Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2021-03-02
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:00 a.m. Estes Park, CO 80517 The Estes Park Board of Adjustment will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020. Procedures for quasi-judicial virtual public hearings are established through Emergency Rule 06-20 signed by Town Administrator Machalek on May 8, 2020 and outlined below. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/92464068839 Or Join by Telephone: 1. Dial US: +1-877-853-5257 (toll-free) 2. Enter Webinar ID: 924 6406 8839 followed by # The meeting will also be live-streamed on the Town’s Youtube Channel and will be recorded and posted to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours. Public Comment When the moderator opens up the public comment period for an agenda item, attendees wishing to speak shall: 1. Click the “Raise Hand” button, if joining online on the Zoom client, or 2. Press *9 and follow the prompts, if joining by telephone. 3. If you are watching live on YouTube, please call the number listed above, and mute your computer audio for the duration of your remarks. Once you are announced, please state your name and address for the record. In order to participate online via Zoom, you must: • Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer. • Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio experience. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. Prepared February 23, 2021 1 NOTE: The Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:00 a.m. AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Board of Adjustment Minutes dated October 6, 2020 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Election of Officers - 2021 2. Variance Request: Lot 2, Block 2, Fall River Estates Planner Bergeron Applicant requests approval of a variance to setbacks 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. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Comprehensive Plan ADJOURN Prepared 02/23/2021 2 3 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 6, 2020 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 06 day of October 2020. Committee: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair, Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman Attending: Chair Moreau, Vice-Chair Newsom, Board Member Holtzman, Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund, Absent: none Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Holtzman) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 3-0. VARIANCE REQUEST, 915 Moraine Avenue, Bird and Jim Restaurant Senior Planner Woeber reviewed the staff report. The applicant requested approval of a variance to setbacks along two property lines. A zero foot (0’) setback in lieu of the minimum required twenty-five feet (25’) along Moraine Avenue/Highway 66 and a nine- foot (9’) setback in lieu of the minimum required fifteen feet (15’) (from High Drive). This variance involves acknowledging preexisting nonconforming setbacks for a structure that predate the Estes Park Development Code, with a new proposed awning addition being proposed within the setback. The subject property is within a CO (Commercial Outlying) Zoning District. Staff recommended approval of this variance. Discussion: Chair Moreau confirmed that due to grandfathering, the clean-up of setbacks was not needed. He also asked if the Board had the authority to grant a variance into the CDOT right-of-way. Director Hunt clarified that the cleanest solution is to approve the zero setbacks at the property line and then have CDOT provide permission for the overhang on the other side of the property line. 4 Board of Adjustment, October 6 , 2020 – Page 2 Mike Daley, project architect, stated that the owner is very appreciative of the temporary use permit for outside seating and has realized they would like this to be a permanent solution. They hope for a seasonal, five-month tent structure to achieve this, with no enclosure plans. The framework, however, will be a permanent, year-round structure. Chair Moreau recommended that the Board put wording into the variance that it cannot be a year-round enclosed structure. If an addition to the building was requested at some point, wording should be included in the motion to allow for this. It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to APPROVE the requested variance as proposed and detailed within the staff report with the inclusion that the structure will not be permanently enclosed. The Board of Adjustment acknowledges the existing structure on the subject property is located over property lines at a zero foot setback, which predates zoning regulations, and approves the additional setback encroachment requested to install an awning over the outdoor patio seating area as proposed. The variance is approved with findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report. The motion passed 3-0. REPORTS 2021 Budget process includes a proposal for a full rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan. A DOLA application for half of the $300,000 funding has been submitted. There are several initiatives underway for grants for local businesses to apply for assistance due to the pandemic. Temporary winterizing of structures are a part of this. A Planning Technician will hopefully be hired in the next month. There being no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m. Jeff Moreau, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 5 6 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 related to slope, the applicant proposes to build their home at the upper portion of the lot, partially within the codified minimum setbacks with 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. 