The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Setback 1250 Giant Track Rd 2006-11-07 DATE: November 7, 2006 REQUEST: Variance from the required 25-foot setback to allow a front setback of 12-feet for a new detached single-family dwelling. LOCATION: TBD Giant Track Road, within unincorporated Larimer County (see attached aerial photo “vicinity map”). APPLICANT: Steve Laing, Front Range Log Homes, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: First Congregational Church of Greeley STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Consultant: None Parcel Number: 3535300037 Development Area: .73 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Undeveloped single- family Proposed Land Use: Single family dwelling Existing Zoning: “E-1” Estate Adjacent Zoning- East: “E-1” Estate North: “E-1” Estate West: “E-1” Estate South: “E-1” Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single family residential North: Single family residential West: Single family residential South: Single family residential Giant Track Road Front Yard Variance Request 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 RMNP RockyMountainNationalPark RMNP USFS USFS USFS Lake Estes MarysLake LilyLake Mac Gregor Ranch YMCAConferenceGrounds 36 EVDC Boundary EVDC Boundary Eagle Rock RMNPFall River Entrance RMNP Beaver MeadowsEntrance Prospect Mt. - (/34 (/36(/7 (/36 (/34 (/36 (/7 CheleyCamps USFS USFS Page #2 –Laing Front Yard Setback Request Services- Water: Well Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant desires to build a new detached single-family dwelling with a front yard setback of 12-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required in the “E-1” zone district. The current owner acquired the property as a donation in 2005. This vacant lot is currently listed for sale by Anderson Realty for $110,000. 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 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. Staff Comment: The lot is zoned “E-1” Estate, which has a minimum lot size of 1- acre. This lot, at .73 acres, is sub-sized for this setback requirement. The lot also has Page #3 –Laing Front Yard Setback Request topographic (two natural drainages, rock outcropping) features that direct building to the southwest corner of the lot. 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 Comment: The property is currently undeveloped, and a house could be designed to meet the applicable setbacks. The applicant has revised the original submittal by eliminating one bedroom in the northeast corner, thus allowing the existing rock outcropping to remain undisturbed. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested 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 Comment: The proposed house will be similar in size to other newer houses in the neighborhood, but larger than some of the older cabins. The overall character of the neighborhood would not suffer a detriment. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The property owner acquired the property in 2005. The applicant does not own the property. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: As noted above, this is a new building and could be designed to fit within the required setbacks. However, this would require disturbance of the rock outcropping the applicant desires to protect. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. Page #4 –Laing Front Yard Setback Request 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: Staff recommends construction barrier fencing is placed around the rock outcropping that is the basis of the special circumstances associated with this request. This should be in place prior to any site work and should remain in place and in good condition throughout the construction process. This fencing would ensure no subcontractors mistakenly excavate or otherwise disturb this area. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. This request was sent to several reviewing agencies, none of whom had significant issues. The Larimer County Building Department did note that an engineered foundation may be required is the building is near the slope or rock outcroppings. Thus keeping the building away from the rock outcroppings and slopes, as this request does, may eliminate the additional expense of an engineered foundation. Neighbors. Two neighbors have submitted letters verifying a right of access to this property and that neither had an objection to this request. One of these property owners is Bev Henderson, 1204 Giant Track (immediately west of the subject property), and the other is the same church that owns the subject property. Other. The applicant should familiarize himself with the submittal requirements for building permit site plans. The site plan submitted for the variance request does not contain enough information for building permit review. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Topographic features (two drainages, rock outcropping) combine to create special circumstances that require a variance. 2. A conforming house could be designed and built that would provide beneficial use of the property. 3. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance (design a house to meet the setbacks). 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered. 5. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 6. The Board should use their judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 7. The applicant does not own the property. Page #5 –Laing Front Yard Setback Request 8. 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. 9. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 10. The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. 11. Approval of this variance would not 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. 12. Approval of this variance would not 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; Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: a. Full compliance with applicable building codes. b. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance(s) with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. DENIAL: I move DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance because… (state reason for denial - findings). LAPSE: 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 shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. First Congregational Church of Greeley 2101 16th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Giant Track Road Variance Request To Whom It May Concern: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed the Giant Track Road setback variance request on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, at the regular monthly meeting. At that time, the Board of Adjustment voted unanimous (4-0) CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. The conditions of approval are: a. Full compliance with applicable building codes. b. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. Pursuant to Section 3.6 D. of the Estes Valley Development Code, “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 shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void.” Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me (577-3729) or Bob Joseph (577-3725) at your convenience. Respectfully, _____________________ David W. Shirk, AICP Planner cc: Steve Laing