Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2010-06-08Prepared:May 28,2010 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday,June 8,2010 9:00 a.m.—Board Room,Town Hall 1.PUBLIC COMMENT 2.CONSENT a.Approval of minutes dated February 2,2010 3.REQUESTS a.Lot 3,Block 1,Carriage Hills 1 Filing,Amended Plat,630 Whispering Pines Owner:Chris and Rita Kurelja Applicant:Joe Coop Request:Variance from EVDC Table 4-2,which requires a 25-foot minimum building setback from the side property line. Request to allow encroachment of 11.6 feet into the setback for an existing garage. Staff Contact:Dave Shirk 4.REPORTS 5.ADJOURNMENT Note:The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment February 2,2010,9:00 a.m. Board Room,Estes Park Town Hall Board:Chair Bob McCreery,Members John Lynch,Chuck Levine,Wayne Newsom,and Al Sager;Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending:Chair McCreery,Members Sager and Levine Also Attending:Planner Alison Chilcott and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent:Members Newsom and Lynch,Director Joseph,Planner Shirk Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1.PUBLIC COMMENT None 2.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated December 1,2009 It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager)to APPROVE the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.’ 3.LOT 6,BLOCK 2,PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES,530 Heinz Parkway,Owner:Scoff and Michelle Spreen,Applicant:Andy Human —Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code §4.3,Table 4-2,which requires a 25-foot minimum building setback from the rear property line in the E-1 Estate zone district.Request is to allow encroachment into the minimum setback for construction of a proposed detached garage. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report.The property is located at 530 Heinz Parkway within the Town limits.The applicant is Andy Human,and the property owners are Scoff and Michelle Spreen.The owners are requesting a variance to the 254oot setback in the F-i Estate zone district to construct a two-car garage approximately five (5)feet from the rear property line.The property has one existing one-car garage. V Planner Chilcoff stated that staff reviewed the variance request for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)§3.6.C,which includes evaluating whether or not special circumstances and practical difficulty exist in complying with the code standards from which a variance is requested.Staff finds that special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards.The special circumstance involves the topography of the site,which is very steep with a 25-45%slope and many rocks and trees.Staff determined the proposed location of the garage is the best location on the lot for an additional garage,as this is already a paved area with an existing slope cut.Planner Chilcoff stated the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with this project.The proposed garage would not be visible from any off-site locations. This request was submiffed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment.Staff received no negative comments from reviewing agencies,and one adjacent property owner inquiry. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow the construction of a garage approximately five (5)feet from the property line,in lieu of the 25-foot minimum setback requirement from rear property lines in the F-i Estate zone district,with two recommended conditions.The first condition would be compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment;the second would require a setback certificate. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 February 2,2010 Public Comment: Applicant Andy Human stated the total height would be approximately 13.5 feet,which is under the 30-foot height limit.The layout of the site plan would not require any more cuffing or filling of the slope. Member Levine stated that from photos,it would appear the adjacent property would be impacted by this project.After visiting the site,the slope is so steep that the proposed site cannot be seen from the adjacent property. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager)to APPROVE the request for a variance from EVDC §4.3,Table 4-2 to allow a rear yard setback of 5 feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback requirement in the E-1 Estate zone district,with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. CONDITIONS: 1.Compliance with the site plan and building design,as approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2.Setback Certificate.Prior to final inspection,a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance,and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines.Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance. 4.REPORTS Staff has received three requests for minor modifications.These will be staff-level reviews involving less than 10%encroachment into the setbacks. There being no further business,Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a-rn. Bob McCreery,Vice Chair Karen Thompson,Recording Secretary Kureija Side Yard Variance Request Estee Park Community Development Department Town HaIl,170 MacGregor Avenue PC Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 _____________ Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estes.org DATE:June 8,2010 REQUEST:Variance from the “E-1” Estate 25-foot side yard setback requirement. LOCATION:630 Whispering Pines Drive, within unincorporated Larimer County. APPLICANT:Van Horn Engineering PROPERTY OWNER:Chris Kureija STAFF CONTACT:Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Surveyor/Consultant:Van Horn Engineering Parcel Number:3401121003 Development Area:I acre Number of Lots:One Existing Land Use:Single-family residential Proposed Land Use:Same Existing Zoning:“E-I”Estate Adjacent Zoning- East:“E-l”Estate North:“E-F Estate West:“E-1”Estate South:“B-I”Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East:Single-family residential North:Single-family residential West:Single-family residential South:Single-family residential Sen ices- Water:TOEP Sewer:UTSD Fire Protection:EVFPD PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard setback of 11.6-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow a detached garage that was incorrectly located to remain in place. Page #2 —Kurelja Side Yard Setback Request REVIEW CRITERIA:In accordance with Section 3.6 C.“Standards for Review”of the EVDC,all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria set forth below: 1.Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g.,exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness,shallowness or the shape of the property)that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards,provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards,this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding:The structure was built using an incorrect property pin,resulting in the structure located within the setback area. 2.In determining “practical difficulty,”the BOA shall consider the following factors: a.Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance: Staff Finding:The existing single-family residential use may continue. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The requested variance is not substantial. c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding:The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered,nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. Staff has not received any comments from neighboring properties. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding:The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services,as reflected in the reviewing agency comments. e.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding:The applicant’s predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance.Two options are available:move the property line, Page #3 —Kuretja Side Yard Setback Request which would require consent of the neighbor and purchase of the land,followed by an amended plat .The other option is to move the structure.Staff suggests neither of these options is practical. 3.If authorized,a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 4.In granting such variances,the BOA may require such conditions as will,in its independent judgment,secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Comment:Staff has provided suggested conditions of approval at the end of the Staff report. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES:This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.At the time of this report,no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighboring Property Owners.Staff has not received any phone calls or office visits regarding the proposal. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:Based on the foregoing,staff finds: 1.Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 2.The requested variance is not substantial. 3.