The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Setback 125 Saddleback Ln 2006-11-07RMNP 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 DATE: November 7, 2006 REQUEST: Allow a front yard setback of 30- feet in lieu of the required 50-feet. LOCATION: 125 Saddleback Lane, within unincorporated Larimer County APPLICANT: BASIS Architecture (Steve Lane) PROPERTY OWNER /ADDRESS: Robert and Kathy Sherrod STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Architect: BASIS Architecture (Steve Lane), 586-9140 Parcel Number: 3412205001 Development Area: 2.6 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: “RE” Rural Estate Adjacent Zoning- East: “RE” Rural Estate North: “RE” Rural Estate West: “RE” Rural Estate South: “RE” Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Undeveloped North: Undeveloped West: Undeveloped South: Single-family residential Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer 125 Saddleback Lane - Front Yard 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 –Saddleback Lane Front Yard Setback Request PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a front- yard setback variance to build a 1,395-square-foot, two-story addition to the existing 2,185-square-foot house. A deck addition is also proposed. The existing house is setback 80-foot from the Fish Creek Way property line and the proposed addition would result in a twenty-three foot setback. Specifically, this is a request for a twenty-six-foot variance to Estes Valley Development Code Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards, Residential Zoning Districts, which requires a fifty-foot minimum front-yard setback in the “RE” Rural Estate zoning district, for a house addition set back twenty-four feet from the Fish Creek Way property line. 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 owner dedicated a thirty-foot-wide strip of right-of-way to Larimer County in March 1989, thus reducing the size of the property; the proposed addition would meet the minimum required fifty-foot setback if not for this dedication. 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. Page #3 –Saddleback Lane Front Yard Setback Request b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial. Approximately half of the proposed 1,395-square-foot addition is proposed to encroach into the fifty-foot setback, or 697.5 square feet on two stories, plus a 128-square-foot second-floor deck (eight feet by sixteen feet), a 144-square-foot portion of the first-floor deck addition, and stairs connecting the two decks. This is a substantial addition of square footage into the fifty-foot setback. However, the distance of the proposed addition to Fish Creek Way, i.e., ninety feet, serves to minimize the 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 Comment: The proposed addition is similar in design to the existing house and staff finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered and adjoining property owners would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The owner purchased the property in 1978, prior to the February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The owners could build a smaller addition or add onto the front of the home without a variance. This would require significant remodel due to the “envelope” construction. 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 –Saddleback Lane 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. 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. Anything? STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. Special circumstances exist. 2. The property may continue to be used for residential use. 3. The Applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4. The character of the neighborhood would not be affected. 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 CONDITIONAL TO: a. Full compliance with applicable building codes; Page #5 –Saddleback Lane Front Yard Setback Request b. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. This certificate shall verify compliance with the approved site plan. 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. Robert and Kathy Sherrod 6039 Vanderbilt Avenue Dallas, TX 75206 RE: 125 Saddleback Lane Variance Request To Whom It May Concern: The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed the 125 Saddleback Lane 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. This certificate shall verify compliance with the approved site 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 cc: BASIS Architecture