Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 460 Valley Rd 2008-04-30460 Valley oad, Setback Variance 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 DATE: April 30, 2008 REQUEST: Side/Rear Setback Variance LOCATION: 460 Valley Rd. FILE #: Peterson . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SITE DATA Owner: Stan Peterson Zoning: E-1 Estate Property Size: 0.49 acres Existing Use: Residential Legal Description: 35234-00-037. This request is for a reduction of the required 25ft. building setback (Table 4-2; 4.3.c.5) to allow for a deck to wrap around the south corner of the home. The existing building is situated only 20 ft. from the property line at the south corner. The corner of the deck extension at this same point would fall 6.4 ft. from the side property line as illustrated in the site plan. The easterly corner of the deck would be 23.2 ft. from the rear property line. The house was built in 1913 and has been recently renovated. II. REVIEW CRITERIA: 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. The special circumstance is the placement of the home on the property back in 1913. This placement did not allow for conforming decks. Also, the lot is only '/a half acre in a one acre zoning district (E-1). 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; The home can be occupied without the deck variance. b. Whether the variance is substantial; The degree of additional encroachment is minimal considering the position of the existing building. 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 requested variance would not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Christopher Wood, the neighbor to the south has submitted a letter in support of this request. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Delivery of services would not be adversely affected. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and The applicant did purchase the property with knowledge of the requirement. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. No reasonable alternatives exist. 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 conditions are site specific. 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 Page #2 - Agenda Item # number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent 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. 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. III. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: 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. IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: • The degree of additional encroachment is minimal considering the position of the existing building • The requested variance would not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. • No reasonable alternatives exist. • The request is directly related to the everyday use of the existing building. • Delivery of services would not be adversely affected. Recommendation: Approval with the following conditions: • Full compliance with the Building Code. • Submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a qualified Surveyor. Page #3 - Agenda Item # February 25, 2008 Ellen O'Connell Van Horn Engineering 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Set Back Variance, Stan Peterson Home 460 Valley Rd. Ellen, I am writing to approve the request for a set back variance on the proposed structure of the addition of a deck to the property located at 460 Valley Rd. It is my understanding that the current plans are for a deck that would encroach 5-6 feet onto the 25' set back requirement at my home 470 Valley Rd. I authorize this set back variance. If there are any other concerns that need to be addressed around the project, please feel free to contact me. rely, ig(41A--2 Christoph6r E. Wood 470 Valley Rd. Estes Park, CO 80517 577-0962 (Hrn) 970-481-6142 (Cell) cc Stan Peterson Statement of Intent - Variance 460 Valley Road Variance Request: (compliance with Section 3.6 of the Estes Valley Development Code) MAR '2 6 2,008 Requested variances: Section 4.3.C.5.Table 4-2 `E-1' Zoning Side Setback -Existing 25' from current property line -Requesting 6' from South property line and 23' from the East property line The property located in a portion of Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 73 West is a parcel of land with street frontage on Valley Road. The land is zoned E-1 — Residential, (1 acre) under the current Estes Valley Development Code with setbacks being 25' from all lot lines. This lot is approximately Y2 an acre, which would be more closely matched to the E-Estate zoning, which has 15' setbacks. The variances are requested in order to be able to replace above grade decks that were recently removed from the house with new above grade decks. The previous decks were located as shown in the attached pictures. At that time, the decks were separate. It is proposed to replace the former decks with one deck that runs along the South and East sides of the house. 1. Special Circumstances or Existing Conditions This house was built in 1913. The decks were added in 1993. It was necessary to remove the decks in order to complete extensive renovations to the house. Without the decks on the house, there is only one exit from the house. The implications of the safety hazards associated with only one exit and the desire for a continuous "wrap around" above grade deck are the motivating factors in requesting these variances. 