TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, July … · 7/14/2020 · Town Planner Bell reads...

TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, July 14, 2020 8:00AM

following the Planning Commission Online Meeting (instructions on second page)

A G E N D A

I. Meeting Call to Order

II. Roll Call of BOA Members

III. Minutes for Review: June 23, 2020

IV. Conflicts of Interest

V. Action Items:

A. 32 Linden Road / 110 Cedar Drive – Midpoint Height

Computer Log-In Instructions Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83457469594?pwd=cyttK0xIdGwwTy9MZEJ6NUdoRGRZZz09 Password: 401506 Phone Log-In Instructions Dial In Numbers +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or Webinar ID: 834 5746 9594 Password: 401506 You can log into the Zoom meeting through the link above to view what is projected on the screen. You can use either your computer audio or the number above. Everyone will be muted upon entry into the meeting to ensure that we have manageable background noise and limited interruptions. Public Hearing Process If you would like to participate in the public hearing, please follow these instructions so we can make sure everyone that wants to speak has the opportunity. When you log into Zoom you will be automatically muted to limit background noise. When the public hearing is opened for public comment, please use the “raise your hand” feature and staff will unmute citizens in the order they were received. To enable “raise your hand” feature, click on the “Participates” button the bottom of the screen. If you are signed in to the Zoom meeting through the computer, there is an option to type comments directly through the “Chat” feature. You can indicate using that feature that you intend to make a comment and if you wish to make that comment by typing, Town Staff can read the comment for you.

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83457469594?pwd=cyttK0xIdGwwTy9MZEJ6NUdoRGRZZz09

TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Tuesday, June 23, 2020 8:00AM following the Planning Commission

MINUTE

I. The meeting was called to order. 9:35 am

II. Roll Call indicated present BOA Chairman Brad Holzwarth, BOA Members Dave Barker, Doug Robbins, George Stevens, and Jonathan Larson are present. Community Development Director James Shockey and Town Planner Hugh Bell are also present. BOA Member Kish is absent.

III. Minutes for Review: June 9, 2020. BOA Member Barker makes a motion to approve the

minute. BOA Member Robbins seconds. The BOA minute is approved 5, 0.

IV. Conflicts of Interest. None

V. Action Items:

This is a continuation from the last meeting. Although, these variance requests belong to the same project, each one of them is being discussed separately in order to give separate variances. Town Planner Bell reads the amended part for each address:

A. 313 Northwoods Place – Front Setback

Planner Bell reads the statement about the amendment: “The applicant has amended their setback variance application to request a 13'-6" front yard setback rather than a 10' front yard setback; this packet contains those revised documents, specifically "Application Amendment", "Schedule 1", and "Schedule 2".

B. 319 Northwoods Place – Front Setback Once again, Planner Bell reads the statement about the amendment: “The applicant has amended their setback variance application to request a 14'-6" front yard setback rather than a 10' front yard setback; this packet contains those revised documents, specifically "Application Amendment", "Schedule 1", and "Schedule 2".

C. 325 Northwoods Place – Front Setback Planner Bell reads the statement about the amendment: “The applicant has amended their setback variance application to request a 13'-0" front yard setback rather than a 10' front yard setback; this packet contains those revised documents, specifically "Application Amendment", "Schedule 1", and "Schedule 2". Planner Bell says that Legal Council decided that there is not original language on the FDP that require the Town Council review the a variance request. The applicants, Mr. Todd Mohr and Ms. Alison Lipman, come forward. June 9th, 2020. Mr. Mohr gives an

overview for each amendment. He uses a map to illustrate better the reason behind the amendments. BOA Member Stevens asks a question about design changes for building 2 on lot 19 setback. Mr. Mohr replies explaining the encroachment, the parking spaces per unit, the driveway and the driveway parking. He says that they did not plan design changes specifically. The developers’ intention is to keep the design integrity of the aesthetics. Mr. Mohr also mentions that the HOA requires a third parking space. However, the covenant does not allow on-driveway parking. Mr. Mohr describes the parking spaces for the units. At least one space for each duplex unit will be big enough for a full-size SUV. There is further discussion to clarify this item. Mr. Mohr expands more about the design and the practicality of the situation. One of the main goals is to keep the integrity of the design throughout the project. Chairman Holzwarth opens the public section comments for 313 North Woods. No one comes forward. BOA Members Barker and Stevens understand the challenge, but they say that there are things that could be done to meet the criteria. There is a discussion among the BOA members about how this variance request meet the first criteria. Some of the members think this one is subject to interpretation and it is a little confusing. Director Shockey shows on the screen the Code criteria. He states that the language implies that all three criteria must be met in order to grant variance. Mr. Mohr interjects and points out that lowering the sales price might not be as profitable as desired. These units are intended to be sold for permanent residents and not short-term rentals. Mr. Mohr adds that a smaller footprint would result in lower return. Finally, he thinks they have done the necessary changes to be in compliance with the Code and get a reasonable return at the same time. There is further discussion about this topic among the members of the BOA. The BOA discuss a previous variance granted on Arapahoe Road. BOA Member Larson says that the first criteria is really subjective but, he feels the request meets all three criteria. BOA Member Barker adds that, for him, the developer is not requesting this variance out of unreasonable profit expectations. He thinks it is important to keep the design of the neighborhood constant. Finally, BOA Member Barker thinks that the applicant complies with the first criteria. BOA Member Stevens asks what the number of approval votes need to be in order for the variance to be granted. Chairman Holzwarth and Director Shockey reply 4 out of 5 votes need to be “yes”. Chairman Holzwarth opens the BOA meeting for public comments. No one comes forward. BOA Member Larson motions to grant variance and, for the records, the variance request meets all three criteria. BOA Member Robbins seconds. No further discussion. The variance is granted 5, 0. All three criteria are met. Chairman Holzwarth points out that 319 North Woods has a different setback. Mr. Mohr affirms that he has no comments about this variance request. Chairman Holzwarth opens the BOA meeting for public comments. No one comes forward and no further discussion. BOA Member Barker makes a motion to grant variance. BOA Member Robbins seconds.

