HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setbacks DENIED 471 MacGregor Ave 2003-04-01Al Fresco Side Yard Setback Variance
Request
Estes Park Community Development Department
Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue
limmimmil PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com
DATE: April 1, 2003
REQUEST: A request by Blake
and Susan Robertson for a variance
from the 25-foot setback established
for the "E-1" Estate district by the
Estes Valley Development Code.
LOCATION: 417 MacGregor,
within the Town of Estes Park.
SITE DATA TABLE:
Parcel Number(s): 3524433164
Total Development Area: .41 acre
Number of Lots: One
Existing Land Use: S.F. Residential
Proposed Land Use: Same
Existing Zoning: "E-1" Estate (one acre
minimum lot size)
Adjacent Zoning -
East: "RM" Multi -Family
North: "E-1" Accommodations
West: "E-1" Estate
South: "E-1" Estate
Adjacent Land Uses -
East: Condominiums
North: S.F. Residential
West: S.F. Residential
South: S.F. Residential
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: This is a request to build an
attached two -car garage on a lot in Al Fresco Place, an unrecorded plat. There is an
existing single -car garage located along the southern end of the house. The applicant
proposes to convert the existing garage space into additional living area, and build an
attached two -car garage between the existing structure and the southern property line.
The new garage would have a property line setback of nearly 16-feet, which would
violate the required 25-foot setback.
The existing house has approximately 1100 square feet of living area, plus approximately
300 square feet of garage area. The proposed garage would be approximately 880 square
feet, which would meet the maximum allowed garage space as defined in the Estes Valley
Development Code.
REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of
the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the 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 Comment: The lot, at .41-acres, is undersized for the "B-1" district, which has
setbacks established for 1-acre lots. The setbacks that apply to lots sized '/ to 'Y2 acre
would be a 10-foot side yard setback. In addition, the lot has an unusual shape that
limits the developable area to the proposed location and one other area, located west
of the existing house.
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 Comment: The property may continue as residential use.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Comment: Because of the potential removal of two mature trees, Staff
considers this request 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 Comment: The proposed location would most likely involve the removal of
two significant trees.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer;
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
Page #2 —Robertson Side Yard Setback Request
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Comment: The applicant has owned the property since before the adoption
of the EVDC, when the property was zoned "E" Estate and had identical side yard
setbacks.
f Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Staff Comment: The applicant could build the garage elsewhere on the lot and
meet the required setbacks ("A" below). This location would have the least
amount of visual impact on the neighborhood because of the location behind the
house away from MacGregor Avenue, and because of the hillside, which would
require the garage to be built into the hillside, thus providing screening. In
addition, this alternative would allow the preservation of two trees that would be
jeopardized with the proposed location of the garage. This alternative would,
however, require additional excavation work and more extensive foundation
design.
Alternatively, the applicant could maintain the existing garage as garage space,
and build an expansion that would meet the setback requirements ("B" below).
This location would allow for the 25-foot setback, and would preserve one of the
trees that would most certainly need to be removed from this proposal (if not
removed, the tree would sustain root damage).
r
i i` \�
+
1 \
\\" \
`
\
\ I I 7 ��`k`< S11NG�
11
c� \\ \. \\ \ \�, �� 'N,
1 •
LS SETBACK
6' E 63 57'
NOP
Er
• Ibirtv%
\
76
Page #3 —Robertson Side Yard Setback Request
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.
Staff Comment: None.
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.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
S. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance
is the minimum that would 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.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
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.
Staff Comment: Any vote of approval should include the following conditions:
a. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a
registered land surveyor.
b. Compliance with the submitted site plan.
c. The applicant shall contact Light and Power if the proposed garage will have more
than convenience outlets and lighting.
d. Section 7.3 "Tree and Vegetation Protection" shall apply to this proposal (this
section establishes criteria for protection of trees during construction and the
replacement of any significant trees removed during construction activities).
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. Light and Power noted the applicant
Page #4 —Robertson Side Yard Setback Request
will "need to contact [L&P] if the proposed garage will have more than convenience
outlets and lighting."
A neighbor, Steve Miller (448 Chiquita), phoned on March 25 to ask questions about this
proposal. Mr. Miller was not opposed to the variance request, but was curious "what [he]
needed to do?" Again, Mr. Miller was not opposed, just curious.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
1. The applicants, Blake and Susan Robertson, request a variance to Table 4-2 "Base
Density and Dimensional Standards" of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow
a side yard setback of 15-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required. The purpose of
this variance request is to allow an attached two -car garage.
2. The site, located at 417 MacGregor Avenue, within the Town of Estes Park, has an
unusual shape, and is undersized for the "E-1" district and associated building setback
requirements.