2. "Practical Difficulty Factors:" a. These portions of the property have been used, including deck use, for many years and granting this variance would allow a historic use to continue, in virtually the same location on the property. b. The requested variance to the South is substantial when comparing 6.0' to 25' (76%) required by the current zoning (E-1). However, the lot is less than Y2 an acre in size. Therefore, comparing the requested setback of 6.0' with the E (1/2 acre) zoning (10' side and 15' rear) is not as substantial (40% and 60%). To reiterate, this is a setback request for an elevated deck. The structure itself (home) is currently ±5' into the 25' setback (20%). If the deck were at grade, and not elevated, no variance would be needed. c. The variance would not substantially alter or have a major impact on the surrounding properties. The neighbor to the South of this property has been contacted regarding this proposed deck and does not have any objections. (See attached letter) d. There will be no adverse affect to the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. All existing utilities and connections will remain the same. The cleanouts under the deck for the applicants' private sewer service line will remain accessible (as the deck is elevated). e. The applicant's family has owned the land for many years and has had elevated decks on both sides of the existing structure for some 15 years. 3. The variance requested is not general or recurrent in nature, the situation is site specific. Given the special circumstances associated with the request, this is a unique request. 4. The granting of this variance will not cause an increase in density or create the ability to create new lots. 5. The proposed variance will allow the applicant to use the property as it has been used for many years with increased enjoyment and safety. The deck could be smaller; however, the applicant wishes to parallel the home and square the corner for construction simplicity, cost and architectural desires. Given the owner's desires and the most impacted neighbor's non -objection, this is the least deviation to afford relief. 6. The proposed variance request will not allow a use that has not previously been permitted on the property. NOTE: See attached letter from neighbor, letter and pictures from owner. 22 February 2008 To Whom It May Concern: I am requesting a variance to replace the decks at my house at 460 Valley Road. The decks that existed at the house had been in place since at least 1993 when my mother purchased the property. The decks were torn down in order to accomplish extensive renovations to the house in 2006. The new decks I am proposing to build are the same as the old decks with two exceptions: the deck on the south elevation would extend across the entire south side of the house (the old deck was only about half -way across) and the deck on the east elevation will be twelve feet by twenty feet (I think the old deck on this side was about ten feet by ten feet). I have been consulting with my adjoining property owner to the South at 470 Valley Road, Christopher Wood, and he has agreed verbally with my plans. I have asked him to write a letter to that effect, and will provide a copy to you as soon as possible. The new decks are necessary in order to provide alternate and safe exits from the house. Currently there is only one exit from the house on the North side. I have enclosed photos of the previous decks which existed on the South and East sides of the house, and a sketch of the proposed deck plan. I also enclosed a photo of an example of the type of deck and railing I would like to construct. Your consideration of this variance would be very much appreciated. I am enthusiastic about improving the appearance of this house and property which my great-grandmother built in 1913. Sincerely, Stanton B. Peterson 1741 Bolton Village Lane Niceville, FL 32578 (850) 543-1735 stgi n. pet 5o)p, (cr , z rRA,;, Submittal Date: General Information ecord Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: Legal Description Q___e Lo Subdivision: Parce D Lot Size ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION e ,;) Existing Land Use Q.A4. Proposed Land Use Townshi Ran e Zoning Existing Water Service )Town Well Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service . Town Well ' Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service 1 EPSD x UTSD Septic, Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service ' EPSD UTSD Septic Existing Gas Service )C Xcel Other i None Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes X" No Variance Specific variance desired (state development code section Primary Contact ontact information Name of Primary Contaot Person Mailing Address Attachments Application fee (see attached fee schedule) statement of intent (must comply with standards set foith in Section 3.6.0 of the Estes Valley Development Code) 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') "'" 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") • VNames & mailing addresses of neighboring property owners (see attached handout) **The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.Vll.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. c; Town of Es teti Park P.0, Box 1200 -di. 17() /sitor,Gregor Avenue Estes Park, CO tTi0517 Community ti"):veloprrient Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estesnel.corn/CornDev P imary Contact Person is Owner Applicant S'44(14-11 A , 60Pe_46 4 e\ q I a. ‘b.a 1-4,4A /01Celi Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer Applicant (A - Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer \Obv v\ \ v Mailing Address V)1-,(,,, Phone ir:A9 Cell Phone Fax - () Email \,) A: CL-1 4( r,-) APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at wwwestesnet.com/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanningApplicationFeeSchedule,pdf, All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal, 3 2 6 2008 AB NO15.21 FOR A PORTION OF MVO ADDRESS: 460 VALLEY ROAD, ESTES PARK 9NLl3AN8 l1oSoav5 oQ(0oM.�) H:XV3 . sacs—es (0s) 0 N3NNOON2H ,mNI33NO3NVA QV02I ArmiA 09' NOS2I3J2d NYId aLIS