HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE 251 Baker Dr Variance Request 2011-01-04
DATE: January 4, 2011
REQUEST: Variance from the “RE” Rural Estate 50-foot side yard setback requirement.
LOCATION: 251 Baker Drive, within unincorporated Larimer County
APPLICANT: Thomas Beck
PROPERTY OWNER: Lori Bond
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk
SITE DATA TABLE:
Architect: Thomas Beck Parcel Number: 3411107701 Development Area: 1.64 acre Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residential Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning:
“RE” Rural Estate (2.5 acre) Adjacent Zoning- East: “RE” Rural Estate North: “A-1” Accommodations West: “A-1” Accommodations South: “RE” Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: Hwy
7; single-family dwelling North: Hwy 7; undeveloped lot West: Single-family dwelling South: Single-family dwelling Services- Water: Town of Estes Park Sewer: Septic Fire Protection:
Estes Park
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a side yard
setback of 30-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required.
The purpose of the variance request is to allow an attached garage.
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 set forth below:
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: Staff finds that special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards. Specifically:
∙ At 1.6 acre, the lot is small for the “RE” Rural Estate district, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5-acres (which the 50-foot setbacks were created). This lot is closer to the “E-1”
Estate district, which has setbacks of 25-feet, which this proposal would meet.
∙ The existing house was built in 1957, prior to the establishment of setback requirements. As a result of the older house and the newer setbacks, most all of the existing structure
is located within the required building setbacks.
In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors:
Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance;
Staff Finding: The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property. The existing single-family dwelling may continue it’s use.
Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The requested variance is not substantial, as it would comply with setback standards for a typical one-acre lot.
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 essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment.
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.
Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
Staff Finding: The current owner acquired the property in January 2010. The setback requirements have not changed since.
Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The applicant’s predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a variance, though building north of the existing house where the structure would comply
with setback standards would require moving a water line and could impact the septic field.
If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
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: Staff has provided suggested conditions of approval at the end of the Staff report.
REFFERAL COMMENTS AND OTHER ISSUES: This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. At the time of this report, no significant
issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
Neighboring Property Owners. Kimberly Ackelson, 266 Baker Drive, has submitted an email stating “no issue with the addition.”
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with Code standards.
The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property.
The requested variance is not substantial.
The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment.
The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services.
The Applicant's predicament could not be mitigated through some method other than a variance.
The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
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.
The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the property are not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation
for such conditions or situations.
Approval of the variance would not 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.
Approval of the variance would not 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;
Failure to apply 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.
Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a side yard setback of 20-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO:
Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that specifically verifies
that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation
forms to ensure compliance with the approved variance.
SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance with the findings and conditions recommended by staff.
Page #5 –Bond Setback Request
Bond Side Yard Variance Request
Estes Park Community Development Department
Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estes.org