The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Setback 653 Morgan St 2002-07-02WM 653 North Morgan Street -River Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Ilwamol Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 PROJECT OVERVIEW DATE OF BOA MEETING: July 2, 2002 REQUEST: The petitioner requests a variance to the ten (10) foot side yard setback required in the "B" Estate zoning district. LOCATION: The site is located at 653 North Morgan Street, within the Town of Estes Park. PETITIONER/PROPERTY OWNER: Jerry W. Miller/Jerry W. Miller and Mildred M. Miller STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The petitioner requests a variance to Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts" of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, this is a request for a two (2) foot variance from the mandated ten (10) foot side yard setback, to allow the existing house to remain eight (8) feet from the side lot line. The applicant applied for and was issued a building pennit (permit #7042) to expand the existing house in December 2001. The site plan submitted with the permit showed the expansion located within the setbacks. However since the proposed expansion was shown abutting the eastern side setback line staff required a setback certificate. When the property was surveyed by Hascall Surveys, Inc. they found that the proposed expansion, which was substantially complete at the time of the survey, was built in the setback. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff level review, and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. III. SITE DATA Number of Lots One Parcel Number(s) 2530317003 Total Development Area 0.44 acres (19,367 square feet) per Tax Assessor Existing Zoning "B" Estate Proposed Zoning "B" Estate Existing Land Use Single -Family Residential Proposed Land Use Single -Family Residential ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use North "E" Estate Residential - Single -Family South "B" Estate Residential — Single -Family East "B" Estate Residential — Single -Family Residential — Single -Family West "E" Estate SERVICES Water Town of Estes Park Sewer Estes Park Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Gas Xcel Energy Phone Qwest Page #2 — Setback Variance Request for 653 North Morgan Street LOCATION MAP �hl Ponderosa Dn 111ulillullli4 m.rive looms IIIIIIIII �6!I" III I0I!II!1 i'0uuuullo I f I IIV1 II II II I sivu timlooVI uuuuul �uuuuulllllW uuuuulluuuoo uuuuuu luuuuuuum a um muluY miiluuuu m u mlMi 11EIl mu%llil , E moor mulu 1111 °um loom llVlul " lllllllm1 VU II vu Illliliu Imluu ti Y;',p m IIt mua ; �W IIIVUVIVV � tt 11111111,111111[11 m� I uIu ur 653 North Morgan Street Olo AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH hhhhohohlhhoo 00000lPhopoop vophihohhhhhhi m Highway 7 llIU Page #3 — Setback Variance Request for 653 North Morgan Street PHOTO PROVIDED BY PROPERTY OWNER FF,nPtsrri!NE ?PPEOXII4"41- tQlk Page #4 — Setback Variance Request for 653 North Morgan Street MILLER RESIDENCE 653 N. MORGAN STREET STANELY HOTEL SAFEWAY TO DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK HOLIDAY INN HOSPITAL SITE LOOK FORA CARVED BEAR HOLDING A BLUE SIGN WITH BRASS "653" LETTERS NEXT TO DRIVE (ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD) NEIGHBORING HOUSE TO EAST IS 2-STORY, TAN COLORED - "653A" ADDRESS VICINITY MAP NO SCALE a Z W J O P TO LOVELAND LAKE ESTES Z O U "SENIC HIGHWAY SIGN (BLUE COLUMBINE - RIGHT BEFORE MORGAN STREET TURN) GOLF COURSE TO LYONS NORTH PHONE: (970) 586-9170 MII R RESIDENCE ADDITION EXHIBIT 'A' - ORIGINAL SITE PLAN PONDEROSA LANE DRAINAGE PPE w/ INLET S RP -RA AT END AS REOD. FIELD VERFY LOCATION E REGMTS. LOT 2 NEW ORNE TO GARAG REMO\E TOPSOIL E STOCKPLE RERACE w/ ROADEAGE, COVER EXISTNG ORES E PARKING AREAS w/ ROAGEASE. VERFY CONFGURATON w/ ARCHITECT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 3. FORT MORGAN COLONY ADDITION. TO\VN OF ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO AREA = 20,053 S.F. = 0.46 ACRES ADDRESS 553 NORTH MORGAN STREET LOT 3 F N83°5200"W 82.50' NORTH MORGAN STREET APPROX LOCATION OF EXIST UTILITY POLE S88°33'00"E WHITE MEADOW VIEW PLAGE ADDITION EXIST OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES -r EXIST. OVERHEAD I I UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED 23' EACI ki Ef_ lu III NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES FROM POLE TO POLE - 4' PVC CONDUIT w/ SWEEP BENDS FOR POWER - 2' PVG CONDUIT w/ SWEEP BENDS FOR TELEPHONE - DIRECT BURY CABLE FOR CABLE TV APROX LOCATION EXIST. OVERHEAD SERVICE TO BE REMOVED (SEE ELEC.) LOT 4 APROX LOCATION OF EXIST UTILITY POLE NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICE TO RESIDENCE (SEE ELECTRICAL) EXIST. GARAGE TO BE RELOCATED EAST. OVERHEAD UTIUTIESTO REMAIN APROX LOCATION RELOCATED EXIST GARAGE (FELD V ERFY LOCATION w/ ARCHITECT) SEE 2/A1 FOR GARAGE SLAB CONST. APROX LOCATION EXIST UTILITY POLE MIT ER RESIDENCE ADDITION EXHIBIT 'B' - DRAWIN(FROM SURVEYOR (HASCALL SURVEYS, INC., BERTHOUD, COLORADO) S88°33'00"E 79.51' . N1� IU2 1 1 / I 1 I AREA= 20,053 S.F. 1 I i I I I 1 I N83 °52'00"W 82.50' II 8.02' FOUND 3/4" PIPE 0 20 40 60 WHILE MEADOW MEW ArE ADDITION Community Development Required A Setback Certificate with the Building Permit for East Property Line SITE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH BUILDING PERMIT MIT R RESIDENCE ADDITION EXHIBIT 'A' - ORIGINAL SITE PLAN PONDEROSA LANE LOT 3 58V33TVE _4( 'I LOT 2 LOT 1 HFS.q.F.TFT,C,'T 20.053 SF C 4:5 <555 NORTH MORGAN STREET Page #5 — Setback Variance Request for 653 North Morgan Street REVISED SITE PLAN MU GR RESIDENCE ADDITION —EXHIBIT'B' - DRAWIN( FROM SURVEYOR Wi19 30' P3E N8J°52'0O w ;HASCA_L SURVEYS. '�.NC.. BERTHOUD. COI-ORA✓O; I I! I II I II II II 92. 50' • - _•-j �� I� r i—H Variance Requested For Eastern Corner 20 40 60 IV. REVIEW CRITERIA All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with Section 3.6 C. "Standards for Review" of the Estes Valley Development Code. Page #6 — Setback Variance Request for 653 North Morgan Street V. REFFERAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and property owners within 100 feet of the property for consideration and comment. No issues/concerns were expressed by reviewing staff. VI. STAFF FINDINGS Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: . 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. Since the expansion to the existing house is substantially complete, compliance with the Code standard would require a substantial remodel. Prior to construction there were no special circumstances or conditions relative to the area or building that would have resulted in practical difficulty in complying with the Code standards. 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. There can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The house can continue to be used. b. Whether the variance is substantial. This is a request for a two (2) foot variance from the mandated ten (10) foot side yard setback. This equates to a twenty percent (20%) variance, which is 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. The proposed house would not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Page #7 — Setback Variance Request for 653 North Morgan Street Adjoining property owners have not contacted staff to comment on this proposal and staff is not aware of their opinions about the variance request. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. The variance will not affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. The applicant purchased the property prior to the February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code and without knowledge of the requirements. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. The portion of the house in the setback could be removed, but this may require substantial remodeling of a new addition to the house. 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. The circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation, condition or situation. 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. The variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The variance, if granted, offers the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. The use is permitted. 7. In granting this variance, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standards varied or modified. Page #8 — Setback Variance Request for 653 North Morgan Street VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends APPROVAL of a two (2) foot variance from the mandated ten (10) feet to allow the house to be built eight (8) feet from the property line. CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with this variance and provide a signed and stamped setback certificate at final building inspection. Page #9 — Setback Variance Request for 653 North Morgan Street J.W. MILLER ASSOCIA f ES Architecture • Planning • Urban Design 203 South Main Street, Suite D, Longmont, Colorado 80501 303.772.4118 • FAX: 772.1262 • Estes Park: 970.586.9170 JWMillerAssoc@Worldnet.att.net RE: MILLER RESIDENCE ADDITION Set -back Variance Request Written Statement Estes Valley Board of Adjustment % Town of Estes Park Planning Department P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Member of the Board; 6 June 2002 Project No: 01-MIL The purpose of this request for a Variance to Table 4-2, Side Yard Setback. The Subject Property, Lot 3, Fort Morgan Colony Addition aka 653 North Morgan Street, and surrounding properties are all within the `E' - Estate Residential Zoning District. The required Side Yard Setback is ten feet (10'). The reason for this request is to correct an error. The addition to the existing cabin is essentially complete, so this request is, unfortunately, occurring after the fact instead of what I presume you would normally like to see. How the error occurred is unknown to me. Because of this, some background information is, I believe, in order: Background: When we first started thinking about adding on to our existing cabin and making Estes Park our permanent home, approximately a year ago, I had the property surveyed by a firm I consistently use, Hascall Surveys, Inc., from Berthoud, Colorado. A short while later, we received an electronic file of the completed survey. Upon receipt of the file, I had one of my drafters set it up on our computer CAD system for my use in planning the addition. The end result of that set-up and design effort was the Site Plan that was submitted with the construction plans to the Building Department for Permit. A copy of which is appended hereto as "Exhibit A". As can be seen, the original Site Plan indicated that the majority of the proposed addition was approximately 12 feet from the property line with only the north-east corner hitting what should have been the 10-foot setback line. I should note that, especially in mountainous areas, I generally try to exceed the required setback since actual property lines are usually not as accurately determined as they are in flatter areas. Due to the design of the addition, and a desire to be as compatible with the existing cabin design, which was built around 1905, and the surrounding architectural character of the neighborhood, I extended the corner of what is a screened porch to what I thought at the time was the correct setback distance. The Building Permit was issued in December, 2001 with a stipulation that I obtain a "setback certificate", indicating compliance with required setbacks, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. As construction was nearing completion, I sent an electronic file of the Site Plan to the Surveyor, at the beginning of April 2002, and asked him to look at it and issue a letter of compliance as requested by the Building Department. The Surveyor overlaid my Site Plan onto his survey and discovered that somehow the entire property boundary had been shifted to the east by approximately two -feet. Needless to say, I was rather surprised by this discovery. What I received back from the Surveyor is appended hereto as "Exhibit B". Although I have some suspicions as to how this error occurred, at this point in time exactly why the property boundary was shifted to the east two -feet is now irrelevant to the issue at hand. In checking with the Page 2 6 June 2002 Contractor, as he explained to the Building Department, the error was compounded when he laid out the building because there was an additional fence post, to the east of the one marking where the property pin is, that he assumed was the property line. The additional fence post was subsequently removed to prevent further confusion. That, coupled with the fact that the addition was laid out off the existing cabin, resulted in the discovery of this error after construction was well underway and the addition was closed -in. The result of this error is that the north-east corner of the addition encroaches approximately two -feet into the required ten -foot side yard setback along the eastern portion of our property. The encroachment is the corner of the screened porch and encompasses a total area of approximately 4.2 square feet of the porch. The balance of the addition is now on, or close to, the ten -foot setback line, as illustrated on both "Exhibit B" and the submitted Development Plan for the Property. Compliance with Standards for Review: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist: As indicated above, the encroachment was discovered well after construction had begun. The foundation system was complete and the structure was closed -in with interior construction well underway. The encroachment is the result of an error that, unfortunately, was not discovered until this stage of construction. To now eliminate the encroachment would result in extensive structural modifications, which will cost several tens of thousands of dollars, and would result in destruction, in my opinion, of the architectural character of the completed addition. 