Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE 2231 Upper High Dr 2016-12-29ESTESVALLEY BOARD [)FADJUSTMENT REQUEST FOR VAR|AyWCESTATEMENT OFINTENT Z231Upper High Drive, Estes Park, Colorado This application is a request for a variance from the setback requirements of Table 4-2, in RE -Rural Estate zoning of 50-feet to property lines, We are requesting a variance to be 18' into the required setback (or 32' frorn the property line) for the proposed garage, 25' (25' from the property line) for the proposed covered deck, and 29.1' (20.9' from the property line) for the existing house. These variances would allow for both, a more environmentally friendly positioning of the proposed garage and covered deck, as well as allow for keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The intent of the project is to remndeithe existing house and tmadd agarage. The proposed covered deck onthe front ofthe existing house would be no closer than the existing deck and the proposed garage would be no closer than the existing house. Review Standards 1. Special circumstances orconditions exist: With the existing structure being constructed 22.8' from the property line and the existing deck being 20.9' from the property line, any modification to the majority of the existing house without a variance is virtually impossible as more than half of the structure iswithin the zoned building setback. Further, without the complete demolition oftheexistinghouseorre'zoningthesubiec1parceLthepeisnootheropdontobringthe existing structure into compliance with the zoned building setback. Both the proposed remodel to the front entry and the pruposed garage as planned will be no closer than the existing [louse and deck. Z. Practical Difficulty a. The existing house was originailly constructed in the Current location 1998. Due tothe existing house's current nonconformity to the zoned building setbacks, any modification to the existing front entry would he impossible to do while conforming to the zoned setbacks of SO' Further, the proposed covered deck will not only benocloser than the existing front deck, but will bring the front entry more into conformity with the zoned building setbacks (farther away). b The proposed garage, while there are other locations on the subject lot where it is physically possible to build the garage, todosowould require anadditional driveway to be constructed and extensive grading done. This isdue toageneral slope aicmmssthe subject property uf approxirnateiy2O9&. 1naddition, any other location would bcmore difficult due tuthe need to maintain reasonable distances to the existing utilities and could result in placing the garage anunreasonable distance fnumexisting house. |ncontrast, placing the garage inthe proposed location wo�m|dlimit the amount ofdisturbance tothe lot and greatly reduce the amount of grading needed and only require a small extension to the existing driveway. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, nor would adjoining p�noperties suffer detriment asaresult nfthe variance. All ofthe proposed variances are not only in keepJng with the esthetics and character of the neighborhood but Would iincrease the esthetics and character ofthe neighborhood, d. The variance would have moeffect onpublic services. Due Yothe existing house, all necessary services are already extended tothe property and house, Aoplanned, any additional utility requirements will be met by connecting to the existing house. e. The existing house was constructed im1998and was permitted byLarinoerCounty. 3. The conditions reflected imthis application are not general imnature, but are specific tothis p�articw|ar property and the conditions w/hichcurrently exist which include but airenot limited to size and orientation. 4. No reduction in lot size or increase in non -conformity is created by this variance request, All requests are nmcloser 10any pmmpertyline than the existing structure, S. The plan proposed ilonot excessive, particularly considering that every effort has been made to red�ucethe impact tothe, subject prupertyand keep the propo�sedimprovements escompliant as possible. Multiple factors influenced the layout proposed, including maintaining the driveway, keeping piroject cost to a minimum, maintain the current esthetics and character of the neighborhood, omdminimizing the amount Vfvariance necessary. 6. The vahamcedoes not propose anon-permitted orprohibited use. 7. While this predicament for the proposed improvements could potentially be mitigated by one other means, whiich, �s by rezoning the suibject parcel to E-1 (which requires 25' building setbacks) as the neighboring parcels to the south (which, are also of similar size to the subject parcel) a,nezoned. This would beamuch more costly ($4,0OO+)and invohed/extonsivcprocess which would work for the proposed improvements; however' it will still not bring the existing house into conformity and avariance would still bpneeded. Further, this solution would chainQe the building setbacks along aUl property lines of the subject parcel and not just that specific portion needed for the proposed improvements. This could potentially create issues down the road as ainy future owner of the subject parcel could build clmser than 50' to the property lines by right aind without any consideration as to the impact on the essential charaic1er of the neighborhood. This is why a variance is being pursued as it is the only reasonable solution to bring the subject property and proposed improvements, into conformity while preserving the essential essence ofthe area. Prepared by: John Sullivan Project Manager fmrVan Horn Engineering and Surveying REVISED 12�30/16 BY JIPS ESTE5VALLEY BOARD OFADJUSTMENT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE STATEMENT OFINTENT 2Z3lUpper High Drive, Estes Park, Colorado This, application is a request for a variance from the setback requirements of Table 4-2, in RE -Rural Estate zoning of SO'heetto property