The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Setback 801 Turquoise Trl 2017-12-05 801Turquoise Trail–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 E STES V ALLEY B OARD OF A DJUSTMENT th MEETINGDATE& LOCATION:December 52017; 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 4-2Base Densityand Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts.The Variance would allowan11foot north setback in lieu of the25- footrequired setbacks in the E-1 (Estate 1) zone district. The purpose of the Variance is to allowan existing buildingto remain and adjust the north boundary line setback. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION:801Turquoise Trail,Estes Parkwithin the Estes Valley. VICINITY MAP:See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER:Mary Murphy/Kathy Sullivan STAFF CONTACT:Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Variance would allow11 foot setback in lieu of the25-foot required setbacks in the E-1 (Estate 1) zone district. The E-1 Estate-1zone district requires a 25-foot setback on all sides. Thelot has an existing housethat already extends 13.5feet into thenorthsidesetbackfrom the property line.This was a result the house being built in 1929 before zoning setback requirements. The current placement of the home results in a nonconforming structure within the setback. 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 contained therein. The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. REFERRALAND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 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(Attached). Affected Agencies.This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment.One comment/concern wasreceived by reviewing agency staff.Larimer County Building stated: “Boundary line adjustments may cause property lines to come closer to existing buildings. Exterior walls, projections and opening within the Fire Separation Distance to property lines may need to be fire-rated. Dwelling unit and residential accessory structure walls within three feet of a property line must be one hour fire rated in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263, tested for fire exposure from both sides, and cannot have any openings. Projections are prohibited within two feet of a property line, and must be one hour fire-rated on the underside if within two to three feet of the property line. Wall, roof or soffit penetrations within three feet of a property line must be fire- rated in compliance with 2015 International Residential Code section R302.4.” The applicant made a note that addressed and acknowledged this comment from Larimer County Building. PublicComments.Staff has receivednopublic comment to date.Any written comments received after this date will be posted tothe “Current Applications” webpage under public comment. 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: Theproperty is approximately .37-acres in size and is zoned E-1 (Estate-1).The setbacks for E-1 are 25 feet on all sides. The existing house is placed within the setback on the north side by 13.5feet. The house was built in 1929 before zoning building setbacks were a requiement in the Estes Valley.The special circumstancesthe house existing in the setback and are not common to other areas. 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,there can be beneficial use of the property. Thisvariance would tidy up the lot and make the house conform.Also without the variance development for future useis greatly limited due to the boundary lines on the lot. b)Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The requested variancewould establish asetbackat 11’ out of 25’. This is a 56% variation from the code. The overall proposed setbackis substantial but the 11’ requested wherethe house iscurrently locatedwill be minimal as the house has been 801Turquoise Trail.–Building setback variance Page 2of 5 located in itscurrent location for quite some time(1929).Staff does not find that granting this variance would be a substantial 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 Finding: The character of the areawould not be substantially altered, and the adjoining properties would not suffer a detriment (no impact todrainage, migration corridors, etc).Most of the encroachment occurred years ago.Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any 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. Town Utilities did not have any comments.Staff believes the proposed variance would not cause any detriment to the delivery of public services. e)Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant purchased the property and was notaware of thebuilding being within the setbacks. Staff finds that granting the variance would help the applicant overcome the hardship of making sure the home is within compliance. f)Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The house is already built within the setback; short of tearing down the house the applicant’s predicament is pretty limited outside of granting the varianceor changing zoning. One option is to allow the house to remain within the setback and continueto be a nonconforming structure. Staff finds this inappropriate for the applicant as the house was built well before zoning setbacks. 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 partiallywithin 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. 801Turquoise Trail.–Building setback variance Page 3of 5 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 districtregulations. 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: Asetback Variance as requested would be the least deviation from Code that would allow the existingbuilding to continue to belocated 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 atwill, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding:Staff isnot recommending any conditionsbe placed on this approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommendsAPPROVAL of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS I move to APPROVEthe requested varianceto reduce the front setback by 11with the findings and conditions recommended by staff. I move toDENY the requested varianceto reduce the front setback by 11 feetwith thefollowing findings (state reason/findings). ATTACHMENTS: 1.Vicinity Map 2.Site Plan 3.Agency Comments 4.Public Comment 5.Statement of Intent 6.Application 7.Variance sign photos 801Turquoise Trail.–Building setback variance Page 4of 5 801Turquoise Trail.–Building setback variance Page 5of 5