HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE 1634 Black Squirrel Dr Statement of Intent 2013Statement of Intent [‘E
Variance Request 272013
Lot 15,Little Valley Subdivision
cpnxpEvELopMENT
Requested variances:
Table 4.3.C.4 (Table 4-2)Street Setback
-Existing:50’From R-O-W Line
-Requesting:19’from R-O-W Line
This variance request is to build a garage within the street setback of Black Squirrel
Drive in Little Valley.Timber Creek Homecrafters (Greg Westley-Owner)is the owner
of the property and they are requesting an addition to the building that was just permitted
two months ago.Timber Creek Homecrafters is building a spec home on the property
and just recently had an offer to buy the house,but the potential buyers desired a garage
as well.The property building envelope is so small that a garage was not planned at the
beginning of the project because it could not fit within the building envelope.The
building envelope was just large enough to fit a moderate size home with a deck.
The property is legally 1.58 acres,more or less,however Black Squirrel Drive was not
built in the Right-of-Way and encroaches quite a bit into this property along the north
property line.In addition,the property acreage includes the Right-of-Way because it was
dedicated as an easement through all the properties in this neighborhood.These two
factors make the effective acreage of the property approximately 0.9 acres.The property
is also a long,triangular shape making the building envelope very narrow.
In order to add the garage it is best fitted to the design of the house and the contours of
the property in the orientation that is proposed.It creates a balance between cut and fill
and also tucks it a bit into the slope of the hill,thereby concealing it a hit from Black
Squirrel Drive to the west.
The following represents the Standards for Review in the Estes Valley Development
Code for a variance request:
I.Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist
Narrowness —This property is a long triangular shape thereby making the
building envelope very narrow
Road Encroachment —Black Squirrel Drive encroaches into this property and
since it services many other properties,the road itself requires a setback,not just the
formal Right-of-Way easement.
Topography —The site is fairly steep so driveways and garage entry’s become
very challenging.Placing the garage closer to the road and entering from a lower
point on the property helps to make a reasonable grade into a property.
Acreage —The property is in a 2.5 acre zoning district,however this property is
effectively 0.9 acres.Fifty foot setbacks are a little large for this property.
Common to other areas —The Little Valley Subdivision has many lots this size
and due to the topography,setbacks are often unachievable.Several other lots in
Little Valley have received similar variances.
2.“Practical Difficulty”
a.Whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance?
The property is zoned RE-Residential and a small house can fit on the
property,however to fitting a garage in addition to the home was difficult.
This variance provides the ability for this property to be similar with the
neighboring properties
b.Whether the variance is substantial?
The variance is not substantial.The garage will still be 44’from the road.
c.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be
substantially altered or neighbors would szffer a substantial detriment as
a result of the variance?
There would not be a substantial altering or a major impact on the surrounding
properties.The proposed home and garage is an average size home in the
neighborhood.It will be in character with recent developments in the area.
d.Whether the variance would effect the deliveiy ofpuhlic services?
There will be no adverse affect to the delivery of public services.A septic
field and well have already been permitted and power is on the property
already.The garage variance will not increase any impact to these services.
e.Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement?
The applicant purchased the property knowing the setbacks were 50’,but did
not know the extent of the setback constraints due to the encroachment of
Black Squirrel Drive.f Whether the Applicant ‘s predicament can be mitigated through some other
method?
There is no other easy alternative to this lot shape and slope issue other than
building a small house.The proposed house is already smaller than many in
the neighborhood and it would not be consistent with the area.
3.The variance requested is not general or recurrent in nature,the situation is site
specific.Given the topography this is a request that is common in the area,but
there is no other alternative given the size of the lots than rezoning.
4.The granting of this variance will not cause an increase in density or create the
ability to create new lots.
5.The proposed variance will be the least deviation from the regulations that will
afford relief and allow the applicant to use the property as the development code
intends.
6.The proposed variance request will not allow a use not permitted,or a use
expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of the E.V.D.C.for its
zoning district.
7.In granting such variances,the applicant realizes the BOA may require such
conditions as will,in its independent judgment,secure substantially the objectives
of the standard so varied or modified.
jUj -U /L!jj
ESTES VALLEY MAR 2 7 2013‘-‘BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION MUNITyDEVELOPMENT
Submittal Date:
1iNf!IrniiiU[.]i
Record Owner(s):7 Lc fi F/er5 ,l&c esf/t1 -ôl.r’
Address of Lot:__/&,3_9 s/p,_1<i,-vo_/_Z,’
—Legal Description:Lot:I ç Block:Tract:
Subdivision:I_(/7tk Va f4 ,/
ParcellD#:2’1O?3—Oc—OI
-l1(iI.i.
Lot Size /.Zoning j
Existing Land Use yac-f
Proposed Land Use crv4.e ,ct 4,de%(
Existing Water Service r Town r Well Other (Specify),‘<Joe.
Proposed Water Service r Town I Well r Other (Specify)
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service r EPSD F UTSD F Septic 1iv’Q
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service F EPSD F UTSD j Septic
Existing Gas Service r Xcel Other F None
Site Access (if not on public street)Lj ii’IacJ—S.a “ve I t’i
Are there wetlands on the site?F Yes No
Thiir.:
Variance Desired (Development Code Section#):Se q s.c--f (7/3/..e t/.’