lines. We are requesting a variance to he 18,' into the required setback (or3Z' from the property line), for the proposed garage, 25' (2S^ from the property line), for the proposed covered deck, and 28.1' (I0.9' from the property line) for the existing house. These vairiamces would allow for both a, more environmentally friendly positioning of the proposed garage and covered deck, as well as allow for keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The intentof the projectisto remodel the existing house and toadd agarage. The proposed covered deck mmthe front ofthe existing, house would be nocloser than the existing deck and the proposed garage would be no closer than the existing house, Review Standards l. Special circumstances orconditions exist: With the existing structure beiinQuams nucted 22.8' from, the property line and the existing deck being 201.9'from the property line, amymodification tothemna�johtyoftheexistinghowsevvithoutavar|ainceisvirtuaNyimpossih|easnnonethamhaYf of the structure is within the zoned building setback. Both the proposed remodel to the front entry and 1he proposed garage as planned will be no closer than the existing house and deck. 2 Practical Di�fficm|ty a. The existing house was originailIy constructed in the current locati:mn 1998. Due 1othe existing house's, current nonconformity to the zoned building setbacks, any modification to the existing front entry would be imipossi�le to do while conforming to the zoned setbacks of 50' Further, the proposed covered deck will not only bemncloser than the existing front deck, but will bring the front entry more into conformity with the zoned building setbacks (farther away), b. The proposed garage, while there are other locations on, the subject lot where it is physically possible to buQd the garage, to do so would require an additional driveway to be constructed and extensive grading done. This is due boageneral slope acro»sthe subject property of appnmximateVyZ0%. |maddition, any other location would bemore difficult due tothe need to maintain, reasonable distances to the existing utilities and could result in placing the garage an unreasonable distaince from, existing house. In contrast, placing the garage in the proposed location would limit the ammuinit of disturbance to the lot and greatly reduce the amount of gra�ing needed and only require a small extension to the existing driveway. c The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer detriment asaresult ofthe variance, AU|ofthe proposed variances are not only in keeping, with the esthetics anci character of the neighborhood but would increase the esthetics and character ofthe neighborhood, d. The variance would have no effect on public services, Due tnthe existing house, all necessary services are already extended tnthe property and house, Aup|amned,any additimna| utility requirements will be met byconnecting tothe existing house. e. The existing house was constructed in 1998 and was permitted by Larimier County. 3. The conditions reflected in thi:s application are not general in nature, buit are specific to this particular property and the conclitions which currently exist which include but are not Iiinnited to size and orientation. 4. No reduction in, lot size or increase in, non -conformity is created by this variance request, All requests are nocloser toany property line than, the existing structure. 5� The plan proposed is not excessive, particmlarVycons|derinO that every effort has been made to reduce the impact to the subject property and keep the proposed improvements as compliant as possible. Multiple factors influenced the |aymut proposed, including maintaining the drivevvay,keeping,projectcos11mami�mimurn'maintainthecmrremtesthedcsandcharacterof the neighborhood, and minimizing the annomntofvariance necessary. 6. The variance does not propose anon-permitted orprohibited use. Prepared by: ]nhmSwUivan Project Manager for Van Horn Fn8ineeringand Surveying Submittal Date: General Information Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: TIA L. COTTEY 2231 UPPER HIGH DRIVE Legal Description: Lot: 3 Block: NWA Subdivision: AMENDED PLAT OF THE E1/2 OF LOT 2, LOTS 3, 4, 5, & Wt/2 OF LOT 6, DEER MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS Parcel ID # 35273-10-003 Site Information Lot Size 1A00 ACRES Zoning RE Existing Land Use RESIDENTIAL Proposed Land Use RESIDENTIAL Existing Water Service r Town Well r Other (Specify) Proposed Water Service r Town f Well r Other (Specify) Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD I UTSD Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD IX UTSD Existing Gas Service r- Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) N/A Are there wetlands on the site? r Yes No Variance r" Other ar None r Septic I— Septic Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): 4.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (BUILDING SETBACKS) Primary Contact Information Name of Primary Contact Person John Sullivan for Van Horn Engineering Complete Mailing Address 1043 FISH CREEK ROAD, ESTES PARK, CO. 80517 Primar Contact Person is Attachments Owner r A Application fee (see attached fee schedule Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20') ** 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning©estes.org The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII 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. Iicant Consultant/Engineer Town of Estes Park -I\ P.O. Box 1200 -6..170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO .g0517 Community Development Deportment Phone: (970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.este5,org/CommunityDevelopmen1 41111.101011111* Revised 201:3 08,27 KT Contact information Record Owner(s) Tia L. CotteV & Holly D. Deem Mailing Address 6508 M 25th Way Phoenix, AZ. 85016 Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email 75 r Consultant/Engineer John Sullivan for Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Mailing Address 1043 Fish Creek Road, Estes Park, CO. 80517 Phone 970-586-9388 Cell Phone N/A Fax N/A Email sullivanvhe@airbits.com 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: http://www.estes,orq/ComDev/Schedules&Fees/PlanninqApplicationFeeScheduleudf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal, Revised 20 }3.0 . 