Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 953 Rams Horn Rd 2017-07-11 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE & LOCATION: July 11th 2017; Board Room, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: This is a request for a variance to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 4.3.C.4 Table 4-2 Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. The Variance would allow 24.3-foot and 43-foot setbacks in lieu of the 50-foot required setbacks in the RE (Rural Estate) zone district. The purpose of the Variance is to allow an already constructed building addition to continue to be located within the setback. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION: 953 Rams Horn Road., within the unincorporated Estes Valley. VICINITY MAP: See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER: Gary and Cynthia Peak/ Same as Applicant STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Variance would allow 24.3.1-foot and 43-foot setbacks in lieu of the 50-foot required setbacks in the RE (Rural Estate) zone district. The RE- Rural Estate zone district requires a 50-foot setback on all sides. The front porch addition was constructed sometime after the current residents purchased the property in 2011. The new addition roof is situated over the south side front porch-entry. The addition would have needed a County building permit in order to be built. The applicant failed to apply for a permit. Smaller setbacks (25 feet) were in place on the property during initial home construction in 1990. During the 2000 Valley-wide rezoning when RE zoning was placed on the property and setbacks increased from 10 to 50 feet. A Variance or other zoning adjustment would have been needed at some point in time. In April of 2017, Town and County Planning Staff communicated with the project representative to discuss post construction building permitting. At this time Staff made the representative aware of the setback issue and need for a Variance. This application is a result of that discussion. The Applicant has submitted a building permit but approval is subject to approval of the 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 applicable standards and 953 Rams Horn Rd. – Building Setback Variance Estes Park Community Development Department, Planning Division Room 210, Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org 953 Rams Horn Road. – Building setback variance Page 2 of 6 criteria contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to seven surrounding property owners. A legal notice was published in the Trail Gazette. The application is posted on the department “Current Applications” webpage. The site has been posted with a “variance pending” sign. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No significant comments/concerns were received by reviewing agency staff. Public Comments. Staff has received one written public comment as of July 11, 2017. Any written comments received after this date will be posted to the “Current Applications” webpage under public comment. 1. Shalah Welty 961 Rams Horn Road- No date- Submitted with Application (Attached) 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 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 Finding: The property is approximately 0.86-acres in size and is zoned RE (Rural Estate). The building addition was constructed between 2016-2017 without obtaining a building permit from the County. The addition was placed entirely within the 50-foot required setback. When the home was built in 1990 the property had a 25-foot setbacks on all sides. The home was compliant with zoning regulations at the time. During the Valley-wide rezoning in 2000 the property was zoned to RE which had a 50-foot setback on all property sides. The existing home then became legally non-conforming. Any building addition had to take place outside of the setback or apply for a Variance in order to be constructed within the setback. Staff finds that any building addition to the home would have needed a Variance in 2016-17 when the addition was added. The owner failed to obtain a building permit and go through the Variance process. The special circumstance that exists at this site is the fact that the existing structures are entirely within the 50-foot setback and would need a Variance for any type of addition or to address existing nonconforming setbacks 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: Without the Variance, the addition would need to be removed. The property could continue to be used as a single-family home with legal nonconforming-setback status 953 Rams Horn Road. – Building setback variance Page 3 of 6 Other options would require removing the structure or buying additional land to bring the addition into compliance. Removing the porch would be a financial hardship and would not change the preexisting 24.3’ west setback and 43 foot north setback for the entire house. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variances would establish two new setbacks at 24.3 feet and 43 feet, which represent a 51% and 14% deviation from code. Staff does not find this to be substantial as they are preexisting. There have been no additional public comments or concerns associated with this addition location to date. 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 character of the area would not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact to view corridors, drainage, migration corridors, etc). Since the addition has been built there have not been any complaints or documented adverse impacts. Staff believes the situation has caused no detriment to nearby properties. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Upper Thompson Sanitation has provided a comment that states they “have no objection to the proposed variance request.” e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant has owned the property before the addition was built in 2016-2017. A County building permit was not applied for at this time which would have flagged this location for needing a variance and would have involved additional information for the garage conversion into living space. He is aware of and has knowledge of the setback requirements now. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Any building addition on this property would need an approved Variance because the existing building is entirely located within the 50-foot setback. 953 Rams Horn Road. – Building setback variance Page 4 of 6 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 of situations. Staff Finding: The conditions of this application are not general to the Estes Valley. It is not common to have structures located entirely within a required setback. Although it can be argued that the zoning of this (and other) properties is wrong to begin with, any significant change in zoning is not likely to be accomplished quickly or easily. A variance is the only feasible alternative in the short term. 