7 §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-family residential use with 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 would trigger 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 8 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 owners suggest 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 the variance request. Finance/Resource Impact: 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 9 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 10 11 Street Address of Lot: Lot: Lot Size Proposed Land Use Town Well Town Well Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic Existing Gas Service Other None Are there wetlands on the site?Yes No Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Application fee (see attached fee schedule) Statement of intent (must comply with standards in Section 3.6.C of the EPDC pg.3-10-3-11,see attached) 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn aa scale of 1" = 20') ** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Existing Land Use Site Information Attachments Legal Description: Parcel ID # : Subdivision: Zoning Other (Specify) Xcel ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: Block:Tract: Record Owner(s): General Information Existing Water Service Primary Contact Information Variance Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org The site plan shall include information in Estes Park Development Code Appendix B.VII.5. The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Proposed Water Service Other (Specify) Site Access (if not on public street) Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Revised 2020.04.01 ks 1/13/2021 Larry & Catherine Griffin TBD Fall River Ct 2 2 Fall River Estates 3522206002 .47 E-1 Estates Vacant Single Family Home Setback Variance (10' side setback, 15' front setback, per Ch.4 Table4-2 Based Density and Dimension Standards, E-1 Estates) David Bangs, PE, Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers 2191 Larkspur Ave, Estes Park, CO 80517 12 13 14 PAGE 1 OF 4 January 13, 2021 Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 RE: Statement of Intent for Lot 2 Fall River Estates, Setback Variance Dear Planner: Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, LLC is requesting a proposed building setback variance on behalf of subject property owner Larry and Catherine Griffin. This letter is to serve as the Statement of Intent for the proposed project and will provide general descriptions regarding compliance with the key applicable standards for review as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code. Please refer to the Site Plan submitted herewith for specific details regarding the proposed project. Project Information The subject properties are located along Fall River Ct. with approximately .47 acres of land. The property is currently undeveloped. The property is zoned E-1 Estates, 1-acre minimum per the Estes Valley Zoning District Maps. The proposed project is to build a single-family home in the southern portion of the property. The variance request is for is 10’ side setback along the eastern property line, and 15’ front setback along the southern property line. Zoning and utility easements are proposed to remain unchanged. Considering the steep terrain, site access points and grading standards the lot does not contain a fully “buildable” site without considering a variance request. The proposed house location takes advantage of an area on the property with the shallowest slope while also minimizing the scale of the variance needed to accommodate a building site of reasonable size and character for the neighborhood. Please refer to the Slope Analysis Exhibit attached to this letter. 15 PAGE 2 OF 4 Compliance with Standards for Review 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. Response: The subject property is located on a steep mountain side. The average slope ranges from 30- 50%. The lot has road access along the North and South property lines, with the shape of the lot narrowing toward the south. The safest building site is proposed to be located on the south property line. The proposed single family home setback variance request does not impact any existing easements or public utilities. 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; Response: The variance allows the applicant to utilize the best and safest buildable area while maintaining the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Placing the building within the existing setback limits would require placing the structure entirely on slopes up to 70% which is more than double what be allowed under current code requirements. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Response: The variance requested is the minimum required to provide relief to the applicant. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment because of the variance; Response: The variance requested would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed residence is similar in size and position relative to the surrounding homes in the neighborhood d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Response: No public utility services or easements are impacted by the proposed project. