utilities, type, and location. 6) Easements need to accompany new lot lines in new proposed locations. 7) Easements also need to accompany all existing primary electric lines and any secondary electric on others property. 8) The vacation of an easement is allowable if it is presently vacant with no chance of being occupied in the future. 9) Any relocation or upgrade of existing facilities will be accomplished at the project owners request and expense. 10) Each and every meter socket will need to be permanently marked with the specific address and or unit number prior to hook-up by the utility. 11)Ali easements pertaining to Power must remain intact. 12)AII primary electric must be buried 4' deep in a 4" conduit at r Int r lc To: Bob Goehring From: Jeff Boies Date: 5/22/2007 Re: Variance Request Trod Proposed Residence Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision 675 Summerset Court After review of the Variance Request the Water Department has no comments. North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street Loveland, Colorado 80538 _, GORY A. ITE Attorney at Law May 22, 2007 .ALISON CHILCOTT, PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 8051 " Board of Adjustment — Variance Request — Elrod Proposed Residence Dear Ms. Chilcott: I have no comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. V Truly Yours, a c.,JA, Greg. A. White GAW/ldr Thorp Associates, PC — Roger Thorp Fax: 970/586-4145 970/667-5310 Fax 970/667-2527 FROM :K2 ftwoommmommmm Appraisail Sv wateriord FAX N0. :9705665226 May. 18 2007 11:11AM P1 EEITH KEENAN R, ALPINE ANGLERS CHAPTER TROUT UNLIBEIMED 970-588-52116 Alison Chilcott, Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Re: Elrod Variance Request Dear Alison; As a member of one of the Affected Agencies, I am privileged to be able to review development proposals that may affect river corridors m our area. I received the package of docinnents regarding the Proposed Variance Request for the Elrod Property near the Fall River. I am assuming that the variance request to river setbacks however, the plat submitted. by Roger Thorpe Associates does not show the location of the Fall River. Also, it appears that Elummerset Court is a new spsubdivisitn because it does not show up on current loyal street maps at my disposal No area plat was included in the Thorpe Associates documentation,so I am not sure where the property is located. My request is that you require pertinent motion be included in documents submitted to your department. It would make analyses much easier for those oeua in the Affected Agencies if the Witted documentation for river corridor projects actually clearly showed the project location and the affected rher roe or and distances from. the high water mark to those project boundaries. I appreciate your attention to these details, and thank you for listening to my concerns. Page 1 of 1 Alison Chilcott From: Harris,Michaei [Michael.Harris@ColoState.EDUj Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:16 PM To: Alison Chilcott Subject: Elrod Variance Request Allison, Please communicate to the appropriate committee, commission, and/or board members that we support the variance requested by Mark and Rebecca Elrod. We own the property immediately adjacent to the site and regard the proposed dwelling as an asset to our neighborhood and to Estes Park. Michael R. and Carolyn A. Harris 670 Summerset Court Estes Park CO 80517 5/30/2007 April 25, 2007 Mark D. & Rebecca J. Elrod 277 Larimore Valley Drive Wildwood, MO 63005 Re: Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Statement of Intent Lot 6, Replat of Lot 1, Homestead Subdivision 675 Summerset Court, Estes Park, Colorado Parcel Number 35224-25-006 Gentlemen: We have been working very hard to make moving to Estes Park a part of our retirement plan. For many years during our vacations here we took time out to look for property upon which we could build our permanent retirement home. We found such a lot as identified and referenced above. The lot was within a subdivision created in 1991. The lot is zoned E. We fell in love with it. A five lot subdivision, with two vacant lots remaining upon which to build. At the time of purchase and closing October — November 2004 we were made aware of three recorded easements on the lot, through the title company. Two were water/sewer utility easements (October 1994 and May 2001) and one a waterline easement for adjacent land owners (October 1994). We were also aware of the Declaration of Protective Covenants as recorded in October of 1991. We noted a small drainage swale on the lot which would require some creativity in bridging it in designing and building our home. In addition, we have a number of significant 100+ year old Ponderosa Pine trees, and home placement on the lot with maximum preservation of the trees was our goal. Since this was going to be our retirement home we wanted to be able to enjoy single level living and avoid dealing with multiple levels in the event of future infirmities. With much hard work from our architect Roger Thorp, we came up with a design that had 3,530 square feet on the main level. We had a three bay garage with 912 square feet designed to tie into the main level. It was complemented with two patios, one on the north side of 130 square feet, and one on the south side measuring 800 square feet. After much time and effort in the design process, the Summerhill Property Owners Association through their Architectural Control Committee (ACC), approved our proposed building plans on March 13 f 1 In the process of moving forward in securing the necessary permits to construct our home, we were made aware that the swale which bisects our lot is on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map referenced in section 7.6 (D)(2) of the Estes Valley Development Code (Code). Further Code section 7.6 (E) (a) (1) requires that where defined banks are not readily discernable (as they are not on our lot) the setback is to be 30' from each side of the thread of the "stream". Code section 1.9 (D) (2) (a) further worsens our plight by providing that stream and river corridors "(s)etbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky ..." This in essence creates a 60' wide curtain which diagonally bisects the buildable potion of our lot from west to east. We are advised that without addressing these setback requirements our lot becomes unbuildable as our home has been designed, considering the recorded easements on the lot, the Declaration of Protective Covenants, topographic conditions of our lot, and the lot line zoning setbacks. Estes Valley Development Code provides: Section 3.6 VARIANCES A. Applicability. The BOA shall hear requests for variances where it is alleged that the provisions of the Code inflict unnecessary hardship and practical difficulties upon the Applicant. We can show with certainty that enforcement of the setbacks as required by the Code will in fact inflict unnecessary hardship and practical difficulties upon us as property owners and Applicant. At section 3.6(C) (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." The lot is an irregular cyclone shaped lot. The eastern and western lot lines triangulate into a narrow point at the southern tip of the lot. No other lot in the subdivision is so shaped. The lot carries a 20' utility easement running east to west roughly dividing the lot in half from