Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 1063 Fall River Ct 2021-03-02 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Chair Jeff Moreau Estes Park Board of Adjustment (BOA) Through: Community Development Director Randy Hunt From: Alex Bergeron, Planner II Date: March 2, 2021 RE: Setback Variance for Lot 2, Block 2, Fall River Estates Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a decision on a variance request for a 15’ front setback and a 10’ side setback in place of the 25’ minimum setbacks of the E-1 (Estate/1-acre) zone district. Location: Parcel 3522206002, legally described as: LOT 2, BLK 2, FALL RIVER EST, EP. Present Situation: The property as defined above (see also Attachment 1: Vicinity Map), is a vacant lot located in the E-1 (Estate/1-acre) zone district which is 0.47 acres in size was established in 1971. The property features Steep Slopes, which is defined in Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) §13.2.221 as slopes that are 12% or greater. Proposal: As a means to mitigate perceived development challenges relatedto slope, the applicant proposes to build their home at the upper portion of the lot, partially within the codified minimum setbackswith access improvements encroaching into the public right- of-way. To achieve their vision for development, the applicant seeks a variance to reduce the front setback to 15 feet from the required 25 feet, and to reduce the side setback to 10 feet from the required 25 feet. Review Criteria: The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application.In accordance with EPDC §3.6.C. (Variances – Standards for Review), applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. Staff findings on these standards and criteria are outlined below: §3.6.C.1: Special circumstances or conditions exist. Negative. Steep Slopes are common in the vicinity of the subject property, and adjacent already-developed properties are also legally non-conforming as to minimum lot area. §3.6.C.2(a):Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Affirmative. Other properties in the vicinity have successfully been developed for single-familyresidential usewith the same or similar conditions present. §3.6.C.2(b): Whether the variance is substantial. Affirmative. The proposed variance would reduce the front setback by 40% and the side setback by 60%. §3.6.C.2(c): Alteration to neighborhood character/local detriment. Negative. The character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered as a result of the variance in the opinion of staff, but it is acknowledged that development so close to property lines is not typical for the area, based on public comment and review of satellite imagery (which is only approximate). §3.6.C.2(d): Adverse effect on the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Negative. Comment received by review agencies engaged in the delivery of public services did not suggest an adverse effect on services would be caused by the variance. §3.6.C.2(e): Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement.Neutral. The Statement of Intent states, from the perspective of the applicant representative, that “the applicant was not aware of the site’s limitations when considering both grade and setback standards” (see Attachment 3: Statement of Intent). The level of investigation by the applicant into the characteristics of the site and the local Development Code prior to purchase of the property has not been determined by staff. §3.6.C.2(f): Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.Affirmative. Staff finds a home oriented differently on the lot, or with a different design still of a size typical of the vicinity, would negate the need for a variance. The applicant writes in their Statement of Intent that denial of this variance wouldtrigger additional variances related to grading and driveway design standards, but this is disputed by staff: the property is not