Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE 1341 David Dr 2006-02-07 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND DATE OF BOA MEETING: February 7, 2006 LOCATION: The site is located at 1341 David Drive, within the Town of Estes Park. Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 1, Fall River Estates. PETITIONER/PROPERTY OWNERS: Andrew Collins/Same STAFF CONTACT: Alison Chilcott APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE: Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) REQUEST: The petitioner requests a variance to EVDC §4.3.C.5 Setback Table 4.2, which requires a minimum setback of twenty-five feet from all property lines in the “E-1” Estate zoning district, to build a single-family residence on this undeveloped lot. Specifically the petitioner requests a ten-foot variance to the twenty-five- foot front property line setback to build fifteen feet from the northern and eastern property lines. The footprint of the proposed two-story house is 32.5 feet by 48 feet. The lower level, which includes a two-car garage, will not be fully excavated to minimize cut. The Statement of Intent requests a reduction in the setbacks from twenty- five feet to fifteen feet along the northern and eastern property lines. If the Board of Adjustment chooses to approve this variance request, this would only permit construction of the improvements shown on the submitted plans. Approval of this variance request will not permanently reduce the 1341 David Drive Front-Yard Setback Variance Request Estes Park Community Development Department Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com RMNP Rocky Mountain National Park RMNP USFS USFS USFS Lake Estes Marys Lake Lily Lake Mac Gregor Ranch YMCA Conference Grounds 36 EVDC Boundary EVDC Boundary Eagle Rock RMNP Fall River Entrance RMNP Beaver Meadows Entrance Prospect Mt. - (/34 (/36(/7 (/36 (/34 (/36 (/7 Cheley Camps USFS USFS Page #2 – Setback Variance Request for 1341 David Drive minimum required setbacks. Any future plans to encroach into the twenty- five foot setbacks along the northern and eastern lines will require approval of a separate variance application. II. SITE DATA AND MAPS Number of Lots/Parcels One Parcel Number(s) 35222-05-011 Development Area 1.29 acres per Tax Assessor 56,192 square feet Zoning “E-1” Estate Existing Land Use Undeveloped Proposed Land Use Single-Family Residential ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Adjacent Zoning Adjacent Land Use North “E-1” Estate Single-Family Residential South “E-1” Estate Single-Family Residential and Undeveloped East “A” Accommodations/Highway Corridor Accommodations/High-Intensity (Creekside Suites and Creekside Condos) West Outside the Estes Valley Planning Area Rocky Mountain National Park SERVICES Water Town of Estes Park Sewer Upper Thompson Sanitation District Fire Protection Town of Estes Park Electric Town of Estes Park Telephone Qwest LOCATION MAP F a l l R i v e r R d . David Dr. Fish Hatchery Rd. Fish Hatchery Rd. Fish Hatchery Rd. Fish Hatchery Rd. F a l l R i v e r D r . E-1 RMNP S-F S-F F a l l R i v e r R d . David Dr. Fish Hatchery Rd. Fish Hatchery Rd. Fish Hatchery Rd. Fish Hatchery Rd. F a l l R i v e r D r . E-1 RMNP S-F S-F Page #3 – Setback Variance Request for 1341 David Drive AERIAL PHOTO D a v i d D r i v e D a v i d D r i v e SITE PLAN III. REVIEW CRITERIA All variance applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 3.6.C and all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. This variance request does not fall within the parameters of staff-level review and will be reviewed by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. Page #4 – Setback Variance Request for 1341 David Drive IV. REFERRAL COMMENTS This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. The following reviewing agency staff and/or adjacent property owners submitted comments. Estes Park Building Department See Carolyn McEndaffer’s note dated January 16, 2006 on the All Affected Agencies memo. Estes Park Public Works Department See Greg Sievers’ memo to Alison Chilcott dated January 20, 2006. Town Attorney See Greg White’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated January 16, 2006. Upper Thompson Sanitation District See Reed Smedley’s letter to Alison Chilcott dated January 9, 2006. V. STAFF FINDINGS Staff finds: 1. 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 Finding: There are special circumstances associated with this lot that are not common to most lots in the “E-1” Estate zoning district and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the Code standards. The vast majority of the lot is very steeply sloped and is not the most suitable area for development. The proposed house will involve some cut into the hillside, however, cut is minimized by raising the finished floor of the house and not fully excavating the lower floor (see the Right Elevation provided by the applicant). Generally, the house and associated improvement, e.g., driveway, are located on the flattest land. The house could be shifted slightly to the north and east to further minimize cut; however, this may raise concerns with the Page #5 – Setback Variance Request for 1341 David Drive property owner immediately to the north of this property, since this would move the proposed residence closer to his house. 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 Finding: There can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. A smaller house could be built that meets the setbacks or the property owner could build the same size house further west on the lot, which would result in significantly more cut and more land disturbance. b. Whether the variance is substantial. Staff Finding: The variance is not substantial. A small portion of the proposed house will encroach into the twenty-five-foot setback. 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 Finding: Staff finds that the proposed house is in character with the neighborhood. This area includes a mix of single-family homes and accommodations units that vary in style and size. Staff has met a few times with Howard Speer, the property owner immediately to the north at 1361 David Drive and he has expressed concern that the house design is out of character with the residential homes on David Drive. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The variances will not affect the delivery of public services. Page #6 – Setback Variance Request for 1341 David Drive e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Staff Finding: The property was purchased after the February 1, 2000 effective date of the Estes Valley Development Code and with knowledge of the requirements. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: A house could be built that complies with the setbacks. 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. Staff Finding: The submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the applicant's 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. 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. Staff Finding: The variance, if granted, will not reduce the size of the lot. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The variance offers the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Page #7 – Setback Variance Request for 1341 David Drive 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. Staff Finding: The proposed use is permitted. 7. In granting this variance, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standards varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff recommends that a detailed grading and drainage plan be submitted, which is stamped by an engineer. 8. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. All letters and memos submitted by reviewing agency staff, referred to in Section IV of this staff report, are incorporated as staff findings. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Compliance with the submitted plans. 2. Compliance with the comments in Greg Sievers’ January 20, 2006 memo.