HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE 1634 Black Squirrel Dr Request 2013Little Valley Setback Variance Request
Estes Park Community Development Department,Planning Division
_____________
Room 230,Town Hall,170 MacGregor Avenue
PC Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517
Phone:970-577-3721 Fax:970-586-0249 www.estes.org
ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING DATE:May 7 2013
REQUEST:Variance from the RE Rural Estate 25-foot front yard setback
requirement to allow construction of an attached two-car garage.
LOCATION:1634 Black Squirrel Drive.
How to get there:Turn off Fish Creek Road onto Little Valley Road.Stay on Little Valley
Road until it ‘T’s at Black Squirrel Drive (this is past St.Francis Way,through the Little
Valley gate);turn right onto Black Squirrel Drive.1634 is on the right as you drive
northwest on Black Squirrel.
APPLICANTIOWNER:Timber Creek Homecrafter,Inc (Greg Westley)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:
Surveyor:Van Horn Engineering
Parcel Number:3534100025 Development Area:1 acre
Existing Land Use:Single-family residence Proposed Land Use:Same
Zoning Designation:E-1 Estate
Adjacent Zoning:
East:F-i Estate North:N/A
West:F-i Estate South:F-i Estate
Adjacent Land Uses:
East:Single-family residence North:Rocky Mountain National Park
West:Single-family residence South:Single-family residence
Services:
Water:Town Sewer:UTSD
The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional
Standards”of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow a front yard setback of 20-
feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required.
The property setback line in the Little Valley subdivision is offset from the property line
by 25-feet.This is because the lots are measured to the centerline of the road instead
of having the road area dedicated as right-of-way (think of the road as being in an
easement instead of public right-of-way).
What this means is the setback from the true property line would be almost 45-feet,and
the setback from the road would be 50-feet.However,with the offset setback line
because of the easement/right-of-way situation,the structure would be setback 20-feet
from edge of the road easement and therefore requires a variance be granted by the
Board of Adjustment.
The purpose of the variance request is to allow an attached two-car garage,with
finished room above.
Staff Comment:
1.The 1.6-acre parcel is small for the RE district,which has a minimum lot size of 2.5
acres and for which the 50-foot setback were intended (the one-acre zoning
designation has 25-foot setbacks).
2.The lot is nonconforming to shape.Instead of right-angled lot lines,which maximum
building area,the lot has obtuse angles (triangle),which minimize building area (the
lot corners have overlapping setback requirement).
3.These two factors combine to eliminate any location on the site that would not
require a variance (or minor modification).
4.The structure would be located between the road and the house (currently under
construction).This means the garage would be placed in cut slope,tucking’it close
to the road and lowering the roof line below the road as much as possible.This
means the proposed location would have the least visual impact on the
neighborhood.
5.The structure would be situated similar to others in the area with uphill access.
6.The garage would be located approximately 200-feet horizontally and 40-feet
vertically from the nearest structure.
7.Staff has received correspondence from the Little Valley Owners Association and a
nearby property owner,who oppose the variance request.
8.Exterior lighting should minimize offsite glare in order to minimize overall visual
impact on the neighborhood.
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 contained therein.These standards are included in the Board
notebooks.
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.
Neighborhood comments.The Little Valley Owners Association and an adjoining
property owner have provided a letter opposing the request.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,May 7 2013 Page 2 of 3
Little Valley Variance Request
FINDINGS:
1.This request complies with review criteria set forth in Section 3.6.C of the Estes
Valley Development Code.
2.Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with Code standards.
3.The variance is not substantial.
4.The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered,nor
would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment.
5.The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public services.
6.The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
7.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.
8.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.
9.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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval conditional to:
1.Compliance with the site plan and building design,as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
2.Prior to pouring foundation,surveyor shall submit Surveyors Setback Certificate
(available in Community Development Department)that verifies compliance with
approved site plan.
3.Exterior lighting shall be subject to review and approval of staff.Fixtures shall
minimize direct glare on off-site properties.This condition shall apply to exterior
lighting on the main structure as well as the garage addition.
SUGGESTED MOTION:I move APPROVAL (or disapproval)of the requested variance
with the findings and conditions recommended by staff.
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment,May 7 2013 Page 3 of 3
Little Valley Variance Request
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
r
I—
-.
.
--
Li
t
t
l
e
Va
l
l
e
y
Se
t
b
a
c
k
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
;
Es
t
e
s
Va
l
l
e
y
Bo
a
r
d
of
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
,
Ma
y
7
20
1
3
April 29.2013
TO:Fte Valley Board of Adjutment
FROM:little Valley Owner’Aociation Board
R[:little Valley Variance Request.Black quirrel Drive
The L.VOA Board and our Covenants Compliance Committee i reponnble for monitoring and
approving any building requet/variance requet for all Little Valley properhe.We trive to
insure the integrity of our neighborhood.Through this proce we work very hard to bereponiveandfairwhenconideringallrequet.