north to south. No other lot in the subdivision carries a utility easement which divides a lot in half. • The lot's southern portion, south of the utility easement, is steep and is shown on the Town's Geologic Hazards map. It is therefore an inadequate building alternative. • The drainage swale runs roughly diagonally from east to west across that portion of the lot north of the utility easement. It does not appear that any other lot in the subdivision has such a drainage swale crossing it in a similar fashion. • The lot has very little level building area except that in and around the drainage swale. The other lots of the subdivision are relatively level, or have gentle slopes to Fall River. • There are many significant Ponderosa Pine trees on the lot which limits where a home could be constructed without major tree removal, or damage to the root systems, which would impact the character of the neighborhood. Three lots of the subdivision have been built and the one other vacant lot does not have so many trees which would limit placement. The variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes established for residential E zoned property of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. The Code provides at Section 1.3 and Section 7.6 the purposes and intent to be examined. Section 1.3 PURPOSE AND INTENT A. ... promote health, safety ... B. Protect residents from ... floodwaters C. Preserve and protect existing trees and vegetation ... riparian corridors ... from adverse impacts of development G. Encourage innovative residential development so that growing demand for housing may be met by greater variety in type, design and layout of dwellings, and by conservation and more efficient us of open areas ancillary to such dwellings K. Provide adequate building setbacks and height limitations Section 7.6 WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION "A. Purpose and Intent. The following requirements and standards are intended to promote, preserve and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river corridors, associated riparian area and wetland provide." • With the design of our home bridging the swale, and with engineered solution for our lot, the purposes and intent stated in Sections 1.3 and Section 7.6 would not be impaired by waiving the setback requirements of what amounts to a 60' wide ground to sky setback bisecting the buildable portion of our lot. • The property layout as designed is protected from floodwaters, and down stream lots are not any more at risk with the setback waiver. • The preservation of the existing historic trees and the riparian corridors are addressed with the placement of the home on the lot as designed and the engineered solution for the swale bed. • Encouragement of innovative residential development is addressed. The stream corridor is preserved and protected, and is at no greater risk than if no structure were built on the lot. • The promotion, preservation and enhancement of important hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river corridors, associated riparian area and wetland provide are hardly well served relative to the nature of the drainage swale ("stream") by enforcing the setback requirements. • When the reasons for the setbacks cease to exist, the requirements should cease to be applied. "Practical difficulty" is determined by following the Section 3.6 (C) 2 standards set out below for your review. The BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be anv beneficial use of the property without the variance. From what we are advised, without the waiver of the 60' wide setback completely, the lot is no longer buildable as designed. It would be impossible to build a 3,530 square foot single level structure on the lot, and still remain in character with the neighborhood. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Yes it is substantial, a complete waiver of the 60' wide ground to the sky setback requirements. However, none of the stated purposes and intent of the Code is violated as addressed above. When the reason for the setback ceases to exist, the enforcement of the setback should cease. No other building setbacks are encroached upon with our home as designed. 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. The subdivision was platted in 1991. There are five building lots. Three of the five have been built. It has always been anticipated that the remaining two lots, including our lot, would be built. The subdivision trustees have approved the design. Actually, the enforcement of the setback could have the reverse impact on the character of the neighborhood as it relates to the design of the home. As will be shown, the engineered on -grade swale is designed to handle MORE than the 100 year flood event. The home can be placed where it is shown and that it will be safe from a 100 year flood event. We are not changing the affect of the water downstream, and at the same time maintaining the environmental qualities of the site. There would be no adverse impact resulting from a waiver of the setback requirements. There is NO detriment to adjoining properties, substantial or otherwise by waiving the setback requirement. If our home site is forced to be on another area of our lot with a partial waiver of the setback requirement, it would result in the maximum destruction of the 4 significant Ponderosa Pine trees which is an important element of the character of the subdivision. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. No utility easement is impaired by the waiver of the setback requirements. There are no special utility needs for the home being designed for construction on our lot. The sewer tap is already paid. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. The setbacks did not show on the plat map which predates the Code, or on any title work accomplished. We had no knowledge that the swale on our lot was on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map, which is found at Appendix A of the Estes Valley Development Code (7.6[D][2]). We had no actual knowledge of the application of the setback requirements (7.6[E] [a] [ 1 ] 60'setback; 1.9[D] [2] [a] unobstructed from the ground to the sky) to our lot when we purchased it in 2004. f Whether,the A licant's redi can be IOU th son method other than a variance. The perplexing situation facing us is that there is no reason to enforce the setback requirements on the home as designed. We as the lot owners, and the adjacent property owners are not put in any better position by enforcing these setback requirements at all. The intent and purposes of the Code are not compromised by non -enforcement. It would seem that equity demands that the waiver be granted when the need, purposes and intent for the setbacks are no longer served by it. Section 3.6 (C) continues: 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation ral for ition do The variance is not general or recurrent in nature, but is site specific and constitutes a unique request. 4. No variance shall ted red e s c ed in 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. The granting of this variance will not increase in density or create the ability to create new lots. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The least deviation is the complete waiver of the setback requirement found in the Code at 7.6 (E)(a)(1), and further described in Code at 1.9(D)(2Xa) as unobstructed from the ground to the sky. We are not asking for permission to build directly on the swale, but to bridge the swale and engineer an on -grade solution to the nature of the swale's drainage purpose in the event of a 100 year flood. However when the two code sections are referenced together, we have no other option than to request a complete waiver. That is the least deviation which will afford relief to allow us to use the property as the Code intends. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA nt a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. The variance sought would not violate any of these concerns. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent jud 11,ent, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. We would find it acceptable that the complete waiver of the setback requirements be conditioned to building our home as designed and engineered. The swale is bridged at certain points on our building plans which would be the ground to the sky exception. The plans do have our home structure setback from the thread of the swale currently, and the engineered on -grade solution for the 100 year flood would provide the necessary protection for a "one hundred year" flood. The last thing we want to do is create a structure that is not safe for us or our down stream neighbors. Further the condition could require that no further waiver of the setback requirements are approved as it may relate to future building on the site. Adoption of the site drawing as a condition of the variance would satisfy future concerns. We would ask you, as citizens of Estes Park and Larimer County, to place yourselves in our situation. You purchase a lot of a subdivision platted in 1991. You are made aware of all recorded easements on the lot and find none troubling. There is a drainage swale on the lot which appears benign ... grasses, pinecones, and brushes populate the swale. There is no evidence of running or collected water in the swale. After working on your home design for two years you obtain approval of your plans from your subdivision ACC. You move forward in properly obtaining necessary approval and permits to build your retirement home. You are then advised that it appears that the swale on your lot is one which appears on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map, which is found at Appendix A of the Estes Valley Development Code. You take a look at that map. You have a hard time focusing on finding the swale on your lot. Once you locate your swale and see it is classified as a "stream", which automatically imposes a ground to the sky setback requirement, you realize that your home building plans as designed are now impossible. What would have been an acceptable design when the subdivision was platted in 1991 up and until the adoption of the Code in 2000 is now no longer viable. The adoption of the Code which references the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map and then imposes new setback requirements which were not in existence when the lot was platted has now caused the problem you are facing. After being frustrated with the news of your swale being a "stream" on some obscure map referenced in the Code you then think, well it is about safety. You want to make certain your safety and those of adjacent lot owners are not compromised by building on the lot. You consult with your architect and you hire an engineer to review the situation. 6 Safety being of utmost importance, you ask if the swale can be engineered to an on -grade swale to withstand a 100 year flood event. You are advised it can be. You are advised by your architect that minor modifications to the original design of your home can be made, and incorporating the engineered swale you can safely build. You then still find it necessary to file an application with the Board of Adjustment to request the waiver of the "stream" setback requirements. There you have it. Thank you for your consideration in putting yourselves in our shoes, and assisting us in dealing with our dilemma. Sincerely yours, Lb-cLS Mark D. Elrod Rebecca J. Elrod 7 `it LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING DATE: March 20, 2007 TO: Whom it May Concern FROM: John A. Spooner, P.E. RE: Hydrology/Hydraulics Analysis Elrod Proposed Variance Request I have been asked by Thorp and Associates to evaluate the runoff and proposed conveyance system to carry storm flow past the proposed residence. I visited the site and have conducted the necessary computations to determine the runoff peak flow rates and a potential conveyance system to carry those flows past the house. The swale is shown on the USGS topographic map as a dashed blue line, indicating an intermittent stream. The Swale is broad and shallow and shows no evidence of any runoff activity. It is lined with native mountain grasses, has forest litter in the bottom and shows no evidence of any high water marks or stream banks. The watershed was determined (see attached Figure) as 195 acres. It is steep, with a slope of about 25 percent. Ground cover consists mainly of mountain grasses and trees. Runoff calculations were done using the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District procedures (per Larimer County requirements). The 2-year return period flow is about 5 cubic feet per second (cfs), the 10-year about 64 cfs and the 100-year about 236 cfs (see attached). The 100-year flow of 236 cfs was used to size a pipe conveyance system past the proposed residence. Two 48-inch diameter pipes about 120 feet long would be required. These pipes will require a headwall type inlet structure and an energy dissipating type outlet structure. It is premature to carry the design further at this point. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • Fax 970-586-8101 • VHE@Airbits.com ESTES PARK QUADRANGLE . USGS, 1961 1003 LONGS PEAK QUADRANGLE USGS, 1961 DRAWN CML DATE 03-14-07 VAN HOR ENGINEERING )1•3 Fish Creek Road— Estes Park, CO 805 Pi ..no: (970) 586-9388 — Fax: (970) 586-6 . SCALE PROJ. NO. 1 --1 000' 2007 CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD 7 Protect Title: ELROD FLOOD DERERMINATION Catchment ID: ' ;; LOT6, REPLAT OF LOT 1, HOMESTEAD S. D. I. Catchment Hydrologic Data Catchment ID = Total Area = 195:00 Acres Percent Imperviousness = 0.00 % NRCS Soil Type = B A, B, C, or D For catchments larger than 90 acres, CUHP hydrograph and routing are recommended. II. Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = Cl • P1 /(C2 + Td)AC3 Design Storm Retum Period, Tr = 2 years (input return period for design storm) C1 = 28.50 (input the value ofC1) C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2) C3= 0:786 (input the value of C3) Pl= 0.82 inches (input one-hr precipitation --see Sheet "Design Info") III. Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment Runoff Coefficient, C = " -012 Overide Runoff Coefficient, C = (enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.) 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 1108 Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C = (enter an overtde C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.) Illustration LEG NU Q Begimttng Flaw Direction Catchment Bovada y NRCS Land Type Heavy Meadow Tillage/ Field Short Pasture/ Lawns Nearly Bare Ground Grassed Swales/ Waterways Paved Areas 8 Shallow Paved Swales (Sheet Flow) L Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15 20 Calculations: Reach ID Overland Slope S tuft Input • 0:3200 Length L ft Input 1,000 5-yr Runoff Coeff C-5 output moos NRCS Convey- ance input Flow Velocity V fps output 0 89 Flow Time Tf minutes output 0.2300. 