HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE REQUEST 1575 Fall River Rd, withdrawn 2009-01-06
1575 Fall River Road (Highway 34)
Setback 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.estesnet.com
I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
DATE OF BOA MEETING: December 2,2008
LOCATION: The site is located at 1575 Fall River Road (Highway 34),
within the Town of Estes Park. Legal Description:Metes and Bounds.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS:John Moynihan
STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott
APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE:
Estes Valley Development Code(EVDC)
REQUEST:
The property owner requests avariance to Estes Valley Development Code
Table 4-5, which establishesa twenty-five-foot setbackfrom arterial streets
in the A–Accommodations/Highway Corridorzoning district, in order to
construct a roof overa proposed deck 4’ 6”feet from the southern front
property line; a 20’ 6” variance.
This property is approximately 0.76acres in sizeand containstwo single-
family residential structures. Theeasternmoststructure has beenconverted
to retailuse per Larimer County Tax Assessor records.
Theproperty used to contain three single-family residential structures. The
westernmost structure was destroyed by fire on Saturday, October 20, 2007.
Demolition Permit #D017-08was issued by the Building Department on
September 23, 2008and this residencehas been removed.Below are photos
of the burned residence.
The property ownerisbuilding a new single-family residence in the same
location as the old residence.The old residence was located six feet from
the front property line and was non-conforming as to the front-yard setback.
Per EVDC §6.6 Damage to or Destruction of a Nonconforming Structure or
Structure Containing a Nonconforming Use,nonconforming structurescan
be rebuilt(without Board of Adjustment approval) if work begins within
one year from the calamity and is completed within three years.
Staff approved Building Permit #8664 on October 31, 2008for construction
ofthe new residence. The proposed house is similar in design to the old
house; however, somedesignimprovements have been made such as
Page #2–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
eliminating the negative roof pitch.Construction of the proposedhouse,
which is 1,727 square feet in size and does not have a garage, has not
begun.The property owner may be waiting until the Board of Adjustment
hears this variance request to begin construction.Below is a comparison of
the old and new side elevation.
The property owner would like to make further design improvements to the
house, i.e., they would like to add a roof over the porch. This design change
requires Board of Adjustment approval.Below is a comparison of the
proposed side elevation with and without the roof over the porch.
Page #3–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
The addition of a roofover the porchwill:
1.Move the house closer to the front property line. The eave willextend 1’
6” beyond the porch, changing the front-yard setback from six feet to 4’
6”; and
2.Increase the pitch of the roof thereby increasing the height of the
building by eleven inches, changing the height from 25’ 10” to 26” 9.”
II.SITE DATAAND MAPS
Number of Lots/ParcelsOne
Parcel Number(s)35233-00-009
Lot Size0.76acres33,119square feet per Tax
Assessor records
ZoningA–Accommodations/Highway Corridor
Existing Land UseSingle-family residentialand retail per Tax Assessor records
Proposed Land UseA single-family residence will be added to the property
SERVICES
WaterTown of Estes Park
SewerUpper Thompson Sanitation District
Fire ProtectionTown of Estes Park
ElectricTown of Estes Park
TelephoneQwest
LOCATION MAPS WITH ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING
Site
Page #4–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
Page #5–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
III.REVIEW CRITERIA
All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards
and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.C 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.
IV.REFERRAL COMMENTS
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and
neighboring property owners for consideration and comment.The following
reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property ownerssubmitted
comments.
Town ParkBuilding Department See Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison
Chilcott dated November 17, 2008.
TownPublic Works and UtilitiesDepartmentsSee Tracy Feagens’
memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 212008.
Town Attorney See Greg White’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated November
12, 2008.
Town Fire Department See Derek Rosenquist’s email to Alison Chilcott
dated November 10, 2008.
Page #6–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Todd Krula’s letter to Alison
Chilcott dated November 14, 2008.
Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)See Gloria Hice-
Idler’s note dated November 11, 2008 on the All Affected Agencies memo.
V.STAFF FINDINGS
Staff finds:
1.Special circumstancesor 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 andpractical difficultymay 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 Board should use their best judgment to determine if special
circumstancesexist and practical difficultymay result from strict
compliance with Code standards.
Special circumstances may result from the triangular shape of the lot,
from the fact that at approximately 0.76acres this lot is undersized for
theA–Accommodations/Highway Corridorzoning district, which has a
40,000-square-footminimum lot size for new lots, and/or from the fact
that the lot is steeply sloped and has many rock outcroppings.