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 Finding: No reduction in lot size or increase in number of lots is proposed by this variance request. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: A setback Variance as requested would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the addition to continue to be located at this site. 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 Finding: The variance does not propose a non-permitted or prohibited use. 7. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions at will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff is recommending that a condition be placed on this approval that a building permit/as built permit be applied for with the County. This will ensure that the structure is built to Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. A County building permit/as built permit shall be applied for within 3 months of Variance approval. If the building permit/as built permit is not subsequently issued by the County, the Variance shall become null and void. SUGGESTED MOTIONS 953 Rams Horn Road. – Building setback variance Page 5 of 6 I move to APPROVE the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity map 2. Agency Comments 3. Statement of Intent 4. Application 5. Variance sign photos 6. Site plan 953 Rams Horn Road. – Building setback variance Page 6 of 6 :II!, 1 Yom' ~y • • 5r `• _ . ,*. LAND SURVEYS SUBDIVISIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SANITARY ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING Gary and Cynthia Peak Variance Narrative and Project Description May, 2017 Following Code Section 3.6 Required Items: 1. The Special Circumstances of this Variance Application are that a deck roof over the south side front porch-entry has been constructed (without a permit). Had proper permitting been done the current Development Code setback of 50 feet would have been discovered and a variance would have likely been pursued at that time (given that the long standing house/north deck violate the 50' side setback on the north and west sides) or the covered porch-entry project would have been abandoned. Note that approximately 7' of the constructed porch violates the 50' western side setback; however 22' of the long standing home violates the 50' current western side setback and 7' of the long standing northern deck violates the northern setback. Different (smaller) setbacks were allowed on this property historically when the home was constructed and in 2000 the zoning changed causing a hardship for this lot/owner with 50' setbacks and caused the setback non-conformity of the house and north and west decks. Extensive effort has been made to bring the property (specifically the covered porch construction) into code compliance, and the "as built" request for permit has been accepted by Larimer County building dept. The engineering data for the south deck roof shows that the structure exceeds current building code requirements. The existence of the deck roof structure without a permit is the cause of the setback violation, and the permit cannot be obtained without an approved setback variance (after the fact). Because the porch roof structure meets building code, the owner would prefer to keep the structure as is and seek a setback variance. The house was built in 1990, which at the time had a zoning setback of 25 feet. Our current setback is 24.3 feet to the west side deck, 27.9' to the NW corner of the home and 43.0' to the NE corner of the north deck (built in 1990), making any future changes to the decks or exterior in violation of the 50 foot zoning setback. The setback issue was not discovered until the plans and engineering data for the deck roof were taken to the Planning Department of the Town of Estes Park for approval on or about April 24, 2017. It was discovered then that a RE zoning district requires a 50 foot setback and there was as a setback violation. 2. For the Board's determination of Practical Difficulty, we offer the following: a. There can be beneficial use of the property without the south porch roof, however strict enforcement of the code setback would require an unnecessary hardship. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhe@airbits.com Options other than a variance are removing the structure, or buying additional land to bring the porch into side setback compliance (7' of the neighbor to the west's land). Removal of the north deck and/or the south deck roof would be a hardship financially as the cost of construction would be lost and cost of removal would be a considerable financial burden, and the remaining house will still be at a 27.9' set back on the west side. If left as is, the setback issues could have potential land title issues. There are no plans to transfer, sell, or change ownership in the near future, but the title may be clouded by the setback issue. b. The house setback requested is substantial (22.1' out of 50' — or 44%; however, that is for the long standing house. The north deck and south deck porch roof only require a 7' out of 50' — or 14% variance which is not substantial. c. The essential character of the neighborhood would remain "as is" if the south deck porch was allowed to remain through this request for a setback variance. In fact, the neighbor that is most impacted by this construction visually (Ms. Shalah Welty) has no objection and provided the attached support letter. The requested variance will not change the nature of the neighborhood or affect the use, views, property values, or enjoyment of the adjoining properties. The property has been a single family residence since 1990 with a 27.9' foot setback on the west and a 43.0' setback on the north with no complaints from neighbors, the Ramshorn Road association, Town of Estes Park, or Larimer County. d. The construction of this south porch roof does not adversely affect any delivery of water, sewer or other utility. e. The applicant has owned the property long before the south porch roof was constructed. The north deck existed when he purchased the property. He is aware and has knowledge of these setback requirements. f. As described in #1 above, there are other means for mitigating this variance need; however, all other options come with hardship to the current owner. 3. This situation is not a general or recurrent situation. It is case specific and this application and materials are geared to this specific circumstance. The owner regrets not obtaining a valid permit for the south porch roof (he was unaware that a Building Permit would have been required for this kind of open sided and roof only construction). 