Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 978 Sutton Ln 2013-08-06 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200,Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEEETING DATE: August 6, 2013 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 25feet from the side property line in the E-1 Estatezone district. The Applicant requeststo encroach approximately 13feet into the setback to enclose an existing porch andconstruct a new deck. LOCATION:978 Sutton Lane APPLICANT/OWNER:Steve Discher STAFF CONTACT:Phil Kleisler 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 contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFFERAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:This request has been routedto reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies. No concerns expressed during review. Public.No comments have been submitted. STAFF FINDINGS: 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 fromstrict 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:The home is partially located within the side setback. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, this single-family home was built in 1920 and is legally nonconforming to current setback standards.The lot size is 0.7 acres, which is generally more compatible with the E-Estate district (1/2 acre minimum with side setbacks of 10’). 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 Finding:Residential use may continue. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The variance is not 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 Finding:The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are generally the same size or larger, and many decks similar in scope to the one proposed. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance.The nearestproperty is a residential dwelling approximately 114 feet to the west. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff FindingThe applicant purchased the property in early 2013 after the adoption of the current setback requirements. 978 Sutton LaneSetback Variance RequestPage 2of 3 f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding:A variance is the only practicaloption to enclose the existing porch. The proposed deck could be constructed to meet setback requirements. 3.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The size of the proposed deck could be shortened and still meet the egress needs of the applicant. 4.In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard sovaried or modified. Staff Comment.Staff can determine compliance with the variance without a setback certificate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1.Compliance with the approved site plan, with the exception that the proposed deck be shortened to six feet, as extended from the proposed enclosed porch. 2.All new exterior lighting complywith EVDC Section 7.9. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVEthe requested variancewith the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move toDENY the requested variance with thefollowing findings (state reason/findings). 978 Sutton LaneSetback Variance RequestPage 3of 3 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200,Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEEETING DATE: August 6, 2013 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 25feet from the side property line in the E-1 Estatezone district. The Applicant requeststo encroach approximately 13feet into the setback to enclose an existing porch andconstruct a new deck. LOCATION:978 Sutton Lane APPLICANT/OWNER:Steve Discher STAFF CONTACT:Phil Kleisler 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 contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFFERAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:This request has been routedto reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies. No concerns expressed during review. Public.No comments have been submitted. STAFF FINDINGS: 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 fromstrict 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:The home is partially located within the side setback. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, this single-family home was built in 1920 and is legally nonconforming to current setback standards.The lot size is 0.7 acres, which is generally more compatible with the E-Estate district (1/2 acre minimum with side setbacks of 10’). 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 Finding:Residential use may continue. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The variance is not 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 Finding:The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are generally the same size or larger, and many decks similar in scope to the one proposed. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance.The nearestproperty is a residential dwelling approximately 114 feet to the west. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff FindingThe applicant purchased the property in early 2013 after the adoption of the current setback requirements. 978 Sutton LaneSetback Variance RequestPage 2of 3 f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding:A variance is the only practicaloption to enclose the existing porch. The proposed deck could be constructed to meet setback requirements. 3.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The size of the proposed deck could be shortened and still meet the egress needs of the applicant. 4.In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard sovaried or modified. Staff Comment.Staff can determine compliance with the variance without a setback certificate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1.Compliance with the approved site plan, with the exception that the proposed deck be shortened to six feet, as extended from the proposed enclosed porch. 2.All new exterior lighting complywith EVDC Section 7.9. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVEthe requested variancewith the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move toDENY the requested variance with thefollowing findings (state reason/findings). 978 Sutton LaneSetback Variance RequestPage 3of 3 Front house view. Front house view. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment View from northwest side of property. View from driveway showing closest neighbor. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment View from from end of driveway. Subject Property View from Marys Lake Road. Subject Property 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 230, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200,Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT MEEETING DATE: August 6, 2013 REQUEST: This request is for a variance from the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)Section 4.3, Table 4-2, which requires buildings and accessory structures be setback a minimum of 25feet from the side property line in the E-1 Estatezone district. The Applicant requeststo encroach approximately 13feet into the setback to enclose an existing porch andconstruct a new deck. LOCATION:978 Sutton Lane APPLICANT/OWNER:Steve Discher STAFF CONTACT:Phil Kleisler 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 contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFFERAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:This request has been routedto reviewing agency staff and adjacent property owners for consideration and comment. