Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Height 1495 Prospect Mountain Dr 2014-07-01 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive HeightVariance Request Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEEETING DATE: July 1, 2014 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which sets a maximum building height of 30feet, with additional height allowances for sloped land. The Applicant requestsa variance to construct an additional story to an existing single family home. A portion of the proposed roof ridge will protrudethree feet above the slope-adjusted height limit. 9ǣźƭƷźƓŭʹ {ƚǒƷŷǞĻƭƷ źĻǞ ğƷ ƷŷĻ tƩƚƆĻĭƷ {źƷĻ͵ LOCATION: 1495 Prospect MountainDrive APPLICANT/OWNER:Thomas Jaster/Owner, Steve Lane, Architect STAFF CONTACT: Phil Kleisler REVIEW CRITERIA:In accordance with EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable tƩƚƦƚƭĻķʹ bƚƩƷŷǞĻƭƷ źĻǞ ğƷ ƷŷĻ tƩƚƆĻĭƷ {źƷĻ͵ standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. {ƚǒƷŷĻƩƓ źĻǞ ŅƩƚƒ 9ƌĻǝğƷĻķ 5ĻĭƉğƷ ƷŷĻ tƩƚƆĻĭƷ {źƷĻ͵ REFERRALAND PUBLIC COMMENTS: This request has been routedto reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies. No concerns were expressed during review. The application was routedto the Rocky Mountain National Park, who expressed no concerns relating to the Public.As of June 25, 2014, staff has received one comment from an adjacent neighbor in support of the variance. Any comments received after June 5, 2014 will be posted at www.estes.org/CurrentApplicationsfor review. STAFF FINDINGS: 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 have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Theattached Exhibit C Map displays all parcels within 500 feet of the project site. The siteis unique in that it is shallow and triangular. The siteis 4.4 acres. The average acreage of properties within 500 feet is 13.5 acres; however, the average lot size is reduced to 3.7 acres if the large lot (#1435) is excluded. Therefore, while the lot size is adequate and generally consistent with neighboring properties, the shape appears prohibitive. There are constraints that prevents an expansion from the sides: septic system, driveway, setback and rock. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, this single-family home was built in 1979. 2.In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive Page 2of 4 HeightVariance Request a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: Residential use may continue. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The project site is close to a mapped ridgeline protection Ridgeline Protection Area includes land located within 100 feet horizontally (plain view) from the Ridgeline. Development within the Ridgeline Protection Area require additional restrictions to times such as height and color. ate that the proposed addition will not be seen from the public right-of-way below. This is described more fully in their letter dated June 17, 2014. Upon a site visit and review of the Estes Valley Ridgeline Protection Areas map (attached), staff determined that the home is not within the Ridgeline Protection Area. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are generally the same size, with some being directly on the Ridgeline. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance. The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 280 feet to the south. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: No, the current height limitations were not established at the time of purchase. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive Page 3 of 4 Height Variance Request applicant purchased the property in 1998, before the adoption of the current setback requirements. The height limit in 1998 was 40 feet. The Estes Valley Development Code was then adopted in 2000, which lowered the height limit to 30 feet. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A variance appears to be the only practical option to construct a second story living space, as proposed. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The second story roof angle could possibly be rotated 180 degrees to meet the height standards. This would move the location of the deck and windows to the back of the lot. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Comment. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends a Surveyor Certificates be required to confirm compliance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the approved site plan; and 2. Height (elevation) certificates shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive Page 4 of 4 Height Variance Request QspkfduTjuf)usjbohvmbsmpu* From:Planning commdev To:Phil Kleisler Subject:Fwd: Jaster/Carpenter Variance Request Date:Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:37:14 AM Is this you? Donna M. Hasman Flood Outreach & Recovery / Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3724 970-586-0249 - fax planning@estes.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joel Alpers<joel@jkalpers.com> Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:34 AM Subject: Jaster/Carpenter Variance Request To: planning@estes.org Re: Variance request made by: Thomas Jaster & Deb Carpenter 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive My wife (Karla) and I live two lots to the east/northeast of this address, and wish to say that I have discussed this project with Tom and Deb, and that we support their remodeling plans and have no issue whatsoever with the City of Estes Park granting this variance. Joel and Karla Alpers 1453 Prospect Mountain Drive From:Gamble, Larry To:Phil Kleisler Subject:Re: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: Lot 32, Venner Ranch Estates, 2nd Replat - 1495 Prospect Mtn. Dr - Variance Requeset Date:Tuesday, June 03, 2014 5:52:16 PM Phil, Thanks for checking with us. No concerns from Rocky Mountain National Park viewshed. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Phil Kleisler <pkleisler@estes.org> wrote: Larry, We routed this to you in case you had any comments about views from the Park. Just give me a ring with any questions. Phil Phil Kleisler Planner Town of Estes Park, CO 970.577.3725 From: Karen Thompson \[mailto:kthompson@estes.org\] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 9:00 AM To: Larry Gamble Cc: Phil Kleisler Subject: REFERRAL FOR COMMENT: Lot 32, Venner Ranch Estates, 2nd Replat - 1495 Prospect Mtn. Dr - Variance Requeset Attached please find the guidelines for commenting on the above application for a height variance. All documentation is also attached. Comments are due on or before June 20, 2014. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your comments. Karen Thompson Executive Assistant Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 kthompson@estes.org -- Lawrence H. Gamble Chief, Branch of Planning & Compliance Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-1320 Fax: (970) 586-1359 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive HeightVariance Request Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEEETING DATE: July 1, 2014 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which sets a maximum building height of 30feet, with additional height allowances for sloped land. The Applicant requestsa variance to construct an additional story to an existing single family home. A portion of the proposed roof ridge will protrudethree feet above the slope-adjusted height limit. 