HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 216 Spruce #2 2018-10-02
216 Spruce Dr. #2.,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:October2, 2018,9:00 a.m.; Board Room, Estes Park
Town Hall,170 MacGregor Avenue
APPLICANT REQUEST:The applicant requests a9.5-footvariance from theside
setbackrequirements of theEstes Valley Development Codeto allow for the rebuilding
and slight relocation of a deck and stairway.
1.Variance: From Section 4.3(C)(4) Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional
Standards Residential Zoning Districts; to permit a half(0.5) foot sidesetback from
the westproperty line in lieu of the 10-foot minimum per the RM-Residential Multi-
familyzoning district.
Staff is recommending approval ofthis variance.
LOCATION:216 Spruce Dr. #2.,Estes Park, CO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 22, Block 10of the3045–Piltzsubdivision,Larimer County,
Colorado.
EXISTING ZONING:RM,Residential Multi-Family
VICINITY AND SITE MAP:See attachments
APPLICANT/OWNER:Jason Remmerde/Brenda Graves Blevins
STAFF CONTACT:Brandon Howes,Consulting Town Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Variance request is to grant an alternative side setback
of a half (0.5) footfor the construction of a new deck and stairwayon the west side of an
existing home.
The required side setback in the RM-Residential Multi-Family Zoning Districtis10feet.
The existingdeck and stairway, which are located on the west side of the houseserve as
the primary entry to the residence and havebeen in existence sincethe house was built.
The existing deck and stairwaycurrentlyextend not only into the building setback area
but also encroach onto the property to the west. This variance is being requested to allow
the owner to remedy the encroachmentby rebuilding a slightly smaller deck and stairway
slightlynorth of their current location,but still keep the entrance to the residenceon the
west side of the house.
REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public Notice. Written notice has been mailed to adjacent property owners in
accordance with EDVC, Section3.15 General Notice Provisions.A legal notice was
published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the application is posted on the Town’s
“Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also posted a “development proposal
under review”sign on the property.
Affected Agencies. This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review
and comment. All comments have been addressed.
REVIEW CRITERIA:In accordancewith 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 similarlysituated 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 orthe Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:Special circumstances exist on the property. The entrance stairs
and deck are currentlyencroaching onto the adjacent property. Due to the
configuration of the houseand steep slopes of the lot,keeping the location ofthe
entrance stairsand deckonthe westside of the house, just in a slightly different
location,is the only reasonable option.The proposed relocation of the stairs and
reduction in the size of the deck is an improvement on the current conditions and
eliminates the encroachment issue.
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 isbeneficial use of the property without the variance, but the
variance would clean up an existing encroachment issue.
b.Whether the variance is substantial;
216S PRUCE D R.#2P AGE 2 OF 4
V ARIANCE R EQUEST,S IDE S ETBACK
Staff Finding:The variance isconsidered substantial. However, allowing the
decrease in the sidesetback width from 10feet to 0.5 feet on the westsideis
logical and reasonable to remedy theexisting encroachment issue andchallenging
site conditions.The variance requested is the minimum required to provide relief
to the applicantand existing configuration of their home.
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.The proposed location of the new deck and
entry stairs arecompatible with surrounding structures.
d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer.
Staff Finding:Approval of the variance doesnot 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 applicant was not aware that the existing deck and stairs
encroached onto the adjacent property at the time of purchase.
f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other
than a variance.
Staff Finding:No other method is available that would allow construction of the
relocated stairs and deckout of the setback area.
3.If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff Finding:There is no process that could provide a lesser deviation than the
proposed varianceto allow the relocated entrance stairs and deckto be within the
building setback area.
4.In granting such variances,the BOA may requiresuch conditions aswill, in its
independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied
or modified.
Staff Comment.Staff finds thevariancerequested isreasonable due to the
existing site topographyand donot foresee the need for additional conditions. The
BOA is welcome to review and consider additional conditions as needed.
216S PRUCE D R.#2P AGE 3 OF 4
V ARIANCE R EQUEST,S IDE S ETBACK
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends approvalof the requested 9.5-foot
varianceto allow for a new deck and stairway to be located within 0.5 feet of the west
side property line.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move to APPROVEthe following variance, allowing a half(0.5) foot sidesetback, along
thewest side of the propertyat 216 Spruce Dr. #2,Estes Park, with findings and
conclusions as outlined in the staff report.