Mr.Westlej gave u the original building plane with a variance request for the placement of the
houe on the north aide 50.7 feet from the road.We granted him thi requet becaue the road
along that property line wa out of the precribod right-of-way.
Three property owner along Black quirrel then received notification that an additional variancewarequetedbecauseMr.Wetley now want to add a garage.One of thoe three property
owner have reponded (letter attached)with their reaon for not wanting to grant thin
variance.
Our Covenant Compliance Committee and our Board met to digcu this iue.W upport th
property owners that are affected by thig request.We frequently meet with the builder and
adjacent property owners before the requet get to the te Valley Board of Adjutment.
l-litorically we have been able to make adjutment and compromise.but we did not have that
opportunity.The entire garage structure iz inide of the 75’required etback from the road.In
addition we do not have information a to the heightfslope of the garage.o it i difficult to
judge the viual impact of thin tructure from Black quirrel.
We recommend placement of the garage at the end of the houe where it would have the leant
visual impact from the road and till be in the cut lope.Thin may till require a variance,but
one Ihat would be acceptable to the Board and the property owner.
We undertand that we have many lots with difficult topography and that etback are often
unachievable,which i why we granted the initial variance.However,other owner have worked
very hard to stay within the framework of our covenantg:downizing,building a single car
garage or a one and a half car garage.Thin kind of planning wa part of the original gite plane
and not an after thought,or an attempt to secure a sale of a pec house.If the intent wa to
include a garage on a challenging property,that hould have been planned for initially,taking
into consideration the size and shape of the lot.
We would also diagree with the statement that thin houe ic already smaller than many in the
neighborhood.There are many that are larger.on large lot and there are many that are maller.
.
1h
.ECV
APR30 2013
L)
LITTLE VALLEY OWNERS’ASSOCIATION
5000 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD •ESTES PARK,CO 80517
..
If tho Mr.Wotlog purchaod tho proportj without looking at fli covonant and uridrtanding
tho ot-back.that i not a roaon for u to grant a varianeo.
Our Board i moro than willing to work with tho buildor in eroating a bottor option for all
cornornod.but at thi timo wo roquot gou dong this variano.
incorolg.
Loo Konnicilco.Progidont LVOA
..
Property Owner Letter
We are residents of 1637 Black Squirrel brive and our property adjoins the
property in question to the west (Lot 18).
Our position is that it is not appropriate to grant the variance as requested from
both the Estes Valley bevelopment Code and the covenants and restrictions of the
Little Valley Homeowners Association.The garage as proposed would move the
structure less than 20 feet from the setback and about 44.8 feet from the edge
of the road.
While there was a variance granted for the house,this was done because the road
makes an incursion well into the applicant’s property but still well over 100 feet
from the property line to the north.Thus,while both the Code and the Covenants
are violated,their spirit remains intact because of the distance of the neighbors’
property lines from the north end of the house.
Placing a garage west of the house is an entirely different matter as the property
lines and road are very close to each other.Therefore,the edge of the garage
will be about 44.8 feet short of the property line,19.6 feet from the setback,and
about 52.3 feet from the middle of the road,about 17.7 feet short of the Little
Valley covenant requirements of 75 feet.On both counts,it is an extreme
deviation from the Code and the Little Valley Covenants.
iegard less of the decision of the Board of Adjustment,the Little Valley covenants
should be fully enforced to fulfill the spirit of their intent,preservation of the
rural nature of our area.
The key difference between the garage and the original house is the extreme
incursion of the road to the north into the applicant’s property and the fact that
the road is well outside the property lines and the setbacks.
In summary,the request for variance from both the Estes Valley bevelopment
Code and the Little Valley covenants and restrictions should be denied.
Tom Street and Susan Wolf
ROAD IS
OUT OF ITS
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY UNES
WITH PROPOSED TELEPHONE
OVERHEAD SERVICE TO HOUSE
•
e
0
—OH U—
0
00.00
(00.00)
1”PIPE
0O590-I
()0
CD
SURVEYOR’S NOTES:
1.THIS SITE PLAN IS REPRESEI
A LAND SURVEY PLAT NOR AN
2.THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE A
SPIKE SET FLUSH WITH THE GRO
LARIMER COUNTY GIS INFORMATI0I
3.A COPY OF LITtLE VALLEY 1ST
DETERMINATION AND EASEMENT RE
HORN ENGINEERING.
4.THE LOT IS ZONED RURAL—ES