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered,nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 4.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 5.The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Page #4 —Kurelja Side Yard Setback Request 6.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services: Therefore,Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a front yard setback 26-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO finalization of the building permit and associated inspections no later than June 30,2010. Failure to do so shall render the decision of the BOA null and void. SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the tindings and conditions recommended by staff. Page #5 —Kurelja Side Yard Setback Request Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From:ClitiTedder Sent:Tuesday,May 18,2010 1:42 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:630 Whispering Pines Variance Eagles Crest Resort Lot consolidation Dave: The water department has no comments for either one of these.Thanks Cliff Teddor Assistant Water Superintendent Town of Estes Park (970)577-3622 ctedder@estes.org 5/19/20 10 Page lof I Dave Shirk From:Karen Thompson 0Sent:Monday,May 10,2010 1:41 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:FW:Kureija-variance request From:Todd Krula [rnallto:Todd@utsd.orgjSent:Monday,May 10,2010 10:50 AMTo:Karen Thompson Subject Kurelja-variance request Karen,Regarding Lot 3,Block 1,Carriage Hills,15t Filing,Upper Thompson Sanitation District has noissuesorconcernswithvariancerequest. 0 5/10/20 10 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From:Hilderbrand,Len (Len.HIiderbrand@XCELENEA G Y . C O M ] Sent:Wednesday,May 05,2010 2:18 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:Lot 3,Block 1,carriage Hlls,1st filing,Amended Plat Xcel Energy has no problems the customers request for a variance with setbacks of 25’ on all side lots.The variance to allow the eave of the garage to be 11.6’from thepropertylineproposednoconcernsforourfacilities. Len Hilderbrand Designer C 5/512010 Page lof 2 Dave Shirk From:Todd Steichen Sent:Thursday,May 06,2010 12:58 PM To:Dave Shirk Subject:FW:Kureija Variance -Lot 3,Bk 1,Carriage Hills 1st FiNng,Amd Plat -Referral for Comment From:Todd Steichen Sent:Thursday,May 06,2010 12:58 PMTo:Karen Thompson;Jacqueline Halburnt;Barbara Boyer Buck;‘Tracy Feagans’;Bob Goehring;JeffBoles;Reuben Bergsten;Carolyn McEndaffer;Russell Legg (rlegg@larimer.org);‘tgarton@larimer.org’;‘Len Hilderbrand (lenhilderbrand@xcelenergy.com)’;‘ashton@wapa.gov’;‘Donna Mastriona(donna.mastriona@qwest.com)’;‘mconley@ncwcd.org’;Rod Patterson (rpatterson@bajabb.tv)’;ChrisBieker(chris@utsd.org);‘Robert Rising’Subject:RE:Kurelja Variance -Lot 3,Bk 1,Carriage Hills 1st Filing,Amd Plat -Referral for Comment Karen,(have visited the site and do not see any concerns with the variance request on Light &Powersend. Hope you are having a great day, Todd. From:Karen Thompson Sent:Wednesday,May 05,2010 1:56 PMTo:Jacqueline Halburnt;Barbara Boyer Buck;Tracy Feagans;Bob Goehring;Jeff Boles;ReubenBergsten;Todd Steichen;Carolyn McEndaffer;Russell Legg (rlegg@larimer.org);tqarton@larimer.org;Len Hilderbrand (lenhilderbrand@xcelenergy.com);ashton@wapa.gov;Donna Mastriona(donna.mastriona@qwest.com);mconley@ncwcd.org;Rod Patterson (rpatterson@bajabb.tv);Chris Bieker (chris@utsd.org);Robert RisingSubject:Kurelja Variance -Lot 3,Bk 1,Carriage Hills 1st Filing,Amd Plat -Referral for Comment REFERRAL FOR COMMENT This email is to notify you that staff has received a development application,which can be viewed by •0 accessing the following or by visiting our website athttp://www.estes.org/comdev/CurrentReguests . a s p x . Report Staff Project Name sl1l lvieetirg Dates mjec1stafttaft entation and Contact and Type Comments Rurella variance 630 Whispering Pines Bates vaiieyBoard of Statement of Intent Staff Aepoff Dr Adjustment and Aoplication &Ccmments Send 6/8/10 available Comments to Site Plan 6/3/10 Dave Shirk If you prefer paper copies of documents,please email me at kthompson@estes.org.Thank you for your 0 links 5/6/20 10 Page 1 of 1 Dave Shirk From:Candace Phippen [cphippen@larimer.org] Sent:Thursday,May 06,2010 3:25 PM To:Dave Shirk Cc:Susan Zeller Subject:kureija variance request The garage which is the subject of this variance request was constructed under Building Permit 06- 81260.This permit has been extended and is valid to ]une 30,2010. I note the applicants state they received all inspection approvals for the garage except forsetbacks.Larimer