The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Setback 1054 Middle Broadview 2007-04-03 DATE: April 3, 2007 REQUEST: A request by Skylar Johnson for a variance from the 25- foot front yard setback requirement along Mary’s Lake Road. LOCATION: 1054 Middle Broadview, within unincorporated Larimer County APPLICANT/OWNER: Skylar Johnson STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Surveyor: None (using a previously prepared Rick England ILC) Parcel Number: 3535120002 Development Area: .35 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: “E” Estate (½ acre) Adjacent Zoning- East: “E” Estate North: “E” Estate West: “E” Estate South: “E” Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer Johnson 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 RiverEntrance RMNPBeaver MeadowsEntrance Prospect Mt. - (/34 (/36(/7 (/36 (/34 (/36 (/7 CheleyCamps USFS USFS Page #2 –Johnson Front Yard Setback Request PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant, Skylar Johnson, requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback along Mary’s Lake Road of 12- feet in lieu of the 25-feet required. The purpose of these variance requests is to allow a 120 square foot shed to remain in place. Mr. Johnson inquired with the Larimer County Building Department if a building permit was needed for such a small structure. When informed a building permit was not necessary, Mr. Johnson began construction without knowledge building setback requirements applied. Staff has contacted the Larimer County Building Department and requested they inform the public that building and zoning requirements apply regardless of the need for a building permit. 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 significantly sub-sized for the “E” Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of .5-acres In addition, the lot is has a triangular shape, which is an awkward shape and minimizes the buildable area. Finally, the existing house is located on Mary’s Lake Road, which has a setback of 25-feet instead of the typical 15-feet along a front yard. 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 may continue as residential use. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Page #3 –Johnson Front Yard Setback Request 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 character of the neighborhood will not change with this small shed. Staff has received two letters of support from neighbors. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant has owned the property since 1995, prior to the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. Mr. Johnson inquired with the Larimer County Building Department if a building permit was needed for such a small structure. When informed a building permit was not necessary, Mr. Johnson began construction without knowledge building setback requirements applied. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The shed could be relocated to meet the setback, though it would be in a more visible location. 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. 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. 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. Page #4 –Johnson Front Yard Setback Request STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The size and shape of the lot and increased setback along Mary’s Lake Road combine to create special circumstances that require a variance. 2. The property may continue to be used for residential use. 3. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be affected by this 120 square foot shed. 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 has owned the property since before the adoption of the EVDC. 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 to allow a front yard setback along Mary’s Lake Road of 12-feet. 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.