The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Setbacks 1981 Crags Ct. 2003-12-021981 Crags Court Lot 31, Carriage Hills 7th Filing Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com PROJECT OVERVIEW is' ck-e eA r •iCAr d_ DATE OF BOA MEETING: December 2, 2003 VC_A. Or—) e REQUEST: The petitioner requests a variance to Estes Varley Development Code Section 4, Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts" which requires a minimum side yard setback of ten feet in the "R" Residential zoning district. LOCATION: The site is located at 1981 Crags Court, within the Town of Estes Park. Legal Description: Lot 31, Carriage Hills 7th Filing, A Planned Unit Development, Phase "A." PETITIONER/PROPERTY OWNER: Daniel B. and Susan L. Doylen/Same STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The petitioner requests a variance to Estes Valley Development Code Section 4, Table 4-2 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts" which requires a minimum side yard setback of ten feet in the "R" Residential zoning district. Specifically, this is a request for a four foot variance from the ten foot side yard setback to build a deck addition six feet from the side (western) property line. The proposed deck is approximately 215 square feet, III. SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots One Parcel Number(s) 3401125031 Total Development Area 0.273 acres (11,892 sq. ft.) per plat Existing Zoning "R" Residential Proposed Zoning "R" Residential Existing Land Use Single -Family Residential Proposed Land Use Single -Family Residential ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use North "R" Residential Single -Family Residential South "R" Residential Single -Family Residential East "R" Residential Single -Family Residential West "R" Residential Carriage Hills 7th Filing Outlot C Green Area Note: Adjacent land uses are determined from Larimer County Tax Assessor website. SERVICES Water Town Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Phone Qwest Location Map for 1981 Crags Court 0 Highway 7 81 Crags Covet " Residentil Zoning Page #2 — 1981 Crags Court Lot 31, Carriage Hills 7'1i Filing, A Planned Unit Development, Phase "A" Side Yard Setback Variance Request Aerial Photo 011981 Crays Court and %mounding Area 0 59 120 210 50 117 c Scott Avenue j : 7") 1981 Crags Cash ONO' ...1.!..PY 6110 SITE PLAN ,,,CAL.E.: l'a23. co.' 12,1101 01 to 0 zUI r,); it 10' Side Yard Setback • Root-9445 a oleo 11.,111`11 •54'.11,F..., c.*eo4,1'1 15' Rear Yard Setback tOp lc, Existing Tree to Remain aec'cr 5, op m.op-DEP 5o01. Isis 62, Po,c...8,% 36,2 rt, 312 PO OPT A.10F54,11HIS P201.5101111% 'koTT Av. o Pcgrdrm MokitIMP-NT geku, sag" gez. t.luittem-P , III 15,5PM, LP:A.6 Klusic tit Ric3t, 0 W10P.10.01Wp rbtdea. Puma (PLA 77,44/ :tett-1 IA Pe.4',14sc, ° 0 e / 15' Front Yard etback I I rA- i I.9 Arreo Av .„ e.— 1 i 7-,,s I, A, Zeal' . Ot 1 • ?(' c .1.104.0210:/6 kiN ,113 I Proposed , Addition a ,, k% ko iiolt \ '.. - / 40110 I oRc4..{ g16, Trap *6,411 15 Foot Front Yard Setback Page #3 — 1981 Crags Court Lot 31, Carriage Hills 7'1' Filing, A Planned Unit Development, Phase "A" Side Yard Setback Variance Request IV. REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.0 and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff level review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. 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. The following reviewing agency staff and/or neighbors submitted comments. Estes Park Public Works Department See Greg Sievers' memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 19, 2003. Town Attorney See Greg White's letter to Alison Chilcott dated November 12, 2003. Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Ron Witt's letter to Alison Chilcott dated November 12, 2003. VI. STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 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: There are special circumstances associated with this lot. The lot is at the junction of two roads, is raised above the roads and has few trees which makes the lot highly visible. As described by the applicant in the statement of intent, the house was sited and designed to minimize impact to the lot and surrounding neighborhood. The house is Page #4 — 1981 Crags Court Lot 31, Carriage Hills 71h Filing, A Planned Unit Development, Phase "A" Side Yard Setback Variance Request located in the northwest corner of the lot encroaching into the side and rear yard setbacks. When the existing house was built these setbacks were five feet. The side setback is now ten feet and rear, fifteen feet. 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: There can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The existing residence can continue to be used. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: This is a request for a four foot variance from the ten foot side yard setback to build an approximately 215 square foot deck six feet from the rear property line. This is a forty percent variance which is substantial. However, this uncovered deck will encroach into the setback for a distance only approximately five feet, making the request less substantial. Also, the deck will not encroach any further into the side yard setback than the existing house. 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 proposed addition may not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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. Staff Finding: The variance will not affect the delivery of public services, provided there are no utility conflicts as noted in Greg Sievers' memo. The proposed deck will not encroach into the five foot utility easement along the side property line. Page #5 — 1981 Crags Court Lot 31, Carriage Hills 7th Filing, A Planned Unit Development, Phase "A" Side Yard Setback Variance Request e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property prior the February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code without knowledge of the ten foot side yard setback requirement. The prior side yard setback was five feet. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant could place a detached deck within the setbacks or remove the portion of the deck that encroaches into the setback and relocate the proposed door. 