subject to such standards (specifically EPDC §7.1 – Slope Protection Standards, and §7.2 –Grading and Site Disturbance Standards) because the lot was approved for residential use prior to the effective date of the Code, and is exempt from the standards per the Applicability clauses of the Sections. Similarly, an argument for the variance presented by the applicant relates to the perception of an unsafe driveway design in the context of fire suppression should the variance not be approved, but comment provided by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District identifies an automatic fire sprinkler system as an acceptable alternative for properties that have inadequate fire apparatus access due to length, width, turning radius, or percentage of grade. The applicant has noted in the Statement of Intent that alternative designs for the home were not prepared, and staff believes doing so would reveal an acceptable product. §3.6.C.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. Affirmative. Steep slopes are common in this vicinity (where homes are understood to meet setback requirements) and throughout Estes Park, so much so that regulations exist for qualifying lots. §3.6.C.4: No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision. Not applicable. §3.6.C.5: Variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Negative. Staff finds a home of a different design would require lesser or no variance. §3.6.C.6: No variance for non-permitted use. Not applicable. §3.6.C.7: BOA may grant conditions to ensure objectives are met. Acknowledged. Reviewing Agency Comments: This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. Comments received were either neutral, or were opposed to the variance (See Attachment 5: Agency Review Comments). Public Notice: A legal notice was published in Estes Park Trail-Gazette on February 12, 2021, and a “Development Proposal Under Review” sign was posted at the site on the same date. Adjacent property owners received mailed notice of the proposal. Advantages: Approval of the variance will allow the property owner to realize a very specific vision they have for development of the lot. Disadvantages: Approval of the variance may result in development of the lot which is out of character with general development trends in this area.Review of satellite imagery and the testimony of adjacent property ownerssuggest that other lots in the area have been developed with adherence to setback requirements, despite also having challenging topography. Approval of a variance for which hardship was not evidenced in the professional opinion of staff and for which public support was not found may conflict with the intent of EPDC §3.6., and may create an undesirable precedent. Action Recommended: Staff recommends DENIAL of thevariance request. Finance/ResourceImpact: N/A Level of Public Interest: Medium. To date, two letters were received from adjacent property owners opposed to the variance. Contact was also received from the President of the Fall River Estates HOA, who expressed a neutral view on approval of the variance while commenting on how the covenants of the Association mirror Town codes(the Town does not enforce private covenants) (see Attachment 6: Public Comments). Sample Motion: I move that the Board of Adjustment DENY the variance request, in accordance with the findings as presented. I move that the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, finding that \[state findings for approval\]. I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that \[state reasons for continuance\]. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application Form 3. Statement of Intent 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Agency Review Comments 6. Public Comments Attachment1:VicinityMap Attachment2:ApplicationForm ESTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION 1/13/2021 Submittal Date: General Information Larry & Catherine Griffin Record Owner(s): TBD Fall River Ct Street Address of Lot: 2 Legal Description:Lot: Block:2 Tract: Subdivision:Fall River Estates 3522206002 Parcel ID # : Site Information .47 E-1 Estates Lot SizeZoning Vacant Existing Land Use Single Family Home Proposed Land Use TownWellOther (Specify) Existing Water Service Proposed Water Service TownWellOther (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer ServiceEPSDUTSDSeptic Proposed Sanitary Sewer ServiceEPSDUTSDSeptic Existing Gas ServiceXcelOtherNone Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site?YesNo Variance Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): Setback Variance (10' side setback, 15' front setback, per Ch.4 Table4-2 Based Density and Dimension Standards, E-1 Estates) Primary Contact Information David Bangs, PE, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers Name of Primary Contact Person 2191 Larkspur Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517 Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person isOwnerApplicantConsultant/Engineer Attachments Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards inSection 3.6.C of the EDC) copy (folded) of siteplan (drawn aa scale of 1" = 20') ** 1 reduced copy of the siteplan (11"X 17") Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFForPDF format emailed to planning@estes.org The site plan shall include information in Estes Development Code AppendixB.VII.5. he applicant will be required toprovide additional copies of the siteplan after staff review (see the Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Community Development Department Phone: Revised 20 Attachment3:StatementofIntent StatementofIntentAddendum Plan Site Proposed 4: Attachment Attachment5:AgencyReviewComments Good afternoon, Your application for a Variance to minimum setback requirements for Lot 2 of the Fall River Estates subdivision yielded the following comments on the first review: Advisory comments. These comments are intended for future consideration and no immediate action is necessary prior to application review by the Board of Adjustment. PLANNING: 1.Standards of Review. a.The response to the Compliance with Standards of Review item 2.c. states that the proposal is “similar in size and position relative to the surrounding homes in the neighborhood.” A review of satellite imagery shows that other homes likely do meet setback requirements. In addition, public comment received on the proposal from the HOA informs that per the Fall River Estates HOA Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, all homes in the association are required to meet minimum setbacks. Although the Town does not enforce private covenants, it is worth noting this discrepancy in the context of the conditions of the surrounding area. b.The response to the Compliance with Standards of Review item 2.e. states that to the knowledge of the applicant/owner representative, “the applicant was not aware of the site’s limitations when considering both grade and setback standards.” This may be construed to reflect a lack of due diligence, and it is recommended that the applicant be present at the meeting to address this topic should it come up during the hearing. 2.Posted Notice. §3.15 of the Estes Park Development Code requires standard notice of the pending public hearing posted legibly at the site no later than 15 days prior to the public hearing as evidenced by submittal of a date-stamped photo demonstrating compliance. Please be sure to submit that photograph prior to the hearing in accordance with this requirement. 