HomeMy WebLinkAboutSETBACK 2313 Bellevue Dr Request 2001-11-13
DATE: November 13, 2001
REQUEST: A request by Rex Ross Walker for a variance from the 15-foot rear yard setback as required in the “R” Residential zoning district.
LOCATION: Lot 22A, Olympus Heights, Bellevue Drive (address TBD), within the unincorporated Estes Valley.
FILE #: Walker, Rex Ross (11/13/01)
I. SITE DATA TABLE:
Parcel Number: 2529105020 (due to recent amended plat, will change soon) Total Development Area: .17-acre Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use:
Single Family Residential Existing Zoning: “R” Residential Adjacent Zoning- East: “RE” Rural Estate North: “R” Residential West: “R” Residential South: “A” Accommodations Adjacent
Land Uses- East: Undeveloped (Crocker Ranch) North: S.F. Residential West: S.F. Residential South: S.F. Residential (part of Olympus Lodge)
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “R” District Rear Yard Setback of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, the applicant
wishes to deviate from the mandated 15-foot rear yard setback to allow a setback of 8-feet to allow for the construction of a detached single-family residential structure.
The plat was recorded in 1934, and was amended in 2000. The amendment increased the size of the lot to the maximum extent, though the basic triangular shape remains. The applicant
proposes to build a 58’ by 28’ residential structure (no garage) for employee housing.
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:
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 Comment: The .17-acre lot is small for “R” district, which has minimum lot size of ¼ acre. The lot was originally created in 1934, and was amended in the fall of 2000. The amended
plat increased the lot size by moving the north lot line; however, the lot size adjustment was restricted in order to maintain conforming setbacks with an existing house to the north.
An existing easement crosses the northwestern corner of the zoned building setbacks, thus reducing the buildable area. Finally, the triangular shape squeezes buildable area near the
southern portion of the lot. It is Staff’s opinion these factors combine to create special circumstances that result in practical difficulty.
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 Comment: It is Staff’s opinion the size and shape of the lot would prevent the construction of a typical single-family residential structure. The applicant proposes to build
a 28’ by 58’ (plus a 10’ deck) house, totaling 1,624 square feet. The proposal does not include a garage.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Comment: Considering the character of the neighborhood and the size and shape of the lot, Staff does not consider the variance 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;
Staff Comment: The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The proposed location would have the least impact on the properties to the north, south, and west. The
property to the east contains steep rocky slopes, and is unlikely to be built on.
d. (Not applicable) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer;
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
Staff Comment: The 15-foot setback restriction has recently been imposed on the owner’s property. The owner purchased the property in 1992, before the adoption of the EVDC. The property
was platted in 1934, before the adoption of building setbacks.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.
Staff Comment: The applicant has amended the plat to maximize the buildable area, but the combination of the zoned setbacks and the triangular shape “pinch” the southern end of the
lot such that compliance with the code would require an unusual building footprint.
3. (Not applicable) 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.
4. (Not applicable) 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.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Comment: The requested variance would place that portion of the structure requiring a variance on the east side of the lot, away from the road, and similar in character to existing
houses to the north and south. If the structure were to be located further west, which would minimize the square footage of house that requires variance, the structure would be closer
to the road and have more of an impact on the neighborhood and the residents of the house. Therefore, it is Staff’s opinion the requested variance is the least deviation that allows
relief.
6. (Not applicable) 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.
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.
Staff Comment: A vote of approval should include the following conditions:
A setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor shall be submitted at the foundation inspection.
Compliance with the submitted site plan.
IV. 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:
The applicant, Rex Ross Walker, requests a variance to Table 4-2 “R” District Rear Yard Setback of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, the applicant wishes to deviate from
the mandated 15-foot rear yard setback to allow a setback of 8-feet to allow for the construction of a detached single-family residential structure.
The site is located at Lot 22A, Olympus Heights, Bellevue Drive (address TBD), immediately north of the Olympus Lodge.
The applicant proposes to build a 58’ by 28’ residential structure for employee housing.
The plat was recorded in 1934, and was amended in 2000. The amendment increased the size of the lot to the maximum extent.
It is Staff’s opinion the size and shape of the lot combine to create special circumstances that result in practical difficulty. It is Staff’s opinion the size and shape of the lot
would prevent the construction of a typical single-family residential structure.
Considering the character of the neighborhood and the size and shape of the lot, Staff does not consider the variance substantial.
The essential character of the neighborhood would not change.
The 15-foot setback restriction has recently been imposed on the owner’s property. The owner purchased the property in 1992, before the adoption of the EVDC. The property was platted
in 1934, before the adoption of building setbacks.
It is Staff’s opinion the request is the least deviation that allows 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.
Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to Table 4-2 “R” district Rear Yard Setback of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a rear yard setback of 8-feet
in lieu of the 15-feet required CONDITIONAL TO:
A setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor shall be submitted at the foundation inspection.
Compliance with the submitted site plan.
LAPSE: Failure of an Applicant 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.
Page #5 – Walker Setback Request (Olympus Heights)
Olympus Heights Setback Request
Estes Park Community Development Department
Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com