The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTAFF REPORT Variance 1255 Fall River Court 2014-09-09 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: September 9, 2014 REQUEST: This is a for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which sets a minimum building setback of 25 feet in the E-1 Estate zone district. The request is to replace a nonconforming deck in the same location. Two corners of the deck are located in the 25-foot setbacks. The applicant has received a building permit to replace portions of the deck outside of the setbacks. The eastern corner of the deck is 20.4 feet from the property line and the south corner is 15.3 feet from the nearest property line. The single family home and accompanying deck was approved in 1999 through building permit #6517. Through the 1999 review staff informed the applicant that the deck could not built within the 25-foot setback. The deck permit and a Certificate of Occupancy were issued with the deck built in the setback. LOCATION: 1255 Fall River Court (Town) APPLICANT/OWNER: Mark McAndrew/Owner, Tom Jackson/Engineer STAFF CONTACT: Phil Kleisler 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 contained therein. 1255 Fall River Court Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org Southern corner of deck Eastern corner of the deck The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies. No concerns were expressed during review. The application was routed to the Rocky Mountain National Park, given that the Park land borders the project site. The National Park does not object to the requested variance. Public Comments. As of August 3, 2014 no public comments have been received; comments received after this date will be posted at www.estes.org/CurrentApplications for the Board’s review. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict 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: Staff finds that special circumstances exist relating to lot shape and the location of the house. The long and narrow shape of the lot is due mainly to steep topography, street layout and the location of a Town water tank; for these reasons many lots in the Fall River Estates subdivision are oddly shaped. The location and orientation of the house also prevents any reasonably sized deck from being constructed to the south and east. 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; View from east (Fall River Ct) View from southeast (Fall River Ct) 1255 Fall River Court Setback Variance Request Page 2 of 4 Staff Finding: Residential use may continue. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are similar in size and character. The nearest residential home is over 200 feet to the east. It appears that the portions of the deck related to this variance are not visible to other properties in the Valley. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, the home was built in 1999. The property was zoned RM Multi-Family in 1999, which also required 25-foot setbacks. The applicant purchased the home at the time of construction, which was after the adoption of the setback standards. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Normal repairs and maintenance can be performed on the non-conforming sections of the deck, but they cannot be fully replaced. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The applicant has received a permit to construct the deck portions outside of the setbacks. The applicant does not propose expanding the deck beyond the current location. 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. 1255 Fall River Court Setback Variance Request Page 3 of 4 Staff Comment. Should the variance be obtained, staff can verify the location of the deck without a surveyor certificate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the approved site plan. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). 1255 Fall River Court Setback Variance Request Page 4 of 4 F A L L R I V E R R D FALLRIVERCT D AV I D D R F A L L R I V E R D R F a l l R i v e r F a l l R i v e r 1141 1255 1089 13611471 2170 1341 1140 2225 1135 1250 2235 1280 1121 1088 1081 1260 2115 1240 1401 A A A A-1 A-1 E-1 E-1 RM 0 100 200Feet 1 in = 200 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit A Map Printed: 9/4/2014Created By: phil kleisler Project Site Town Boundary Project Name: Project Description: Project Location:Petitioner(s): Setback Variance Request Variance Request from EVDC Section4.3, Table 4-2, setbacks.1255 Fall River CourtMark McAndrew/Owner HIGHWAY 36 F A LL RIV E R R D M O R A I N E A V E D E V I L S G U L C H R D B I G T H O M P S O N A V E LAKE ESTES Site Vicinity Map Project Site Town Boundary F A L L R I V E R R D FALLRIVERCT D AV I D D R F A L L R I V E R D R F a l l R i v e r F a l l R i v e r 1141 1255 1089 13611471 2170 1341 1140 2225 1135 1250 2235 1280 1121 1088 1081 1260 2115 1240 1401 A A A A-1 A-1 E-1 E-1 RM 0 100 200Feet 1 in = 200 ft ±Town o f Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentExhibit B M ap Printed: 9/4/2014Created By: phil kleisler Project Site Town Boundary Project Name: Project Description: Project Location:Petitioner(s): Setback Variance Request Variance Request from EVDC Section4.3, Table 4-2, setbacks.1255 Fall River CourtMark McAndrew/Owner HIGHWAY 36 F A LL RIV E R R D M O R A I N E A V E D E V I L S G U L C H R D B I G T H O M P S O N A V E LAKE ESTES Site Vicinity Map Project Site Town Boundary From:Gamble, Larry To:Phil Kleisler Cc:Dave Shirk Subject:Re: McAndrew Residence Variance Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:43:25 AM Phil & Dave, After reviewing the variance request, RMNP does not object to the granting of a variance to rebuild the existing deck. We recognize that the existing deck encroaches 4.6 ft. into to required setback from the park boundary. Give me a call if you have any questions. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Phil Kleisler <pkleisler@estes.org> wrote: Larry, Thank you for the email. The site plan for this variance is attached. As background, the 1999 building permit was issued for the deck in its current location in error. The variance request is to build the deck 15.3’ from the south and 20.4’ from the west. They would like to remodel the existing deck in the same location and construct additional deck space outside of the setback. I’ve copied Dave Shirk on this email because I will likely be away from the office soon. Phil From: Gamble, Larry [mailto:larry_gamble@nps.gov] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 4:31 PM To: Phil Kleisler Subject: McAndrew Residence Variance Phil, We received a notice regarding the variance request to "replace an existing deck" with a setback of 14 ft. from the rear property line. The west boundary of the McAndrew's property is the park boundary. We would not be in favor of granting a variance if the setback variance is from the west property line. The residence was constructed in 1999. I don't know if the 25 ft. setback requirement was in effect at that time. If it was, then the original deck may have been constructed without conforming to the development code. Please let me know if the requested variance is from the west property line. Thanks! -- Lawrence H. Gamble Chief, Branch of Planning & Compliance Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-1320 Fax: (970) 586-1359 -- Lawrence H. Gamble Chief, Branch of Planning & Compliance Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: (970) 586-1320 Fax: (970) 586-1359