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 Finding: The submitted conditions or 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 for such conditions or situations. 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 Finding: 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. Staff Finding: The variance, if granted, offers the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief to place the on the lot. Page #6 — 1981 Crags Court Lot 31, Carriage Hills 7'1' Filing, A Planned Unit Development, Phase "A" Side Yard Setback Variance Request 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 Finding: 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. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memo's submitted by reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section V of this staff report, are incorporated as staff findings. 9. Per EVDC §3.6.D, failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the Board of Adjustment null and void. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. EVDC Appendix D.VII Tree and Vegetation Protection During Construction and Grading Activities shall apply for the tree next to the deck. 3. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate. Page #7 — 1981 Crags Court Lot 31, Carriage Hills 7th Filing, A Planned Unit Development, Phase "A" Side Yard Setback Variance Request Daniel B. and Susan L. Doylen 1981 Crags Ct. • Estes Park, CO 80517 970-586-6217 To Whom It May Concern Re: Request for Variance from Municipal Code Section 4.3 Side Yard Setback Statement of Intent: It is our desire to build a fenced deck contiguous to the southwest corner of our residence to accommodate a therapeutic hot tub. The deck access, as designed, requires a door where an existing window is now located. We are seeking a variance of approximately 4' into the setback to structure the deck. Historical Background: The 7th Filing of Carriage Hills was platted in unincorporated Larimer County in 1976. We purchased our lot in 1986 and built our home in 1987. It was not until 1991 that we were annexed into the Town of Estes Park. Subsequently the Town and Larimer County have adopted the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to annexation our home's required setback was 5 feet, after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan the setback was increased to 10 feet (which means the southeast corner of our house in already in violation of the existing setback). It had always been our intent to build this deck once funds were available - we have an electrical conduit and water to the location. Special Circumstances: When we built the house we sited it toward the far northwest corner burying the foundation as far as practicable at the time. The lot has a significant slope and we desired to soften the impact of the structure on the landscape. We were the first to build on our street and wanted to be sensitive to future neighbors and their views. By building this deck on the southwest corner of the house we will not have a deck visible in the front yard (Crag's Ct) and it actually will balance the existing deck that is on the southeast corner of the house (which does not have enough engineered support to accommodate a therapeutic hot tub). Practical Difficulty: We do not believe that the character of the neighborhood would be altered as the deck is attractively designed and consistent with the rest of the house. This variance would not affect the delivery of public services. We do not believe that another location would be as aesthetically pleasing or functionally acceptable. This location is also the least intrusive to our neighbors. This is a simple request as we are only talking about a portion of a structure with no roof and does not to exceed 36 square feet in floor area. Summary : We believe that this variance is warranted as we are the original owners of the property that was purchased and built under the previous Larimer County code and that this variance will have no material or adverse affect on either the neighbors, the adjacent green space, or utilities in the area. Area Locator Map Not to Scale Hwy 7 to Ailenspark Peak View Subject Property 1981 Crags Ct. Hwy 34 to Loveland Hwy 36 to Boulder V z v 0 Scott Ave. mill IYidS NaHUO tJ c\I w. 11 • • 4-, • DESKO RESIDENCE 4 /A. /c38 A c,t G 11/ tt, L "1: r; I T11,11-`{ s• A. 5-.4 1 T P,c .*6A411 co„ c, pAo IAIALL Aic 4PP,c)N • s 7; lIL kJ4& 10 lac:20 I S12. 36,0 312. Pv. t,Joi Ar-F.f.,-1- 1I FROFES--111 rE ps P o r-ii.Jklt7 Mok1UM.St-IT 0 Eye.v1 (i) IAJAT...F.."Tor, oc,/ •3 POW .}Z. Perit-4,7 AL_ PA' \ I N • Pt -hi -rep zead a 1'2- 5, 4,C) I Col ,o91 14 o 4 ex2 I co" coo.4-£61 \'LL(DTT I S, 4:T7-Sp viz)(JV L-P, el° 45' 0 CI T. L I508 00V210100 '>18Vd 83183 IZi'Z X08 '0'd N4 EXISTING HOUSE to I Steve Lane, AIA „0-,9 CJ X w o (t.52 a a�� N N Oc o0 EXISTING PATIO — EXISTING WALL BELOW L I908 opwolo0 5 Jdd sajs3 pno0 S60J0 L861 masa aauamsaa UOI OU -J Y Z C.) O 0 �� O a_ Lai Z J � Z Y W N Q W W X p d' W L L908 00V80100 'AdVd S31S3 LW X08 *O'cl vi a Steve Lane, AIA 0 CI; ui ao If? 0 (D0 . . — t _92 o o 2x6 DECKING STEPS BEYOND Li CD CC CD agog opwoloo sals3 p n o 3 s6oi 0361, moaa souomses uepcoa _J F- CC V) V) >.< Lt.J CL LiZ ° C) 6 Li a_ 6 CI z ia-NSWESWATIMI”IPARWIENW__, ..ic t.1 F1) • I ± 1/ PL41 T .1" UTILITY DESKO RESIDENCE -72 cc•••••• • c -4 kir; , WALL 84 49c) oc) 15, ao klaTE-! Ize-op-DEP 1-12., 36,o 51S Po. NoT PlaoFF...sztsr, Al 0 F-c)t.l Mokl ll M SNIT 1...e.t\IIP rec, ii- 0 SAN, ..',e1A1 E, re- f,i11 1-ta 1, E oef141 El 1E4- -1, 6 A. ft,l, e.,' te.1$we._ / (il / 'a Fbvluz. PEIX-Q.TAL / (p/...4 / --••••••._ , ••••••-. rat , Cokt.. 5,7E74, , \ srept r‘ N., PLA:rrea c•11 WE- 4. ziectaivoil 12-5,o0' z• Co1,091 ' M04400100" Go0. 480 F'1.4Tysiz> V /Ft, .148 64 0 T. '0 C.) CD 0 (/) .1 0 0. 0 U 11. CD 1111111111°pol 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111 111111111111111'1111i 00000000000000000000000000 11111111,11,1111111111111111111111 11111,111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111ljhvi voov000000000000000000000 1 1 1111 Crags Court Side Yard Setback Variance co 01