HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE 1604 Black Squirrel Dr 2003
DATE: October 7, 2003
REQUEST: A request by Howell and J’Ann Wright for a variance from the “RE” Rural Estate 50-foot side yard setback requirement, and from the maximum height limit.
LOCATION: TBD Black Squirrel Drive (Lot 14, Little Valley), within unincorporated Estes Park. Refer to vicinity map for driving directions.
FILE #: Wright, Howell and J’Ann 9/9/03
SITE DATA TABLE:
Parcel Number(s): 2407307014 Total Development Area: 1.78 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use: Single-family dwelling Existing Zoning: “RE”
Rural Estate Adjacent Zoning- East: “RE” Rural Estate North: “RE” Rural Estate West: “RE” Rural Estate South: “RE” Rural Estate Adjacent Land Uses- East: single-family residential North:
single-family residential West: single-family residential South: Undeveloped, platted for single-family residential
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicants, Drs. Howell and J’Ann Wright, request variances to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Development
Code to allow (1) a west side yard setback along Black Squirrel Drive of 11-feet and (2) an east side yard setback of 38-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required; and a height of
38-feet in lieu of the 35-foot adjusted maximum.
The applicant’s wish to build a single-family dwelling with a detached 30-foot wide garage. The lot is located in Little Valley, at the intersection of Dollar Lake Road and Black Squirrel
Drive, and is zoned “RE” Rural Estate, which has a minimum lot size of 2.5-acres and 50-foot building setbacks. The lot is relatively flat, at 1.8 acres is sub-sized for the zone district,
has an unusual shape, and has an “L” shaped access easement jutting from the west property line. The required setback is measured from the edge of the easement, not the actual property
line.
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 Comment:
Setback: A variety of factors combine to create special circumstances with this lot: 1.8-acre lot in a 2.5-acre zone, triangle shape, and access easement along western portion. The
west side setback requirement is from the edge of the access easement, not the property line.
Height: Staff finds no special circumstances or conditions that would result in practical difficulty in conforming to the height limit. The EVDC allows for a flexible height limit
based on the slope of the lot; this lot is relatively flat. The applicant has submitted a design that indicates ability to comply with the height limit with the exception of one small
area. The fact the majority of the house is able to comply indicates there is no special hardship associated with this lot.
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 Comment: The property could be developed without variances.
Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial.
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.
Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
Staff Comment: The applicant purchased the property in July 2002, after adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code and associated development requirements.
Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.
Staff Comment: As this lot is currently vacant, the applicant is able to design the house and site to meet the requirements that are in place.
(1) The proposed house could be situated on the lot in a manner that would reduce the requested setback requests, though the proposed house size and shape would require a setback variance
on only one side, or perhaps split the difference and provide a small variance on both sides.
(2) The house could be redesigned to allow compliance with the setback requirements.
(3) The house could also be redesigned to allow full compliance with the maximum height limit.
(4) The site plan could be revised so the house runs parallel to the slope, which would minimize or eliminate the need for a height variance.
If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Comment: The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. As noted earlier in the report, this is a
vacant lot and the applicant is starting “fresh”. It is Staff’s opinion other options exist that would minimize the variance request, two of which are shown below.
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 recommends a “limits of disturbance” be delineated on the site plan. These would then be fenced in the field prior to any construction or grading activity. This
is because the applicant requests to build outside the mandated building setbacks, and is therefore removing trees that would otherwise serve as a buffer to neighboring properties.
In order to minimize unintended disturbance, this area should be well defined in the field prior to construction activity. The guidelines set forth in Section 7.2.D should apply.
Staff also recommends the site plan be redesigned to eliminate the east yard setback request and to minimize the west side building encroachment. The west side should have a setback
of 25-feet, which is consistent with the required setback in the “E-1” zone district (the district in which this lot’s size would place it).
Figure 1: Proposed house could be situated to minimize variance request. This graphic illustrates how the proposed could minimize the setback variances.
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.
Neighbors. The Little Valley Owner’s Association has submitted a letter of support for this variance request.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
The applicants, Drs. Howell and J’Ann Wright, request variances to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow (1) a west side yard
setback along Black Squirrel Drive of 11-feet and (2) an east side yard setback of 38-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required; and a height of 38-feet in lieu of the 35-foot adjusted
maximum.
The purpose of the requested variances is to build new single-family dwelling with detached garage.
The site is located at the intersection of Dollar Lake Road and Black Squirrel Drive, within unincorporated Estes Park.
The size and shape of the lot, along with the access easement along the western side, combine to create special circumstances in relation to the west side yard setback request.
It is Staff’s opinion there are no special circumstances in relation to the east side yard setback and height variance requests.
The character of the neighborhood would not substantially change.
The Board should use their best judgment if the requested variances are substantial.
The setback and height requirements were in place when the applicant purchased the property.
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 Little Valley Owner’s Association has submitted a letter of support for this variance request.
The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer.
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 these variances 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 these variances 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.
The property could be put to beneficial use without the variance.
The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through methods other than variances.
The Board should use their judgment if the requested variance represents the least deviation that would afford relief. It is Staff’s opinion it is not.
Therefore, Staff recommends:
DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a maximum height of 38-feet in lieu of the 35-feet adjusted maximum height;
DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance to allow an eastern side yard setback of 38-feet in lieu of the 50-feet required; and,
APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a western side yard setback of 25-feet in lieu of the 50-feet required CONDITIONAL TO:
Redesign of the site plan to meet approved setbacks. Design should follow example shown in Figure 1.B of Staff report.
Compliance with Limits of Disturbance standards set forth in Section 7.2.D of the EVDC.
Full compliance with the Uniform Building Code
Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor.
Compliance with the 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 #4 –Wright Side Yard Setback and Maximum Height Variance Requests
Wright Side Yard and Height Variance Requests
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
25’
B
A