3.Meeting Request, Indemnification and Waiver. A completed Electronic Public Hearing Request Indemnification and Waiver form is required for all public meetings as the Town is operating largely virtual for the time being. A blank form is attached for your convenience. Please be sure to submit this form prior to the hearing date. PUBLIC WORKS: 1.ROW Encroachment. Due to the challenging site geometry, the driveway not only begins in the public ROW frontage of the adjacent property, but a retaining wall for the driveway is in the applicant's ROW frontage. For engineered structures in the ROW, a revocable encroachment permit must be issued by Public Works. Both a revocable encroachment permit application and agreement are attached for use in understanding how the Town would allow this circumstance in the ROW. UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT: 1.Manhole. The District has no objection to the setback variances as presented. However, we would like to note as a placeholder for future discussion the location and cut depth of the proposed driveway. We have a manhole that is in the ROW just south of the proposed driveway, and we will need the applicant/engineer to confirm that adequate cover, freeze protection, and cut bank stabilization will be maintained with the proposed driveway cut. I do not think this affects the variance request itself on our end, but we just wanted to make sure all are aware FIRE: 1.Addressing. An address shall be required for this property as per the Town of Estes Park’s addressing standards. Please contact this office regarding fire code-compliant addressing signage requirements. 2.Emergency Access. Driveways providing access to residential lots and/or single family-dwellings, whether public or private, shall meet the following criteria: a.Driveways for both residential lots and/or single family-dwellings shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of any building or home, measured at the exterior walls of the first story. b.Driveways which exceed 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved fire apparatus turn around in accordance with IFC Appendix D, or as approved by the Fire Marshal. c.Shall have a minimum load-bearing width of 16 feet (shoulder-to-shoulder) and shall have a minimum permanent all-weather surface width of 12 feet, which includes electric gates or similar openings. d.All-weather surfaces- driveways where the grade is 10 percent or greater for any portion of the required access shall have an asphalt surface or an equivalent permanent all- weather surface as approved by the Fire Marshal. e.For driveways where the grade is less than 10 percent for any portion of the required access, compacted base with crushed gravel surface material, e.g., Class 6 Road Base or similar, is approved provided it is engineered to meet the load-bearing criteria. f.Driveways shall be engineered to support the imposed loads of double axel fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds. Proof shall be furnished from an engineer which indicates how driveways meet this design criteria. g.Driveways shall have minimum overhead clearance of 13’-6” and shall be free from overhead obstructions, including but not limited to, tree limbs, overhead utility lines, etc. Vertical clearance shall be maintained for the full driveway width. h.Gates or similar entry obstructions shall have an approved means of emergency operations. Electric gate operators shall be listed in accordance with UL 325, and gates with automatic operation shall meet ASTM F2200. Electric gates shall be provided with a District-specific Knox gate key switch for emergency access. 3.Explosives. Site work and/or construction involving the use of explosives/blasting will require an operational permit from this office. 