3. This proposal would comply with the 15-foot setbacks required for the "E" district,
which has a minimum lot size similar to the applicant's lot.
4. The property may continue to be used for residential use.
5. Because of the potential removal of two mature trees, Staff considers this request
substantial.
6. The proposed location would most likely involve the removal of two significant trees.
7. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water
and sewer.
8. The applicant has owned the property since before the adoption of the EVDC. Before
adoption of the EVDC, the property was zoned "B", which had identical side yard
setbacks.
9. Alternatives exist that would allow for compliance with long established setbacks.
These alternatives would also have less visual impact on the neighborhood.
10. 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 —Robertson Side Yard Setback Request
Because alternatives exist that would allow for compliance with the required setbacks that
would have less visual impact on the neighborhood and would preserve two significant
trees, Staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance.
Should the Board vote to approve this request, Staff recommends to the following
conditions apply:
a. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered
land surveyor.
b. Compliance with the submitted site plan, which should be revised to show a driveway
width not to exceed 30' at the street line.
c. The applicant shall contact Light and Power if the proposed garage will have more
than convenience outlets and lighting.
d. Section 7.3 "Tree and Vegetation Protection" shall apply to this proposal.
Page #6 —Robertson Side Yard Setback Request
The following written response is given in support of an application for variance,
as set forth in the "Standards for Reviev/' section of the Code, to the "side yard
setback" for the construction of a new garage at 471 MacGregor Ave. on behalf
of Blake and Susan Robertson, owners.
1) This lot at 471 MacGregor Ave. was created by subdivision of existing property
in the Al Fresco Place, circa 1957 and predated the current zoning process and
its application, circa 1996. The topology of the lot is a complex shape and covers
less than 0.41 acres, as can be readily seen from the legal description (Larimer
County Assessor website for parcel 35244-33-164); roughly the lot is shaped like
a "comma" with its head lying to the west and the tail reaching down towards
MacGregor Ave. on the east. Currently, the lot is zoned El (conversation with
David Shirk, Planner II, Community Development Dept, TOEP). This lot was
created as a single-family dwelling and has been used in such a fashion ever
since its creation. The residence is located, more or less, in the tail portion of the
lot where an area had been leveled for the original construction. The placement
of the current structure makes a "practical difficulty" when meeting the current
zoning designation for the addition of a new attached garage. However, there
would be no "practical difficulty" if the property had beem zoned appropriately,
i.e., "E," according to its size as provided for in Table 4-2, "Base Density and
Dimensional Standards -Residential Zoning Districts," Estes Valley Development
Code (Code). The granting of the variance request has no impact, such as,
nullifying, impairing or impeaching the specifics of the Code or the
Comprehensive Plan for Estes Valley.
2) (a) The beneficial use of this property is to serve as a single-family residence
property. When this property was developed as a single-family residence in the
late 1950's the norms of our society were significantly different than those of
today's and even those only a few short years later. Single car garages gave
away to double car garages, single bathrooms have given away to 2 bathrooms
or more. Today, good or bad, the norm is two or more cars and one of those is
usually an SUV; so not only do we require more garage bays but also more
garage space for the vehicles. More living space is required to develop the
leisure -time recreational and craft activities that are now the common part of our
American culture and society. The beneficial use of the property will be
increased by the addition of the new garage and the use of the old garage space
as a crafts space or for other life-style endeavors.
(b) This variance request is not substantial in nature or impact. This variance
request as indicated in (1) above that the "side yard setback" requirements, as
applied to this lot, be those that would have been applicable if the appropriate
zoning of this property, based on its size, less than 0.41 acres, had been its
originally designation, i.e., "E" and not the "El" that it current is inappropriately
classified as.
Standards for Review - Written Response for Robertson at 471 MacGregor Ave.:
Page 1 of 2
(c) This variance does not change the complexion of Al Fresco Place, the
surrounding ambiance, or the application and interpretation of the
Comprehensive Plan for Estes Valley, e.g., approximately 86 percent of the
property will remain open space after the garage is completed. There is, in our
option, no adverse impact to any of the adjoining properties. The addition of the
garage will not alter in any substantial way adjoining properties views or access
to their properties. The new garage structure is an extension of the current
structure and follows the current structure's architectural look and its sight -line
features. Additionally, architectural features are planned for the garage that
would minimize light pollution from exterior lighting associated with security and
safety near the garage openings.
(d) This variance does not adversely affect the delivery or public services.
(e) The applicant was unaware at the time of purchase that this property was
inappropriately zoned, based on its lot size.
(f) The variance can be mitigated through a "code amendment," thereby re-
zoning the property as "E", which would create a "side yard setback." Mr. Shirk,
indicated that a "code amendment" was a lesser desirable approach than the
more common variance.
