HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 1909 Silversage Ct 2018-06-05
1909Silversage Ct.,VarianceRequest
SideSetback
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
MEETINGDATE& LOCATION:June 5, 2018, 9:00 a.m.; Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall,
170 MacGregor Avenue
APPLICANT REQUEST:The applicant requests two (2) Variances from the Estes Valley
Development Code.
1.Variance #1: From Section 4.3(C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards
Residential Zoning Districts; to permit a one (1) foot side setback from the west property
line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District.
2.Variance #2: From Section 4.3(C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards
Residential Zoning Districts; to permit a zero (0) foot side setback from the south property
line in lieu of the 25-foot minimum per the E-1 Estate Zoning District.
Staff is recommending approval ofthis variance.
LOCATION: 1909 Silversage Ct., Estes Park, CO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, the amended plat of Lots 1 & 2 of the amended plat of Lots 4 & 5,
th
Windcliff Estates 6Subdivision, a PUD, Larimer County, Colorado.
EXISTING ZONING:E-1, Estate Zoning
VICINITY AND SITE MAP:See attachments
APPLICANT/OWNER:GeraldLohse& Virginia Ferrer
STAFF CONTACT: Robin Becker Planner I,Brandon Howes & Ross Culbertson,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Variance request is tograntalternative side setbacksin lieu of
the established 25-footminimum side setbacks required by theE-1Estate Zoning District.The
applicant proposes three site improvementswhich require the setback variances. The first
improvement will be constructionofan accessory structure (private office) northwest of the
existing home in the property’s rear yardyet within the existing 25-foot side setback area. The
second improvementis tofully enclose theexisting front yard deck (approximately 300 square
feet)to create an attachedsunroomalso within the existing 25-foot side setback area.However,
thenew sunroom wallswill be constructed within the existing deck area so as to not encroach
past the original deck plane. The third improvement will be to add new concrete pylon footings
along the western edge of the home to support a new master bedroom dormer window. The
footings will be outside of the original building footprint yet be within the proposed 1-foot setback
requested with this variance.
The existing home andfrontdeck were built in1984 prior to the Town’s rezoning efforts in
February 2000, when the Estes Valley Development Code became effective. The established 25-
foot zoning district side setbacks in the E-1 zoning district creates a non-conforming condition for
the original residential structure and creates conflicts with the new building additions if not
amended. The Variance Site Plan indicates the existing home’s footprint is 1.2 feet off the west
property line and the existing front deck is 0.9 feet off the south property line. Thus, the request
is to establish the new side setbacks as 1-foot on the west and zero (or none) on the south to
accommodate the existing dimensions. A variance was recently approved in April 2018 for a
residential home located at 1051 Sutton Lane which had a similar condition of setting new side
setbacks due to its planned building expansions.
REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners within 100 feet of the
subject property. 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 “variance
pending” sign.
Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and
comment. This report includes attachments of pertinent memos and emails from the reviewing
agencies regarding this review.
REVIEW CRITERIA: In accordance with the EVDC, Section 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 exist on the property. The property contains 0.6
acres and was constructed in 1984 prior to the EVDC adoption in 2000 which rezoned the
property to E-1, Estate. The established E-1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size
of 1.0 acre and 25-foot side setbacks from all property lines (front, sides, and rear). The
applicants state there is no other viable location to place the proposed accessory structure
without causing additional variance conditions or requiring construction on steep slopes
of 25%-40% grades. The attached Appendix F indicates the proposed location for the
office has a gentler slope than the other potential locations on 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 under the current conditions.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
1909 S ILVERSAGE C T.P AGE 2 OF 4
V ARIANCE R EQUEST, S IDE S ETBACK
Staff Finding: The variances are considered substantial. Allowing the decrease in setback
widths from 25-feet to 1-foot on the west and zero on the south side are logical and
reasonable to remedy the non-conforming conditions. Staff understands when the E-1
zoning was established in 2000 over the entire neighborhood, it potentially created
hardships on existing properties by setting criteria for larger lot areas and larger setback.
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,
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: 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 was readily available to the
public. The current owner purchased the property in 2015. However, the applicant required
the sellers of the property at the time to provide letters from Larimer County Building
officials stating the home met all building codes and required setbacks. These letters are
attached as a part of the review agency comments attachment and state that the home
met all required setbacks.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
Staff Finding: There is no other location on the property to construct an accessory
structure that will meet the applicant’s needs without requesting a variance either for the
setback or a separate variance for building in a steep slope.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
Staff Finding: The requested variances are the least deviation from the regulations and
will afford the property owner the opportunity for property improvements in light of the
existing conditions. 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.
1909 S ILVERSAGE C T.P AGE 3 OF 4
V ARIANCE R EQUEST, S IDE S ETBACK
Staff Comment.Staff finds thevariances requested are reasonable due to the existing
site condition and do not foresee the need for additional conditions. The BOA is welcomed
to review and consider additional conditions as needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance with no
conditions.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move to APPROVE the following variances, allowing a side setback of no less than 1 foot, along
the west side of the property and 0 feet on the south side of the property at 1909 Silversage Court,
Estes Park, with findings and conclusions as outlined in the staff report.
I move to DENY the requested variances with the following findings (state reason/findings for
Denial).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity map
2. Statement of Intent
3. Application
4. Site plan
5. Review Agency Comments
6. Variance Sign
1909 S ILVERSAGE C T.P AGE 4 OF 4
V ARIANCE R EQUEST, S IDE S ETBACK
June 5, 2018
ATTN: Gerald Lohse and Virginia Ferrer
1909 Silver Sage Court
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: Setback Variance
Mr. Lohse,
The property addressed as 1909 Silver Sage Court requested a setback variance at the
th
Board of Adjustment June 52018 meeting. This property is zoned E-1 for Estate One.
The request was for one foot on the west setback and zero feet on the south setback.
The Board of Adjustment granted both the one foot on the west property setback and
the zero feet setback on the south setback.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Thanks,
Robin Becker
Planner I
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
/ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ 5ĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷ ВАЉΏЎААΏЌАЋЉ
tƌğƓƓźƓŭ ε ƚƓźƓŭ ƩĬĻĭƉĻƩθĻƭƷĻƭ͵ƚƩŭ