County Building Dept records show no inspection approvals except for the wildfire inspection.The only other inspection of record was on 4/12/2007,for the foundation,which states:“need setback letter per Town of EP. There may be a discrepancy between Building Dept.records and the actual inspection card on site.If, in fact,the actual inspection card shows approved inspections,the owners should drop a copy of the inspection card off at the Larimer County Building Dept’s Estes Park office so staff can enterappropriateinspectionresultsinBuildingDept’s records,If no inspections were approved,the owners will need to obtain inspection approvals through the Larimer County Building Dept.and State Electrical Board.For more information,the owners may call: 577-2100 Susan Zeller,Larimer County Buildilng Dept.,Estes Park Office 577-3589 Dave Cearlock,State Electrical Board,Estes Park Office(ext 3309) Candace Phippen Code Compliance Supervisor (970)498-7724 (office) (970)498-7667 (fax) cphinpen©larimer.orp 5/6/20 10 Page fofI Dave Shirk From:Sian Snap [sgriep@!arimer.orgJ CSent:Friday,May 07,2010 2:12 PM To:Dave Shirk Cc:Candace Phippen Subject:Kureija Variance -Lot 3,Bk 1,Carriage Hills 1st Filing,Amd Plat -Referral for CommentHiDave, No comments on this one as it appears they are plenty far enough away from the property line so asnottorequirefireratedwallassemblies. I was able to get into the application by another means since I could not get the original link to work.We will have our computer folks here take a look and see why I could not get into things and Candacecould.??? Have a good weekend. Stan Stan V.Griep Lead/Commercial Plans Examiner Larimer County Building Department Ft.Collins,Colorado 80522-1190 voice:(970)498-7714 email:sgriep@larimer.org 0 5/7/20 10 0 € STATEMENT OF INTENT Variance Request Lot 3,Block 1,Carriage Hills,Vt Filing,Am The property owners of the lot are: Chris and Rita Kureija 630 Whispering Pines Dr. P0 Box 845 Estes Park,CO 80517 Chris and Rita Kurelja would like to request a variance from Table 4-2 of the EstesValleyDevelopmentCode.The property is in the E-1 Zone with setbacks of 25’on allsidesandtheKureijasunintentionallybuiltagaragewithanattachedshedroofinsidethesetback.They are requesting a variance to allow the eave of the garage to be 11.6’fromthepropertyline. Chris was the contractor and he has an erroneous property corner on the northwest cornerofhispropertywhichheusedtodeterminethesetbackforhisgarage.This corner hasapparentlybeenthereforawhileasnoticedbyoldflaggingattachedtoit.The flaggingindicatesthatasurveyorhasidentified(found)this corner at one point or another.Inaddition,there is a sewer manhole nearby and a utility pole directly across the street.Thesewermanholewasinstalledspecificallyforthispropertyandtypicallymanholesareinstalledonorwithin10’easements on each side of the property lines (as are utilitypoles).Apparently this corner (or area)was mistakenly used before as the property lineandChrissimplypropagatedtheerror.The actual corner does exist,however it is 3”-6”below grade about 14’to the southeast and was never seen by Chris. The error was not discovered until Chris called Van Horn Engineering for a setbackcertificateandwediscoveredthatthecornerheusedforthepropertylinewasanerroneouscorner.The setback certificate was required by the county buildingdepartment,however,they let him pour the concrete and continue with the building aslongasheproducedasetbackcertificatebythenextinspection.Unfortunately,the nextinspectionwasthefinalcertificateofoccupancyandChriswaiteduntilthispointtoobtainthecertificate. Through the building process,Chris has been in contact with his neighbor closest to thegarage(to the northwest)and the neighbor has expressed goodwill toward the garage,itslocationandappearance.The neighbor actually likes the location because it provides avisualbufferbetweentheproperties. The factors that a variance must address in determining practical difficulty are as follows:a.Whether (here can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;thislocationofthegarageisthebestlocationforagarage.It provides good vehicular and pedestrian flow around the buildings.If Chris knew about the true linelocation,it’s possible he may have asked for a variance prior to building the J)garage. b.Whether the variance L substantial,the variance is substantial at less than half thecoderequiredsetback,but because it doesn’t adversely affect the neighbor,utilities,or the road,it is felt reasonable to request this variance.The