The variance is granted 5, 0. All three criteria are met. Chairman Holzwarth opens the BOA meeting to discuss 325 North Woods Place. Planner Bell says that this request is for a 13 ft. setback. Once again, Mr. Mohr affirms that he has no comments about this variance request. Chairman Holzwarth opens the BOA meeting for public comments. No one comes forward and no further discussion. BOA Member Robbins motions to grant the variance request. BOA Member Larson seconds. The variance is granted 5, 0. All three criteria are met. BOA Member makes a motion to adjourn the BOA meeting. BOA Member Stevens seconds. Motion to adjourn the meeting 5, 0. Upon a previously adopted motion, the BOA meeting is adjourned at 10:23 am.

TO

FROM

THRU

DATE

RE

Applicant: Tyler Wilcox Description of Variance Request: Request for midpoint height variance of 37’-1 7/8” on proposed duplex. Owner’s Reasons Why the Variance Should Be Granted: “Requesting a height variance of 37'-1 7/8" on the roof mid-point requirement of 35'-0" due to unusual circumstances with physical surrounds and topographical conditions, along with a hardship that has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. …

- Foundation work completed to date is in compliance with plans as approved by the Architectural Review Committee on 3/24/2020 and approved for permit by the Building Department on 05/18/2020.

- The house was designed per the Town of Winter Park Residential Architectural Guidelines and Design Regulations, including Guideline 1: Building Height for non-sloping sites and Guideline 8: Cuts and Fills.

o During the design phase, neighboring duplexes served as assumed approved precedent, from which we determined the foundation top of wall, grading and building height calculations.

o During the design phase, existing conditions and elevations of street pavement, and right-of-way drainage determined the siting of the house and top of foundation.

- Current grades and top of wall conditions would have not changed had the dimensional discrepancy been discovered during architectural review process and building permit approval.

o Due to water table discovery post commencement of construction, it would have been impossible and bad construction practice to lower the bottom of footers anymore than they currently exist. (See addendum to soils report dated 6/1/2020)

o Circumstantially, it may have been perceived by the complainant that the grade was being built-up with the excessive amount of trucking required for export and import of material. However, per the amended soils report dated 6/1/2020 mandated all native soil be removed and replaced.

- Given the completed costs of construction, paid to date costs on non-refundable custom order material being manufactured for the project, as well as the current construction schedule, it’s unrealistic to expect the house be re-designed to be in full conformance with the mid-point requirement at this time.

- In light of the discovery of the mid-point calculation discrepancy, which was approved by the Town of Winter Park, in an effort of good faith, the overall height of the building has been lowered by 12”. At this point in time, it would be impossible to lower the height any further, without drastic implications.

Board of Adjustment

Hugh Bell, Planner

James Shockey, Community Development Director

July 14, 2020

Height Variance Request – 32 Linden Road / 110 Cedar Drive, Lot 6 Block

4, Winter Park Village

- Given the existing unusual soil conditions, the only possible scenario for building a residence on the site required removing all existing soil material and importing new structural fill. Without this factor, the site would not yield a reasonable return.

- The plight of the owner is due to unusual soil conditions, including unsuitable existing bearing soil, that at the recommendation of the certified soils engineer, needed to be removed and replaced, resulting in necessary fill. Attached is addendum to soils report dated 06/01/2020.

- The variation request for the mid-point height, will not alter the character of the neighborhood as the overall height is still under the allowable max roof height measurement of 42’-0”. Additionally, the rocks are native to the site, and correspond to neighboring properties with similar features. The rocks also greatly decrease erosion potential per approved plans and drastically improve existing and proposed drainage flow for the Right-of-Way and adjacent property owners.”

Please see applicant’s attached application for further details.

Applicable Town Code: 7-4C-4: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: B. Maximum Height Of Structures:

1. No dwelling or other structure permitted in the R-2-O district shall exceed thirty-five feet (35') in "height", as defined in chapter 2 of this title and further described in chapter 3 of this title. (Ord. 324, Series of 2002)

6-2-9: VARIANCES:

A. Intent Of Variance Provision: Variance from the terms of this chapter shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this chapter deprives such property privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity, and under identical zoning classification and other restrictions.

Criteria to Grant Variance (Town Code § 7-8): 7-8-1B: No variance shall be granted unless the board of adjustment finds, based on evidence, that ALL of the following criteria exist: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return in use or service if permitted to be used

only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the municipality.

