HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 1054 Middle Broadview 2005-02-28
DATE: February 28, 2005
REQUEST: A request by Skylar
Johnson for a variance from the “E”
Estate 25-foot arterial side yard
setback requirement.
LOCATION: 1054 Middle
Broadview
APPLICANT/OWNER: Skylar
Johnson
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk
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 side yard setback of 22-feet in lieu of the 25-feet
required. The purpose of this request is to allow for an addition to their existing house.
REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.7.A3 of the EVDC, all
applications for Minor Modifications shall exhibit “practical difficulties” as defined in
Section 3.6.C2:
a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff Finding: The property may continue as residential use.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The Minor Modification falls within the 10% limit set by the EVDC.
The portion of the addition that would encroach in the setback would total
approximately 8.5 square feet of floor area.
Johnson Side Yard Minor Modification
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 –Johnson Minor Modification Request
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 essential character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered and the adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial
detriment. The addition would be in an area behind an existing fence.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as
water and sewer;
Staff Finding: The Minor Modification would not adversely affect the delivery of
public services.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property in 1995. At that time the
property was zoned “E”, and had a setback requirement of 50-feet.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Staff Finding: The addition could be located on the north side of the house.
However, this would require the removal of several mature trees, thus having a
greater impact on the neighborhood than the small encroachment that is proposed.
STAFF DETERMINATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff has APPROVED the
requested Minor Modification CONDITIONAL TO:
a. Compliance with the submitted site plan.
b. Prior to any construction or grading activity, construction barrier fencing shall be
located along the southern property line.
c. Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code
LAPSE: Failure of an Applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action
with regard to the minor modification approval within one (1) year of receiving approval of the minor
modification shall automatically render the decision of the Staff null and void.