neighborbuilttheirhouseclosertotheoppositelotlinefromtheKureija’s leaving moreroombetweenthestructuresonthesetwodevelopedlots.In fact the neighboractuallylikesthegaragebecauseitprovidesavisualbatherbetweenthetwolots.c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantiallyalteredorwhetheradjoiningpropertieswouldsufferasubstantialdetriment as aresultofthevariance;the building certainly improves the character of theneighborhood.It blends with the character of the property (log structure)and doesnotadverselyaffectanyoftheneighbors.It also allows inside storage of vehicles,materials,etc... d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery ofpublic services suchaswaterandsewer.This will not affect utility delivery.The garage does notencroachontheutilityeasementseither. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement:this doesn’t really apply to this after the fact variance request,but Chris and Ritabuiltthehouseandnowhaveaddedthegarage. f.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some methodotherthanavariance;At this point,the only methods for a solution would be toamendtheplatandmovethelotlineortearthegaragedown.Amending the platwouldnotbeintheinterestoftheneighborandtearingthegaragedownisnotareasonablesolutiongiventhecircumstances. Chris and Rita humbly and apologetically request that the Board approve this variancerequestfortheabovestatedreasons.Through an honest mistake they have created thisproblem,however,it appears the building doesn’t affect anyone adversely. 0 :i Q; ESTES VALLEYrzBOARDOFADJIJSTMENT APPLICATION ;submittal Date:9/2 /3 OLD JjjJjj Record Owner(s):6k r N uvtr{4to i/u rQL cj‘Street Address of Lot:(Q30 kcnP—&R Pet Legal Description:Lot:3 Block?I Tract: Subdivision:Cc,y-,’tzc p Hi//c /st F/lAj A,pketJd /o{ParcellD#:3HuL —ZI-Lu3 F ‘!RiG1rrn7Abr.ri Lot Size CSC ozr—Zoning C / Existing Land Use c-,1p Pc a /._.P4’s ,JP..4 ;•/7,/ Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Town Well Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service k’Town r Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD /UTSD r Septic Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD UTSD r Septic Existing Gas Service /Xcel r Other r None Site Access (if not on public street)(,O (U his e,t P’y,pc 1t’ Are there wetlands on the site?F Yes W No VEiIIiTC— Desired (Development Code Section #):7E h/€’‘1—2 cri..0 h-i e J/2u I: 4,-)/ iiiiiciiipPIrnIThi1.ii Name of Primary Contact Person 9j Ctx.qm Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant <“ConsultantJEngineertMI!tmufl )<Application fee (see attached fee schedule) )V Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes Valley Development Code)>C I copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=20’)** >C 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11’X 17’) **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5 (attached).The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review(see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule).Copies must be folded. og3 F,’4 (}efr fd Sc cc 0 Town of Esfes Park ..P.O.Box 1200 -170 MacGregor Avenue .Estes Park,CO 80517 Commiity Deveicpmenl Deportment Pnone:(970)577-3721 -Fox:1970)586C249 ..vtn.estes.crgfCornDev Revised I ?/20109 ‘1 0 Di (D o , CD Z 2 ID S- f l ) JL : (0 CD C o 0 ° — CD r Q0 C D 0) CD U) C -D CD U) t S 3. 0) ? a — 50 CD — 0) ,-J w (0 3 0$ , ø CD CD CO CD CD C 0)S eE O a CD C 0 ) CD 0) 0 rt S 3 Co -o -Ur C- ) -f 0z ‘- Imm C’ ) CD CO a NO0 0-o a 0 C 0 6 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION 0’I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledgeandthatinfilingtheapplicationamactingwiththeknowledgeandconsentoftheownersoftheproperty. 0’In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement,I acknowledge and agree that theapplicationissubjecttotheapplicableprocessingandpublichearingrequirementssetforthintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode(EVDC). 0’I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC,and that,prior to filing this application,I have had theopportunitytoconsulttherelevantprovisionsgoverningtheprocessingofanddecisionontheapplication.The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: http:llwww.estes.orq/ComDev/DevCode 0’I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application feebytheTowndoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheapplicationiscompleteundertheapplicablerequirementsoftheEVDC. 