2. The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances.

3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

7-8-1C: For the purpose of implementing the above rules, the Board shall also, in making its determination whether there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, take into consideration the extent to which the following facts favorable to the applicant have been established by the evidence:

1. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere

inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.

2. The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification.

3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to make more money out of the property.

4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.

5. The granting of the variation would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.

6. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

Public Notification: This variance request has had proper public notification pursuant to Section 7-8-3 of the Town Code. A Public Notice was published in the Middle Park Times on June 26, 2020, providing notification of the meeting and requesting comments. Mailings were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property on June 25 and the property was posted on June 26, 2020. Two comments have been received as of July 8, 2020. The applicant has also submitted ten signed support letters from neighbors (attached). Staff Comments: The applicant is requesting a variance for a midpoint building height of 37’-1 7/8” from the required 35’. The Design Review application for the March 24, 2020 Planning Commission hearing measured midpoint and maximum building height from the grade at which the house intersected with the finished grade rather than the lowest point of existing or proposed grade elevation (whichever was lower). In this case the existing grade was lower and was not drawn in elevation exhibits. In error, Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the design, as the elevation measuring from finished grade complied with the maximum midpoint height at 34’-9 5/8” and complied with the maximum overall height at 38’-5 1/8”. As now measured from the correct existing grade elevation (per the new variance application submittal), the maximum height requirement is still satisfied at 40’-4 ¾”. The midpoint, however, is 2’-1 7/8” higher than the allowed height. In good faith, the applicant has subtracted 1’ from the overall height in order to bring the midpoint height closer to conformance. The lot was filled with new soils due to unsuitable existing soils per the project’s soils engineer. Foundations have been poured per prior approval from Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Building Division.

Staff Recommendation: Staff does not provide a recommendation for variance requests. The Board of Adjustment must prove that a hardship is applicable and must establish findings of fact as related to the particular difficulties of the site. The hardship must be determined using ALL the following criteria:

1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return in use or service if permitted to be

used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the municipality. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances.


VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM

Date: / /

Applicant Name: Mailing Address: Phone Number: E-mail Address:

Applicant is the: ☐ Property Owner ☐ Other:

Street address of property for which variance is requested: Legal description of property: Detailed description of the variance requested and an explanation of why the applicant believes the variance should be granted (please attach additional sheets if necessary):

Indicate which conditions listed below relate to the property for which variance is requested. Please note, the Board of Adjustment cannot grant a variance unless it finds, based on evidence, that ALL the following conditions exist.

☐ The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return in use or service if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the municipality*

☐ The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances* ☐ The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality* *For each condition checked above, applicant must provide adequate supporting evidence with this application.

Please indicate which of the following facts favorable to your application apply to this request:

☐ The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out*

☐ The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification*

☐ The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to make more money out of the property* ☐ The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property* ☐ The granting of the variation would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or

improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located* ☐ The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially

increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood*

*For each condition checked above, applicant must provide adequate supporting evidence with this application.

Applicant Signature:

Please submit all materials electronically to [email protected]

Date Received: $250 Fee Received: Received By:

06 19 20Tyler Wilcox220 Costilla Ave, Centennial, CO 80122-1107

720-484-9246 [email protected]

32 Linden Road/110 Cedar DriveLot 6, Block 4 Winter Park Village

Requesting a height variance of 37'-1 7/8" on the roof mid-point requirement of 35'-0"due to unusual circumstances with physical surrounds and topographical conditions, along with a hardship that has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Summary

- Foundation work completed to date is in compliance with plans as approved by the Architectural Review Committee on 3/24/2020 and approved for permit by the Building Department on 05/18/2020.

- The house was designed per the Town of Winter Park Residential Architectural Guidelines and Design Regulations, including Guideline 1: Building Height for non-sloping sites and Guideline 8: Cuts and Fills.

- During the design phase, neighboring duplexes served as assumed approved precedent, from which we determined the foundation top of wall, grading and building height calculations.

- During the design phase, existing conditions and elevations of street pavement, and right-of-way drainage determined the siting of the house and top of foundation.

- Current grades and top of wall conditions would have not changed had the dimensional discrepancy been discovered during architectural review process and building permit approval.

- Due to water table discovery post commencement of construction, it would have been impossible and bad construction practice to lower the bottom of footers any more than they currently exist. (See addendum to soils report dated 6/1/2020)

- Circumstantially, it may have been perceived by the complainant that the grade was being built-up with the excessive amount of trucking required for export and import of material. However, per the amended soils report dated 6/1/2020 mandated all native soil be removed and replaced.

- Given the completed costs of construction, paid to date costs on non-refundable custom order material being manufactured for the project, as well as the current construction schedule, it’s unrealistic to expect the house be re-designed to be in full conformance with the mid-point requirement at this time.

- In light of the discovery of the mid-point calculation discrepancy, which was approved by the Town of Winter Park, in an effort of good faith, the overall height of the building has been lowered by 12”. At this point in time, it would be impossible to lower the height any further, without drastic implications.

Conditions Relating to the Property for which the Variance is Requested

Please find the following three conditions (in bold) with response (in italics) that must exist in order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance.

