Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback Height 1531 Saint Moritz Trl 2003-08-05 DATE: August 5, 2003 REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to the north side lot line to allow a setback of 23-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required; and, the east front lot line to allow a variance of 15-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required; and, a maximum height measurement variance to allow a maximum height of 44-feet in lieu of the 40-feet required. LOCATION: 1531 St. Moritz Trail, within unincorporated Estes Park (location map is in the packet of 11”x17” drawings). FILE #: Getchell, Ed and Marge 8/5/03 SITE DATA TABLE: Parcel Number(s): 3410116006 Total Development Area: ½ acre Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: S.F. residential Existing Zoning: “E-1” Estate Adjacent Zoning- East: “E-1” Estate North: “E-1” Estate West: “E-1” Estate South: “E-1” Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Open Space Lot North: S.F. Residential West: Undeveloped platted s.f. residential lot, separated by a one-way road. South: Undeveloped platted s.f. residential lot. Windcliff Height, Front, and Side Yard Variance Requests 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 –Getchell Variance Request PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: This is a request by Ed and Marge Getchell for front yard and side yard setback variances, as well as a variance to the maximum building height. The purpose of the variance requests is to build a single- family dwelling. The Board considered this request at the May meeting, and voted to continue the request to the June meeting in order to alter the site plan to address concerns about the driveway and south yard encroachment. At the June meeting, the Board denied the variance requests. The applicant has submitted a new application that eliminates one of the side yard setback variances. The applicant now requests: 1) A variance to the north side lot line to allow a setback of 23-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required; and, 2) The east front lot line to allow a variance of 15-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required; and, 3) A maximum height measurement variance to allow a maximum height of 44-feet in lieu of the 40-feet required. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 3.6 C. “Standards for Review” of the EVDC, all applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the 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: This lot is similar in size, shape, and slope to those found in this area of Windcliff (St. Moritz Trail). Several other lots have received front yard and height variances, though only one other lot in this area has received a side yard setback variance. Staff considers the slope and lot depth (sub-sized lot that meets min. lot width), factored together, provide special conditions that would necessitate the front yard and height variances. However, the lot meets the minimum lot width standards established with the setback requirements. Therefore, special conditions do not apply to the side yard variance request. 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: A smaller dwelling could be built on the lot without the need for the requested variances. Page #3 –Getchell Variance Request b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The front yard request is consistent with variances granted to most lots on St. Moritz Trail, the height meets the measurement formula set forth in the EVDC, but exceeds the 40-foot cap, and the 2-foot side yard variance is within the 10% threshold for Staff level minor modifications; Staff does not consider any of these requests 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 essential character of the neighborhood would not substantially change. History of variances in neighborhood. It is Staff’s understanding the Getchell’s were under the impression a previous variance was in place for this property. Front yard and side yard variances were granted by Larimer County in February 1996. However, that variance was valid for only one year, and was therefore null and void when the Getchell’s purchased the property. There have been six front yard setback variances granted along St. Moritz Trail, and one side yard setback variance (granted for 1561 St. Moritz Trail in 1979). (Since implementation of the EVDC) In November 2000, the Board granted a height variance to the Barnett residence, located at 1481 St. Moritz Trail. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Staff Comment: Not applicable. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The zone district setbacks were in place at the time the applicant purchased the property in January 2002. Before that, the property was zoned “E- 1”, which also had setbacks of 25-feet. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: A smaller house could be built on the lot without the need for the side yard setback variance. Page #4 –Getchell Variance Request 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 Comment: None. 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 Comment: Not applicable. 5. 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 provides the least deviation that would 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 Comment: Not applicable. 7. 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. Staff Comment: A vote of approval should include the following conditions: a. Silt and construction barrier fencing shall be installed prior to any excavation work, and shall be kept in working condition until all construction is completed. b. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. c. The finished floor elevation shall match the control point #1 established with the site plan prepared by Van Horn Engineering (Project 03-02-17, 6-27-03 revision). A letter from a registered land surveyor verifying this match shall be submitted to the building official at the earliest feasible inspection. d. Full compliance with the Unified Building Code. e. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. f. The proposed culvert design shall be reviewed and approved by Larimer County Engineering for compliance with applicable standards. Page #5 –Getchell Variance Request g. The driveway shall be designed in compliance with standards set forth in Appendix D of the EVDC. This shall be addressed with building permit submittal. 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. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The applicants, Ed and Marge Getchell, request variances to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard (north side) setback of 23-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required, a front yard setback of 15-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required, and a maximum height of 44-feet in lieu of the 40-foot maximum allowed. 2. The purpose of these variance requests is to allow single-family dwelling. 3. Staff considers the slope and lot depth (sub-sized lot that meets min. lot width), factored together, provide special conditions that would necessitate the front yard and height variances. However, the lot meets the minimum lot width standards established with the setback requirements. Therefore, special conditions do not apply to the side yard variance request. 4. The property may be used for residential use, for which it was originally platted. A smaller dwelling could be built on the lot without the need for the requested variances. 5. It is Staff’s opinion the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated methods other than a variance. 6. Staff does not consider these requests substantial. 7. The essential character of the neighborhood would not substantially change. 8. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 9. The zone district setbacks were in place at the time the applicant purchased the property in January 2002. Before that, the property was zoned “E-1”, which also had setbacks of 25-feet. 10. 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. ►Votes should be taken separately Therefore, Staff recommends: Page #6 –Getchell Variance Request 1. DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance to Table 4-2 Front Setback for the “E- 1” District of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard setback of 23-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required; and, 2. APPROVAL of the requested variance to Table 4-2 Front Setback for the “E-1” District of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback of 15- feet in lieu of the 25-feet required; and, 3. APPROVAL of the requested variance to Section 1.9.E.2 “Measurement of Maximum Building Height on Slopes” to allow a maximum height of 44-feet in lieu of the maximum of 40-feet; CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Silt and construction barrier fencing shall be installed prior to any excavation work, and shall be kept in working condition until all construction is completed. 2. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 3. The finished floor elevation shall match the control point #1 established with the site plan prepared by Van Horn Engineering (Project 03-02-17, 6-27-03 revision). A letter from a registered land surveyor verifying this match shall be submitted to the building official at the earliest feasible inspection. 4. Full compliance with the Unified Building Code. 5. Non-reflective building materials shall be used on the roof and wall exteriors (excluding windows). Exterior colors shall be muted and selected to blend in with the surrounding hillside. 6. The proposed culvert design shall be reviewed and approved by Larimer County Engineering for compliance with applicable standards. 7. The driveway shall be designed in compliance with standards set forth in Appendix D of the EVDC. This shall be addressed with building permit submittal.