4.Fire Suppression. Properties which have inadequate fire apparatus access because of length, width, turning radius, percentage of grade, and/or do not have adequate fire protection water supply, may be required to install automatic fire sprinklers in accordance with the adopted Fire Code. You are encouraged to consult this office to determine requirements prior to the start of a building project. Approval by the Fire Marshal is required for building permit issuance even if a grading permit was approved. Please furnish additional information to this office which indicates how the project will meet the following requirements at the time of building permit application: a.An approved fire hydrant is required within 950 feet of the building, as measured along the road and driveway as the hose would lay. Please note that fire hydrants with “white tops” have insufficient fire flow and are not approved to meet fire flow requirements. b.Where the length of the nearest fire hydrant is greater than 950 feet in length, fire protection water supply shall be considered inadequate *See residential fire sprinkler requirement. c.For driveways that are 1,000 feet in length or greater, signage shall be required as follows: i.A sign at the entrance point of the driveway which states “Driveway is 1,000 feet,” or, “Driveway > 1,000 feet”. ii.For driveways which are greater than 1,000 feet in length, a sign shall be required at the 950-foot mark along the driveway, measured along the driveway to where fire apparatus would park adjacent to the building. iii.Signs shall be permanent and durable, shall have white text on a red background, with a text height of 2-1/2 inches, shall be mounted in a readily distinguishable location at a height of 48 inches to the top of the sign, and shall be mounted on a 4-inch diameter steel post with a concrete footing. d.When either the required fire apparatus access and/or fire protection water supply are determined to be inadequate or cannot be provided, the Fire Code allows the Fire Marshal to approve an alternative means of fire protection in lieu of meeting these requirements. Approved alternative fire protection shall be the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13D, 2016 edition. Action comments. Please make the changes outlined in the comments below and resubmit the relevant materials prior to 5:00PM on Friday, February 5, 2021 to remain on track for the March 2, 2021 Board of Adjustment meeting. PLANNING: 1.Standards of Review. In order to be able to defend a favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment, some elaborated responses to the Standards of Review will be necessary. a.The response to the Compliance with Standards of Review item 2.b. simply states that it is the “minimum required to provide relief to the applicant.” Please provide an elaborated response to explain why that is the case. b.The response to the Compliance with Standards of Review item 2.f. simply states that “the requested variance is the minimum to provide relief for the proposed project.” Please provide an elaborated response to explain why that is the case. c.The response to the Compliance with Standards of Review item 5 simply states that “the requested variance is the least deviation from the regulation that will afford relief.” Please provide an elaborated response to explain why that is the case. 2.Estes Park Development Code. The Setback Variance Information section of the site plan seeks relief from “E.V.D.C. Table 4-2,” referencing the extinct Estes Valley Development Code. Please modify to reference the Estes Park Development Code, which is the current development code of the Town. Please also modify the response to Standards of Review item 6. PUBLIC WORKS: 1.Justification. Public Works staff require more justification for the current proposed building placement, which relies on a setback variance. If an alternative design is proposed within required setbacks, there will be value in comparing the two designs to understand the imperative of a lesser setback. In summary, Public Works is not convinced that the proposed site plan shows the only viable design. th Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:00 pm MST Public Works – Jennifer Waters (EIT, CFM) The response representing the applicant is acknowledged. Nevertheless, Public Works staff does not support approval of the proposed setback variance. Response: Alternative house placements