1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return in use or service if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations for the municipality.

Given the existing unusual soil conditions, the only possible scenario for building a residence on the site required removing all existing soil material and importing new structural fill. Without this factor, the site would not yield a reasonable return.

2. The plight of the owner is due to unusual circumstances.

The plight of the owner is due to unusual soil conditions, including unsuitable existing bearing soil, that at the recommendation of the certified soils engineer, needed to be removed

and replaced, resulting in necessary fill. Attached is addendum to soils report dated 06/01/2020.


The variation request for the mid-point height, will not alter the character of the neighborhood as the overall height is still under the allowable max roof height measurement of 42’-0”. Additionally, the rocks are native to the site, and correspond to neighboring properties with similar features. The rocks also greatly decrease erosion potential per approved plans and drastically improve existing and proposed drainage flow for the Right-of-Way and adjacent property owners.

Applicable Facts Favorable to Variance Application Request

Please find the following facts (in bold) with response (in italics) in support of requested variance.

1. The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strike letter of the regulations were carried out.

First, the physical surroundings on the site, specifically the existing spot elevations on Cedar Drive, necessitated the requirement to establish the top of wall, as it exists in the field, above Cedar Drive in order to create positive drainage on the driveways. This is the recommended standard building practice for proper drainage.

Second, the top of wall for the foundation, as it exists in the field, responds to the physical grading established by the adjacent property to the south. The top of wall elevations are similar, and the rock wall along the east property line, responds to the existing rock wall established by the neighbor.

Third, the topographical conditions on the site create a hardship on the owner, as the quality of the existing soils created unsuitable bearing conditions, ultimately rendering it impossible to keep the existing grades and creating the necessity for added site fill. Please see the attached soils addendum dated 06/01/2020.

2. The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based would not be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification.

The combination of unique site soil conditions and existing grades, as outlined above, are not generally consistent to other properties with the same zoning classification.

3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to make more money out of the property.

The variance request on the height calculations due to added fill does not provide any financial benefit.

4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.

The plans and elevations showing the proposed grade, fill and building height calculations were approved by the Architectural Review Committee on 3/24/2020 and approved for permit by the Building Department on 05/18/2020. This error was not created by any person with interest in the property. Furthermore, in light of the discovery of the mid-point calculation discrepancy, in an effort of good faith, the overall height of the building has been lowered by 12”. At this point in time, it would be impossible to lower the height any further, without drastic implications.

5. The granting of the variation would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.

By granting the variance for the height calculations resulting from the necessary fill and rock, the neighborhood drainage is improved. Proper drainage in the Right-of-Way will assist the whole neighborhood as currently, there is not continuous flow down Linden Road. The raised and less severely sloped grade will prevent excessive erosion on to neighboring properties and Right-of-Way drainage. Further, there is now adequate space to reconfigure the Right-of-Way drainage along Linden Road to facilitate proper flow of runoff water from the Town streets.

6. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

Even though the requested variance for the roof mid-point calculation is above the allowable maximum, the overall height is still under the allowable max roof height measurement of 42’-0”, thus allowing adequate light over the roof slope for neighboring properties.

Win

ter

Park

Res

iden

ceA

Dup

lex

for J

ulia

& T

yler

Wilc

ox &

Ann

e &

Dan

iel H

acke

ttLo

t 6 B

lock

4 W

inte

r Par

k Vi

llage

Win

ter P

ark,

CO

804

82

ISSUED FOR DESIGN REVIEWFEBRUARY 24, 2020

ISSUED FOR BLDG. PERMITAPRIL 22, 2020

PERMIT REV. MAY 8, 2020

DATE: 6/18/20

A-2.0SHEET:

HA

CK

ET

Tw

ww

.hac

kett

arch

itec

ture

.com

AR

CH

ITE

CT

UR

E &

DE

SIG

N

© 2

020

Hac

kett

Arc

hite

ctur

e &

Des

ign

1

6"9'

-11/

8"1'

-05/

8"8'

-11/

8"1'

-05/

8"9'

-11/

8"1'

-71/

8"

3'-0

"

3'-0

"

40'-4

3/4"

7'-0

"8'

-0"

8'-0

"

36'-0

3/4"

7'-61/2"

2'-0

"

9'-8

1/8"

11'-1

1/8"

18'-9

1/4"

37'-1

"

42'-0

"

35'-0

"

122.5

W101B

14" Smooth Miratec trim board

1x2 Smooth MiratecTrim Bd., Typ.

1x8 Smooth MiratecCorner Trim Bd., Typ.

1x8 Smooth MiratecSkirt Trim Bd., Typ.

Smooth Hardie Lap Sidingwith 6" reveal


Slab. Ht.

Ground Flr. Plt.

Second Flr. Subflr.

Third Flr. Subflr.

Second Flr. Plt.

Third Flr. Plt.

EGRESS EGRESS EGRESS EGRESS

Midpoint of Roof Gable

0 5 10 20

Max. Allowable Ht.

Max Mid-point Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Ridge Ht.

Heel Ht.

Chimney Plt. Ht.

Highest Roof Point

122.5

123.75

Dining Rm. Plt. Ht.