2,600 2 3 Sum 3,600. IV. Peak Runoff Prediction Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I = 1.25.;inch/hr Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I = ; "( 1'.29 inch/hr Rainfall Intensity at User -Defined Tc, I = inch/hr 7,00 .12.91 Computed Tc = Regional Tc = User -Entered Tc = 31,56 30:00""' 30.00 Peak Flowrate, Qp = r4.87 cfs Peak Flowrate, Op = � _:'502, cfs Peak Flowrate, Qp = 5.02 cfs UD-Rational v1.02a.xls, Tc and PeakQ 3/20/2007, 1'14 PM CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD I Project Title: Catchment ID: I, Catchment Hydrologic Data ELROD, FLOOD DERERMINATION LOT6, REPLAT OF LOT 1, HOMESTEAD S. D. Catchment ID = Total Area = 195.00 Acres Percent Imperviousness = 0.00 % NRCS Soil Type = BA, B, C, or D For catchments larger than 90 acres, CUHP hydrograph and routing are recommended. II. Rainfall Information I (Inchlhr) = C1* P1 l(C2 + Td)AC3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm) C1 = 28.50 (input the value of C1) C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2) C3= 0.786 (input the value of C3) P1 1.39 inches (input one-hr precipitation --see Sheet "Design Info") III. Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment Runoff Coefficient, C = 0,15 Overide Runoff Coefficient, C = (enter an overide C value if desired, or (leave blank to accept calculated C.) 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0,08 Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C = (enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.) Illustration LEGEND Beginning Flaw Direction E—�— Catchment Bouudazy NRCS Land Type Heavy Meadow Tillage/ Field Short Pasture/ Lawns Nearly Bare Ground Grassed Swatesl Waterways Paved Areas & Shallow Paved Swales (Sheet Flow) ' Conveyance 2.5 L 5 7 10 I 15 20 Calculiations: Reach ID Overland Slope S IUR Input 0.3200 0,2300 Length L ft Input 1;00.0 2„600 3 5 Sum 3,600 IV. Peak Runoff Prediction Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc,1= 212 iMrchlhr Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, 1= ` 218inchthr Rainfall intensity at User -Defined Tc, I = 2,18 Jinch/hr 5-yr Runoff Coeff C-5 output 0;08 NRCS Convey- ance input N/A 7.00 Flow Velocity V fps output 0.89 '3.36 Flow Time Tf minutes output 18.65 '.12.91' Computed Tc Regional Tc = User -Entered Tc = 31.56 30.00 Peak Flowrate, Qp =_ _ 61:90 cfs Peak Fiowrate, Qp = 63:79. cfs Peak Flowrate, Qp = 63:79 cfs UD-Rational v1.02a.xls, Tc and PeakQ 3120/2007, 1:14 PM CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD Project Title: Catchment ID: 1. Catchment Hydrologic Data ELROD FLOOD DERERMINATION LOT6, REPLAT OF LOT 1,.HOMESTEAD S. D. Catchment ID = Total Area = t95.00 Acres Percent Imperviousness = 0.00 % NRCS Soil Type = B A, B, C, or D For catchments larger than 90 acres, CUHP hydrograph and routing are recommended. 11. Rainfall Information 1(inch/hr) = C1 • P1 1(C2 + Td)AC3 Design Storm Retum Period, Tr = ' 100 years (input return period for design storm) Cl = 28.50 (input the value of C1) C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2) C3.4 '0.786' (input the value of C3) P1= 2.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation -see Sheet "Design Info") III. Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment Runoff Coefficient, C = ""0.35 Overide Runoff Coefficient, Cr(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.) 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C 5;_ 6103 Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C = (enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.) Illustration NRCS Land Type J Conveyance Calculations: Heavy Meadow 2.5 Tillage/ Field II 5 1 Short Pasture/ Lawns 7 Nearly Bare 1 Ground Grassed Swales/ Waterways 10 it 15 r Paved Areas & Shallow Paved Swales (Sheet Flow) 20 Reach ID Overland 1 Slope S ft/ft input 0.3200 0.2300 Length L ft input 1,000 2,600 2 3 4 Sum 3,600 IV. Peak Runoff Prediction Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, 1 = 3 35, inch/hr Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I = 3:45 inchlltr Rainfall Intensity at User -Defined Tc, I 4 inch hr UD-Rational v1.02a.xls, Tc and PeakQ 5-yr Runoff Coeff C-5 output 0.08 NRCS Convey- ance input N/A 7.00 Flow Velocity V fps output 0.89 3.36 Flow Time Tf minutes output 1865, 12.91 Computed Tc = Regional Tc = User -Entered Tc = 31.56 30.00= 30.00 Peak Flowrate, Qp = - , 228.61 cfs Peak Flowrate, Qp = 235.59. cfs Peak Flowrate, Qp = 23559 cfs 3/20/2007, 1:12 PM NORTH AMERICAN GREEN EROSION (7.0NTIIOL Produscio 1044ortstrieed SOLUTIONS 114840 HIGHWAY 41 NORTH EV110NsVE(A.E. IMI 47725 800-772-2040 wwwrliNAio.1fAN11'.com r (1e CHANNEL INSTAINSTALLATION -- i/, :.1 1. PREPARE SO,L BEFORE RN81ALUIiNO ROLLED EROSION 1ON NNIIOL N GP A1NY AP91WCA1 Or LINE. IFERTLIZER, AND NOTE: 'SHEN NSINO DELL-0-SEED CO NOT SEED PRIMMM Ate. CIB IL YSN MEIN RIPER SIDE DOWN. IDOENOED SETOFFS THE UP -SLOPE PORTION OF THE Most ANCHOR lc i A TRESICH INRYI - . ray 1r (30051,0114 Fifa'', BAix OVEN MO AND SOL SECURE PEW* ovER ooleASCIED SOR., WM A IRO" DF sTAPLEWSTAKES gum) ApPRo AGROSFE iiit SIMI Or THE CF141E1 RtcP's IN maw OF *Arm iE vor iiN BOTTOM or COMM_ IMPA FELL UNROLL ERN APPROPRIATE SIDE AOAONSNT THE SOIL Siam& Al "A, MUST RE SECURELY rippler, TO SOIL 15,11FACE 8Y PLACRNO x M E' IN APPROPRIATE LOCATNOONs As SINTAN IN THE SEAPIR PATTERN OkACE, Imo THE DOT MEN , sT SNNONR.O BE • EAWO * -. S�• M Or TFRL mono Erns 00 TO NE APPK0POMATE STAPLE PATTERN. 4. ' Th WI ENO MO END S MTNA*(1 0 CAN -15 CM) WSW. USE A DOUBLE IRON' OF !STAPLES '81' r^ra-aau1 q" (u0 C'LN, ON corm �• t AT TOP OF SIOE SLOPES MUSH' IBE ANCHORED 'NTTNN A ROW OF SINR S/$TAKES APPR0101JUATELY 12" (30 APART IN A 4" (118 N f1� Mel DEEP x N E3 1 TRENCH. BWVKKPILL AND CYSWAC1r THE TRENCNN ATT!ER supusa 8, rair ttir Mr. MUST RE OVERLAPPED APPRONNAT>}71;+r' T' — 4" (E (54 -12.3 'CM) (01EPINDING 0NI ii cre repo AMio STAKED. 7.stroonow IN HAI MOST A 10 DMI AND (10CENTER WON *Or THE CHAN3.0 To T NEl FOOT (R IAtl S MI) USE A NE01MN ,OF S1 API ES I+,, TINE MOM&ENTO OF THE POOP'. MUST' BE ANCHORED 'WITH A ROW Or STAPLES/PAM APPROXIMATELT 12' (30 CM) APART OM A 5" (15 CAI) DEEP x'. 5"' (15 CI) I COE MOM. INCIEFEL AND 1COMPAOT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPUNC.. NNOTC *' IN LOOSE 502, 00M'OETRINS. THE DOSE OF STAR OR S' AE LEONIi143 ORNfATER THAN NO" (13 C4 VAT BE MIECESSAAY TO PROPERLY AWCOOOR THE PEE7 & - 1e.15 C110 • REV. 01105 STAPLE PATTERN GUIDE 6.67' (2.03 M) WIDE ROLLS NORTH AMEICAN GREEN EROSION CONTROL Products Guaranteed SOLUTIONS 14649 HIGHWAY 41 NORTH EVANSVILLE. IN 47725 800-772-2040 www.nagreen.com 0.7 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (0.8 STAPLES PER SQ. M) 1.15 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (1.35 STAPLES PER SQ. M) O 3.3' (1.0m) 3.4 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (4.1 STAPLES PER SQ. M) 3.3' (1.0m) © 1.7 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (2.0 STAPLES PER SQ. M) 1.6' (0.5m) 3.3' (1.0m) 10* (0.25m) 3.3' (1.0m) 3.75 STAPLES PER SO. YD. (4.5 STAPLES PER SQ. M) REV. 01/05 JOB NAME: A: � p VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEMG 1043 Fish Creek Road — Este: Pork, CO 80517 586..,,.93 8 Fax: (970) 586 81 O' --- vhe airbit; .cam JOB NO.: SHEET OF'. Br II 'jI !I'I IId III I it -I ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: April 25, 2007 :`.