Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 375 Prospector Ln 2022-02-01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To:Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: February 1, 2022 RE: Variance Request, Reduced Side Yard Setback, 375 Prospector Lane Objective This is a request for approval of a variance to allow a side setback of 15 feet, in lieu of the 25 foot minimum required. Location 375 Prospector Lane, west of the intersection of Black Canyon Drive and Prospector Lane. The property is legally described as Lot 33, Black Canyon Hills Addition, Town of Estes Park Present Situation The property contains an existing residence, constructed in 1978. Proposal This is a request to grant a variance to allow a side setback, along the eastern property line, of 15 feet in lieu of the 25 foot minimum required in the E-1, (Estate) Zoning District. The applicant proposes construction of a detached garage. The side setback standard is within the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, Section 4.3, Residential Zoning Districts, Subsection 4.3.C., Density/Dimensional Standards, Table 4-2, Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts. Review Criteria The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. Staff findings for those Standards are as follows: 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: Special circumstances do exist. Although the subject property is one acre in size, the topography and existing large, mature trees do not provide for other viable options to construct a detached garage. 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: There is beneficial use with the current residence. There is an existing attached garage, 505 square feet in size according to Larimer County Assessor’s records. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial. The fifteen-foot side yard setback proposed is adequate to ensure there will be little impact to the adjacent property. 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: Staff does not find the character of the neighborhood would be altered, and there would be no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties with approval of the proposed variance. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Public services such as water and sewer will not be adversely affected. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The EPDC was adopted in the year 2000 and was readily available to the public. The current owner purchased the property well after the year 2000. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: Other methods to construct a detached garage are not realistic, due to constraints from existing vegetation and topography. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: A variance is the least deviation from the regulations. There is no process that could provide a lesser deviation than the proposed variance. 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. Staff Comment. Staff does not find any conditions necessary for granting the variance request. Review Agency Comments The variance application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. There were no potential issues identified, and no requirements from any of the agencies. Public Notice Notice was published in Estes Park Trail-Gazette and mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with Section 3.15 of the EPDC. A “Development Proposal Under Review” sign has been posted at the property. Advantages This will allow the owner/applicant to construct a detached garage without eliminating numerous large trees. Disadvantages None identified. Action Recommended Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Low. Staff has answered general questions. No written comments have been received for the variance request. Staff is aware of no opposition to the variance request. Sample Motions I move to APPROVE the requested variance, allowing a side setback of no less than 15 feet, along the east side of the subject property at 375 Prospector Lane in the Town of Estes Park, with findings as outlined in the staff report. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings). I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that \[state reasons for continuance\]. Attachments 1. Vicinity map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site plan 5. Sign Posting Photograph Site Location S OKCT VEST AVE Created By: Jeff Woeber - Printed: 1/21/2022 375 Prospector Ln. Project: Town of Estes Park Variance Request 0250500 Community Development Feet For Illustrative Purposes Only BUUBDINFOU2