123.75

W101A

W207AW208AW209A

W317AW318AW318BW317B

W208BW207B W209B


Proposed Grade: 9041.7'

Lowest Original Grade: 9038.0'

9'-1

1/8"

1'-0

5/8"

8'-1

1/8"

1'-0

5/8"

15'-1

1/8"

3'-0

"

3'-0

"3'

-0"

3'-0

"3'

-0"

3'-0

"

40'-4

3/4"

8'-1

1/8"

13'-0

"

9'-6

"

8'-0

"11

'-6"

8'-0

"11

'-6"1

4'-1

1/8"

42'-0

"

18'-9

1/4"

12'-1

01/8

"

W203A

10x9 Overhead Dr.10x9 Overhead Dr.

Slab. Ht.

Ground Flr. Plt.

Second Flr. Subflr.

Third Flr. Subflr.

Second Flr. Plt.

Third Flr. Plt.

EGRESS EGRESS









1/4" Smooth HardiePanels, Typ.


1/4" Smooth Hardie Panel Soffit

0 5 10 20

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Plt. Ht.

Highest Roof Point

Stl. Post;See Struct.

W202A W201A

W310A W308A W306A

W307AW309AW311A

W305A W303A W301A

W300AW302AW304A

W200A

W200B W201B W202B

W300B W302B W304B

W305BW303BW301B

W307B W309B W311B

W310BW308BW306B

W203

Max. Roof Ht. Chimney Plt. Ht.

Plt. Ht.




Smooth MiratecTrim Bd.,

Sized to Fit




SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

1 Proposed East ElevationA-2.0

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

2 Proposed West ElevationA-2.0

Win

ter

Park

Res

iden

ceA

Dup

lex

for J

ulia

& T

yler

Wilc

ox &

Ann

e &

Dan

iel H

acke

ttLo

t 6 B

lock

4 W

inte

r Par

k Vi

llage

Win

ter P

ark,

CO

804

82

ISSUED FOR DESIGN REVIEWFEBRUARY 24, 2020

ISSUED FOR BLDG. PERMITAPRIL 22, 2020

PERMIT REV. MAY 8, 2020

DATE: 6/18/20

A-2.1SHEET:

HA

CK

ET

Tw

ww

.hac

kett

arch

itec

ture

.com

AR

CH

ITE

CT

UR

E &

DE

SIG

N

© 2

020

Hac

kett

Arc

hite

ctur

e &

Des

ign

1

6"9'

-11/

8"1'

-05/

8"8'

-11/

8"1'

-05/

8"9'

-11/

8"

40'-4

3/4"

37'-1

7/8"

7'-0

"8'

-0"

3'-0

"3'

-0"

42'-0

"

35'-0

"

36'-0

3/4"

3'-0

"

11'-1

1/8"

10'-6

"

2'-0

"

18'-9

1/4"

14'-1

1/8"

W100A

8x8 Overhead Dr.


16" Smooth Miratec Fascia Bd.

Slab. Ht./ T.O.W.

Ground Flr. Plt.

Second Flr. Subflr.

Third Flr. Subflr.

Second Flr. Plt.

Third Flr. Plt.









EGRESS

Proposed Grade: 9041.7

0 5 10 20

Mid-point of Roof

Max Roof Height

Highest Roof Point

Max Mid-point Ht.

Ridge Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Plt. Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Family Rm. Plt. Ht.

Chimney Plt. Ht.

W204AW205A

W206A

W314A

W315A


123.75

6"9'

-11/

8"1'

-05/

8"8'

-11/

8"1'

-05/

8"9'

-11/

8"

8'-0

"

3'-0

"

37'-1

7/8"

3'-0

"

35'-0

"

42'-0

"

3'-0

"

7'-0

"10

'-6"

8'-0

3/4"

2'-0

"

18'-9

1/4"

11'-1

1/8"

40'-4

3/4"

W100B

Slab. Ht.

Ground Flr. Plt.

Second Flr. Subflr.

Third Flr. Subflr.

Second Flr. Plt.

Third Flr. Plt.






Midpoint of Roof

0 5 10 20


Max. Midpoint of Roof Ht.

Max. Roof Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Wdw. Hdr. Ht.

Align with Dr.

W204B

W205B

W312B

W320BW319B

W315BW314B W316B

Plt. Ht.

W313B


123.75

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

1 Proposed North ElevationA-2.1SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

2 Proposed South ElevationA-2.1

TR

WV

SAN MH

RIM=9036.1

INV=9027.4

S

D

S

D

S

D

FOUND #5 REBAR

WITH NO CAP

FOUND PK

NAIL WITH

3/4" BRASS

WASHER

FOUND PK

NAIL WITH

3/4" BRASS

WASHER

N

7

8

°0

4

'0

7

"E

7

1

.7

5

'

S

5

6

°

4

0

'

3

9

"

W

6

6

.

9

7

'

N

3

3

°

2

4

'

5

2

"

W

1

0

7

.

4

1

'

S

3

3

°

2

4

'

5

1

"

E

5

4

.

6

9

'

S

5

6

°

2

2

'

5

2

"

W

6

6

.

6

7

'

N

3

3

°

2

4

'

5

2

"

W

5

9

.