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:Staff findsthere can bea beneficial use of the
property without the requested variance. Thehouse couldbe rebuilt
as approved with Building Permit #8664 without a roof over the
porch.
Page #7–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
b.Whether the variance is substantial.
Staff Finding:If approved the variance will reduce the setback from
the front-property line from six feet to 4’ 6.” The Board should use
their best judgment to determine if this variance 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.
Staff Finding:Staff finds that the essential character of the
neighborhood will not be substantially alteredand that adjoining
properties will not suffer a substantial detriment.The roof over the
porch could improve the look of the residencefrom the arterial
street.
Staff has not received any letters insupport oropposition to the
request, and adjoining property owners have not stated that they will
suffer a substantial detriment.
d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of
public services such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding:This application was routed to providers of public
services,such as water and sewer.
Significant safety concerns were expressed by the Light and Power
Department due to the proximityofthree-phase primary electric
power with high voltages. On October 26, 2008, the applicant’s
consultant willmeet on-site with the Light and Power Department to
discuss how to resolve this problem.
Gloria Hice-Idler stated in her note on the All Affected Agency
memo that projected right-of-way is seventy-five feet from the
highway centerline, but that CDOT would defer to the Town. The
Public Works Director has not expressed any concerns about the
impact of this variance request on projected right-of-way. Right-of-
way in this areamay be constrained by steep slopes on the north side
of US 34 and by Fall River on the south side.
Page #8–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge
of the requirement.
Staff Finding:This standard addresseswhether or not the Code
requirements changedduring current property owners’ ownership of
the property. For example, did the property owner purchase the
property prior to adoption of the required setbacks?
This standard is not intended to address whether or not the property
owner reviewed Estes Valley Development Code to determine
which setbacksare applicable to his/her property.
The property owner purchased the property withknowledge of the
twenty-five-foot setback. Per the Larimer County Tax Assessor
records, the ownerpurchasedthe property in 1998. At that time the
property was zoned E-Estatewith a twenty-five-foot minimum
requiredsetback from arterial streets.
f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through
some method other than a variance.
Staff Finding:The applicantcould shift the house further back on
the lot. This is likely to require further grading as it is a steeply
sloped lot with rock outcroppings.
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 Board should use their best judgment to determine 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.
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 variancewouldnot reduce the size of the lot.
Page #9–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
5.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding:The Board should use their best judgment to determine if
thevariance,if granted,represents 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.
Staff Finding:The proposed 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.
Staff Finding:If the Board chooses to approve this variance, staff has
recommended a number of conditionsof approval.
8.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff
for consideration andcomment.All letters and memos submitted by
reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section IV of this staff report, are
incorporated as staff findings.
9.Code Compliance
The Board should be aware that staff believes there are ongoing code
violations on this property. Staff believes that the property owner is
manufacturing and assemblinglog furniture on site. This is an industrial
use, which is not permitted in the A–Accommodations/Highway
Corridorzoning district (see the Community Development Director’s
June 27, 2008 letter to John Moynihan addressing this use.)
The Board may choose to continue this application until this violation
has been corrected. Below are photos of the property taken on Monday
November 24, 2008 showing outside storage related to this business.
Page #10–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
Page #11–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request
One option would be to require that:
1.Logs and plywood not be stored outside;
2.No more than three cords of firewood be stored for personal use.
The amount of wood and location of storage could be discussed
further with the applicant. This firewood is appears to be a by-
product of the wood-furniture manufacturingoperation.
The dumpster could be relocated to a code compliant location and
screened once construction of the house is complete.
VI.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the Board choosesto continue this application to the next regularly
scheduled meeting,staff recommends that it be conditioned on:
1.Removal of logs and plywood from the outside of the property.
2.Removal of all but three cords of firewood. Firewood shall be neatly
stacked to the side of the building to aid in screening from the street.
If the Board chooses to recommendAPPROVALof the requested
variances, staff recommends that it be approved CONDITIONAL TO:
1.Compliance with the submittedapplication.
2.Compliance with the affected agency comments. This may require the
applicant to relocate or bury the three-phase primarily electric line.
3.A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the foundation
forms. After the footings are set, and prior to pouring the foundation, the
surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a
setback certificate.
4.This variance does not extend the three-year time frame, required per
EVDC §6.6, during which construction of the house must be complete,
i.e., Certificate of Occupancy issued.
5.Any dumpsters on site shall be located in a code-compliant location and
screened as required by code prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Page #12–1575 Fall River Road (US 34) –Setback Variance Request