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. Affected Agencies. No concerns expressed during review. Public.No comments have been submitted. STAFF FINDINGS: 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 fromstrict 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:The home is partially located within the side setback. According to the Larimer County Tax Assessor, this single-family home was built in 1920 and is legally nonconforming to current setback standards.The lot size is 0.7 acres, which is generally more compatible with the E-Estate district (1/2 acre minimum with side setbacks of 10’). 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 Finding:Residential use may continue. b.Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The variance is not 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 Finding:The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered with the approval of this variance. Nearby homes are generally the same size or larger, and many decks similar in scope to the one proposed. Adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of this variance.The nearestproperty is a residential dwelling approximately 114 feet to the west. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Affected agencies expressed no concerns relating to public services for this variance. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff FindingThe applicant purchased the property in early 2013 after the adoption of the current setback requirements. 978 Sutton LaneSetback Variance RequestPage 2of 3 f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding:A variance is the only practicaloption to enclose the existing porch. The proposed deck could be constructed to meet setback requirements. 3.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The size of the proposed deck could be shortened and still meet the egress needs of the applicant. 4.In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard sovaried or modified. Staff Comment.Staff can determine compliance with the variance without a setback certificate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1.Compliance with the approved site plan, with the exception that the proposed deck be shortened to six feet, as extended from the proposed enclosed porch. 2.All new exterior lighting complywith EVDC Section 7.9. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVEthe requested variancewith the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move toDENY the requested variance with thefollowing findings (state reason/findings). 978 Sutton LaneSetback Variance RequestPage 3of 3 Front house view. Front house view. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment View from northwest side of property. View from driveway showing closest neighbor. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment View from from end of driveway. Subject Property View from Marys Lake Road. Subject Property 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment ! ! ! Zip 4873780517229248051780517805178051780517805178051780517805175062180517805178051380517 ST MICOVACOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOIACOCOCOCO GlennieEstes ParkBatesvilleEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkConradEstes ParkEstes ParkBerthoud Estes Park City Discher Residence Variance.xlsDischer Residence Variance.xls 2850 N. Lake Rd.PO BOX 1642PO BOX 71911 Silver Tree Lane1047 Sutton LanePO BOX 3637861 Blue Mist Ln.858 Blue Mist Ln.976 Sutton Ln.647 Summit Dr.865 Blue Mist Ln.978 Sutton Ln.1227 Taylor Ave.PO BOX 613 PO BOX 1125PO BOX 1434970 Sutton Ln. Address Carol DavisHollie PetitProperty Owners AssocSteve & Carolyn DischerJohn YoungNancy Griffin Owner II Steven & Marlene ShorlandLori GreeningBettye WalshGin & Tariq OdehKevin ChristopherHerman Dwayne P TrustJames FreyWillow Ridge PUDBrigitte DelisaHallett House IncJanice PauleyHarold DelaneyJohn MurdockDaniel BrownRobert CopperRonda MeyerKathleen Christopher Owner Zip 4873780517229248051780517805178051780517805178051780517805175062180517805178051380517 ST MICOVACOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOIACOCOCOCO GlennieEstes ParkBatesvilleEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkEstes ParkConradEstes ParkEstes ParkBerthoud Estes Park City Discher Residence Variance.xlsDischer Residence Variance.xls 2850 N. Lake Rd.PO BOX 1642PO BOX 71911 Silver Tree Lane1047 Sutton LanePO BOX 3637861 Blue Mist Ln.858 Blue Mist Ln.976 Sutton Ln.647 Summit Dr.865 Blue Mist Ln.978 Sutton Ln.1227 Taylor Ave.PO BOX 613 PO BOX 1125PO BOX 1434970 Sutton Ln. Address Carol DavisHollie PetitProperty Owners AssocSteve & Carolyn DischerJohn YoungNancy Griffin Owner II Steven & Marlene ShorlandLori GreeningBettye WalshGin & Tariq OdehKevin ChristopherHerman Dwayne P TrustJames FreyWillow Ridge PUDBrigitte DelisaHallett House IncJanice PauleyHarold DelaneyJohn MurdockDaniel BrownRobert CopperRonda MeyerKathleen Christopher Owner Front house view. Front house view. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment View from northwest side of property. View from driveway showing closest neighbor. 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment View from from end of driveway. Subject Property View from Marys Lake Road. Subject Property 978 Sutton Lane Setback Variance RequestPhoto Attachment Estes Valley Application Referral Step Three: Agency Review & Findings Sfwjtjpo!Ebuf;!Nbsdi!3124! StandardDevelopmentReviewProcess DATE: July 17, 2013 Step1PreApplicationMeeting DevelopmentReviewTeam PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION: Step2SubmitApplication Discher Residence Variance, a.Applicationintakereview Metes & Bound parcel b.DevelopmentReviewTeam 978 Sutton Lane c.CertificateofCompleteness: PID 34022-00-065 Ifnotcomplete,resubmitplans Ifcomplete,movetonextstep DUE DATE: July 26, 2013 Step3StaffReviewandFindings a.DevelopmentReviewTeam APPLICANT: b.CertificateofFindings Steve Discher c.Customermeetingwithstaff: sdischer@me.com ° Determineifapplicationisreadyfor PlanningCommissionreview INSTRUCTIONS: This notification is to Step4PlanningCommissionReview provide you opportunity to submit written a.Publicmeeting comments regarding the development b.Actionorrecommendation application described below. c.Submitrevisedplansifneeded d.DevelopmentReviewTeam This application is currently under review e.CertificateofCompliance by the Estes Park Community Ifnotcompliant,resubmitplans Development Department. Ifcompliant,movetonextstep Step5BoardReview The Review Process table to the right will a.Publicmeeting help remind you of the status of this b.Reviewandaction application (steps completed and steps c.Submitrevisedplansifneeded remaining). d.DevelopmentReviewTeam e.CertificateofCompliance This review is to determine if the Ifnotcompliant,resubmitplans development application complies with the Ifcompliant,movetonextstep Estes Valley Development Code. PostApprovalrequirements Bring written comments to Inter- CustomerGuidesavailable Departmental meeting. ConstructionPlans DevelopmentAgreement Follow this link for project description: PreConstructionMeeting www.estes.org/currentapplications Permits AsBuiltPlans If you prefer to review hard copies, please stop by or contact the Community Development Department. TOWN OF ESTES PARK PLANNING DIVISION 281!NBDHSFHPS!Q/P/!CPY!FTUFT!QBSL-!DP!QI/!:81.688.GBY!:81.697. XXX/FTUFT/PSH! BWF/!2311!91628!4832!135:! ! ! !