9

2

'

S

3

3

°

2

1

'

0

2

"

E

6

4

.

8

0

'

S

3

3

°

2

1

'

0

2

"

E

5

9

.

8

4

'

5

.

1

6

'

S

3

3

°

3

3

'

5

4

"

E

8

1

.

2

5

'

WINT

ER PA

RK VI

LLAG

E

AND C

EDAR

CREE

K

TOWN

HOME

S

REC #

2006-0

05624

UNIT

1

AMEN

DED F

INAL P

LAT,

LOTS

4 & 5

, BLO

CK 4,

WINT

ER PA

RK VI

LLAG

E

AND C

EDAR

CREE

K

TOWN

HOME

S

REC #

2006-0

05624

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

1

-

1

/

2

"

A

L

U

M

I

N

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"

P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

F

O

U

N

D

#

4

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

N

O

C

A

P

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

IT

H

1

-1

/2

" A

L

U

M

IN

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

LOT 2, BLOCK 4WINTER PARK VILLAGE

REC #90263


REC #90263


REC #90263

L

IN

D

E

N

R

O

A

D

(3

0

' R

O

W

)

C

E

D

A

R

D

R

I

V

E

(

3

0

'

R

O

W

)


REC #90263

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

1

-

1

/

2

"

A

L

U

M

I

N

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"

P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

E

L

E

V

=

9

0

3

8

.0

1

E

D

G

E

O

F

A

S

P

H

A

L

T

E

D

G

E

O

F

A

S

P

H

A

L

T

POWER

POLE

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

O

L

LOT 6, BLOCK 4

AREA=6,306 SQFT

S

E

T

1

8

"

L

O

N

G

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

2

"

A

L

U

M

I

N

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

P

L

S

3

4

5

9

2

S

E

T

1

8

" L

O

N

G

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

IT

H

2

" A

L

U

M

IN

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

P

L

S

3

4

5

9

2

N

7

8

°0

4

'0

7

"E

7

1

.8

8

'

(

S

3

3

°

3

3

'

'

E

-

P

L

A

T

)

5

'

U

T

I

L

I

T

Y

E

S

M

T

(

P

L

A

T

)

E

S

5

6

°

3

1

'

2

4

"

W

6

6

.

9

4

'

ELEC

TRAN

ELEC

METER

P

A

R

T

Y

W

A

L

L

CONC

PIER

9042.2

T.O.W.

X

1

5

'

S

E

T

B

A

C

K

1

5

' S

E

T

B

A

C

K

1

0

'

S

E

T

B

A

C

K

1

0

'

U

T

I

L

I

T

Y

E

S

M

T

(

P

L

A

T

)

10.1'

10.2'

10.7'

20.7'

(

B

A

S

I

S

O

F

B

E

A

R

I

N

G

)

(S

7

7

°4

4

'W

7

1

.9

1

'-P

L

A

T

)

(

S

3

3

°

3

3

'

E

1

0

6

.

9

5

'

-

P

L

A

T

)

(

S

5

6

°

2

7

'

W

6

7

'

-

P

L

A

T

)

1

5

'

S

E

T

B

A

C

K

RESIDENTIAL

HOME

FH

N

7

8

°0

4

'0

7

"E

7

1

.7

5

'

S

5

6

°

4

0

'

3

9

"

W

6

6

.

9

7

'

N

3

3

°

2

4

'

5

2

"

W

1

0

7

.

4

1

'

S

3

3

°

2

4

'

5

1

"

E

5

4

.

6

9

'

S

3

3

°

2

4

'

5

1

"

E

1

3

0

.

0

0

'

S

5

6

°

3

3

'

3

0

"

W

1

3

3

.

6

5

'

S

5

6

°

2

2

'

5

2

"

W

6

6

.

6

7

'

N

3

3

°

2

4

'

5

2

"

W

5

9

.

9

2

'

S

5

6

°

3

6

'

3

2

"

W

6

6

.

9

1

'

S

3

3

°

2

1

'

0

2

"

E

6

4

.

8

0

'

N

3

3

°

2

4

'

5

2

"

W

6

4

.

7

5

'

S

3

3

°

2

1

'

0

2

"

E

5

9

.

8

4

'

LOT4, BLOCK 4AMENDED FINAL PLAT,LOTS 4 & 5, BLOCK 4,

WINTER PARK VILLAGE ANDCEDAR CREEKTOWNHOMES

REC #2006-005624

UNIT

2

AMEN

DED F

INAL P

LAT,

LOTS

4 & 5

, BLO

CK 4,

WINT

ER PA

RK VI

LLAG

E

AND C

EDAR

CREE

K

TOWN

HOME

S

REC #

2006-0

05624

UNIT

1

AMEN

DED F

INAL P

LAT,

LOTS

4 & 5

, BLO

CK 4,

WINT

ER PA

RK VI

LLAG

E

AND C

EDAR

CREE

K

TOWN

HOME

S

REC #

2006-0

05624

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

IT

H

1

-1

/2

" A

L

U

M

IN

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

IT

H

N

O

C

A

P

F

O

U

N

D

P

K

N

A

IL

W

IT

H

3

/4

" B

R

A

S

S

W

A

S

H

E

R

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

IT

H

N

O

C

A

P

F

O

U

N

D

P

K

N

A

IL

W

IT

H

3

/4

" B

R

A

S

S

W

A

S

H

E

R

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

1

-

1

/

2

"