I move toDENY the requested varianceswith thefollowing findings (state
reason/findings).
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Vicinity map
2.Statement of Intent
3.Application
4.Site plan
5.Posted notice sign
216S PRUCE D R.#2P AGE 4 OF 4
V ARIANCE R EQUEST,S IDE S ETBACK
221
271
217
223
220
211
216
214
Subject Property
221
180
216
170
170
215
160
150
211
223
295
Uijt!esbgu!epdvnfou!xbt!qsfqbsfe!gps!joufsobm!vtf!cz!uif
2!jo!>!37!gu
Upxo!pg!Ftuft!Qbsl-!DP/!Uif!Upxo!nblft!op!dmbjn!bt!up
Town of Estes Park
uif!bddvsbdz!ps!dpnqmfufoftt!pg!uif!ebub!dpoubjofe!ifsfpo/
216 Spruce #2
Evf!up!tfdvsjuz!dpodfsot-!Uif!Upxo!sfrvftut!uibu!zpv
12131
Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou
±
Qsjoufe;!:02103129
ep!opu!qptu!uijt!epdvnfou!po!uif!joufsofu!ps!puifsxjtf
Gffu
Dsfbufe!Cz;!Csjuuboz!Ibuibxbz
nblf!ju!bwbjmbcmf!up!qfstpot!volopxo!up!zpv/
Statement of Intent for the variance request for Brenda Graves-Blevins and the
property located at 216 Spruce Dr., Estes Park, CO 80517.
The above referenced property currently has two encroachments onto the property located at 216
Spruce Drive, #3. The deck is encroaching by .4’, and a set of stairs encroaches approximately 1.0’ at its
widest point. The owner has requested that the deck be cut back, in order to mitigate the
encroachment. She has also requested that the encroaching stairs be removed, and a path be
constructed in order to mitigate that encroachment (see plan set).
The deck serves as the front entry to the residence. It appears to have been in existence since the cabin
was built, and shows on plans sets in file from the 1960’s (Project: The Hahn Family Cabins). The
deck/entry is primarily located within the setback. The variance request is to cut the deck back to 7’
total depth (see plan set), which will alleviate the encroachment, but allow the remaining deck to exist
in its current location.
Section 3.6.C of the EVDCand responses to those sectionsare below:
C.
Standards for Review.All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the
standards and criteria set forth below:
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.
The subject property is located on a steep hill. The proposed changes to theexisting stairs
and deck will provide a safe and functional egressaccess to theelevatedfront door of the
property. The home was builtwith the current deck and stair design from inception (see
plans in file).
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;
Egress access will be needed for the front door. The residential use of the property
would require access to the homethrough the main egress door.
b.Whether the variance is substantial;
This variance request does not appear to be substantial.
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;
The subject property has an elevated entrance and is three stories tall. The existing
deck was part of the original architecture of the “Hahn Family Cabins” when they
were built. Reducing the size of the deck, other than to remove the encroachments,
would result in a very large, monolithicproperty wall feel. Given the old time, small
cabin nature ofthis area, creatinga tall,monolithic,“industrial” feeling wallwould
impact the neighborhood negatively. Maintaining the original deck and stairs, less
the proposed modifications, would help the neighborhood to retain its historic
nature.
d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water
and sewer;
Given that the existing deck was part of the original structure, delivery of public
serviceswould not change.
e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and
The owner was originally requesting improvements to the deck be made when she
discovered that the deck was encroaching, and that it was located within the
setbacks. She expressed frustration that she had not received proper disclosure of
these details whenshe purchased the property.
f.Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a
variance.
Given the need to maintain egress conditions for the main access door to the
home,and considering that the existing improvements were part of the original
egress design,some type of variance will be necessary to maintain egress access.
3. No variance shall be grantedif 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 or situations.
These conditions are unique to this property and would not warrant a new regulation.
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.
This variance request will not result in a change of the lot size.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
This variance request represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
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.
This request complies with the permitted use of the property.
7. 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.
The above statement has been read and understood.
I have addressed the above conditionswhere applicable. Please feel free to call me with any
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Jason Remmerde
Docter Construction, LLC
(970)290-1290
2018-09-12 10.33.03.jpghttps://mail.google.com/_/scs/mail-static/_/js/k=gmail.main.en.7TA383...
1 of 19/24/2018, 12:11 PM