`.'"iC"f6'NI 16IttiC"V PiTtA'6' Ctt Record Owner(s): Mark D. & Rebecca J. Elrod Street Address of Lot: 675 Summerset Court Legal Description Lot: 6 Block: Subdivision: Re lat of Lot 1 Homestead Subdivision Parcel ID # 3`22 _2 - Section Township MA Y001 Tract: Ran Lot Size .9748 Acres Zoning Estate-E Existing Land Use Undevelo ed Proposed Land Use Sin': 1. e , mil „ Residence Existing Water Service r Town '°" Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service I Town i' w. Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service '" EPSD g UTSD I° Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service I .. EPSD TX UTSD I„ Septic Existing Gas Service [X Xcel i""" Other' None Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes -rsections s deance sirrededSSectioopment ccide ti 1.9.D. L.aa,, Bu u. n 7� Preservation of Vegetation. :a r k a"rM ri r No #A #,:Variance from the followin Develo'r went Co �;';rghibitedctivities. Sect lop .7.6.G. Name of Primary Contact Person Ito ger M. Thor Architect, Thor Associates PC Mailing Address PO Box 29, Estes Par , CO - I' • • • Application fee (see attached fee schedule) EX 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') flit 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") jC 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 -e, P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue .. Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 .es Fax: (970) 586-0249 .. www.estesnet.com/ComDev Contact Information Primary Contact Person is I "°` Owner Ef Applicant V Consultant/Engineer Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Mark D & Rebecca J. Elrod 277 Larimore Valley Drive, Wildwood, MO 63005.4014 636.537.8534 314.58 0.784 8 6.36.530.0260 hellomark@hughes .net Roger N. Thorp. Architect, Thorp Associates PC PO Box 129. Estes Park. CO 80517 970.586.9528 970:679. 7811 970.586.4145 roger@thorpassoc.com Consultant/Engineer John Spooner, PE, Van Horn Engineering Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Rd, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone 970.586.9388 x 15 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 onlline at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningAppiicationFeeSchedule.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 thepropertr-°-mm° -- ► In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. (The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at www.estesnet.com/ComDev/DevCode.) ► I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. ► I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. ► The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. • 1 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. 0. 1 acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming NULL and VOID. 1 understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. ► I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. • 1 understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "Failure of an 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: N1ar k 1 . C t co4 la•As ecc o, 3. El roe( Applicant PLEASE PRINT: Roger M. Thorp, AIA, Architect of Record Signatures: Record Owner Applican Thorp Associates, PC, Architects and Planners NAIL Date R t)RlL 2J , 2007 •• '�. Date 4p-/ 1 a a t07- Revised 10/13/06 General Provisions § 1.9 Rules of Measurement angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in this Section. See Figure 1-2. b. Features Allowed Within Building Setbacks: (1) Cornices, canopies, eaves or other similar architectural features, provided they extend no more than three (3) feet into a required setback or yard; (2) Driveways and sidewalks, provided that the edge of a driveway shall be set back at least three (3) feet from an adjacent property line unless owners of abutting properties agree in writing that the edge may be closer to or abut their common property line; (3) Fences or walls subject to height and other restrictions set forth in this Code; (4) Patios and decks, uncovered and at -grade, provided they do not extend more than thirty percent (30%) of the required setback distance to any required setback. See Figure 1-2; (5) Steps to the principal entrance and necessary landings, together with railings, that comply with the Uniform Building Code, provided they do not extend more than six (6) feet into the required setback; Landscaping; Trees, vegetation or other features of natural growth; and Utility lines, wires and associated structures within a utility easement. Signs that comply with applicable sign regulations. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Postal boxes. (Ord. 8-05 #1) Parking lots that comply with landscaping standards set forth in §7.5.G, "Parking Lot Landscaping." (Ord. 8-05 #1) c. Front Setbacks on Comer Lots and Double -Frontage Lots: For comer lots and double -frontage lots, all sides of the lot with street frontage shall be required to establish the applicable front yard setback. See Figure 1-2. (Ord. 8-05 #1) d. Intersection and driveway sight visibility: Intersection and driveway sight visibility shall comply with the requirements of Appendix D, Section IV.0 (Intersection and Driveway Visibility). (Ord. 18-01 #1) Development Setbacks from River and Stream Corridors and Wetlands. a. Stream and River Corridors. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated stream or river corridor, as set forth in §7.6.D.2, and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in §7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1-2. b. Wetlands. Development setbacks shall be measured as the distance between the delineated wetland edge, as set forth in §7.6.D.3, and the furthermost projection of a building or structure along a line at right angles to the setback line. Setbacks shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except as otherwise specifically allowed in §7.6.D of this Code. See Figure 1-2. Supp. 6 1.6 General Development Standaro § 7.5 Landscaping and Buffers J. Maintenance Requirements. 1. Maintenance Required. Required landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy, growing condition at all times. The property owner is responsible for regular irrigating, pruning, weeding, mowing, fertilizing, replacement of plants in poor condition and other maintenance of all plantings as needed. 2. Maintenance of Landscape Structures. Where walls, fences or other structures are an integral part of the landscape plan, such structures shall be maintained in good repair. Fences that are leaning, broken, have missing pieces, peeling paint or are in any other way damaged shall be immediately repaired or replaced. Walls with missing bricks or blocks, crumbling mortar or other aesthetic or structural defects shall be immediately repaired. 