The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Setback 2415 Wild Bear Way Hwy 66 2005-06-07RMNP 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: June 7, 2005 REQUEST: A request by Dan Hansen for a variance from the “E” Estate 10- foot side and 15-foot rear yard setback requirements. LOCATION: 2415 Highway 66, within unincorporated Larimer County. APPLICANT/OWNER: Dan Hansen STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: None. Site plan prepared by applicant utilizing a survey prepared by Paul Kochevar. Parcel Number: 3534305043 Development Area: .20 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residence Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: “E” Estate Adjacent Zoning- East: “E” Estate North: “E” Estate West: “E” Estate South: “E” Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Single-family residence North: Single-family residence West: Single-family residence South: Single-family residence Services- Water: Well Sewer: Septic Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer Hansen Side and Rear Yard 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 –Hansen Side/Rear Yard Setback Request PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant, Dan Hansen, 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 5-feet and in lieu of the 10-foot setback required, and a rear yard variance to allow a setback of 6-feet in lieu of the 15- feet required. The purpose of these variance requests is to allow a detached garage. The pre-fabricated garage was installed in 2000 without a building permit. The applicant had been informed by his building contractor that a building permit would not be required. Therefore, no building permit was applied for. Subsequently, Mr. Hansen discovered that a building permit was indeed required, and began the process of obtaining one through the Larimer County Building Department. At that time, Mr. Hansen discovered the building does not meet required setbacks. 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 fact the applicant installed the garage without knowledge of the setback requirements should not be construed as special circumstances. However, a variety of features direct the building to the location in which it has been placed. These are: • Well and drainage channel on the west side of the house. • Two large Ponderosa pines (one in front of the house, the other beside it). • A drainage channel in front of the house. 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. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial. Page #3 –Hansen Side/Rear Yard 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 character of the neighborhood would not be altered. There are a variety of structures in the area that are located near property lines. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant has owned the property since 1978. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: Due to the various site features outlined above, it is Staff’s opinion the applicant’s predicament cannot be mitigated any other way. 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. 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. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The site contains a variety of features that create a special circumstance. 2. There can be beneficial use of the property without the variance requests. 3. The Applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 4. The requested variances would not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. 5. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial. Page #4 –Hansen Side/Rear Yard Setback Request 6. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances represent 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 variances 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 these variances 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 these variances 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 variances CONDITIONAL TO: a. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and all requisite inspections from the Larimer County Building Department. SUGGESTED MOTION: APPROVAL: 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.