9ǣźƭƷźƓŭʹ {ƚǒƷŷǞĻƭƷ źĻǞ ğƷ ƷŷĻ tƩƚƆĻĭƷ {źƷĻ͵ LOCATION: 1495 Prospect MountainDrive APPLICANT/OWNER:Thomas Jaster/Owner, Steve Lane, Architect STAFF CONTACT: Phil Kleisler REVIEW CRITERIA:In accordance with EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable tƩƚƦƚƭĻķʹ bƚƩƷŷǞĻƭƷ źĻǞ ğƷ ƷŷĻ tƩƚƆĻĭƷ {źƷĻ͵ standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. {ƚǒƷŷĻƩƓ źĻǞ ŅƩƚƒ 9ƌĻǝğƷĻķ 5ĻĭƉğƷ ƷŷĻ tƩƚƆĻĭƷ {źƷĻ͵ REFERRALAND PUBLIC COMMENTS: This request has been routedto reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies. No concerns were expressed during review. The application was routedto the Rocky Mountain National Park, who expressed no concerns relating to the Public.As of June 25, 2014, staff has received one comment from an adjacent neighbor in support of the variance. Any comments received after June 5, 2014 will be posted at www.estes.org/CurrentApplicationsfor review. STAFF FINDINGS: 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 have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Theattached Exhibit C Map displays all parcels within 500 feet of the project site. The siteis unique in that it is shallow and triangular. The siteis 4.4 acres. The average acreage of properties within 500 feet is 13.5 acres; however, the average lot size is reduced to 3.7 acres if the large lot (#1435) is excluded. Therefore, while the lot size is adequate and generally consistent with neighboring properties, the shape appears prohibitive. There are constraints that prevents an expansion from the sides: septic system, driveway, setback and rock. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, this single-family home was built in 1979. 2.In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive Page 2of 4 HeightVariance Request a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: Residential use may continue. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The project site is close to a mapped ridgeline protection Ridgeline Protection Area includes land located within 100 feet horizontally (plain view) from the Ridgeline. Development within the Ridgeline Protection Area require additional restrictions to times such as height and color. ate that the proposed addition will not be seen from the public right-of-way below. This is described more fully in their letter dated June 17, 2014. Upon a site visit and review of the Estes Valley Ridgeline Protection Areas map (attached), staff determined that the home is not within the Ridgeline Protection Area. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are generally the same size, with some being directly on the Ridgeline. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance. The nearest property is a residential dwelling approximately 280 feet to the south. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: No, the current height limitations were not established at the time of purchase. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive Page 3 of 4 Height Variance Request applicant purchased the property in 1998, before the adoption of the current setback requirements. The height limit in 1998 was 40 feet. The Estes Valley Development Code was then adopted in 2000, which lowered the height limit to 30 feet. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A variance appears to be the only practical option to construct a second story living space, as proposed. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The second story roof angle could possibly be rotated 180 degrees to meet the height standards. This would move the location of the deck and windows to the back of the lot. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Comment. Should the variance be obtained, staff recommends a Surveyor Certificates be required to confirm compliance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the approved site plan; and 2. Height (elevation) certificates shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). 1495 Prospect Mountain Drive Page 4 of 4 Height Variance Request QspkfduTjuf)usjbohvmbsmpu* June17,2014 PhilKleisler PlannerI TownofEstesParkCommunityDevelopment P.O.Box1200 EstesPark,CO80517 Re:1495ProspectMtnDrive Mr.Kleisler: PleasefindenclosedreviseddocumentsincludingtheadditionalitemsrequestedinyourletterorJune2, Applicationfortheabovereferencedproperty. 