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and Response: To my knowledge, the applicant was not aware of the site’s limitations when considering both grade and setback standards. 16 PAGE 3 OF 4 f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Response: The requested variance is the minimum to provide relief for the proposed project. 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. Response: Many properties in the neighborhood do share a similar configuration and layout of property lines and structures, although it is unlikely that the variance required for the circumstances of the property will result in formulation of a general regulation for such condition. 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. Response: The requested variance will not alter the size of any lot or result in an increase number of lots. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Response: The requested variance is the least deviation from the regulation that will afford relief. 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. Response: The requested variance will not permit a use prohibited by the EVDC. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Response: Acknowledged. 17 PAGE 4 OF 4 We thank you for time and consideration of the proposed Lot 2 Fall River Estates Setback Variance. If there are any questions about the project or items discussed above, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-308-8221. Sincerely, David Bangs, P.E. Principal Engineer Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, LLC 18 19 PAGE 1 OF 3 February 5, 2021 Alex Bergeron Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3723 RE: Responses to Review Comments for Lot 2, Fall River Estates Setback Variance Alex: This letter is to provide responses to review comments for the Setback Variance Application at the above referenced project. Comments are listed below with a response in italics. 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. Response: It is our opinion that this variance would not be considered substantial as it provides the applicant reasonable use of the property on a lot with challenging topography. The variance request and design is specifically made in order to reduce and limit the impact of the variance to the southeastern and southwestern property boundaries. 20 PAGE 2 OF 3 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. Response: It is our opinion that mitigating this predicament without being granted a variance would result in an unreasonable building design and unsafe driveway approach. It would also require additional variances to grading and driveway design standards. Further, applicant believes that constructing a typical residence reasonable in size and scale to the area would result in challenges meeting building height requirements. 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. Response: It is our opinion that this is the minimum relief required due to careful consideration of the driveway approach, grades across the structure as well as analysis of the slopes at the subject property within the existing building setbacks. Given our analysis of these items, the proposed position of the home on the site provides the minimum relief for reasonable enjoyment of the property 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. Response: Please refer to the updated Site Plan. Responses to Statement of Intent review comments are made in this document. It is acknowledged that the current development code of the Town is the Estes Park Development Code. 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. 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 21 PAGE 3 OF 3 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. If are any questions about the responses made above, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Bangs, P.E. Principal Engineer Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers, LLC 22 LOT 2, BLOCK 2 FALL RIVER ESTATES (±0.47 ACRES) LOT 3 BLOCK 2 FALL RIVER ESTATES LOT 1 BLOCK 2 FALL RIVER ESTATES (∆ (∆∆(∆ 10.3' 14.7' EXISTING 10.0' UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP.) AND PROPOSED 10' BUILDING SETBACKPROPOSED 15.0' BUILDING SETBACK EXISTING 25.0' SETBACK (TYP. ALL SIDES) NEW 12.0' DRIVEWAY PROPOSED RESIDENCE PROPOSED GARAGE PARKING AREA AND TURNAROUND 25.3' 28.8' 790 5 79107915 7 9 0 0 7895 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 0 789579187902 79027 8 9 1 7 8 9 2 7883TOW=7901.3' BOW=7891.2' TOW=7900.8' BOW=7892.5' TOW=7913.1' BOW=7905.8' TOW=7918.9' BOW=7909.4' TOW=7915.4' BOW=7913.9'5.1'1 7 . 5 '5.1'1 6 . 3 '18.7'2.3'9.3'2 9 . 8 ' 4.0' 8. 5 ' 2.7'1 2 . 1 '6.7'6. 9 '20.0'2 5 . 9 ' 2.0'8.5'2 4 . 