Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 351 Prospector Ln 2018-03-06 351 Prospector Lane–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:March62018; 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 Densityand Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts.The Variance would allowa 9.2foot setbackon the north side property line and 18.7 foot setback on the southsidepropertyin 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 two setbacksdue to the topography on the site. Staff recommends approval. LOCATION:351 Prospector Lane. Estes Park, CO 80517 VICINITY MAP:See attachment APPLICANT/OWNER:David and Jean Margheim/ Same as Applicant STAFF CONTACT:Robin Becker, Planner I PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Variance would allow9.2 and 18.7foot setbacksin lieu of the25-footrequired 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 15.8feet into thenorthsidesetbackand 6.3 feet into the southproperty line.This was a result of the topography of the lot, covered in rock outcroppings,which resultsin a very small area on which to build. Correcting this non- conformitywould also allow theowners to add on toand bring the house into conformity. According to County research the previous zoning for this lot was FO-1 Forestry when the house was built in 1977. The records available to staff are not clear on what setbacks were approved for FO-1 zoning, it can be assumed that the house was in conformance at the time. 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. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to 9 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. No significant comments/concerns were received by reviewing agency staff. Public Comments. Staff has received no public comment to date. Any written comments received after February 27, 2018 will be posted to the “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: The property is approximately 1-acre 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 15.8 feet. The exsiting house is also placed within the setback on the south side by 6.3 feet. Furthermore the topography (rock outcroppings) of the lot greatly limits the building layout and structure placement. Staff believes that the special circumstances of both the house existing in the setback and the topography of the lot are not common and will not nullify the intent and purposes of the specific standards the code or the comprehensive plan. 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. This variance would tidy up the non-conforming structure already in the setback. Also without the variance development for future use (e.g. the proposed deck addition) is greatly limited due to non-conforming house and setbacks. b) Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The requested variance would establish a north setback at 9.2’ out of 25’ and a south setback of 18.7’ out of 25’. This is an 36.8% and 74.8% variation from the code. The overall proposed setbacks are substantial but the 9.2 and 18.7 requested where the house is currently located will be minimal as the house has been located in its current location for quite some time. Staff does not find that granting this variance would be a substantial request. 351 Prospector Lane – Building setback variance Page 2 of 4 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 drainage, migration corridors, etc). Most of the encroachment occurred many 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 had one comment, “The Utilities Department has no objection to this variance request, however, it is important for the applicant to know that the water service line appears to run under the proposed location of the new deck. Ensure utilities are located prior to any digging or excavation.” 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 not aware of the building 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 and allow for the building of a compliant deck addition. 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, or changing setbacks throughout the E-1 District. The applicant’s predicament is pretty limited outside of granting the variance. One option is to allow the house to remain within the setback and continue to be a nonconforming structure and not allow the building of the deck. Staff finds this inappropriate for the applicant as the house was already built in conformity and then setbacks were altered with no constructive ability to notify future owners. 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 partially within a required setback. Although it can be argued that the zoning of this (and other) properties is wrong to begin with, any significant 351 Prospector Lane – Building setback variance Page 3 of 4 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 existing building 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 not recommending any conditions be placed on this approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS 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. Public Comment 4. Statement of Intent 5. Application 6. Variance sign photos 7. Site plan 351 Prospector Lane – Building setback variance Page 4 of 4 March 6, 2018 ATTN:David Margheim 351 Prospector Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: 351 Prospector Lane Setback Variance Mr. Margheim, The property addressed as 351 Prospector Lane requested a setback variance at the th Board of Adjustment March 62018meeting.This property is zoned E-1 for Estate – One. The request was for 9.2 feet on the north east property setback and 18.7 on the south property setback. The Board of Adjustment granted the 18.7 feet on the south property setback and granted 13.7 feet on the northeastproperty 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 Community Development Department970-577-3720 Planning & Zoning rbecker@estes.org