2014regardingtheBoardofAdjustment Item1.IncludedaretwophotosfromtheentranceofParkRiverWest(MoraineAve)andnearthetopof ElmRoad(fromtheFireEngineMuseum).ThesearenotsimulationsͷƦĻƩƭĻ͸asthehouseissimplynot visiblefromtheselocations.Duringourattempttocreateasimulationasrequested,weheldasurveyors pole,withflagattached,totheheightoftheproposednewaddition.Itwasnotvisiblefromeitherspot using24X50binoculars.Wethenextendedthepolethemaximumdistancepossible,withstillnovisibility. theexistingchimneyishigherthantheproposedaddition(byapproximatelyЋ͵Ў͸Μandthat,as Asanote, indicatedinthephoto,isalsonotvisible. InthephotofromParkRiver,apowerlinecanbeseenrunningwestfromthehousefurtherup ProspectMtnDrive.Thispowerlineeventuallyconnectsto1495,butitisobviouslywellbackinthetrees. ItisnotvisiblefromRMNPentrance/NationalParkVillage,asthereisarockridgetrendingnorthwest downtheslopefromthehousesite,attheapproximateelevationoftheproposedroofline,blockingits viewfromanypointsbelow.Therooflineisnotatallvisiblefromthesouth,sincethetruemountain ridgelineishigherthanandtothesouthofthehome.Whileneartheridge,thishousesitsaratherunique littlevalleyofitsown. Item2.Thereisnoglassmaterialthatweareawareofthatisdesignedtoreduceexternalglaretothe outside,especiallyinaresidentialwindow.However,basedonthelackofvisibilityofthehome,wedo notbelievethisisanissue. Items35.Pleaseseereviseddrawingforthisinformation. Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions,orrequireanyadditionalinformation.Thankyouforyour timeandconsideration. Respectfully, SteveLane,AIALEEDAP ESTESVALLEYBOARDOFADJUSTMENT REQUESTFORVARIANCESTATEMENTOFINTENT Revised6172014 nd Lot32VennerRanchEstates,2Replat 1495ProspectMtnDrive EstesPark,Colorado ThisapplicationisarequestforavariancefromtheheightrequirementofTable42of30Αfeet,andthe associatedprovisionsof1.9.E1+2,heightmeasurement,includingslopeadjustment.Themaximumvariance is Ќ͸Љͼ abovewhatwouldotherwisebetheslopeadjusted requested,whichoccursnearthenorthwestcorner, heightlimit,howeverthevariancereducesalongthewestelevationtozero(0)atthesouthwestcorner(re: drawings).ağǣźƒǒƒĬǒźƌķźƓŭŷĻźŭŷƷǞƚǒƌķĬĻЌЉ͸ЉͼğĬƚǝĻƷŷĻ\[ƚǞĻƩƌĻǝĻƌŅƌƚƚƩͲΛǞŷźĭŷĻƨǒğƌƭŭƩğķĻğƷ ğƦƦƩƚǣźƒğƷĻƌǤƷǞƚƷŷźƩķƭƚŅƷŷĻĬǒźƌķźƓŭƦĻƩźƒĻƷĻƩΜ Thereasonforthevarianceistoallowtheownertoexpandtheirrelativelysmallhousetoobtainadditionalliving space.Thecurrentmainfloorconsistsofapproximately1,100squarefeetoflivingarea,withatwocargarageand thefloorbelow. asmallamountoflivingspaceon ReviewStandards 1.Specialcircumstancesorconditionsexist:ThepropertyispartoftheVennerRanchEstatessubdivision formedin1969.Theexistinghomewasconstructedin1979.ThepropertyisinLarimerCounty,andwas rezonedin1999andincorporatedintotheEstesValleyDevelopmentarea. Thelotisoddlyshaped,especiallyforitssize.Expansiontotheeastisnotpossibleduetosetbacks,to thewestisnotpossibleduetothelocationofthesepticfield;tothenorthwouldrequire removal/relocationofthemaindeckandwouldrequiredifficultexcavationduetoextensiverock;to thesouthwouldnecessitaterelocatingdrive,parkingandgarage.Thesimplestsolutionistogoup. 2.PracticalDifficulty a.Thepropertyhasbeeninusewithoutthevariance;however,theownerswouldlikethe space. opportunitytoimprovethepropertywiththeadditionofadditionalliving b.Thevarianceisnotsubstantial.Infact,theexpansionhasbeendesignedtomeetthestandard (nonadjusted)ЌЉ͸heightlimitonthemajorityofthelot.Thelotisessentiallyflatalongtheeastand southsides,andonlyfallsawaytothenorthwestcorner.Ifnotforthisgradechange,thevariance wouldnotberequired.Thevarianceisonlynecessaryalongapproximately10feetofthenorth elevationand25feetofthewestelevation.ThemaximumheightofthehousewouldbeЌЍ͸Б ͼͲ which iswellunderthe40footmaximumallowedundercertainslopeadjustedconditions. c.Theessentialcharacteroftheneighborhoodwouldnotbealtered,norwouldadjoining propertiessufferdetrimentasaresultofthevariance.Manyoftheexistingneighboringhomesare threestoryandlikelyexceedthecurrentheightlimitations,astheywereconstructedbeforethecode change,whiletheheightlimitforLarimerCountypropertieswas40feet. d.Thevariancewouldhavenoeffectonpublicservices. e.Theapplicantpurchasedthehomein1998,beforetheEVDCwasadopted. f.Withoutavariance,expansionupwardswouldnotbepractical,asceilingheightswouldnotmeet minimums.Itislikelytheexpenseofexpandingeithernorthorsouthwouldbecostprohibitive code duetotheadditionalrequirementsassociatedwithexpansioninthesedirectionsasnotedabove. 