1 KT APPLICANT CERTIFICATION o. I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property, ▪ In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Ito• I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application, The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: http.//wwwmst_es,orq/CQmDev/DevCocie 10. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does riot necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. • I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the informationprovided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. P. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. IP The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ▪ I acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. • I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked, I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing, 0. I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "'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 may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3 6.D) Names: Record Owner PLEASE PRINT Applicant PLEASE PRINT S n ures: Record Owner &e. rTt John Sul ivan (for Van Horn Engineering ) Date Applicant Date Revised 201108..2"/ KT Zoning Districts R-1 R-2 RM (Ord, 18-01 §14) § 4.3 Residential Zoning Districts Table 4-.2 Base ensity nd Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts /10 Ac, 1/2,5 Ac. 1 2 10 Ac. 2.5 Ac, 1 Ac. [3] Ac. [3 4 ¼Ac 8 5,000 4 Single-family = 18,000; Duplex = 27,000 (1" 200 50 200 50 100 25 75 25-arterials; 15- other streets 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets 50 15 60 25-arterials; 15- other streets Residential 40,000, 60; 25-arterials; 15- Uses: 5,400 sq. other streets Max = 8 and ft./unit [6] Lots Min = 3 (Ord. 25-07 Greater §1; Ord. 15- than Senior 11 §1) 100,000 Institutional sq. ft: Living Uses; Senior 200 Max = 24Institutional Living Uses: 1/2 Ac. 50 50 30 20 25 25 30 20 10 15 30 20 10 15 30 20 10 10 30 20 10 (Ord, 15-11 §1) 10 30 20 [ Notes to Table 4-2 (1) (a) See Chapter 4, §4.3,D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4„ §4.3.D,1. (b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments. (c) See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing. (d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 §1) (2) See Chapter 7, §7,6, for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands, (Ord, 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1) (3) It private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7.12, 'Adequate Public Facilities," (4) At development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of ,30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%. (Ord, 25-07 §1) (5) Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park, (6) Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f and 27,000 s.f,, respectively. (Ord 18-01 §14) (7) All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off -site dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded Basement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be he same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback, (Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord. 25-07 §1) (8) See Chapter 1, §1.9,E, which allows an increase In the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 §3) (Ord 18-01 §14; Ord. 2-02 §1; Ord. 2-02 §5; Ord. 11-02 §1; Ord, 25-07 §1; Ord. 15-11 §1) Mum 4-7 Sum, 12 Sdr 300V NOLLV.0.1 30.0 1./oP/PL 3,0 9NIA3MNIS ONV 9NIU33NION3 NHOH NVA SIHOIaH NIVINflOW Haan d/V £ ,L01 •annia HOIH ZIRddfl TEZZ NYIda,LIS z EH- C)(D Lr) cE,- n Oo zz N:r_r c•IL, 0_1 o cna_ • = ,X6 LLIOn < CEL,Ce <SO 0 0 u_o 1-0 cn 10 0 Lu, CnN 00 SO I—Z 0 zI 1-0 ,EZ 0_ N ;limn 3,0 es a VE — es [ota) a JNIA3Aaf1S aONV a9NI I33NIJN3a NHOH NVA S,LHOIHH NIVZNIIOW 2IHHQ d/V c ,L01 'aJIHG H0IH 2IRddf T£zZ krona H ,LIHIHXa / LAND SURVEYS suam|mS|OwS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS ^ ^ VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING 3QDecember Z0l6 RE: CotteyBoard ofAdjustment review comments [arrieM'cCom[ We have reviewed all the comments you sent to us aind have the following abbrevialted responses in b/ue/to6cs. 1. This lot qualifies for special circumstances or conditions due to the steep topographic conditions and existing conditions, The intent of avaihainceistmaccommodate reasonable use ofthe property; in this case reasonable use is accommodation of an existing residence simiUar in character and design to surrounding properties, However, no modeling was provided to, demonstrate what aresidence that met all zoning requirements would look like in; support of why such design would detract from neighborhood character. This would! be useful to, demonstrate thntreaisonab|e use of the property is not possible due to site characteristics, and topographic conditions. � While it is agreed that doing oddit/oxo/rxmde//og that shows full cmn?p/xzncewould be helpful /nde/numstrot/og the practical difficulties nfcompliance with the fD'building sethocks, /o do such would be extremely ccut/yfo/the property owner ond is felt to be onunnecessary expensefor this suhrn/tto/' %. Per the submittal requirements for variance requests, please depict the existing land use of all adjacent properties, and the location ofall existing buildings and structures within, two hundred (Z08)feet nfthe lot orproperty line ufthe subject site. zO43Fish Creek Road ° Estes Park, co8O5zr° 970-58E-9388°c'rnaikvbc@a|rbnszum An exhibit illustrating /and Lise and zoning has been created and moy be re erenceci for further details, Further; 3 of the ,5 properties to the north of Upper High