/lvt,tt4v1.i !3ti/c//lir-l4vi-e .pj/acks /.vl./Le
L6 P,rI’cf a -7c b’i ,c-7’1 G()/‘yt
I.*I1’LIIIIWi1fll[.].
Name of Primary Contact Person coQ).14.I-1o&rvl
Complete Mailing Address /01/I -iZJ ri C %‘c’7 7—
Primary Contact Person is F Owner F Applicant Consultant/Engineer
III{II ‘Application fee (see attached fee schedule)
5?’Statement of intent (must comply with standards set forth in Section 36.C of the Estes Valley Development Code)5/1 copy (folded)of site plan (drawn at a scale of 1”=20)
..—1 reduced copyofthesiteplan (lix 17)
**The site plan shall include information in Estes Valley Development Code Appendix BVll.5 (attached).
The applicant will be required to provide additional copies of the site plan after staff review
the attached Board of Adjustment variance application schedule)Copies must be folded.
Town of Esles Park ..[0.Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue -e Estes Park.CO 80517
Community Development Departmit Phone:970)577-3721 -Fax:(910)586-0249 .www.estes.org/ComDev
Revised 11/20109
‘1 0 0
—
CD
CD
CD
-
U)
CD U)
D
3
-‘
C_
)
_C
D
zy
—.
CD
‘
CD
CL
C
C—
CL
0
CD
_
C?
)
-,
-.
—
C
C
C?
)
Cl
-
B
CD
Z
a-
D
CL
CD
CD
CD
-
3<
C?
)
0
Ci
)
<
-
0.
C)
CD
-‘
_C
D
ëF
•
U)
C)
‘<
o
-o
p
o
‘
CD
D
—
Cl
)
-D
CD
;x
:
-
(0
-
0
CD
CD 0.
Cl
Q 0
CD
=
0
:3
-
-
..
Cl
)
CD
-
Cl
0.
CD
CD
c
CD
..
C
D
EQ
0.
CD
t
C—
a
CD
-.
z
CD
00
D B Cl
)
0 0
.
.
C)
(0
p.
ii
i
—
>
o
o
a
CD
D
U)
CD
CD
m 3m
Cl
)
C)
CD =
>-
o
0
1D
.
=
3-
a.
,
m
0
0
CD
Cl
)
Z
U)
Z
><
CD
CD
U)
m B Cl
)
CD
C.
)
00
=5’
0.>a.
CD
.
C-
)
CD 0 0 :3 CD
m 3 Cl
)
-U
:3
.a CD
m Cl
)
0
N ‘ç
)
I,
Pr
C’
..I
4
0-o I-C)0z -nmm C,
)
5
a
I’
0 -3
:3 3
0
Zoning Districts .
Table 4-2
.4.3 Residential Zoning Districts
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts
Minimum Lot Minimum Building/Structure Mm.
Zoning Standards [1][5]Property Line Setbacks [2][4]Max Building
District (Ord.25-07 §1)[9](Ord.25.01 §1)BuIlding Width (ft.)Max.Net
Density Area Width Side Height
(unIts/acre)(sq ft.)(ft.)Front (ft.)(it)Rear (ft.)(ft)[10]
RE-i 1/10 Ac.10 Ac.200 50 50 50 30 20
RE 1/2.5 Ac.2.5 Ac.200 50 50 50 30 20
E-i 1 1 Ac.[3]100 25 25 25 30 20
25-
arterials;E 2 Y2 Ac.[31 75 10 15 30 20
15-other
streets
25.
arterials;R 4 1/4 Ac.60 10 15 30 20
15-other
streets
fl-i 8 5,000 50 15 10 15 30 20
Single-family 25-
=18,000;arterials;R-2 4 60 10 10 30 20Duplex=15-other
27,000 streets
40,000,
Residential 5,400 sq.60;
Uses:ft/unit Lots 25-RM Max =8 and [4][8](Ord.Greater arterials;(Ord.Mm =3 25-07 §1)than 15-other 10 [61 10 30 20 [7]18-01 Senior
#14)Institutional Senior 100,000 streets
Institutional sq.ft.:Living Uses:
Max =24 Living Uses:200
L1/2Ac
J
Notes to Table 4-2:
[1](a)See Chapter 4,§43.D.which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for single-family residential
subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4,§4.3,D.1.
(b)See Chapter 11,§11.3,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for clustered lots in open space
developments.
(c)See Chapter 11,§11.4,which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area)for attainable housing.
(d)See Chapter 7,§7.1,which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area)for development on steep slopes.
(Ord.2-02 §1)
[2]See Chapter 7,§7.6,for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands.(Ord.2-02 #5;Ord.11-02 §1)
[3]If private wells or septic systems are used,the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres.See also the regulations set forth in
§7.12,Adequate Public Facilities.”
[4]Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 sciuare feet;however,each individual
townhome unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000 square foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
[5]All development,except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot,shall also be subject to a maximum floor
area ratio (FAR)of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%.(Ord.25-07 §1)
[6]Zero side yard setbacks (known as ‘zero lot line development”)are allowed for townhome developments.
[7]Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park.
[8]Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f.and 27,000 s.f respectively.(Ord 18-01
#14)
[9]All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings or
lots.The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads,the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or
recorded easement or the property line,whichever produces a greater setback.The setback shall be the same as the
applicable minimum building/structure setback.(Ord.11-02 §1;Ord.25-07 §1)
[10]See Chapter 1,§1.9.E,which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes.(Ord.18-02 #3)
Supp.8 4-7