A

L

U

M

I

N

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"

P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

N

7

8

°0

2

'1

3

"E

7

3

.0

5

'

N

1

1

°4

8

'1

9

"W

5

9

.6

0

'

S

7

8

°0

2

'2

9

"W

7

2

.9

4

'

N

7

8

°0

2

'2

9

"E

7

2

.6

8

'

S

1

1

°4

1

'4

9

"E

5

9

.6

1

'

F

O

U

N

D

#

4

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

N

O

C

A

P

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

1

-

1

/

2

"

A

L

U

M

I

N

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"

P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

1

-

1

/

2

"

A

L

U

M

I

N

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"

P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

IT

H

1

-1

/2

" A

L

U

M

IN

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

F

O

U

N

D

#

4

R

E

B

A

R

F

O

U

N

D

#

4

R

E

B

A

R

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

N

O

C

A

P

N

O

T

F

O

U

N

D

F

O

U

N

D

#

5

R

E

B

A

R

W

I

T

H

1

-

1

/

2

"

A

L

U

M

I

N

U

M

C

A

P

M

A

R

K

E

D

"

P

L

S

3

1

9

4

2

"

5

.

1

6

'

5

.

1

6

'

S

E

T

S

E

T LOT 1, BLOCK 4WINTER PARK VILLAGE

REC #90263


REC #90263


REC #90263


REC #90263


REC #90263


REC #90263

N

2

0

°

4

6

'4

7

"

W

3

0

.

3

8

'

T

I

E

L

I

N

E

S

3

3

°

3

3

'

5

4

"

E

8

1

.

2

5

'


REC #90263


REC #90263


REC #90263


REC #90263

N

7

8

°0

4

'0

7

"E

7

1

.8

8

'L

IN

D

E

N

R

O

A

D

(3

0

' R

O

W

)

C

E

D

A

R

D

R

I

V

E

(

3

0

'

R

O

W

)

B

A

L

S

A

M

D

R

I

V

E

(

3

0

'

R

O

W

)

M

A

P

L

E

R

O

A

D

(

3

0

'

R

O

W

)

LA

ND

S

UR

VE

Y M

AP

SE

C. 10, T

2S

, R

75W

, 6T

H P

.M

.

GR

AN

D C

OU

NT

Y, C

OLO

RA

DO

RELEASE: _______

DESIGNED: _______

CAD: _______

QA/QC: _______

JOB NO. 20-053

SHEET 1 OF 1

LAND SURVEY PLAT

LOT 6, BLOCK 4, WINTER PARK VILLAGE

LOCATED IN A PORTION OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST

OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GRAND,

TOWN OF WINTER PARK, STATE OF COLORADO

6-18-20

MSK

MSK

MSK

20'10'0

1 inch = 10 ft.

BLOCK BREAKDOWN

20'10'0

1 inch = 10 ft.

MICHAEL SEAN KERVIN, CO PLS 34592DATE: 6-18-20CORE PROJ: 20-053FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CORECONSULTANTS

NOTES:

1.) BEARINGS SHOWN ON THE ACCOMPANYING LAND SURVEY PLAT ARE BASED ON THEASSUMPTION THAT THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, WINTER PARK VILLAGE BEARSS33°33'54"E, AS MONUMENTED AND SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF.

2.) THE PRIMARY BENCHMARK USED TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF ELEVATIONS FOR THIS MAP IS NGS H360, A STANDARD USCGS BRASS CAP SET IN BOULDER MARKED "H 360 1954". PUBLISHED NAVD88ELEVATION = 8971.34 U.S. SURVEY FEET. ALL ELEVATIONS TRANSFERRED TO THE SITE BY GPSMETHODS.

3.) ADDRESS: 32 LINDEN ROAD, WINTER PARK, CO - (VACANT LOT).

4.) CLIENT: TYLER WILCOX.

5.) THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT WAS USED FOR ALL MEASUREMENTS ON THIS SURVEY. PURSUANT TO C.R.S.38-52.103(2) METRIC CONVERSION IS: ONE METER EQUALS 3937/1200 FEET.

6.) CERTIFICATION NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL SEAL AND SIGNATURE. THIS SURVEY ANDALL RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE CLIENT AT THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION.

7.) FIELDWORK WAS COMPLETED MARCH 30, 2020 BY MICHAEL S. KERVIN. ALL MEASUREMENTS WEREOBTAINED USING A LEICA GS14.

8.) ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOULD BE FIELD VERIFIED BY THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY PRIORTO ANY CONSTRUCTION.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

ALL OF LOT 6, BLOCK 4, WINTER PARK VILLAGE, RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1959 ASRECEPTION NUMBER 90263 OF THE RECORDS OF GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO.

