Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 1752 Highway 66 2003-05-06 DATE: September 9, 2003 REQUEST: A request by Skyline Cottages (Carolyn Sue Lamb) for a side yard setback request to allow the reconstruction of an accommodations unit and continuation of a cabin expanded a couple of years ago without a building permit. LOCATION: 1752 Highway 66, within unincorporated Estes Park. FILE #: Skyline Cottages 5/6/03 SITE DATA TABLE: Parcel Number(s): 3534105006 Total Development Area: .57 acre Number of Lots: Two Existing Land Use: Commercial accommodations Proposed Land Use: Same, with a garage Existing Zoning: “A” Accommodations Adjacent Zoning- East: “A” Accommodations North: “A-1” Accommodations West: “A” Accommodations South: “E-1” Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Muti-family North: Single-family/lawn center West: Accommodations South: Single-family unimproved PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: This is a request by Skyline Cottages (Sue Lamb) for two side yard setback variances to allow the construction of (1) a commercial accommodations cabin and (2) to legitimize a building addition that Skyline Cottages 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 RMNP RockyMountainNationalPark RMNP USFS USFS USFS Lake Estes MarysLake LilyLake Mac Gregor Ranch YMCAConferenceGrounds 36 EVDC Boundary EVDC Boundary Eagle Rock RMNPFall RiverEntrance RMNP Beaver MeadowsEntrance Prospect Mt. - (/34 (/36(/7 (/36 (/34 (/36 (/7 CheleyCamps USFS USFS Page #2 –Skyline Cottages Setback Request occurred a couple of years ago without a building permit. This site was originally developed in the 1920’s, when no setback requirements were in place. The applicant proposes to build the new cabin 10-feet from the property line, which requires a 5-foot variance. This request is to build a “replacement” cabin for one that was removed earlier this year. The previous cabin was a legal non-conforming structure that had side yard setback of only a few feet; any “grandfathered” status ended when the original cabin was removed. The applicant removed the previous structure without a permit, and has begun construction on the current cabin without a building permit. The applicant has been issued a stop-work order by the Larimer County Building Department. Because of this, the applicant has submitted this application for a variance. This request also includes a variance to allow the expansion of a non-conforming structure, which was done in the last couple of years without a building permit. This structure is in place, and the applicant requests a side yard variance. 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: The property is sub-sized for a typical accommodations lot. However, it is Staff’s opinion this does not constitute special circumstances in terms of the request variance (because the proposed structure could be built to meet the setback requirements). 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 for commercial accommodations use. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: It is Staff’s opinion the request for the new cabin (10-foot setback instead of 15-foot) is not substantial, thought the request for the existing cabin (3-feet from property line) is substantial. Page #3 –Skyline Cottages Setback 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 essential character of the neighborhood would not substantially change; this request would be consistent with existing structures in the area. There is a 60-foot long two-story building on the adjacent property built very near the eastern property line. 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 applicant purchased the property in the mid-80’s. At that time, the property was zoned “T” Tourist which had a 10-foot side yard setback. The property was originally developed in the 1920’s, when there was no setback requirement. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The applicant could build the proposed unit to meet the required setback. Without a variance, the existing unit’s addition would need to be removed in order to comply. 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. Page #4 –Skyline Cottages Setback Request 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 is the minimum 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. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record an amended plat to combine the two parcels, which the proposed building would straddle. As part of this amended plat, appropriate right-of-way dedications would need to be made. At that point, a new density calculation would be required to determine if the applicant has adequate land area to build the proposed unit. If adequate land area to support the requested density is not available, Board approval would automatically become null and void. b. The applicant shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Larimer County Building Department. c. Compliance with the submitted site plan d. The applicant shall submit a certificate, from a registered land surveyor, which states compliance with the site plan. This certificate shall be submitted to the building official at his convenience, during normal office hours. REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. Existing Violations. The applicant has worked with the Larimer County Building Department to resolve past building permit issues (with the exception of the one existing cabin for which they are requesting a variance). Light and Power. Noted that any increase in electrical load may require an upgrade, which would be at the applicant’s expense. Neighbors. The neighbor to the east has phoned with concerns regarding this request (the property is owned by New Spall LLC, Jason Randall and Heather Pratt). In addition, Community Development received a letter on April 29 from Lathrop Law Office, who Page #5 –Skyline Cottages Setback Request represents New Spall LLC. This letter outlines various reasons for the denial of the variance request; please refer to this letter for details. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The applicant, Carolyn Sue Lamb, 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 10-feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required to build a new cabin, and a variance to allow a side yard setback of 3-feet in lieu of the 15-feet required to allow a cabin that was built a couple of years ago without a building permit. 2. The site, located at 1752 Highway 66, within unincorporated Estes Park, is sub- sized for a typical accommodations lot. However, it is Staff’s opinion this does not constitute special circumstances in terms of the request variance. 3. The property may continue to be used for accommodations use. 4. It is Staff’s opinion the request for the new cabin is not substantial, thought the request for the existing cabin is substantial. 5. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. 6. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 7. The applicant has owned the property since before the adoption of the EVDC, when the property was zoned “T” Tourist and had a required side yard setback of 10-feet. 8. The Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 9. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Larimer County Building Department had concerns regarding the building crossing the property line, fire rated walls, handicap accessibility, and engineered plans. Therefore, Staff recommends: (These votes should be taken separately) Page #6 –Skyline Cottages Setback Request DISAPPROVAL of the requested side yard setback variance to allow a setback of 3- feet in lieu of the 15-feet required to allow the continuance of the building addition done without a building permit; and, APPROVAL of the requested side yard setback variance to allow a setback of 10-feet in lieu of the 15-feet required to allow a new cabin CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record an amended plat to combine the two parcels, which the proposed building would straddle. As part of this amended plat, appropriate right-of-way dedications would need to be made. At that point, a new density calculation would be required to determine if the applicant has adequate land area to build the proposed unit. If adequate land area to support the requested density is not available, Board approval would automatically become null and void. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Larimer County Building Department. 3. Compliance with the submitted site plan 4. The applicant shall submit a certificate, from a registered land surveyor, which states compliance with the site plan. This certificate shall be submitted to the building official at his convenience, during normal office hours.