Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 250 Granite Ln 2014-10-07 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3.C.5 Base Density and Dimensional Standards. The variance would allow a 19-foot setback in lieu of the 25-foot required in the E-1 Estate district. The purpose of the variance is to enclose the area below an existing deck to convert that area to a garage. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance for the deck in November 2010. The area under the deck has since been converted to a carport. The new property owner desires to enclose this area. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 250 Granite Lane APPLICANT/OWNER: Janice Whitmore (purchased in spring 2014) STAFF CONTACT: David Shirk REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. “Standards for Review” of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision- making body for this application. 250 Granite Lane - Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to ten surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department “Current Applications” webpage. The site has been posted with a “variance pending” sign. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. Public Comments. As of Friday September 26, no one has contacted staff regarding this request, and no comments have been received. An adjoining property owner opposed the 2010 variance. STAFF FINDINGS: 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: The property is zoned E-1 Estate, which has a minimum lot size of 1-acre. The 25- foot setbacks are intended for one-acre lots. This lot is .34 acres, which is closer to the ½ acre E Estate district, which has a side yard setback requirement of 10-feet. The house was built in 1977, before adoption of the EVDC. Portions of the existing house are within the setbacks. At the time of construction the property was zoned R-2 – Multiple-Family. The minimum required setbacks from all property lines were ten 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: The existing single-family use can continue without enclosing the carport. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial: • Enclosing the area below the deck would not expand the overall building footprint. • Would have the least overall impact on the site and the neighborhood. 250 Granite Lane – Side yard setback Page 2 of 4 • Would retain 110-feet of separation from the structure to the east, and 170-feet of separation from the structure to the southeast. 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 single- family character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to view corridors, drainage, migration corridors, etc). d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Approval would not have any effect on public services such as utility lines, drainage, or roads. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property in Spring 2014, and was not aware of either the setback requirement or the previous variance. The applicant hired a local contractor to perform the work. This contractor did not apply for a building permit. This issue was brought to the attention of the Building Department, who issued a ‘stop work order’ pending outcome of the variance request. View from southeast View from east 250 Granite Lane – Side yard setback Page 3 of 4 f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A garage could be built that complies with the 25-foot setbacks, though locating a building to meet setback requirements would result in greater overall site disturbance. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: Enclosing the area below the deck would have the least overall impact on the site and the neighborhood. 4. 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. No recommended conditions. Because the enclosure would not expand the building footprint, there is no need for a surveyor certificate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). 250 Granite Lane – Side yard setback Page 4 of 4