The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Height 4070 LIttle Valley Rd 2000-03-06DATE: Little Valley Height and Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building,170 MacGregor Avenue P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 805 17 Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estesnetcorn March 6,2000 REQUEST:A request by Carolyn Cody and Carolyn Dennehy for a variance fi-orn the 50-foot rear yard setback and 30-foot maximum height as required in the “RE”Rural Estate zoning district. LOCATION:TBD Little Valley Drive,within the unincorporated Estes Valley. FELE #:Lot 22,Little Valley 2nd Filing I.SITE DATA TABLE: Parcel Nuntheds,):2407406022 Total Development Area:1.49 acres Number of Lots:One Existing Land Use:Unimproved Proposed Land Use:S.F.Residential Exist big Zoning:“RE” Ad/cicent Zoning- East:‘‘RE”North:‘‘RE” West:“RE”South:“RE” Adjacent Land Uses- East:Residential Unimproved Nor!17:Residential Unimproved West:S.F.Residential South:Residential Unimproved II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development Code.Specifically,the applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 30-foot height requirement to allow a maximum height of 32-feet fiom existing grade,and to deviate from the 50-foot setback requirement to allow a rear yard setback of 35-feet for the construction of a single-ffimily dwelling. A previous owner did excavation work in 1982.This excavation provides a level area on which to build.However,the applicant and applicant’s designer feel this “building pad”is insufficient for their needs.Therefore,the applicant requests a 2-foot height and 15-foot setback variance to allow for the construction of their home.The concept is to replace a great deal of the previous excavation,as indicated on the conceptual grading plan.The structure would be placed on this fill,with a walk-out lower level where the existing excavation is.The proposed structure would have complied with the height limit if the original grade had not been excavated. III.REVIEW CRITERIA:In accordance with Section 3.6 C.“Standards for Review”of the EVDC,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 lot is zoned “RE”,ii’hich has a nunilnum lot size of2.5 aci’es and 50— fhot ce/backs.The applicant’s lot is only li—acres (+/—,),n/itch ii’ould fall nude;’the “E—l “Estate zoning district in tenns of use and size.The “F— 1 “district has setbacks 0/2)—feel. The lot has an area 1/itt!ntis excavated in 1982 by a previous oiincr.The proposed structure would have complied i’ith i/ic height limit if the original grade had not been excavated. 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;A conforming structure could be hiult on the excavated portion oft/ic lot. b.Whether the variance is substantial;The requested height variance is to allow for a niaximu;n height of 32—feet from existing grade. This requested setback variance is to allow for a rear yard setback Page #2 —Cody/Dennehy Variance Request (Little Valley) of 35—fret.Due to the slope and forested na/tire of the lot,it is Siaffs opinion these are not 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 essential character u/the neighborhood would not change. d.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer;Not applicable. e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requircment;The applicant purchased the property in 1997, prior to the adoption o/’the EVDC.At tilL’time the property was purchased.the inaxinnini building height was 40—/ket,though the setback requirement was 50—/ket. f.Whether the Applicant’s predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.A con/orming structure could be built on the excaiated portion oft/ic lot 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 or situations.Not applicable. 4.No variance shall bc 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 penuitted for the total subdivision,pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations.Not applicable. 5.If authorized,a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.The Board should use their discretion in determining if the requested variance represents the least deviation from the standards that rill cffortl relief Page #3 —Cody/Dennehy Variance Request (Little Va[ley) 6.Under no circumstaLlces 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.Ant applicth/e. 7.In granting such variances,the BOA may require such conditions as vill, in its independent judgment,secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified.£4 i’ote of approval should include the folloiiing condiiioiis •Fit/I conpliance with the Un/fbrm Building Code. •Prior to pouring foundation,verification by a registered land surveyor of sethacks and elevation of building pad. •Compliance ii’ith the submitted site p/an. lv.REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES:This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. V.STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:Based on the foregoing, staff finds: I.The applicants,Carolyn Cody and Carolyn Dennehy,requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2.Specifically,the applicant wishes to deviate from the mandated 30-foot height requirement to allow a maximum height of 32-feet from existing grade,and to deviate from the 50-foot setback reqtureinent to allow a rear yard setback of 35- feet for the construction of a single-family dwelling. 3.A previous owner did excavation work in 1982.This excavation provides a level area on which to build.However,the applicant and applicant’s designer feel this “building pad”is insufficient for their needs.The applicants propose a structure that would have been able to comply with the 30-foot height limit if the original grade were in place. 4.The lot is zoned “RE”,which has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and 50-foot setbacks.The applicant’s lot is only 1.5-acres (+1-),which would fall under the “E-1”Estate zoning district in tern-is of use and size.The “E-l”district has setbacks of 25-feet. 5.A conforming structure could be built on the excavated portion of the lot. Page #4 —Cody/Denncliy Variance Request (Little Valley) 6.Due to the slope and forested nature of the lot.it is Staff’s opinion the requested variances are not substantial. 7.The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. 8.The applicant purchased the property in 1997,prior to the adoption of the EVDC. At the time the property was purchased.the maximum building height was 40-fee, though the setback requirement was 50-feet. 9.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Therefore,Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards”of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a rear yard setback of 35-feet and to allow a maximum height of 32-feet CONDITIONAL TO: a.Full compliance with the Unifomi Building Code. b.Prior to pouring foundation,verification by a registered land surveyor of setbacks and elevation of building pad. c.Compliance with the submitted site pLan. LAPSE:Failure of an Applicant to app’y for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1)year of receiving approval of the variance shall automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. Page #5 —Cody/Dennehy Variance Request (Little Valley)