0’I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided isincomplete,inaccurate,or submitted after the deadline date. 0’I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 0’The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application isdeterminedtobecomplete. 0’I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with properidentificationaccesstomypropertyduringthereviewofthisapplication. 0 I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and thatfailuretomeetthedeadlinesshownonsaidscheduleshallresultinmyapplicationortheapprovalofmyapplicationbecomingnullandvoidIunderstandthatfullfeeswillbechargedfortheresubmittalofanapplicationthathasbecomenullandvoid. 0 I understand that I am required to obtain a “Variance Notice”sign from the Community Development Department andthatthissignmustbepostedonmypropertywhereitisclearlyvisiblefromtheroad.I understand that the corners ofmypropertyandtheproposedbuilding/structure corners must be field staked.I understand that the sign must bepostedandthestakingcompletednolaterthanten(10)business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustmenthearing. 0 I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request,“Failure of an applicant to apply for a buildingpermitandcommenceconstructionoractionwithregardtothevarianceapprovalwithinone(1)year ofreceivingapprovalofthevarianceshallautomaticallyrenderthedecisionoftheBOAnullandvoid.”(EstesValleyDevelopmentCodeSection16.D) Names:- Record Owner PLEASEPRINT:.k I(i t K NJApplicantPLEASEPRINT: Signatures: Record Owner Date Applicant 4’Date Revised I ;/20/09 Zoning Districts C) 5 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-2 CDBaseDensityandDimensionalStandardsResidentialZoningDistricts Minimum t Minimum BuildinWScWN —Min1kuW.t 141 Bufldlng WIdth)?DeiThity Y4’‘sI$3 A .lght4unlts!acr4 eq ft )Front (ft)(ft flear (114 “{fl)[101RE-i 1/10 Ac.10 Ac.200 50 50 50 30 20RE1/2.5 Ac.2.5 Ac.200 so so 50 30 20E-1 1 iAc.[3]100 25 25 25 30 20 25- E 2 ½Ac.[3]75 aclerials, 10 15 30 2015-other streets R 4 ¼Ac.o 10 15 30 20 sheets R-1 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20Single-family 25-=18,000;rteR-2 4 60 ‘10 10 30 20Duplex=15-other 27000 streets 40,000, Residential 5,400 sq.60:Uses:ft/unitRNIMax=8 and [4][8](Ord.Lots 25-(Ord.Mm •3 25-07 §1) Greater arterials; 10 [6]10 30 20 [7] 18-01 Senior .15-other#14)Institutional senior 100,000 streets Livinn Uses-Institutional sq.ft.: Max =24 -Living Uses:200 ½Ac. Notes to Table 4-2: [11 (a)See Chapter 4,§4.3.0,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for single-family residentialsubdivisionsthatarerequiredtosetasideprivateopenareasperChapter4,§4.3.D.1.(b)See Chapter 11,§11.3,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for clustered lots in open spacedevelopments. (c)See Chapter 11,§11.4,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)br attainable housing.(d)See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area)for development on steep slopes.(Ord.2-02 §1) [2]See Chapter 7,§7.6,for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands.(Ord.2-02 #5;Ord.11-02 §1)[3]It private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations set forth in§7.12,“Adequate Public Facilities.” [41 Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet;however,each indMdualtownhomeunitmaybeconstructedonaminimum2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.[5]All development,except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot,shall also be subject to a maximum floorarearatio(FAR)of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%.(Ord.25-07 §1)[6]Zero side yard setbacks (known as “zero lot line development”)are allowed for townhome developments. 171 Minimum building width requirements shall apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park.[B]Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f.and 27,000 s.f.,respectively.(Ord 18-01#14) [91 All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings orlots.The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads,the edge of the dedicated right-of-way orrecordedeasementorthepropertyline,whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be the same as theapplicableminimumbuilding/structure setback.(Ord.11-02 §1;Ord.25-07 §1)[10]See Chapter 1,§1.9.E,which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes.(Ord.18-02 #3) ‘a 0 Supp.8 4-7 AD J A C E N T P .r ’ E R T Y OW N E R S Ow n e r Ow n e r II Wa y n e & Ju d i t h An d e r s o n Vi o l e t Hu n t Ro n a l d & Sa n d r a No b l e AC & Ca r o l y n Ho l m q u i s t Ra n d y & Su s a n Mc N e i l Be n n y & Ka t h l e e n Bo b o w s k i Ga r y & Su s a n Zo o k Je r e m y & Da n i e l l e Bo l e s Cl a y & Ch r i s t i e Ad a m s Er n s t & Ru t h Bl e u l e r Ma d i s o n Ca s e y & Ma r y Yo c h u m Mo n t e & Ra v i t Mi c h e n e r Mi c h a e l & Li n d a Wo l d Ad d r e s s 62 5 Po n d e r o s a Av e 60 0 Wh i s p e r i n g Pi n e s Dr P0 Bo x 21 9 6 65 0 Wh i s p e r i n g Pi n e s Dr 63 7 Po n d e r o s a Av e 64 0 Wh i s p e r i n g Pi n e s Dr 11 0 0 Pa r k w o o d Dr 25 0 1 Ca r r i a g e Dr 26 2 0 Ri d g e Ln 22 0 2 E Gr e e n l e e Rd 26 0 0 Ri d g e Ln P0 Bo x 27 0 6 63 5 Wh i s p e r i n g Pi n e s Dr Ci t y , St a t e , Zi p Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CC 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CC 80 5 1 7 Ft . Co l l i n s , CO 80 5 2 5 - 1 9 2 9 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Tu c s o n , AZ 85 7 1 9 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 Es t e s Pa r k , CO 80 5 1 7 * Ku r e i j a Va r i a n c e AP O DATE: June 8, 2010 REQUEST: Variance from the “E-1” Estate 25-foot side yard setback requirement. LOCATION: 630 Whispering Pines Drive, within unincorporated Larimer County. APPLICANT: Van Horn Engineering PROPERTY OWNER: Chris Kurelja STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Surveyor/Consultant: Van Horn Engineering Parcel Number: 3401121003 Development Area: 1 acre Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: “E-1” Estate Adjacent Zoning- East: “E-1” Estate North: “E-1” Estate West: “E-1” Estate South: “E-1” Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services- Water: TOEP Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: EVFPD PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Kurelja Side Yard Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org RMNP Rocky Mountain National Park RMNP USFS USFS USFS Lak e Estes Marys Lake Lily Lake Mac Gregor Ranch YMCA Conference Grounds 36 EVDC Boundary EVDC Boundary Eagle Rock RMNP Fall River Entr ance RMNP Beaver Meadows Entrance Prospect Mt. - (/34 (/36(/7 (/36 (/34 (/36 (/7 Cheley Camps USFS USFS Page #2 –Kurelja Side Yard Setback Request Development Code to allow a side yard setback of 11.6-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow a detached garage that was incorrectly located to remain in place. Page #3 –Kurelja Side Yard Setback Request REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. “Standards for Review” of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria set forth below: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code’s standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The structure was built using an incorrect property pin, resulting in the structure located within the setback area. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: The existing single-family residential use may continue. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance is not substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. Staff has not received any comments from neighboring properties. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services, as reflected in the reviewing agency comments. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant’s predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Two options are available: move the property line, which would require consent of the neighbor and purchase of the land, followed Page #4 –Kurelja Side Yard Setback Request by an amended plat . The other option is to move the structure. Staff suggests neither of these options is practical. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 4. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Comment: Staff has provided suggested conditions of approval at the end of the Staff report. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Neighboring Property Owners. Staff has not received any phone calls or office visits regarding the proposal. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. 2. The requested variance is not substantial. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment. 4. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services. 5. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services; Page #5 –Kurelja Side Yard Setback Request Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a front yard setback 26-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO finalization of the building permit and associated inspections no later than June 30, 2010. Failure to do so shall render the decision of the BOA null and void. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff.