HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE 179 Centennial Dr 2001-06-05
DATE: June 5, 2001
REQUEST: A request by Jeffrey and Susan Hancock for a variance from the 50-foot front yard setback as required in the “RE” Rural Estate zoning district.
LOCATION: 179 Centennial Drive, within the unincorporated Estes Valley. Centennial Drive is located off Little Valley Road.
FILE #: HANCOCK, JEFF & SUSAN 6/5/01
I. SITE DATA TABLE:
Parcel Number(s): 2406321012 Total Development Area: 2.12 acres Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: S.F. Residential Proposed Land Use: Same Existing Zoning: “RE” Adjacent
Zoning- East: “RE” North: “RE” West: “RE” South: “RE” Adjacent Land Uses- East: S.F. Residential North: S.F. Residential West: S.F. Residential South: S.F. Residential
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a variance to Table 4-2 “RE” Front Yard Setback of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, the applicant wishes
to deviate from the mandated 50-foot front yard setback to allow a setback of 18-feet to allow for the construction of a detached two-car garage (see site plan).
The applicants’ builder approached Community Development Staff approximately two months ago about the possibility of building a detached garage with an accessory dwelling unit above.
Staff informed the builder (Bruce Gregg) that under the Estes Valley Development Code, detached accessory dwelling units are not allowed. Any vote of approval should be clear in that
the approval is for a garage only, and not to be used as an accessory dwelling unit.
It is Staff’s opinion no “special circumstances or conditions” or “practical difficulty” exists for this lot. Based on this, Staff believes the minimum standards set forth in the Estes
Valley Development Code have not been met, and the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to grant a variance.
III. 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. However, the Code Enforcement Section of the Larimer County Building Department has noted
“that no inspections were conducted under Permit 93-E545 for the installation of a 500-gallon propane tank.” Any approval should include the condition of arranging the appropriate inspection
through the county building department.
IV. 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.
It is Staff’s opinion there are no special circumstances associated with this lot.
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; The applicant built the principal dwelling unit in 1993; therefore, the property may continue to be
used for residential use.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
The requested variance is to place the southeast corner of a garage within 18’ of the property line, an encroachment of 32’ from the 50’ required. This equates to a 64% variance from
the standards. Due to the lack of special circumstances and other locational options, Staff considers this 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;
Other structures within the neighborhood conform to the setbacks, which provide a consistent series of setbacks from Centennial Drive.
The construction of the proposed structure within 18-feet of the right-of-way would be out of character for the neighborhood.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer; Not applicable.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement;
The zoned setback at the time of construction was 75-feet from the road centerline or 30-feet from the property line, whichever was greater. The 50-foot standard was implemented with
the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code in February 2000.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.
The garage could be sited elsewhere on the lot and conform.
-PLUG IN GRAPHIC OF SITE PLAN WITH OTHER OPTIONS-
3. 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. Not applicable.
4. 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. Not applicable.
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The Board should use their best judgment in determining if this represents
the least deviation that would afford relief. Due to the majority of the structure being within the zoned setback, it is Staff’s opinion the request is for the maximum deviation.
6. 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. Not applicable.
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.
A vote of approval should include the following conditions:
Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect.
Compliance with the submitted site plan.
Successful completion of appropriate inspection of the 500-gallon propane tank.
The structure is to be used only for a garage and storage, not as living quarters.
V. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff finds:
This is a request by Jeffrey and Susan Hancock for a variance to Table 4-2 “RE” Front Yard Setback of the Estes Valley Development Code. Specifically, the applicant wishes to deviate
from the mandated 50-foot front yard setback to allow a setback of 18-feet to allow for the construction of a detached two-car garage (see site plan).
The site is located at 179 Centennial Drive, within the unincorporated Estes Valley.
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 Code Enforcement Section of the Larimer County Building Department has noted “that no inspections were conducted under Permit 93-E545 for the installation of a 500-gallon propane
tank.”
There do not appear to be any special circumstances associated with this lot.
The applicant built the principal dwelling unit in 1993; therefore, the property may continue to be used for residential use.
The requested variance is to place the southeast corner of a garage within 18’ of the property line, an encroachment of 32’ from the 50’ required. This equates to a 64% variance from
the standards, which Staff considers substantial.
The construction of the proposed structure within 18-feet of the right-of-way would be out of character for the neighborhood.
The zoned setback at the time of construction was 75-feet from the road centerline or 30-feet from the property line, whichever was greater. The 50-foot standard was implemented with
the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code in February 2000.
The garage could be sited almost anywhere else on the lot and conform.
The Board should use their best judgment in determining if this represents the least deviation that would afford relief. Due to the majority of the structure being within the zoned
setback, it is Staff’s opinion the request is for the maximum deviation.
A vote of approval should include the following conditions:
Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a certified engineer, surveyor, or architect.
Compliance with the submitted site plan.
Successful completion of appropriate inspection of the 500-gallon propane tank.
The structure is to be used only for a garage and storage, not as living quarters.
Therefore, Staff recommends DISAPPROVAL of the requested variance to Table 4-2 “RE” Front Yard Setback of the Estes Valley Development Code.
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 #3 – Hancock Setback Request (Centennial Hills)
Hancock 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