have been evaluated but no specific design has been prepared. The imperative of the lesser setback can be determined through review of the typical house footprint size and slope of the site. Placing the building in the location which would allow for a home design of typical and reasonable size and character for the area would result in a grade difference of approximately 25-30 feet across the structure. This would result in substantial cut and site disturbance in conflict with EPDC grading standards. Further, we believe that utilizing the lowest slope for the home site results in a much more practical design for the driveway and guest parking condition which would not require vehicular parking in the property setback or adjacent to the home within the right of way. With the understanding that the applicant's lot was approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of the \[Estes Park Development\] Code, Chapter 7.1.B - Development Restriction on Steep Slopes is not applicable to the site design. Also, for the same reason, the applicant's lot is not subject to other sections in Chapter 7, such as 7.2 - Grading and Site Disturbance Standards. If the applicant's lot was subject to the Code, then a Development Plan would be required since the proposed building site is steeper than 30% (7.1.B.4). Due to the lot's age, the applicant is allowed to avoid restrictions in Chapter 7 and escape from adhering to modern site design sensibilities. With these advantages over lots that are subject to Chapter 7, the applicant should not be allowed to escape from the remaining standards, including setbacks, that govern site development. Public Works is still not convinced that the proposed site plan shows the only viable design (a smaller home of reasonable size and character for the area could fit within the setbacks). Attachment6:PublicComments ! Gfcsvbsz!27-!3132 Bmfy!Cfshfspo-!Qmboofs!JJ Ftuft!Qbsl!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou!Efqbsunfou QP!Cpy!2311! Ftuft!Qbsl-!Dpmpsbep!91628 Efbs!Ns/!Cfshfspo- J!bn!xsjujoh!upebz!up!fyqsftt!nz!dpodfsot!bcpvu!uif!wbsjbodft!sfrvftufe!gps!Mpu!3-!Cmpdl! 3!pg!Gbmm!Sjwfs!Ftubuft/!Gps!uif!qbtu!uijsuz!zfbst-!J!ibwf!cffo!uif!pxofs!pg!uif!ipnf! jnnfejbufmz!bekbdfou!up!uijt!qspqfsuz!po!Mpu!2-!beesfttfe!bt!2172!Gbmm!Sjwfs!Dpvsu/! Gbmm!Sjwfs!Ftubuft!dpoubjot!b!wbsjfuz!pg!sftjefodft!sbohjoh!gspn!usbejujpobm!mph!ipvtft!up! npefso!tuffm!boe!hmbtt!tusvduvsft/!J!ibwf!ofwfs!cfmjfwfe!uibu!tvsspvoejoh!qspqfsuz!pxofst! tipvme!cf!bcmf!up!qsfwfou!bopuifs!mpu!pxofs!gspn!cvjmejoh!uif!uzqf!pg!ipnf!uifz!dipptf/!Cvu!J! ep!cfmjfwf!tvsspvoejoh!qspqfsuz!pxofst!ibwf!uif!sjhiu!up!fyqfdu!uibu!bmm!pg!uif!ipnft!jo!uif! ofjhicpsippe!xjmm!cf-!up!uif!hsfbuftu!fyufou!qsbdujdbm-!jo!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!uif!tuboebset! ftubcmjtife!cz!uif!qspufdujwf!dpwfobout!gps!uif!ipnfpxofst!bttpdjbujpo!boe!uif!mboe!vtf! sfhvmbujpot!pg!uif!Upxo!pg!Ftuft!Qbsl/!Ju!jt!nz!voefstuboejoh!uibu!uif!UpxoÉt!mboe!vtf! sfhvmbujpot!sfrvjsf!36!gppu!gspou-!sfbs!boe!tjef!tfucbdlt!jo!uijt!sftjefoujbm!{pof/ Jo!mppljoh!bu!uif!qspqptfe!tjuf!qmbo!gps!uif!sftjefodf!tffljoh!b!wbsjbodf-!ju!bqqfbst!uibu! uif!gspou!tfucbdl!xpvme!cf!sfevdfe!gspn!36!gffu!up!bqqspyjnbufmz!28!gffu-!boe!uif!tjef! tfucbdl!bmpoh!uif!qspqfsuz!mjof!tibsfe!xjui!nz!qspqfsuz!xpvme!cf!sfevdfe!gspn!36!gffu!up! bqqspyjnbufmz!21!gffu/!Uif!efwfmpqnfou!pg!uif!mbshf!qbsljoh!bsfb!xpvme!bqqfbs!up!sfrvjsf!uif! dpotusvdujpo!pg!sfubjojoh!xbmmt!xjuijo!kvtu!b!gfx!gffu!pg!uif!puifs!tjef!qspqfsuz!mjof/! J!nvtu!opuf-!upp-!uibu!jo!psefs!up!ublf!bddftt!gspn!uif!