3.Theconditionsreflectedinthisapplicationarenotgeneral.Theyarespecifictothisparticularhomeand property,sizeandorientation,includingthelotconfigurationandlimitationsdescribedabove,andthe gradingconditionsΑi.e.generallyflatbutdroppingoffatonlyonecorner. 4.Noreductioninlotsizeorincreaseinnumberoflotsisproposedbythisvariancerequest. 5.Theplanproposedisnotexcessive:Theoriginaldesirewastoexpandtheentire1,100squarefootplan abovethemainlevel.However,theupperadditionwaspushedbackapproximately1/3inanattemptto minimizethevariancerequired.TheceilingheightatthebackwalloftheadditionisonlyБ͸ЉͼͲandtheroof slopewasreducedto1:12(theminimumslopepossibleforaͷƓƚƓŅƌğƷ͸roof).Theroofoftheadditionwould actuallyonlybeafewfeetabovetheexistinggableridge(seedrawings),sotheoverallheightofthehomeis notbeingsubstantiallyincreased. Furthermore,whilethehouseislocatednearthetopofProspectMountainDrive,thehouseactuallysitsin asmallvalley,makingitvirtuallyimpossibletoseefromanyvantagepointintheEstesValley,whether northorsouthofProspectMountain,ğƭŅǒƩƷŷĻƩźƓķźĭğƷĻķĬǤƷŷĻƦŷƚƷƚƭźƓĭƌǒķĻķǞźƷŷƷŷĻğƦƦƌźĭğƷźƚƓ͵ 6.Thevariancedoesnotproposeanonpermittedorprohibiteduse. Preparedby:SteveLane,AIA BAS1SArchitecturePC MPDBUJPO QSPTQFDU ESJWF IPVTF25:6NUO $2578 $2564 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1495 Prospect Drive 1692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100 Residential Addition BASIS __ of __ SITE & A1 © BAS1S.com Jaster-Carpenter BOA6/17/2014 Architecture, P.C.ELEVATIONS fax: 970.586.9149 vox: 970.586.9140Issue:Date:Sheet Title:Sheet Title:Sheet No: 83 0 0 3 8 +/- 8342' LOWER FLR ELEV: E V I R D N T M T C E P S O R 8281 P TYPICALSETBACK PROPERTY LINE EXISTING DECK " 0 - ' 5 2 NEW ADDITION LOWER FLR ELEV:+/- 8278' 8276' 8278' RIDGE ELEVATION:8308'GRADE = 8273.4' LOT 32 ESTATES 2ND REPLAT KNOB ELEVATION:8374' VENNER RANCH 0 0 3 8 ZONING: E-1 ESTATE 8272' 8275' 8272.5' BELOW 8298 IS REQUIRED AREA OF ROOFDRIVEWAY ROCK OUTCROP NEW DECK OVER EXISTING HOUSE WHERE VARIANCE SEPTIC FIELD 8258 R E P. C. E V I R D W E I V K A E P 1 PROSPECT MTN DR 12 SUBJECTPROPERTY T E C T U NEW THIRD FLOOR GRADE LINE OF LINE OF EVDC HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING DECK NEW FLOOREL: 118'-3 1/2"MAIN FLOOR/LIVINGEL: 109'-1 3/4"LOWER FLOOR/GARAGEEL: 100'-0" EXISTING/FINISH EXISTING RESIDENCE EL: 130'-0"EL: 100'-0" NEW FLOOR HEIGHT CALC: LOWER FLOOR EL: 118'-3 1/2"EL: 109'-1 3/4" 1'8" + 30' = 31'8" 4'-8" - 1'-4" = 3'-4"/2 = LINE OFEXISTING/FINISHGRADE MAX RIDGE HEIGHT MAIN FLOOR/LIVING NEW GLASS DECK GUARDRAIL EXISTING RESIDENCE VarianceEXISTING DECK34'-8" LINE OF EXISTING ROOFTO BE REMOVED Max Requested 31'-8" Slope Adjusted Height Limit 3'-0" NEW STEEL WIND GIRT 4'-8" A R C H I 12 1 +/- 4'-0" LINE OF EVDC HEIGHT LIMIT NEW THIRD FLOOR 1'-4" EXISTING CHIMNEY NEW STAIR TOWER BEYOND 30'-0" Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1495 Prospect Drive 1692 Big Thompson Avenue, Suite 100 Residential Addition BASIS Plan __ of __ A1 © BAS1S.com Jaster-Carpenter Conceptual5/2/2014 Architecture, P.C. fax: 970.586.9149 Varaince Sketch vox: 970.586.9140Issue:Date:Sheet Title:Sheet Title:Sheet No: Site Schematic 1" = +/- 50' 1 EL: 100'-0" NEW FLOOR EL: 118'-3 1/2"EL: 109'-1 3/4" MAIN FLOOR/LIVING LOWER FLOOR/GARAGE LINE OFEXISTING/FINISHGRADE Variance LINE OF EXISTING ROOFLINE OF EXISTING ROOFTO BE REMOVEDTO BE REMOVEDNEW GLASS DECK GUARD'RAIL'EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING DECK Requested 2'-0"Slope Adjusted Height Limit 31'-9" LINE OF EVDC HEIGHT LIMITNEW STEEL WIND GIRTNEW THIRD FLOOR 12 1 North Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0" A R C H I T E C T U R E P. C. Northwest View 2 3 NEW STAIR TOWER BEYOND 30'-0"