3) The variance requested is truly a "case -by -case" type of request and hence
does not lend itself to the formulation of a general regulation.
4) This variance does not reduce the net land area of the lot, the lot area shall
remain unchanged as a result of granting this variance with approximately 86
percent remaining open space.
5) The variance provides for the least possible deviation from the Estes Valley
Development Code as such pertains to the "side yard setback" based on
appropriate lot size zoning (less than 0.41 acres), as indicated in Table 4.2 of the
Code.
6) The variance request is permitted for the zoning district by the Code and this
variance in no way creates a use expressly or by implication that is prohibited by
Code for this zoning district.
7) The applicants, Blake and Susan Robertson, are amenable to incorporating
into the new garage project, as may be reasonable and when supported by good
law, changes that will secure substantially the objectives of the standard [the
Code] as they apply to the variance requested.
Standards for Review - Written Response for Robertson at 471 MacGregor Ave.:
Page 2 of 2
J
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_ _
.r-,•c uP�r
� y�Ck1y1
Mr. Blake Robertson
1360 Emerson Avenue
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
RE: Side yard Setback Variance Request
Dear Mr. Robertson:
4/7/2003
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed the side yard setback variance request
on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at the regular monthly meeting.
At that time, the Board of Adjustment voted unanimously (3-0, one absent) to DENY the
requested side yard variance.
It is Staff's opinion the Board denied the variance due to the proposed size of the
garage, and the potential impact on the mature pine trees located at the east end of the
proposed garage.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to
contact me (577-3729) or Bob Joseph (577-3725) at your convenience.
Respectfully,
David W. Shirk, Planner
enc
http://www.estesnet.com
(970) 586-5331 • P.O. BOX 1200 • 170 MAC GREGOR AVENUE • ESTES PARK, CO 8051 7 • FAX (970) 586-2816
RECORD OFPROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting mfthe Estes Valley Board ofAdjustment
April 1.20O3,8:0Oa.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building
Board: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and /U
Sager
Attending: Vice Chair Lamy, Members Newsom and Sager
Also Attending: Planner Shirk and Recording Secretary Williamson
Absent Chair Barker, Director Joseph and Planner Chilcott
Chair Barker called the meeting toorder od8:O5a.m. The following minutes reflect the
order ofthe agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
o. The minutes ofthe March 4'2OUJmeeting with the addition ofMember Lomym
comments concerning safety |nregards hnitem 3.Lot i'Elkhorn Club Estates,
8O0Old Ranger Road.
b. Portion ofLot 7,Summon/U|aSubdivision, 775Riverside Drive —Withdrawn
bythe applicant.
|twas moved and seconded (Soger/Newoom)that the Consent Agenda ba
accepted and itpassed unanimously with one absent.
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.2, TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request to build an attached two -
car garage on a lot in Al Fresco Place, an unrecorded plat. There ioenexisting
single -car garage located along the southern end ofthe house. The applicant
proposes to convert the existing garage space into additional living area, and build
an attached two -car garage between the existing structure and the southern property
line. The new garage would have aproperty line setback o/nearly 1Gfeet, which
would violate the required 25 foot setback, The lot, .41 acres, is undersized for the
"E-1''district, which has setbacks established for i acre lots. In addition, the lot has
an unusual shape that limits the developable area to the proposed location and one
other area, located west ofthe existing house. Because ofthe potential removal of
two mature trees, staff considers this request substantial. Alternatives exist that
would allow for compliance with long established setbacks. These alternatives
would also have less visual impact onthe neighborhood. Nosignificant issues or
concerns were expressed byreviewing staff.
Blake Robertson, 1360 Emerson Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah, stated he purchased
the house ooaretirement home. Heinformed the Board ofhis intent hoplace anew
heating system and laundry noominthe rear ofthe new garage, therefore, making it
necessary for the garage hobedeeper than atypical 2-cargarage. He believes ffie
"E-1 " zoning of the property was inappropriate for the oddly shaped lot that is less
than ahalf acre. Mr. Robertson stated that ifthe property had been appropriately
zoned "E" the property would have roughly the same useful land area as a I acre lot
Board member Sager stated the removal of2mature spruce trees concerns him and
needs buhegiven careful consideration. Mr. Robertson stated hecould have taken
the trees down initially before requesting esetback variance. Hedoes not feel the
construction ofthe garage will impact the root zone bymore than 30percent. He is
willing tobond i(the 2trees die due Nthe construction howill replace the trees. He
advised howould shorten the garage inorder toprotect the root zone ofthe trees.
Mr. Robertson stated that hehas alegal right toremove the trees,
01
c;
D,
Lk_
/9
D,
Lk_
/9