Drive, immediately near (200') from the subject property which ore also zoned BE (50' building setback's), hove obvious setback nonconformities and another being close enough that only On accurate „survey would confirm, On the other hand, south of Upper High Drive where the lots are predominately zoned E-1 (25' building setbacks) only 1 of the ,5 properties have an apparent setback nonconformity. It is not known if any of these neighboring properties have variances foi the nonconforming structures, but it does appear to be a trend in this area. 3. Please provide illustrative representations of the site conditions/terrain that would help to convey the practical difficulties of developing the site. The justification provided in the Statement of Intent is consistent with the EVDC §3.6. Images would help convey the ideas and provide a better understanding for the Board of Adjustment. • The Site Plan has been updated to better show the practical difficulties of developing the site (steep slope), 4, Thank you for providing point -by -point justification for meeting §3.6 Variance review criteria. The review standards also list 2(f) whether the applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Because the existing home was built prior to adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code, the home is legal non -conforming and while an addition or modification may be possible outside of setbacks, the variance request will bring the existing home into conforming status. Without complete demolition of the home, the predicament is unavoidable. Please provide information pertaining to this in your Statement of Intent. • The rstatement of intent has been updated to reflect this. 5. Delineate the driveway slope for the extension of the existing driveway on the Site Plan, • The Site Plan has been updated to show the driveway slope adjacent to the house. 6. Dimension any eaves or overhangs on the Site Plan. • This request is atypical in nature as Von Horn Engineering has no knowledge of this requirement in the EVDC and building eaves are permitted to be within the building setbacks. Further; the dimension of the eaves on the proposed .structures are shown in the :structural plans submitted, For this Site Pion, the eaves are shown as 3' wide, 7. Provide clarification of Note #8 on the Site Plan. The EVDC requires a statement of the proposed use of each existing or proposed building or structure on the site. It would be helpful to also include a table that delineate such requirements and proposed phasing of the building permitting as follows: • It is uncertain as to what clarification is being requested as the items proposed for the second phase are shown on the site plan in a clouded area and are also those improvements requiring o variance from Board af Adjustment. As to the request for a "statement of the proposed use", it is uncertain as to what further clarification is needed as the proposed use of a garage, deck, and sun room are self-explanatory„ Further, the proposed use is listed on the structural plans provided as part of the required permitting paperwork, The items requested on the example table given ore all listed on the Site Plan. While the table might be helpful, it is felt to be redundant„ 8. Please add a note that all structures will not exceed the 30-foot maximum building height requirement pursuant to the EVDC. • This request is both atypical and technically incorrect as per EVDC 1,9,E,2 (measurement of maximum building height on slopes), which states that maximum building height is 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 805 7 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhe@airbits.com not ,30' for the subject improvements, but rather 32,8' for the proposed garage and .32, for the proposed stmroorn, Further, the proposed building height for the sonroom 1,s shown on the ,Site Plan as. being 26,1' above existing grade which is 6,6' under the maximum budding height and the proposed garage is shown on said Site plans as being .75.7' obove existing grade which is 17,1' under the rnoximurn building height. Given the circumstances, it impossible to think of a possible scenario in which the proposed improvements would violate the maximum buildingheight as the sunroom will be tied into the existing house and the proposed garage would need two levels added to reach thot height (which is not proposed), 9. The lot corners and building corners of the proposed structure shall be field staked ten (10) business days prior to the scheduled Board of Adjustment hearing, • This staking requirement has been met. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for posting the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment sign on the lot ten (10) working days prior to the Board of Adjustment public hearing. The BOA hearing is scheduled for January 10, 2017 at 9:00 am, Estes Park Town Hall. • Said variance sign has been posted. 11. While not specifically required by code, tree mitigation or replacement is encouraged for the landscaping that will be impacted by the construction activity. To the maximum extent feasible,. significant trees (deciduous trees four -inch DBH or larger, conifers eight -inch DBH or larger) and vegetation within the limits, of disturbance should be preserved. Please make an attempt to relocate any significant trees or vegetation that will be affected by the garage addition, • Even though this is not a requirement of code and will not be officially included in any of the submitted paperwork; Von Horn Engineering will encourage the property owner to mitigate the loss of trees to be removed by the proposed improvements. If you have any further questions m tomments please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to do what I can to work through them, Cordially, J. Sul ivan Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Project manager 970-586-9.388 Ext. 42 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E- ad: vhe@airbits.com