HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 911 Moraine Ave 2004-05-04RMNP
RockyMountainNationalPark
RMNP
USFS
USFS
USFS
Lake Estes
MarysLake
LilyLake
Mac Gregor Ranch
YMCAConferenceGrounds
36
EVDC Boundary
EVDC Boundary
Eagle Rock
RMNPFall RiverEntrance
RMNPBeaver Meadows
Entrance
Prospect Mt.
-
(/34
(/36(/7
(/36
(/34
(/36
(/7
CheleyCamps
USFS
USFS
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
DATE OF BOA MEETING: May 4, 2004
REQUEST: The petitioner requests a variance to Estes Valley
Development Code Section 4, Table 4-5 “Base Density and Dimensional
Standards Nonresidential Zoning Districts” which requires a minimum front
yard setback of twenty-five feet for lots fronting arterials in the “CO”
Outlying Commercial zoning district.
LOCATION: The site is located at 911
Moraine Avenue, within the Town of
Estes Park. Legal Description: Metes
and Bounds
PETITIONER/PROPERTY
OWNER: Shawn May/Same
STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott
APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE:
Estes Valley Development Code
(EVDC)
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
The petitioner requests a variance to Estes Valley Development Code
Section 4, Table 4-5 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts” which requires a minimum front yard
setback of twenty-five feet for lots fronting arterials in the “CO” Outlying
Commercial zoning district.
911 Moraine Avenue
Setback 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
Page #2 – 911 Moraine Avenue
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Specifically, this is a request for a twenty-five foot variance from the
twenty-five foot front yard setback to build a handicapped accessible
entrance.
Proposed
Access
Proposed
Access
III. SITE DATA AND MAPS
Number of Lots One
Parcel Number(s) 3535200028
Total Development Area 0.33 acres (14,220 sq. ft.) per Tax Assessor
Existing Zoning “CO” Residential
Proposed Zoning “CO” Outlying Commercial
Prior Land Use Quick Stop
Food/Beverage Sales - Convenience Store
Existing Land Use Vacant Building
Proposed Land Use Dominos Pizza
Eating/Drinking Establishment
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use
North “A” Accommodations/Highway Corridor Single-Family Residential
South None Rocky Mountain National Park
East “CO” Outlying Commercial Nature Lovers (Retail)
West “CO” Outlying Commercial Retail
Note: Adjacent land uses are determined from Larimer County Tax Assessor website and
site visit.
Page #3 – 911 Moraine Avenue
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
SERVICES
Water Town
Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District
Fire Protection Town of Estes Park
Phone Qwest
LOCATION MAP
“CO”
I-1
“A”
US 36
/
M
o
r
a
i
n
e
A
v
e
.
C
R
6
7
/
M
a
r
y
s
L
a
k
e
R
d
.
High Dr.
911 Moraine Ave.“E-1”
“E”
“CO”
I-1
“A”
US 36
/
M
o
r
a
i
n
e
A
v
e
.
C
R
6
7
/
M
a
r
y
s
L
a
k
e
R
d
.
High Dr.
911 Moraine Ave.“E-1”
“E”
AERIAL PHOTO
US 36/
Moraine Ave
.
High Dr.
911 Moraine Ave.Setback variance request
for handicapped
accessible entrance at
southwest building corner
US 36/
Moraine Ave
.
High Dr.
911 Moraine Ave.Setback variance request
for handicapped
accessible entrance at
southwest building corner
Page #4 – 911 Moraine Avenue
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
SITE PLAN
15 Foot
Setback
25 Foot
Setback
15 Foot
Setback
15 Foot Setback
15 Foot
Setback
25 Foot
Setback
15 Foot
Setback
15 Foot Setback
IV. REVIEW CRITERIA
All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards
and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.C and all other applicable provisions of
the Estes Valley Development Code.
This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff level
review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
V. REFFERAL COMMENTS
This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and
property owners within 100 feet of the property for consideration and
comment. The following reviewing agency staff and/or neighbors
submitted comments.