2. Factors for consideration: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance: While we could use the property without the variance, mitigation of the encroachment would cause severe hardship due to the cost of mitigation and the detrimental effect on the aesthetics of the addition. The area of the encroachment is a screened porch which is generally not thought of a living space, even though it is a structural part of the entire addition. b. Whether the variance is substantial: The request for the variance is, in my opinion, not substantial. Only a portion of the north-east corner of the addition encroaches over the required ten -foot setback and encompasses an area of approximately 4.2 square feet of the entire first floor footprint area of 1,987 square feet. The total area of the screened porch is 126 square feet. The balance of the addition was designed to follow the angle of the adjacent property line and was originally thought to have been approximately 12 feet from the property line. Now, upon discovery of the Site Plan error, the balance of the addition complies with the required 10-foot setback requirement. 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: Page 3 6 June 2002 In my opinion, the essentially character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered by the approval of this variance request. The character would, however, be altered should this request not be granted due to the aesthetic alterations to the existing structure that would be required to bring the structure into compliance. Adjoining properties will not suffer a detrimental impact by the approval of this request because the encroachment, in my opinion, is of such a minor nature. In addition, it appears as if several of the adjoining properties do not comply (or could not comply) with the required 10-foot setback requirements for much larger portions of the existing structures on those properties. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer: As indicated on the Development Plan, existing utilities on the eastern side of the property, adjacent to the encroachment, consist of underground electrical, telephone and cable TV services. We buried these utilities well after the foundation was built and the structure, in that area, was framed. These utilities are approximately three feet west of, and parallel to, the easterly property line. As you know, underground utilities are subject to much less, if any, repair requirements and the respective utility companies did not express any concerns about the proximity of the addition to the lines. The Water Main, serving the area, is to the west of the existing cabin and sewer lines are located at the north west corner of the property. Neither water or sewer are close to the encroachement. e. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement: We were well aware of the 10-foot setback requirement and thought that, as illustrated on "Exhibit A", with the exception of the corner of the screened porch, we were exceeding the setback requirements by approximately two feet. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance: Our predicament could be mitigated by literally tearing off the corner of the screened porch. However, this is neither practical, due to the structural modifications that would be required, nor beneficial to the aesthetics of the addition with which I tried to conform to the architectural character of the existing cabin and the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the additional cost of mitigation would cause an undue hardship, to say the least. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions ... are of so general or recurrent... Due to the nature of this request, it is specific in nature as we are asking for relief from a specific error that occurred, which is not general in nature, is not a general request and is not a request that requires a formulation of general regulations. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots ... Not Applicable. We are not asking for a reduction in the size of the existing Lot. Page 4 6 June 2002 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief: Due to the minimal size of the encroachment, it is my opinion that granting this request for a variance is the least deviation from the regulations that affords us relief. 6. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted ... . Not Applicable. We are not requesting a change of use from those allowed under the Zoning Regulations. In conclusion, we appreciate the Boards consideration of this request and urge the Board to grant approval of this relatively minor deviation from the side yard setback requirements. Thank you for your consideration. Jerry W. filler Archite t, CSI, ICBO NOIIIC1(1V 1)N-KIIST>,.1 \IV Id 1 \,! WVIO I IA I( I 1 )'4VnIVA "VI (I) Vt