NOTICE:

ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASEDUPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVEREDSUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THISSURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THECERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:

I, MICHAEL SEAN KERVIN, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OFCOLORADO, DO HEREBY STATE THAT THIS SURVEY (AS DEFINED IN 12-25-202(6)(a), C.R.S.)AND THIS RESULTING PLAT WAS MADE UNDER MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE AND IS INACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND THAT THEMONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON ACTUALLY EXIST AND THAT THIS PLAT AND THE NOTESSHOWN HEREON ACCURATELY REPRESENTS SAID SURVEY TO THE BEST OF MYKNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT A GUARANTY ORWARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.

B-2 EXCEPTIONS:

THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY, RECORDED EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY, IF ANY, ARE SHOWN ONTHE ACCOMPANYING LAND SURVEY PLAT AS DISCLOSED IN THE ASCENDANT TITLE COMPANY,COMMITMENT NUMBER CO-19-21627, DATED NOVEMBER 12, 2019 AT 12:00 A.M. LANDS SHOWNHEREON MAY ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS IN SAID COMMITMENT NUMBER. OTHERINTERESTS OR EASEMENTS MAY EXIST. PER THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER OR OWNERS AGENT, NOADDITIONAL RESEARCH WAS COMPLETED BY CORE CONSULTANTS.

EXCEPTION 9. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITYOF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JANUARY 01, 1918, INBOOK 53 AT PAGE 264.

EXCEPTION 10. RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED TO MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPHCOMPANY BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 26, 1939 IN BOOK 87 AT PAGE 523.

EXCEPTION 11. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTERCLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR,RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP,NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE ORFEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BYAPPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 6, 1959, IN BOOK 129 AT PAGE335.

EXCEPTION 12. EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS ANDNOTES ON THE PLAT OF WINTER PARK VILLAGE RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1959UNDER RECEPTION NO. 90263.

EXCEPTION 13. RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED TO MOUNTAIN PARKS ELECTRIC, INC. BYINSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 27, 1959 IN BOOK 131 AT PAGE 9.

mkervinStamp

From: [email protected]: Hugh BellSubject: July14 Hearing for Zoning Variance for 32 Linden Road and 110 Cedar DriveDate: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:32:36 PM

Hi Hugh,I received the notice for this hearing, and had a couple questions –

1. Those are two separate properties, right?2. Does this mean both of those recent houses were built out of compliance with the 35’ height

limit?3. What is the topographical condition, or hardship condition, that applies to these houses?

Thanks,Mike KennedyOld Town Property, LLC

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

From: Kurt ColehowerTo: Hugh BellSubject: Zoning Variance - 32 Linden Rd / 110 Cedar DrDate: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:35:38 PM

Hello Hugh,

Let's preserve the beauty of Old Town and maintain the existing height restrictions.

I vote NO on the requested variance for the property described above.

Many thanks!

Kurt Colehower24 Maple Rd.Winter Park, CO 80482Greenwood Advisors [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

From: [email protected]: Hugh Bell; "Dan Hackett"; James ShockeySubject: RE: 110-120 Cedar Drive Variance ApplicationDate: Monday, July 06, 2020 8:42:09 PMAttachments: 110 Cedar Variance_Support Letters_2020.07.06.pdf

Hugh – Per our correspondences, attached are the letters of support which I compiled in person afterexplaining our situation to each of the individuals identified below:

Vieth Residence; 17 Linden RdLee Eckhoff; 52 Balsam DrMarty Roberts; 52 Balsam DrDoug Olsen; 71 Balsam DrBill Gibbard; 126 Cedar DrJack & Mary Buchheister; 81 Cedar DrLance Wood; 1055 Winter Park DrMaritt Bird; 74 Balsam DrMichael Bird; 130 Balsam DrJordan Dominguez; 109 Cedar Dr

Please confirm receipt. Thanks,Tyler Tyler Wilcox720 484 9246

WilcoxCustomBuilders.com

From: Hugh Bell Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 5:53 PMTo: [email protected]; 'Dan Hackett' ; JamesShockey Subject: RE: 110-120 Cedar Drive Variance Application Tyler and Dan, Our building inspector has the vehicle with the stakes for posting, so I’ll post the property tomorrowmorning instead. This will still be in conformance with the Code’s required timeframe of 15 days
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:////c/WilcoxCustomBuilders.com

00 Agenda BOA 07-14-2020 101 BOA 06-23-2020 Minute02 BOA Packet - 32 Linden 110 Cedar - 07-14-20BOA - 32 Linden 110 Cedar - 07-14-20.pdf110-120 Cedar Drive Variance Application.pdfVariance Application.pdf110 Cedar Variance Letter_2020.06.22.pdf110-120 Cedar Elevations REV 061820.pdf�110-120 Cedar Elevations REV 061820A-2.0 ElevationsA-2.1 Elevations

20-053_Lot 6 Block 4 LSP 6-4-20 PDF Stamp.pdf�Sheets and Views24X36_SHT-2

110 Foundation Setback and Elevation Certification.pdf120 Foundation Setback and Elevation Certification_2020.06.22.pdf110 Cedar_Soils Report Addendum and Open Hole Letter_2020.06.03.pdf

Mike Kennedy.pdfKurt Colehower.pdfSupport letters email.pdfSupport letters.pdf

TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, July … · 7/14/2020 · Town Planner Bell reads...

Documents

Transcript of TOWN OF WINTER PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, July … · 7/14/2020 · Town Planner Bell reads...