Estes Park Building Department See Will Birchfield’s memo to Alison
Chilcott dated April 26, 2004.
Estes Park Public Works Department See Greg Sievers’ memo to Alison
Chilcott dated April 26, 2004.
Page #5 – 911 Moraine Avenue
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Town Attorney See Greg White’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated April 21,
2004.
Fire Chief See Scott Dorman’s email to Alison Chilcott dated April 12,
2004.
Upper Thompson Sanitation District See David Brand’s letter to Alison
Chilcott dated April 21, 2004.
CO Department of Transportation See Gloria Hice-Idler’s note dated
April 15, 2004 on the All Affected Agencies memo.
VI. STAFF FINDINGS
Staff finds:
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 Finding: There are special circumstances associated with this lot.
At 14,220 square feet, the lot is undersized for “CO” zoning district.
New “CO” zoned lots fronting an arterial are required to be at least
40,000 square feet.
The building was built in 1937 and the location of the building on the
site also creates special circumstances. The building encroaches onto
the property to the east. It also encroaches into twenty-five front and
fifteen foot side yard setbacks with the eave encroaching into US
36/Moraine Avenue right-of-way by 0.4’ according to an Improvement
Location Certificate shown above and prepared by Van Horn
Engineering dated December 30, 2003.
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.
Page #6 – 911 Moraine Avenue
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Staff Finding: There can be a beneficial use of the property without
the variance. The building can be used with the existing entrance,
which is not handicapped accessible.
b. Whether the variance is substantial.
Staff Finding: This is a request for a twenty-five foot variance
from the twenty-five foot front yard setback which is substantial.
The entire ramp will be in the setback with the southwest corner of
the ramp on the property line.
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 proposed addition will not substantially alter the
essential character of the neighborhood. Adjoining property owners
have not contacted staff to comment on this proposal and staff is not
aware of their opinions about the variance request.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of
public services such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The variance will not affect the delivery of public
services. The Public Works Department has submitted a memo
which states that the Department has no concerns about the
proposed location of the ramp. CDOT submitted a memo which
stated they had no comment about the proposed ramp. The front
property line is approximately 16 feet from the edge of High Drive
traveled way. While the property fronts an arterial there is
approximately fifty feet between the front property line and the edge
of the US 36 traveled way.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge
of the requirement.
Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property after the
February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development
Code with knowledge of the twenty-five foot front yard setback
requirement.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through
some method other than a variance.
Page #7 – 911 Moraine Avenue
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Staff Finding: The applicant’s predicament cannot be mitigated
through some method other than a variance.
3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or
circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general
or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the
formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or
situations.
Staff Finding: The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the
applicant's 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.
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: The variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the
lot.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The variance, if granted, offers the least deviation from
the regulations that will afford relief.
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.
Staff Finding: The use is permitted.
7. In granting this variance, the BOA may require such conditions as will,
in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the
standards varied or modified.
8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff
for consideration and comment. All letters and memo’s submitted by
reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section V of this staff report, are
incorporated as staff findings.
Page #8 – 911 Moraine Avenue
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
9. Per EVDC §3.6.D, 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 Board of Adjustment null and
void.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance
CONDITIONAL TO:
1. Compliance with the submitted plans.
2. A registered land surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance
and provide a setback certificate.
Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects
ATTN: Shawn O’Donahue
6720 SW Macadam, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97219
RE: Variance Request
Dear Shawn:
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed your variance requests on Tuesday,
December 07, 2004, at the regular monthly meeting.
At that time, the Board of Adjustment voted unanimously (4-0, one absent) to DENY the
height variance request for building 4.
At that time, the Board of Adjustment also voted unanimous (4-0, one absent)
APPROVAL of the “vegetation protection” and height variance for buildings 2, 3, and 5
CONDITIONAL TO compliance with the applicable development plan.
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