4. There is no change in lot size planned or proposed with this setback variance application. 5. If authorized and approved, the request for this variance would be the least deviation from existing regulations, least destructive, most economic, and may be the only realistically viable option available to remedy the situation. 6. Granting this variance will be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, and the Master Plan. Namely, this proposal provides for the physical development of the County, while being harmonious with common land uses, maintaining property values, reducing density, protecting critical environmental areas, and protection from flooding. 7. Any conditions that the Board of Adjustment deems appropriate to the situation and circumstance will be considered by the applicant as related to this variance request. Thank you for your consideration of this Setback Variance Request. 1043 Fish Creek Road • Estes Park, CO 80517 • 970-586-9388 • E-mail: vhe@airbits.com 7•1 ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION Submittal Date: Gr-_:nor,11 I riform.i tion Record Owner(s): Street Address of Lot: 7Z + .,"-) .+41//00 Legal Description: Lot: }-) I k Block: N 1k Subdivision: kik-e 4-es I i3e,o-frA. Parcel ID # C.) 2-7. c' 5- Silo Information Tract: --- N /A Lot Size D. —7 ,ca Zoning Existing Land Use - R g -e 5 dn44-iak \lac e- 12_6„4-4 Proposed Land Use Existing Water Service Town Proposed Water Service l Town Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Existing Gas Service r Xcel Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? 3 Well r Other (Specify) 3 Well r Other (Specify) 3 EPSD X UTSD r Septic 3 EPSD X, UTSD r Septic yz Other r None 1t Ac fieRcm. (era Liel) r Yes r No q 3 e - c c x Prirmiry t !riff riv.iiii=r1 Name of Primary Contact Person /tee Complete Mailing Address F17 / &On/ o7 5 U-14 y 7 4/-4.4.),5- Prima Contact Person is Pr Owner r Applicant r Consultant/Engineer Ali ~ciim nip "( Application fee (see attached fee schedule) — jvt EVDR. 6 (rind{ r.. Te uivt i I.1-k = *soo r< Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 3.6.0 of the EVDC) 1 copy (folded) of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1" = 20) - k 1 reduced copy of the site plan (11" X 17") Ke, Digital copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to planning©estes.org The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix B.VII.5 (attached). The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review (see the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule). Copies must be folded. Town of Estes Park -6 P.O. Box 12(X) •4‘ I /0 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Community Development Department Phone: 19701 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 .er, www.estes.org/CommunityDevefoomenl Revised 20i 3,08-27 KT Variance Desired (Development Code Section #): Contact Information Record Owner(s) Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email e4. "t-4/< ?O I•Jil A r cr-die_,ur di? 70, 19/.7 (16,/ifyozvi, ia-iv", yv>Yff1,e0t le 6 Q.- o t_ , Applicant Mailing Address Phone Cell Phone Fax Email Consultant/Engineer 141,14 118rvi7r;teeer. i t Sk e 60 4- Mailing Address (3 FLS/ ace,(1 ., Phone 07o S —q Cell Phone 70 efref." 3 — 32-1 ( (40q#1;-e 56.4. aaeb Fax ivoq- Email APPLICATION FEES For variance applications within the Estes Valley Planning Area, both inside and outside Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at: htto://www.estes.oro/ComDev/Schedules&Fees1PlanninciAoplicationFeeSchedule.pdf All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. brititie& fv4;1-1 cra, 44 Revised 2013.08.27 KT Record Owner PLEASE PRINT: (":- /rt7'? Applicant PLEASE PRINT: CA-rzy (4. 16 eye., 37,47- tr,14e.-- C X61/-6_ _cute —17' • -2_47 /7 ate / Revised 2013.08.27 KT APPLICANT CERTIFICATION a. I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in tiling the application I am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owners of the property. IP. In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). ► I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EVDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Valley Development Code is available online at: http://www.estes.ore/ComDev/DevCode 10. I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EVDC. ► I understand that this variance request may be delayed in processing by a month or more if the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or submitted after the deadline date. I* I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. 110 The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. ► I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees and Members of the Board of Adjustment with proper identification access to my property during the review of this application. ► t acknowledge that I have received the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Variance Application Schedule and that failure to meet the deadlines shown on said schedule shall result in my application or the approval of my application becoming null and void. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void. IP. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Variance Notice" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road. I understand that the corners of my property and the proposed building/structure corners must be field staked. I understand that the sign must be posted and the staking completed no later than ten (10) business days prior to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment hearing. 11,- I understand that if the Board of Adjustment approves my request, "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 may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void." (Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.6.D) Names: Signatures: Record Owner Applicant To: Whom It May Concern From: Shalah Welty 961 Rams Horn Road lam a neighbor of 953 Ramshorn Road in Estes Park. lam writing to say that I am aware of the new deck roof on the front of that home and have no objections to the addition of this section of roof. It's construction has enhanced the curb appeal of this property. My property at 961 Rams Horn Road shares the property line in question in regard to the set- back variance. The current 26 foot set-back on that property does not adversely affect the look or the use of my own property. I have no problems with the current set-back and no objections to the Peaks obtaining a variance for their property set-back distance. Sincerely, (4. L RECEIVED MAY 16, 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT