Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 216 3rd St 2018-11-06 rd 216 3Street., Variance Request 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 MEETING DATE & LOCATION:November 6, 2018, 9:00 a.m.; Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall,170 MacGregor Avenue APPLICANT REQUEST: The applicant requests a 1-foot side setback variance from the Estes Valley Development Code. 1) Variance from EVDC Section 4.3(c)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts” rd LOCATION: 216 3Street, in the Town of Estes Park LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 5, Reclamation Subdivision EXISTING ZONING:R-Residential VICINITY AND SITE MAP:See attachments APPLICANT/OWNER: Jes Reetz, Cornerstone Engineering/Amos and Molly Patrick, Owners STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed variance would allow for a 9-foot side setback in lieu of the 10-foot minimum side setback required by the R-Residential zoning district. The reason for the variance request is to permit the construction of an attached two-car garage. The existing residence is situated approximately 19.17 feet from the side yard setback. The proposed garage is 20 feet in width, thus requiring a 1-foot setback variance. The home’s original garage was converted into a living space prior to current ownership. The current owners purchased the property in 2008 with the intent to construct an attached garage, as proposed. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with EVDC §3.15 -General Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail- Gazette. The application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The site has been posted with a“Development Proposal under Review” signas well. Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. No comments were received. REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with the EVDC §3.6 C., Standards for Review, applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW (3.6)(C) 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 not exist on the property. The proposal is unrelated to the physical conditions of the property. 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 of the property without the variance, the owners would just not be able to build a garage which given the history of the property seems an undue burden. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance proposed is not substantial the request is for a 1-foot setback variance. 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 that the character of the neighborhood would be altered. This is because many other houses in the neighborhood have garages in similar style and character as the proposed garage. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Approval would not have any effect on public services such as water and sewer. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The EVDC was adopted in the year 2000 and is readily available to the public. The current homeowners purchased the property with the existing garage conversion in place in 2008. f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: The applicant could not build the garage as proposed without a variance. 3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The requested variance is the least deviation from the regulations to permit the garage as proposed. 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. The BOA is welcomed to review and consider conditions as needed. Staff has no recommended conditions at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested 1-foot side setback variance, to allow the homeowners to construct a garage on the property. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to APPROVE the following variance, with findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report. I move to DENY the requested variance with the following findings (state reason/findings for Denial). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Intent 3. Application 4. Site Plan 5. Posted Development Proposal Sign 6. Public Comments