ÆupqÇ!ps!ijhiftu!qpsujpo!pg!uijt!mpu-!ju! bqqfbst!uif!esjwfxbz-!xijdi!xpvme!bmtp!bqqfbs!up!sfrvjsf!tjhojÑdbou!sfubjojoh!xbmmt-!xpvme! pddvqz!nvdi!pg!uif!qvcmjd!sjhiu.pg.xbz!jnnfejbufmz!bekbdfou!up!uijt!mpu-!boe!joeffe!xpvme! bmtp!pddvqz!b!qpsujpo!pg!uif!qvcmjd!sjhiu.pg.xbz!bekbdfou!up!nz!pxo!ofjhicpsjoh!mpu/!Qvcmjd! sjhiut.pg.xbz!xfsf!joufoefe!up!cf!qsftfswfe!up!uif!hsfbuftu!fyufou!qpttjcmf!gps!cpui!fyjtujoh! boe!qpufoujbm!gvuvsf!qvcmjd!jnqspwfnfout!tvdi!bt!uif!spbexbz!boe!vujmjujft/!Pg!ofdfttjuz-!uif! qvcmjd!sjhiut.pg.xbz!nvtu!bddpnnpebuf!bddftt!up!bekbdfou!ipnft-!cvu!uiftf!qsjwbuf! fodspbdinfout!bsf!vtvbmmz!mjnjufe!up!qfsqfoejdvmbs!esjwfxbzt!qfsibqt!b!ep{fo!ps!tp!gffu!jo! xjeui/!Uif!bqqmjdbouÉt!vtf!pg!tvdi!b!mbshf!qpsujpo!pg!uif!qvcmjd!sjhiu.pg.xbz!bekbdfou!up!ijt!mpu! bt!xfmm!bt!njof!gps!qsjwbuf!jnqspwfnfout!tffnt!jodpnqbujcmf!xjui!uif!psjhjobm!qvsqptf!boe! joufou!pg!uibu!efejdbufe!qvcmjd!qspqfsuz/!Uif!dpncjofe!ffdu!pg!uif!tjhojÑdbou!sfevdujpot!jo! tfucbdlt!boe!pddvqbujpo!pg!uif!qvcmjd!sjhiu.pg.xbz!xpvme!cf!up!bmnptu!dpnqmfufmz!fmjnjobuf! bmm!pg!uif!usfft!boe!wfhfubujpo!po!uijt!qpsujpo!pg!uif!mpu-!up!cf!sfqmbdfe!cz!ibse!tvsgbdftÅ sppgupqt!boe!esjwjoh!boe!qbsljoh!tvsgbdftÅbmnptu!gspn!qspqfsuz!mjof!up!qspqfsuz!mjof!boe!bmm! uif!xbz!pvu!up!uif!fyjtujoh!spbexbz/!Ju!xpvme!dfsubjomz!hjwf!uif!bqqfbsbodf!uibu!uifsf!ibe! cffo!op!sfrvjsfe!tfucbdlt!bu!bmm!boe!wfsz!mjuumf!efejdbufe!qvcmjd!sjhiu.pg.xbz/ J!voefstuboe!uif!offe!gps!njops!boe!sfbtpobcmf!wbsjbodft!jo!sfhvmbujpot!tvdi!bt!tfucbdlt/! Pwfs!uif!zfbst-!J!sfbmj{f!puifs!qspqfsuz!pxofst!ibwf!cffo!hsboufe!njops!ps!sfbtpobcmf! wbsjbodft-!cvu!uif!wbsjbodft!sfrvftufe!ifsf!bsf-!jo!nz!pqjojpo-!ofjuifs!njops!ops!sfbtpobcmf/ Uif!mfuufs!gspn!uif!bqqmjdbouÉt!fohjoffs!tvhhftut!uibu!uif!sfrvftufe!wbsjbodf!jt!sfrvjsfe!up! tbgfmz!efwfmpq!b!ipvtf!po!uif!mpu-!hjwfo!uijt!mpuÉt!dpoÑhvsbujpo!boe!upqphsbqiz/!J!sftqfdugvmmz! ejtbhsff/!Nboz-!jg!opu!nptu-!pg!uif!tjohmf!gbnjmz!sftjefoujbm!mput!jo!Gbmm!Sjwfs!Ftubuft!ibwf! dibmmfohjoh!upqphsbqiz/!Gps!efdbeft-!ipnft!ibwf!cffo!cvjmu!uispvhipvu!uif!Ftuft!Wbmmfz!po! tuffq!mput/!Jo!Gbmm!Sjwfs!Ftubuft!boe!fmtfxifsf-!pof!dpnnpo!bqqspbdi!up!dpotusvdujoh!b! ipvtf!po!b!tuffq!mpu!xijdi!sfrvjsft!bddftt!gspn!uif!mpxftu!qpsujpo!pg!uif!mpu!jt!up!qmbdf!uif! qbsljoh!boe!hbsbhf!po!uif!mpxfs!mfwfm-!xjui!uif!nbjo!mjwjoh!mfwfm!bcpwf!uif!hbsbhf/!Ju!jt!nz! cfmjfg!uibu!uijt!bqqspbdi!jt!gfbtjcmf!gps!uif!tvckfdu!mpu!boe!jt!jo!bmm!mjlfmjippe!xibu!xbt! boujdjqbufe!xifo!uif!dpoÑhvsbujpo!pg!uijt!mpu!xbt!psjhjobmmz!dsfbufe/!Qmbdjoh!uif!ipvtf!po!uif! mpxfs!boe!dpotjefsbcmz!xjefs!qpsujpo!pg!uif!mpu!xpvme!opu!sfrvjsf!tvdi!esbtujd!sfevdujpot!jo! tfucbdlt-!ops!xpvme!ju!sfrvjsf!tvdi!bo!fyqbotjwf!qbsljoh!bsfb!ps!b!esjwfxbz!xijdi!sftusjdut! uif!gvuvsf!vujmj{bujpo!pg!uif!qvcmjd!sjhiu.pg.xbz/!Uif!fohjoffsÉt!mfuufs!tubuft!uibu-!jg!bqqspwfe-! uif!qspqptfe!ipnf!xpvme!opu!bmufs!uif!dibsbdufs!pg!uif!ofjhicpsippe-!boe!xpvme!cf!tjnjmbs! jo!tj{f!boe!qptjujpo!sfmbujwf!up!uif!tvsspvoejoh!ipnft/!Bhbjo-!J!sftqfdugvmmz!ejtbhsff/!Uif!vtf! pg!b!nbkps!qpsujpo!pg!uif!bekpjojoh!qvcmjd!sjhiu.pg.xbz!gps!qsjwbuf!jnqspwfnfout!)uif!esjwfxbz! boe!sfubjojoh!xbmmt*!boe!tvdi!esbnbujd!sfevdujpot!jo!uif!tfucbdlt!gspn!nvmujqmf!qspqfsuz!mjoft! bsf!opu!gpvoe!up!uijt!fyufou!po!boz!pg!uif!jnnfejbufmz!tvsspvoejoh!ipnft/ J!dbo!qfsibqt!voefstuboe!uif!bqqmjdbouÉt!eftjsf!up!ibwf!uiftf!wbsjbodft!bqqspwfe-!ubljoh! bddftt!gspn!uif!obsspxftu!cvu!ijhiftu!qpsujpo!pg!uif!mpu/!Uif!fmfwbufe!wjfx!gspn!uif!ipnf!jo! uijt!mpdbujpo!xpvme!mjlfmz!cf!npsf!qmfbtjoh/!Cvu!uifsf!bsf!bmufsobujwf!xbzt!up!efwfmpq!b!ipnf! po!uijt!mpu!tvdi!bt!bmufsjoh!uif!ipnfÉt!gppuqsjou!boe!mpdbujpo!xijdi!xpvme!cf!cpui!tbgf!boe! npsf!dpnqmjbou!xjui!uif!fyjtujoh!mboe!vtf!sfhvmbujpot/!Jg!uifsf!ibe!cffo!op!sjhiut.pg.xbz!ps! tfucbdlt!jo!fyjtufodf!bu!uif!ujnf!J!dpotusvdufe!nz!ipnf-!J!xpvme!ibwf!cvjmu!jo!b!ejfsfou! mpdbujpo!boe!dpoÑhvsbujpo/!Cvu!puifs!qspqfsuz!pxofst!boe!J!bekvtufe!pvs!eftjsft!boe!pvs! qmbot!jo!psefs!up!dpnqmz!up!uif!hsfbuftu!fyufou!qpttjcmf!xjui!bmm!bqqmjdbcmf!sfhvmbujpot!xifo! pvs!ipnft!xfsf!dpotusvdufe-!xjui!uif!voefstuboejoh!boe!cfmjfg!uibu!puifs-!mbufs!qspqfsuz! pxofst!xpvme!ep!uif!tbnf/!Uif!wbsjbodft!sfrvftufe!cz!uif!qspqfsuz!pxofs!jo!uijt!dbtf!nbz! cf!eftjsfe!cvu!uifz!bsf!opu!bctpmvufmz!sfrvjsfe!up!dpotusvdu!b!ipnf!po!uijt!qbsujdvmbs!mpu<! sfbtpobcmf!bmufsobujwft!fyjtu-!kvtu!bt!uifz!fyjtufe!gps!nf!boe!gps!puifs!qspqfsuz!pxofst!xifo! xf!cvjmu!pvs!pxo!ipnft/!!Uif!wbsjbodft!sfrvftufe!jo!uijt!dbtf!hp!upp!gbs!jo!gbjmjoh!up!dpogpsn! up!bqqmjdbcmf!sfhvmbujpot!boe!bmufsjoh!uif!dibsbdufs!pg!uif!tvsspvoejoh!qspqfsujft<!bu!b! njojnvn-!uifz!dbo!boe!tipvme!cf!tdbmfe!cbdl!dpotjefsbcmz/!Uifsfgpsf-!J!vshf!uif!Cpbse!pg! Bekvtunfout!opu!up!bqqspwf!uif!sfrvftufe!wbsjbodft/!Uibol!zpv!gps!zpvs!dpotjefsbujpo/ Sftqfdugvmmz- Nbsd!Fohfnpfo Pxofs!pg!2172!Gbmm!Sjwfs!Dpvsu-!Ftuft!Qbsl! Mr. Alex Bergeron February 14, 2021 Planner II Community Development Department 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Variance Request in Estes Park Board of Adjustment Application dated Jan. 13, 2021 for Lot 2 Block 2 in Fall River Estates Dear Mr. Bergeron, We have reviewed the following items related to the referenced variance: Letter from Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers dated Jan. 13, 2021 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Application dated Jan. 13, 2021 Drawing entitled Site Plan for Variance dated Jan. 13, 2021 and have some objections to the requested variance. In the spirit of cooperation, we will respectfully suggest some possible adjustments to the proposed layout of the house and driveway. Please note that our property is immediately across Fall River Court to the south of the proposed home. At the outset, the zoning restrictions, notably the setbacks, apply to all residents and the whole development, and these restrictions improve the desirability of the development for all. The openness of the development provides a feeling of spaciousness for the inhabitants, including our wildlife. Openness provides improved views for all of our spectacular scenery. Housing that is centrally located within its lot, without violating the agreed-upon setback requirements helps to provide this openness. So, we ask that all the Estes Park setback requirements be observed. We note that the entire site development as proposed (house, garage, parking area and driveway) is quite extensive, and will seem out of character with the remainder of the development. The proposed house, at nearly 60 feet long, is quite wide, reducing the setback on the east side from 25 to about 10 feet. The garage is quite close to the street, and fails to provide the required 25 feet setback from the street. The owners could consider reducing the width of the home in the southeast to northeast line, and extending the home to the northeast if it is important to maintain a certain interior square footage. Another potential improvement would be to place the garage under the home, which is often done with steep lots. This would alleviate the setback problem at the street, provided that the house is not moved to the south and closer to the street. Relocating the garage would allow direct access to the garage from the lower part of Fall River Court or Blue Spruce Lane, without the need for the significant turnaround area shown currently. Relocating the driveway to the 1 lower area on the lot, and minimizing the turnaround area, reduce the need to remove trees or other vegetation, and reduce the amount of immediate runoff in the event of a rainstorm. Runoff from the upper portion of the lot has the potential to cause significant soil erosion as it flows downhill. As depicted in the documents mentioned above, the proposed home would be closer to our property than we expected, since the Town setback guidelines have not been followed. Maintaining the Town guidelines would provide more openness and less blockage of our views. Adhering to the suggestions herein would minimize any negative impacts to our property value, and therefore we hope that our suggestions and comments will be carefully considered, and the variance not approved. Thank you for your attention to our objections. Tom and Sally Shults Local Address: 1064 Fall River Court Estes Park, CO 80517 (Block 1, Lots 37 and 38) 2