0 '24.0'15.5'17.3' 20.4' 10.3' 10.3' UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND FIBER UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER MAIN 1191 WOODSTOCK DRIVE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517 www.trailridgece.com * 970-308-8221 * dbangs@trailridgece.com© 2020 DAB SEWER MANHOLE WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT FOUND PROPERTY MONUMENTATION MEASURED DIMENSIONS DEEDED DIMENSIONS 20' SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 40' LEGEND UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE WATER MAIN EASEMENT BOUNDARY EDGE OF ASPHALT SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT CENTERLINE MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR CONCRETE SURFACE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR VARIANCE GRIFFIN RESIDENCE OWNER GRIFFIN, LARRY, CATHERINE ENGINEER/CONTACT PERSON TRAIL RIDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC 1191 WOODSTOCK DRIVE ESTES PARK, CO 80517 ZONING INFORMATION SUBJECT PROPERTY ZONING CLASSIFICATION: E-1 ESTATE SURROUNDING PROPERTY ZONING CLASSIFICATION: E-1 ESTATE BUILDING SETBACKS = 25' ALL SIDES SETBACK VARIANCE INFORMATION 1. APPLICANT REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO E.P.D.C. TABLE 4-2, "BASE DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS" WHICH REQUIRES 25' BUILDING SETBACKS FROM ALL LOT LINES . APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE UPPER PORTION OF THE LOT APPROXIMATELY AS SHOWN HEREON. 2. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10' SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED HOUSE FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY LOT LINE, AND 15' SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED HOUSE FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY LOT LINE. GENERAL NOTES 1. THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS A BOUNDARY SURVEY NOR IMPROVEMENT SURVEY. 2.THE BASIS OF BEARINGS USED FOR THIS SITE PLAN IS A CALCULATED LINE BETWEEN TWO FOUND MONUMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, MEASURED TO BEAR N09°01'46"E. ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO THIS ASSUMPTION. PLATTED BEARINGS WERE ROTATED 0°0'5" CLOCKWISE TO MATCH THIS MEASURED LINE. 3. BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS TAKEN FROM THE PLAT OF RECORD FOR FALL RIVER ESTATES, LOCATED AT LARIMER COUNTY RECEPTION #23972. 4. NO RIGHT OF WAY RESEARCH WAS PERFORMED FOR COUNTY ROAD 43 IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 5. SURFACE UTILITIES ARE SHOWN HERON AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD. TRAIL RIDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DID NOT CALL FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATES PRIOR TO THE FIELD SURVEY AND DOES NOT WARRANT THE LOCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON. THAT RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR. 6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM LARIMER COUNTY 2013 LIDAR DATA. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (VERBATIM FROM WARRANTY DEED AT LARIMER COUNTY RECEPTION #202000083296) LOT 2, BLOCK 2, FALL RIVER ESTATES, A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF SECTIONS 15 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ELEC/TELE/CABLE PEDESTAL/TRANSFORMER 2-5-2021 APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS DAB 1 23 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 24 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: 25 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: 26 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. 27 2/23/2021 Town of Estes Park Mail - Application Comments (Second Review): Setback Variance, Lot 2 Fall River Estates https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar4221222751359805608&simpl=msg-a%3Ar4221222751…1/1 Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Application Comments (Second Review): Setback Variance, Lot 2 Fall River Estates Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org>Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:58 AM To: David Bangs <dbangs@trailridgece.com> Cc: Lindsay McFarland <lmcfarland@trailridgece.com>, Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Good morning, Your application for a Variance to minimum setback requirements for Lot 2 of the Fall River Estates subdivision yielded the following comments on the SECOND review: PUBLIC WORKS: 1. Justification for Variance. Please see the attached comment form. PLANNING: 1. Justification for Variance. Planning concurs with the findings of the Public Works department. Specifically, the fact that Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) §7.1. does not apply to the lot given it's date of creation being in 1971 - long before the effective date of the Code - negates the argument that a more cumbersome variance to that Section would be necessary if this variance were not approved. In addition, the safety argument presented by the applicant as it relates to the driveway was not echoed by the Fire Department in their comments on either review, with them instead noting the need for sprinkler systems if the driveway cannot support their equipment due to driveway grade, length, etc., which is understood to be common. Finding insufficient merit in the arguments for the variance as it relates to the criteria outlined in EPDC §3.6.C, and considering the public comment received in opposition to the proposal, Planning will recommend denial of the application. Of course, the Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body in this case and a strong showing by the applicant team at the Public Hearing, which has been legally noticed and scheduled, may be favorable to you. 2. Posted Notice. §3.15 of the EPDC requires standard notice of the pending public hearing be 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. We have not yet received this photo. For there to be any opportunity for success, be sure to submit that photograph to Community Development prior to the hearing with Tuesday, February 16th being the deadline for sign posting at the site. Please deliver the photo on or before February 23rd, which is when the staff report for the case will be completed. - Alex Bergeron Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 Lot 2 Fall River Estates (2nd Round) Comments.docx 14K 28 Friday, February 12th, 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). 