Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 3542 Aspen Valley Rd 2016-11-01 3542 Aspen Valley Road-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 E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEETINGDATE& LOCATION:November1,2016, 9:00AM; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST:This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3.C.4 Table 4-2Base Density and Dimensional StandardsResidential Zoning Districts. The variance would allow a21.8foot front setback in lieu of the 50-foot requiredin the RE-1 RuralEstatezone district. The purpose of the variance is to allow for an attached garage to be built on the propertyin the 50-foot requiredsetback. Staff recommends denial LOCATION: 3542 Aspen Valley Road, within the unincorporated Estes Valley. VICINITY MAP:See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER:Peggy Young STAFFCONTACT: Audem Gonzales, Planner II PROJECT DESCRIPTION:This is a request to grant a varianceto allow for a 21.8-foot front setback in lieu of the required 50-foot setback. The RE-1zone district standards require a 50-foot all on property sides. The applicant is proposing to build an attached garageapproximately 1,176SF in sizeon the south side of the existing residence. The proposed new front setback cannot be approved at a staff level, therefore a variance has been requested. The existing building slightly encroaches into the current setback. The home was built in the when the property was zoned E-Estate and the front setback was 30-feet. At that time, the building was compliant with zone district standards. REVIEW CRITERIA:VDC, 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. REFERRALAND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 5surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No major comments or concerns were received. Public Comments. Staff has received one written public comment in regards to this application. The comment was from an adjacent property owner and expresses no opposition to this proposed 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 ve 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 RE-1 Rural Estate, which has a minimum setback on all sides of 50-feet. The lot is approximately 2.7 acres in size, which is substantially under the 10 acre minimum for this district. The property is currently developed with one single-family home which includes a tuck-under garage. The applicant has stated the reason for the proposed garage addition location was to avoid steep grades to the Figure 1: Looking north towards the existing home/garage. The area directly west and east, leaving the west of the home is relatively flat then slopes down drastically. The current only area to expand to the entrance to the home is accessed via the staircase seen in the photo above. south. Another reason stated for not building westward is that the existing home entrance faces west. Adding the addition at this location would affect the main entrance and is not practical. Staff believes the proposed location is a feasible and practical location for an addition but the area directly east of the home is also a feasible and practical location. There is a slope at this location but staff does not feel it is excessive enough to deter development at this area. Cutting into hillsides is common in the Estes Valley and could achieve the desirable outcome of having additional garage space. Staff also finds that the current zone district is not aligned with the size of the lot and that does pose some difficulty with developing the site, especially with the established 50-foot setback requirement. 3542 Aspen Valley Road Setback variance Page 2 of 5 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 home and garage can be used without adding an addition to the building. The applicant stated the existing garage is too small to accommodate a full size pickup truck/or SUV. Figure 2: Area to the east of the home. While it may not be practical to expand towards the west, the east side of the home offers a practical location which may require a variance but to a much lesser degree as the proposed variance. (see attached site plan) b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial in regards to the physical location of the addition. The neighboring property to the south has a single-family home built on it that is approximately 600 feet from the proposed addition. The property owner to the south has provided public comment stating no objection to this variance. The deviation from Code standards would be a 43% deviation, which would be 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: 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). All developed properties have homes located far from the proposed addition. Adjacent properties are approximately 11-30 acres in size. Staff has found that all adjacent property homes and small structures are built outside of their specific zone district setbacks. The subject property is the only one with an existing building located within the setback. 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 water and sewer. 3542 Aspen Valley Road Setback variance Page 3 of 5 e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The EVDC was adopted in the year 2000 and was readily available to the public. The applicant purchased the property in the -Estate. RE-1 zone district setback requirements were not in effect until 2000. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A variance appears to be the only method to construct this addition at the proposed location. Staff feels an alternative location may be achieved, whether that be with an attached addition or detached structure. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions of situations. Staff Finding: The conditions of this application are general in nature. While the slope to west does drop off significantly, there is area to the east that could be developed. See figure 3. 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: No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. Figure 3: Topography of site with 1-foot contours. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The new addition aims to make a practical decision in the placement of the building but Staff feels there are additional locations that could potentially require less of a variance or no variance at all. This variance would represent the least deviation from Code that will afford relief for the proposal but other options seem to exist. 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. 3542 Aspen Valley Road Setback variance Page 4 of 5 Staff Finding: The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff is not recommending approval, therefore no conditions are recommended at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested setback variance SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to DENY the requested variance with the findings made by staff. I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the following findings and conditions (state reason/findings and place conditions if appropriate). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site plan 5. Site photos 3542 Aspen Valley Road Setback variance Page 5 of 5