Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 2445 Highway 66 2004-12-07 DATE: December 7, 2004 REQUEST: A request by Craig Bigler for a variance from the “A” Accommodations 25-foot arterial street setback requirement. LOCATION: 2445 Spur 66 (Cliffside Cottages), within unincorporated Larimer County. APPLICANT/OWNER: Craig Bigler STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk SITE DATA TABLE: Engineer: None Parcel Number: 3404100020 Development Area: 2.72 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Accommodations Proposed Land Use: Same (with a “garage”) Existing Zoning: “A” Accommodations Adjacent Zoning- East: “A-1” Accommodations North: “E” Estate West: “RM” Multi-Family South: “A” Accommodations Adjacent Land Uses- East: North: single-family residential West: Multi-family South: Services- Water: Town Sewer: UTSD Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer Bigler Front 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 RMNP 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 Page #2 –Bigler Setback Request PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant, Craig Bigler, requests a variance to Table 4-5 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback of 15-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required. The purpose of this variance request is to allow a detached 48’x32’ storage building. The building is proposed to be “patina green” (to match house color), with a “forest green” metal roof. The purpose of the building is to provide storage for an RV, tractor, and antique car that are currently stored in the front yard. The applicant plans to remove the existing shed and lean-to, pave the existing driveway, and install landscaping and a split-rail style fence. 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 lot has an unusual shape, and topography that greatly limits the buildable area. A tall cliff prevents the applicant from meeting the front yard setback, and the site has an overall average slope of 25%. Another option is to place the building uphill. This is in an area served by a steep drive that is constrained on one side by mature trees, and one the other side by a fence. The applicant has done some excavation in order to “push” the cliff back, but has since encountered solid granite. The applicant proposes to build in the only remaining level area on the lot. 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 use as cottage accommodations. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial. The applicant requests a 10-foot variance from the required 25-foot setback. The proposed setback would be buffered with landscaping. Page #3 –Bigler 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: There are several buildings in the nearby vicinity that encroach within the 25’ setback, so this building would not be out of character with existing development. The building would be situated more than 30’ from the edge of the road. Staff calculated the required landscaping for a distance of 110-feet (the distance from the driveway to the southwestern property line). Based on Landscaping standards set forth in Section 7.5, this equates to four (4) trees and eleven (11) shrubs in that area. Because the applicant is requesting a variance to build closer to the lot line than normally allowed, Staff recommends additional landscaping be planted to provide a greater landscaping buffer in order to offset the additional bulk near the road. The applicant intends to use the building to store equipment that is currently being stored outside in this area (tractor, car, RV, etc). This will provide a “cleaner” appearance. In addition, the existing shed would be removed, and the lean-to would be removed. The applicant also intends to place a split-rail style fence just behind the existing wooden retaining wall. The over-all impact on the character of the neighborhood would be to increase bulk near the highway, but mitigate that bulk with the removal of existing equipment and buildings, and to enhance the “curb appeal” with additional landscaping. d. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Comment: The applicant has owned the property since 1979, when the setback was 100-feet from the centerline of the road. e. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Comment: The applicant could locate the structure at the top of the hill near the rear of the property (refer to “Practical Difficulty” above). 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 –Bigler Setback Request The applicant has proposed to located the structure as close to the base of the cliff as possible, which will place building at a diagonal with the property line. By doing so, only the corner of the building will be located with the front setback. In this case, that equates to approximately 75 square feet of floor area. 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. Larimer County Engineering noted this proposal “requires review and approval by the Colorado Department of Transportation.” This proposal was duly referred to CDOT. The applicant does not propose any additional access points, and the existing access points have previous approval from CDOT. Neighbors. Staff has not received any comments regarding this proposal. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds: 1. The applicant, Craig Bigler, requests a variance to Table 4-5 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback 15-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required. 2. The purpose of the request variance is to build a detached 48’x32’ storage building. 3. The site is located at 2445 Spur 66, within unincorporated Estes Park. 4. The shape and topography of the lot create special circumstances that require a variance. 5. The property may continue to be used for accommodations use. 6. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 7. The impact on the character of the neighborhood is minimal, and the applicant proposes to landscape the building and remove an existing shed and lean-to. 8. The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance is substantial. 9. The Board should use their judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. 10. The applicant has owned the property since before the adoption of the EVDC. 11. 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. Page #5 –Bigler Setback Request 12. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 to allow a front yard variance to allow a setback of 15-feet in lieu of the 25-feet required to build a 48’x32’ storage building CONDITIONAL TO: a. Full compliance with applicable building codes. b. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. c. The shed shall be removed from the front yard area prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. d. The existing lean-to shall be removed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. e. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with landscaping standards set forth in Section 7.5 of the Estes Valley Development Code. The required landscaping shall exceed the minimum established in the EVDC by 20% (for example, if the code requires four trees and eleven shrubs, the applicant shall install five trees and thirteen shrubs). 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.