3. Replacement. The following plant material conditions require plant removal and replacement: a. Deciduous trees and shrubs that fail to produce leaves on more than fifty percent (50%) of the plant by July 1st of the calendar year. b. Evergreen trees and shrubs with needle loss or browning over more than fifty percent (50%) of the tree. c. Damaged plant materials that have split trunks, Toss of major branch structure, loss of leader shoot or other damage that a certified nurseryman confirms will ultimately cause the premature death of the plant. d. Diseased, insect -infested or parasite -infested plants that cannot be adequately treated to prevent premature death or to prevent contamination of other plant materials. e. Removal and replacement shall occur during the same growing season in which plant material exhibits at least one (1) of the above conditions. Where seasonal or adverse weather conditions make replanting or replacement within such a time period impractical, Staff may grant an extension and may require adequate fiscal assurance, if needed, from the Applicant or owner to assure replacement. (Ord. 8-05 #1) 4. Enforcement. All plantings shall be subject to periodic inspections to ensure compliance with this regulation and the approved landscape plan. Failure to comply with the Maintenance Plan shall be a violation of this Code, subject to the enforcement and penalties provisions set forth in Chapter 12. (Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05) § 7.6 WETLANDS AND STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION A. Purpose and Intent. The following requirements and standards are intended to promote, preserve and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river corridors, associated riparian areas and wetlands provide. Supp. 6 7.27 General Development Standards § 7.6 Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection B. Applicability. This Section shall apply to all new development, except for the following development or activities: 1. Agricultural activities such as soil preparation, irrigation, planting, harvesting, grazing and farm ponds; 2. Maintenance and repair of existing public roads, utilities and other public facilities within an existing right-of-way or easement; 3. Removal of noxious weeds; 4. Maintenance and repair of flood control structures and activities in response to a flood emergency; and 5. Wetland and wildlife habitat restoration, creation and/or enhancement that improves the wetland function provided that the proposed activity is approved by the appropriate agency such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Colorado Division of Wildlife. (Ord. 2-02 #5) C. Other Regulations. 1. This Section does not repeal or supersede any existing federal, state or local laws, easements, covenants or deed restrictions. When this Section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard than found in another applicable ordinance, statute or regulation, this Section shall apply. 2. No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, drain, fill, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within a wetland that falls in the jurisdiction of the federal government and its agencies, except as may be expressly allowed under applicable federal laws or regulations. (Ord. 8-05 #1) D. Boundary Delineation. 1. Qualified Professional. Stream/river corridor and wetland area delineation shall be performed by a qualified professional that has demonstrated experience necessary to conduct site analysis. Delineations shall be subject to Staffs approval. 2. Stream and River Corridor Boundaries. Stream and river condors shall be delineated at the annual high-water mark, or if not readily discernible, the defined bank of the stream or river, as those terms are defined in Chapter 13 of this Code. Regulated stream and river corridors shall include only those streams and rivers as identified on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map found in Appendix A. The rivers delineated on the Stream and River Corridor Resource Map are the Big Thompson and Fall River. Streams delineated on the Map include various named and unnamed streams and minor drainages, some of which are intermittent. (Ord. 2-02 #5) 3. Wetland Boundaries. a. Maimed Wetlands. Boundary delineation of wetlands shall be established by reference to one (1) of the following wetland maps and identification documents, which are available for reference in the Town of Estes Park Community Development Department and which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this Code: Supp. 6 7.28 General Development Standards § 7.6 Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection (1) National Wetlands Inventory prepared by the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; and (2) Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps. b, Unmapped Wetlands. The review of a development proposal may discover a potential wetland that has not been mapped or for which the boundaries have not been clearly established. In such instances, the Applicant shall retain a qualified wetland expert to delineate the boundaries of the wetland according to accepted professional standards. E. Buffer/Setback Areas. 1. Stream or River Corridors. a. Buildina/Structure Setbacks. (1) Stream Corridors (except in the CD zoning district). All buildings and accessory structures shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet horizontally (plan view) from the annual high-water mark of stream corridors, or if not readily discernible, from the defined bank of the stream. Where defined banks are not readily discernible, the setback shall be measured from the thread of the stream. See Figure 7-10. (Ord. 2-02 #5) Supp. 6 7-28a General Development Standa!L... § 7.6 Wet,.,,., , and Stream Corridor Protection b. Parking Lot Setbacks. Except in the CD zoning district, parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) 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. In the CD district, parking lots shall be set back at least twelve (12) feet from the delineated edge of the river or stream corridor. 2. Wetlands. a. To the maximum extent feasible, wetlands shall not be included as part of a platted development lot. b. All buildings, accessory structures and parking lots shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet horizontally (plan view) from the delineated edge of a wetland. See Figure 7-10 above. Development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the adoption of this Code shall be exempt. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 18-02 #1) 3. Private Open Areas and Landscaping Credit. Ali stream corridor and wetland setback areas shall be credited toward any relevant private open areas requirements or landscaping and buffer requirements. F. Development Standards. 1. Prohibited Activities. No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stream or river corridors, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas, except as may be expressly allowed in this Section or Code. 2. Utilities. Utilities may be allowed in a buffer/setback area only if the Decision -Making Body determines that there is no practical alternative. Any disturbance of the buffer area shall be reclaimed by regrading and revegetation. Provisions for reclamation of the disturbed area shall be included in any development or improvements agreement for the project, with adequate collateral to guarantee that the reclamation will be completed. Utility corridors in buffer/setback areas shall be located at the outside edge of the area and access roads for maintenance of utilities shall be located outside the buffer/setback area. Access for maintenance of utilities in buffer/setback areas should be at specific points rather than parallel to the utility corridor. 