29 Alex Bergeron, Planner II Estes Park Community Development Department PO Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Mr. Bergeron, I am writing today to express my concerns about the variances requested for Lot 2, Block 2 of Fall River Estates. For the past thirty years, I have been the owner of the home immediately adjacent to this property on Lot 1, addressed as 1061 Fall River Court. Fall River Estates contains a variety of residences ranging from traditional log houses to modern steel and glass structures. I have never believed that surrounding property owners should be able to prevent another lot owner from building the type of home they choose. But I do believe surrounding property owners have the right to expect that all of the homes in the neighborhood will be, to the greatest extent practical, in compliance with the standards established by the protective covenants for the homeowners association and the land use regulations of the Town of Estes Park. It is my understanding that the Town’s land use regulations require 25 foot front, rear and side setbacks in this residential zone. In looking at the proposed site plan for the residence seeking a variance, it appears that the front setback would be reduced from 25 feet to approximately 17 feet, and the side setback along the property line shared with my property would be reduced from 25 feet to approximately 10 feet. The development of the large parking area would appear to require the construction of retaining walls within just a few feet of the other side property line. I must note, too, that in order to take access from the “top” or highest portion of this lot, it appears the driveway, which would also appear to require significant retaining walls, would occupy much of the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to this lot, and indeed would also occupy a portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to my own neighboring lot. Public rights-of-way were intended to be preserved to the greatest extent possible for both existing and potential future public improvements such as the roadway and utilities. Of necessity, the public rights-of-way must accommodate access to adjacent homes, but these private encroachments are usually limited to perpendicular driveways perhaps a dozen or so feet in width. The applicant’s use of such a large portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to his lot as well as mine for private improvements seems incompatible with the original purpose and intent of that dedicated public property. The combined effect of the significant reductions in setbacks and occupation of the public right-of-way would be to almost completely eliminate all of the trees and vegetation on this portion of the lot, to be replaced by hard surfaces— rooftops and driving and parking surfaces—almost from property line to property line and all the way out to the existing roadway. It would certainly give the appearance that there had been no required setbacks at all and very little dedicated public right-of-way. February 16, 2021 30 I understand the need for minor and reasonable variances in regulations such as setbacks. Over the years, I realize other property owners have been granted minor or reasonable variances, but the variances requested here are, in my opinion, neither minor nor reasonable. The letter from the applicant’s engineer suggests that the requested variance is required to safely develop a house on the lot, given this lot’s configuration and topography. I respectfully disagree. Many, if not most, of the single family residential lots in Fall River Estates have challenging topography. For decades, homes have been built throughout the Estes Valley on steep lots. In Fall River Estates and elsewhere, one common approach to constructing a house on a steep lot which requires access from the lowest portion of the lot is to place the parking and garage on the lower level, with the main living level above the garage. It is my belief that this approach is feasible for the subject lot and is in all likelihood what was anticipated when the configuration of this lot was originally created. Placing the house on the lower and considerably wider portion of the lot would not require such drastic reductions in setbacks, nor would it require such an expansive parking area or a driveway which restricts the future utilization of the public right-of-way. The engineer’s letter states that, if approved, the proposed home would not alter the character of the neighborhood, and would be similar in size and position relative to the surrounding homes. Again, I respectfully disagree. The use of a major portion of the adjoining public right-of-way for private improvements (the driveway and retaining walls) and such dramatic reductions in the setbacks from multiple property lines are not found to this extent on any of the immediately surrounding homes. I can perhaps understand the applicant’s desire to have these variances approved, taking access from the narrowest but highest portion of the lot. The elevated view from the home in this location would likely be more pleasing. But there are alternative ways to develop a home on this lot such as altering the home’s footprint and location which would be both safe and more compliant with the existing land use regulations. If there had been no rights-of-way or setbacks in existence at the time I constructed my home, I would have built in a different location and configuration. But other property owners and I adjusted our desires and our plans in order to comply to the greatest extent possible with all applicable regulations when our homes were constructed, with the understanding and belief that other, later property owners would do the same. The variances requested by the property owner in this case may be desired but they are not absolutely required to construct a home on this particular lot; reasonable alternatives exist, just as they existed for me and for other property owners when we built our own homes. The variances requested in this case go too far in failing to conform to applicable regulations and altering the character of the surrounding properties; at a minimum, they can and should be scaled back considerably. Therefore, I urge the Board of Adjustments not to approve the requested variances. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Marc Engemoen Owner of 1061 Fall River Court, Estes Park 31 1/26/2021 Town of Estes Park Mail - Proposed variance for Lot 2 of Fall River Estates https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1689517293402315949&simpl=msg-f%3A168951729340…1/2 Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Proposed variance for Lot 2 of Fall River Estates 4 messages Marc Engemoen <mengemoen1955@gmail.com>Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:14 AM To: planning@estes.org Hello, Yesterday evening I learned about a proposal for a home on Lot 2 in Fall River Estates. I am the owner of the adjacent home on Lot 1 of Fall River Estates. I am very much opposed to the proposed variance of the setbacks and would like to speak to a town planner about how to made my concerns and objections known before action is taken on the proposed variance. I can be reached by return email, or my telephone number is (970) 420-0100. I look forward to speaking with someone. Thank you. Regards, Marc Engemoen mengemoen1955@gmail.com (970) 420-0100 Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org>Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:44 AM To: Marc Engemoen <mengemoen1955@gmail.com> Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> Hi Marc, Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I am the lead Planner on this variance request, and can answer any questions you may have. The project has just entered our review 'pipeline,' and a Board of Adjustment hearing date is anticipated to be March 2, 2021. If you would like, you may feel free to write to me the specific objections you have so I may include them in my packet to the BOA. - Alex Bergeron Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 [Quoted text hidden] Marc Engemoen <mengemoen1955@gmail.com>Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:02 PM To: Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Cc: Thomas Shults <tom.w.shults@gmail.com> Alex, Thanks very much for the prompt response. I’ve spoken to one of my neighbors—the one who brought this matter to my attention yesterday evening—and I think both of us might send letters expressing a few concerns about the proposed variance. Knowing that the BOA hearing will probably be at the beginning of March, can you tell me what your deadline is for receiving written comments? I worked for the City of Fort Collins and for Larimer County for about 40 years, so I’m definitely familiar with deadlines for board packets. I’m guessing written comments are probably due something like 30 days in advance of the meeting, but getting the actual deadline from you will be much appreciated. And with Covid, are BOA meetings held virtually rather than in person these days? I’m not sure I will plan on attending the meeting, but I would like to understand the process, including whether the BOA decision can be appealed to the Town Council and who could make such an appeal. Thanks for your help with these questions, and again, for your prompt response. 32 1/26/2021 Town of Estes Park Mail - Proposed variance for Lot 2 of Fall River Estates https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1689517293402315949&simpl=msg-f%3A168951729340…2/2 Regards, Marc [Quoted text hidden] Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org>Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:15 PM To: Marc Engemoen <mengemoen1955@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Shults <tom.w.shults@gmail.com> BOA meetings are being conducted virtually, yes. We still provide for public comment during those meetings if you are interested in that. I'm sure that instructions for attendance will be on our website (or via an email to kswanlund@estes.org if not). You may speak publicly and/or deliver letters to me for inclusion in the packet. I'd need those letters by Friday, February 19th, please, if I am to address them in my staff report. The application materials are available on our website in the "current applications" section. Note that these may be revised by the applicant pending any revisions requested by staff (which would be delivered