3. Recreation, Education or Scientific Activities. Structures and improvements for recreational, educational or scientific activities such as trails, fishing access and wildlife management and viewing may be permitted in a buffer/setback area provided that a management plan that establishes long-term protection of the buffer/setback area is submitted and approved. ••••÷G. Preservation of Vegetation. All existing vegetation within the stream/river corridor or wetland buffer/setback area shall be preserved, and where necessary to provide adequate screening or to repair damaged riparian areas, supplemented with additional native planting and landscaping. H. Wetland Mitigation Requirements, 1. Restoration shall be required according to an approved wetland mitigation plan when a wetland or its buffer is altered in violation of law or without specific permission or approval by the Decision -Making Body. Supp. 4 T_30 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography STREAM/R1VER - A body of flowing water. ATTRIBUTE/ATTRIBUTE VALUE LIST Elevation The vertical distance from a given datum (Integer Value) Minimum Value: 1289 Maximum Value: 29030 Precision: 0 Length: 5 Increment: 1 Units: feet Stage Height of water surface Normal Pool Not Applicable Hydrographic Category Intermittent Perennial Photorevision Category Not Photorevised Photorevised EIII The stage of an artificially impounded water body that prevails for the greater part of the year The attribute does not apply and therefore cannot be valued Portion of the year the feature contains water Contains water for only part of the year, but more than just after rainstorms and at snowmelt Contains water throughout the year, except for infrequent periods of severe drought Whether or not a feature was added or modified as part of a photorevision assignment Feature was compiled from aerial photographs and other sources as part of a revision assignment that included field checks, if required Feature was compiled from aerial photographs and other sources as part of a revision assignment that did not include field checks Positional Accuracy The accuracy within which a feature can be confidently positioned Definite Conditions pennit the feature to be confidently positioned. Horizontal data are confidently positioned within 0.02", at map scale, of the true ground position. Vertical data are 4/96 Version 1.0 2-231 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography STREAM/RIVER Indefinite confidently positioned within one-half contour interval of the true ground position Conditions prevent the feature from being confidently positioned. Horizontal data cannot be confidently positioned within 0.02", at map scale, of the true ground position. Vertical data cannot be confidently positioned within one-half contour interval of the true ground position Not Applicable The attribute does not apply and therefore cannot be valued DELINEATION The limit of a perennial STREAM/RIVER is the position of the shoreline when the water is at the stage that prevails for the greater part of the year. The limit of an intermittent STREAM/RIVER is the position of the shoreline when the water is at the stage that prevails when the feature is at or near capacity. The upper limit of STREAM/RIVER is where the feature first becomes evident as a channel. The limit of STREAM/RIVER where it enters or leaves LAKE/POND is determined by the conformation of the land. The limit of STREAM/RIVER where it enters SEA/OCEAN is where the conformation of the land and water make the division obvious, or, if the land and water do not suggest an obvious limit, the limit is where the stream reaches a width of 1 nautical mile (6076.1 feet or 1.15 statute miles) with no further constrictions. The limit of STREAM/RIVER where it enters ESTUARY is where ESTUARY ends. Version 1.0 2-232 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography REPRESENTATION RULES Feature Object Representation, Composition, and Relationship Table ST A IVER RELATIONSHIPS INSTANcs..S (CARDINALITY) WITH OBJECT Connects To CONNECTOR JUNCTION Flows To CONNECTOR JUNCTION Is Above UNDERPASS Representation Conditions KIND OF FEATURE OBJECT AREA SHORTEST LONGEST 0-dimensions] 1-dimensional <0.025" 2-dimensional a 0.025" Special Conditions: To accommodate variations in the shortest axis of STREAM/RIVER: If shortest axis of STREAM/RIVER is: < 0.025" but x 0.01" for a distance < 2.64", and is connected at both ends to a 2-dimensional STREAM/RIVER, Then STREAM/RIVER is represented as a 2-dimensional basic feature object. <0.025" but a 0.01" for a distance x 2.64", or < 0.01" regardless of distance, and is connected at both ends to a 2-dimensional STREAM/RIVER, Then STREAM/RIVER is represented as a 1-dimensional basic feature object. 0.025" but < 0.04" for a distance < 2.64", and is connected at both ends to a 1-dimensional STREAM/RIVER, Then STREAM/RIVER is represented as a 1-dimensional basic feature object. a 0.025" but < 0.04" for a distance a 2.64", or a 0.04" regardless of distance, and is connected at both ends to a 1-dimensional STREAM/RIVER, Then STREAM/RIVER is represented as a 2-dimensional basic feature object. Version 1.0 2-233 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrogtaphy ST ' °IVER DATA EXTRACTION Capture Conditions If STREAM/RIVER flows from LAKE/PONT) or SPRING/SEEP, Or If STREAM/RIVER is x 1.25" along the longest axis, Or If STREAM/RIVER is perennial and is in an arid region, Then capture. Attribute Informalioll If the water level of STREAM/RIVER is controlled for navigation by DAM/WEIR or GATE with Gate Type = Lock, Then Elevation = (Integer Value), Else Elevation = Not Applicable. If STREAM/RIVER coincides with LOCK CHAMBER, Then Elevation = Not Applicable. If STREAM/RIVER is represented as a 2-dimensional basic feature object, Then Positional Accuracy = Not Applicable. Source Interpretation Guidelines All 4/96 If STREAM/RIVER is part of WATERCOURSE, Then collect a name with WATERCOURSE. See Appendix 2A for location of arid regions. In and areas it is difficult to distinguish between narrow intermittent and ephemeral drains and no distinction will be made. All drainages < 0.025" are collected as 1-dimensional intermittent streams. Thin drainage in arid areas to appropriately represent the "wetness" of the area. Rules for thinning intermittent streams in arid areas will be documented as more information becomes available. If STREAM/RIVER intersects the quadrangle boundary and an overedge source is not available to aid in determining length, Then capture STREAM/RIVER, regardless of length. If a portion of STREAM/RIVER flows through SWAMP/MARSH, Then select the appropriate Hydrographic Category according to the definitions given. Do not capture areal dry washes, arroyos, dry gulches and ephemeral streams as STREAM/RIVER. Version 1.0 2-234 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography STREAM/RIVER See WASH. The minimum size for islands within STREAM/RIVER is 0.03" along the shortest axis. If a stream flows in a braided pattern, Then see AREA OF COMPLEX CHANNELS. Graphic If STREAM/RIVER flows from SPRING/SEEP, Then capture STREAM/RIVER starting at the center of SPRING/SEEP symbol. Revision - General If the headwaters of STREAM/RIVER are closer than 0.5" from a saddle or divide, Then capture STREAM/RIVER starting 0.5" from the saddle or divide. If image shows lower than average water level, Then capture STREAM/RIVER at a normal pool or average water level by using ancillary sources or evidence