by the applicant on February 5th EOB). - Alex Bergeron Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 [Quoted text hidden] 33 1 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 34 2 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) 35 2/15/2021 Town of Estes Park Mail - Fall River Estates Variance Application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1689977249306614562&simpl=msg-f%3A168997724930…1/2 Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Fall River Estates Variance Application 4 messages Phil DuChateau <duchateau.phil45@gmail.com>Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:04 PM To: abergeron@estes.org Community Development Department Town of Estes Park Subject: Fall River Estates Lot 2 Variance Application Attn.: Mr. Bergeron, I understand you are the contact regarding the setback variance request for the subject property. If not, I would appreciate you forwarding this email to the correct individual. As the president of the HOA, I have been contacted by several property owners concerning the request for a setback variance for Lot 2. The Fall River Estates HOA Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions requires all setback requirements meet the Town of Estes Park Building Code. As such, the HOA will abide by the Town’s decision in granting or denying a variance. My question is, will the adjacent property owners be contacted for their opinion or input on this variance request? At this point the property owners to the south and east of Lot 2 have expressed concern and I would like to advise them as to any input or opportunity they may have to voice their opinion. Regards, Phil DuChateau Fall River Estates HOA 630-740-5378 Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org>Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:12 PM To: Phil DuChateau <duchateau.phil45@gmail.com> Hi Mr. DuChateau, I am the correct contact for this case. I appreciate your feedback, and that of other neighboring property owners, and will be sure to deliver your concerns to the Board of Adjustment. Letters notifying all adjacent property owners and those within the required notification area will receive mailed notices regarding this project, likely around February 10th. - Alex Bergeron Planner II Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 970-577-3729 [Quoted text hidden] Phil DuChateau <duchateau.phil45@gmail.com>Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 2:46 PM To: Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Hello Mr. Bergeron, 36 2/15/2021 Town of Estes Park Mail - Fall River Estates Variance Application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=f7fd0cc745&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1689977249306614562&simpl=msg-f%3A168997724930…2/2 I’m following up on previous email concerning the variance request on Lot 2 in Fall River Estates. I have been contacted again by property owners adjacent to Lot 2, and they are concerned they have not been contacted to allow their input on the request. The property owners in question are: Tom and Sally Schults, 1064 Fall River Court, (directly across the street from Lot 2) Marc Engemoen, 1061 Fall River Court, (property adjacent to and directly east of Lot 2) The HOA does not have an opinion on the request for variance as our Covenants follow Town of Estes Park Codes. Are there plans to contact these people? If not, is there a procedure for them to be heard? Regards, Phil DuChateau [Quoted text hidden] Phil DuChateau <duchateau.phil45@gmail.com>Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 3:47 PM To: Alex Bergeron <abergeron@estes.org> Saturday 2/13 Received the “Notice of Public Hearing” in todays mail. That should take care of the issue. Phil DuChateau [Quoted text hidden] 37 38 2/24/2021 CURRENT PROJECTS Submittal Date Application Type Project Name Location Recomm ending/ Decision Making Bodies Next Proposed Meeting Date Ex-Parte Prohibited Staff 8/3/2020 Code Amendment Downtown Building Height discussion only PC 16-Mar RH 10/2/2020 Special Review Cell Tower 1575 S St Vrain TB 23-Mar JW 1/4/2021 Code Amendment Solar Setbacks PC 16-Mar AB 1/13/2021 Setback Variance Fall River Estates TBD Fall River Court BOA 2-Mar AB 1/15/2021 Code Amendment Impervious Lot Coverage PC 16-Mar JW 2/1/2021 Annexation High Pines Subdivision 1,11 Riverside Dr PC tbd yes AB key: PC-Planning Commission TB-Town Board BOA-Board of Adjustment TRC-Technical Review Committee staff: JW-Jeff Woeber RH-Randy Hunt AB-Alex Bergeron AA-Ayres Associates (consultants) *Scheduled Neighborhood Meetings:Meeting Location Date 39 NOTICE On Tuesday, March 2, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., a virtual meeting will be held by the Estes Park Board of Adjustment to consider an application for a setback variance for the property and purpose described below. Legal Description: LOT 2, BLK 2, FALL RIVER EST, EP Type and Intensity of Use: Applicant requests approval of a variance to allow for a 10-foot side setback on the eastern property line and a 15-foot front setback on the southern property line. The stated reasons for the request relate to perceived challenges with the slope of the property. Owner/Applicant: Larry and Catherine Griffin/Trail Ridge Consulting Engineers. For more information, please visit www.estes.org/currentapplications or contact the Community Development Department at planning@estes.org or 970-577-3721. 40