of water marks on images. If image shows lower than average water level and the average water elevation or normal pool elevation cannot be determined, Then capture STREAM/RIVER at the visible edge of the water body. If image shows higher than average water level, Then capture STREAM/RIVER at a normal pool or average water level by using ancillary sources. If image shows higher than average water level and the average water elevation or normal pool elevation cannot be determined, Then capture STREAM/RIVER at the visible edge of the water body. Revision - Standard Revision - Limited Do not add new features. Modify existing features only if there are obvious changes in the stream channel. Use ancillary source if Elevation is required. Value Hydrographic Category by looking at the surrounding drainage. Version 1.0 2-235 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography STREAM/RIVER DATA EXTRACTION OR PRODUCT GENERATION at 1:24,000 scale Inclusion Conditions All required Generalization PRODUCT GENERATION at 1:24,000 scale Symbolization Attribute Value Hydrographic Category Perennial Line Color: Slue Positional Accuracy Definite Lineweight: 0.008" Symbol#: STREAM_RIVER_.001 Dimension: 1 Symbol Specs Type Specs N/A Symbol#. STREAM_R1VER_LA02 Dimension: 1 Attribute Value Symbol Specs Type Specs Hydrographic Category Perennial Dashed Lane N/A Colon Blue Positional Accuracy Indefinite Lineweight: 0.008" Dash Length: 0.07" Dash Spacing: 0.02" 4/96 2-236 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography STREAM/RIVER Symbol#. STREAM_RI VER_L003 Dimension: 1 Attribute Value Symbol Specs Type Specs Hydrographic Category Intermittent Line Color. Blue Positional Accuracy Definite Lineweight: 0.004" N/A Symbol#: STREAM_tIVER_LA04 Dimension: 1 Attribute Value Symbol Specs Type Specs Hydrographic Category Intermittent Dashed Line N/A Coor: Bue Positional Accuracy Indefinite Lineweight: 0.004" Dash Length: 0.07" Dash Spacing: 0.02" Symbol#: STREAM_RIVER_A001 Dimension: 2 Attribute Value Symbol Specs Type Specs Elevation (Integer) Area Fill Elevation and Label: Co� oue Color. Blue Hydrographic Category Perennial Screen: 8%, 120-line Style: UI CAPS at 105 Size: 5 Spacing: 0 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography STREAM/RIVER Symbol#: SfREAM_tIVER_1002 Dimension: 2 Attribute Value Symbol Specs Type Specs Elevation Not Applicable Area Fill N/A Colon Blue Hydrographic Category Perennial Screen: 8%, 120-line at 105' Symbol#: STREAM_RIVER_A003 Dimension: 2 Attribute Value Symbol Specs Type Specs Hydrographic Category Intermittent Area Fill N/A CoT Blue Pattern: USGS 17 Conflict Detection and Resolution Conflict detection and resolution rules are being developed. Additions and modifications to the rule set will continue until all features are completed. Names and Labels Selection and placement rules are being developed. Additions and modifications to the rule set will continue until all features are completed. Selection TBD Placement TBD EXAMPI .F,C Douglas North, GA (Indefinite STREAM/RIVER in swamp) Ennis Lake, MT (Fletcher Channel) Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography WASH WASH - The usually dry portion of a stream bed that contains water only during or after a local rainstorm or heavy snowmelt. ATTRIBUTE/ATTRIBUTE VALUE LIST Name Proper name, specific term, or expression (Alphanumeric) Length Value: 99 Unspecified The value is not known and is not required Photorevision Category Whether or not a feature was added or modified as part of a photorevision assignment Not Photorevised Photorevised Feature was compiled from aerial photographs and other sources as part of a revision assignment that included field checks, if required Feature was compiled from aerial photographs and other sources as part of a revision assignment that did not include field checks DELINEATION The limit of WASH is the cut banks of the dry channel. REPRESENTATION RULES Feature Object Representation, Composition, and Relationship Table RELATIONSHIPS INSTANCES (CARDINALITY) WITH OBJECT Representation Conditions KIND OF FEATURE OBJECT AREA SHORTEST LONGEST 0-dimensional 1-dimensional 2-dimension! a 0 Special Conditions: Version 1.0 2-265 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography DATA EXTRACTION Capture Conditions WASH If WASH is > 0.025" along the shortest axis, and is "> 1,25" along the longest axis, and is greater than or equal to two times the width of any STREAM/RIVER within the WASH, and is in an arid region, Then capture. Attribute Information Source Interpretation Guidelines All Capture the stream bed portion of the channel that contains water more than just during or after local rainstorms or heavy snowmelt as STREAM/RIVER. If WASH is captured, Then also capture BARREN LAND (Nonvegetative Surface Cover Theme), If WASH contains STREAM/RIVER, Then capture both. Sand areas that do not meet capture conditions for WASH and which are associated with STREAM/RIVER may be considered for capture as just the feature BARREN LAND. (Nonvegetative Surface Cover theme) If WASH is < 0.025" along the shortest axis, Then capture as STREAM/RIVER with Hydrographic Category = Intermittent, if capture conditions for STREAM/RIVER are met. See Appendix 2A for location of arid regions. Graphic If a wash is represented as a single brown line, or as a sand area that is too small to meet capture conditions, Then capture STREAM/RIVER with Hydrographic Category — Intermittent if capture conditions for STREAM/RIVER are met. Revision - General Revision - Standard 4/01 Version 1.0 2-266 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography WASH 496 Revision - Limited Do not add new features. Modify existing features only if there are obvious changesin the stream. Version 1.0 2-267 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography DATA EXTRACTION OR PRODUCT GENERATION at 1:24,000 scale Inclusion Conditions All required Generalization PRODUCT GENERATION at 1:24,000 scale Symbolization Attribute Name Value Symbol Specs (Alphanumeric) or N/A Unspecified WASH Symbol#: WASH_A001 Dimension: 2 Type Specs Name: Color. Blue Style: SLI CAPS or C/lc Size: 10-12 Spacing: 0-3 Conflict Detection and Resolution Conflict detection and resolution rules are being developed. Additions and modifications to the rule set will continue until all features are completed. Names and Labels Selection and placement rules are being developed. Additions and modifications to the rule set will continue until all features are completed. Selection TBD Placement TBD 4196 2-268 Standards for 1:24,000-Scale Digital Line Graphs and Quadrangle Maps Part 2: Hydrography WASH EXAMPLES Carrisito Spring, AZ -NM Casa Grande East, AZ (All blue drainage, some may be WASHES) Ceadro Spring, AZ Chandler Heights, AZ (All blue drainage, some may be WASHES) Cherry Spring Peak, AZ (Brown ephemeral drains and broad sand areas) Devore, CA Jarvis Peak, UT -AZ (Heavy drainage pattern in area of high relief) Mountain Springs, NV (2-D sand area interlaced with 1-D channels) Murphys Well, NV (Brown ephemeral drains and broad sand areas) Piru, CA (Broad 2-D WASH) Sisquoc, CA (Sisquoc River) Vail, AZ 2-269 ° ', setli o y)g',mmm Otlt[�P910<�bl6�uoYye ease 9�fl91o[il 6ouc4a SH3 N N Vld P.. eSlOHLI HOH V •3d sompossV daoyl • A \ • L L S08 01)0a010D ' 1 d says3 .1.mo"asaawwns SL9 3DN3aIS321 aOd13 \\ \ \ 1 y� . e Plan Legend F4W / \, General Notes XD :LE