HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2023-10-03
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK
170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room
Tuesday, October 3, 2023
9:00 a.m.
Estes Park, CO 80517
The meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s YouTube channel and recorded and posted
to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS: New Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck
AGENDA APPROVAL
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Board of Adjustment Minutes dated May 2, 2023
PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address).
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Variance Request 1454 Narcissus Drive Planner I Washam
Reduce the rear setback to 10 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required to allow the construction
of a garage.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Upcoming meeting items
ADJOURN
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
September 27, 2023
1
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 2, 2023
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the Town of
Estes Park on May 2, 2023.
Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Vice-Chair Wayne Newsom, Board Member Joe Holtzman
Attending: Chair Moreau, Board Member Holtzman, Community Development Director
Jessica Garner, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner I Kara
Washam, Town Board Liaison Barbara McAlpine, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Holtzman
Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were 21 people in
attendance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 2-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda. The
motion passed 2-0.
Public Comment: none
VARIANCE REQUEST 1895 Fall River Road Senior Planner Woeber
The Applicant requests two variances. One would allow employee housing units to
exceed the maximum allowable 800 square feet per unit at 1200 square feet. The
second would allow the total cumulative square feet of employee housing to exceed
that of the total square footage of the commercial use under Section 4.4.C.4. of the
Estes Park Development Code (EPDC).
The property is within a CO-outlying commercial Zone district. Restrictive Covenant
Agreements are required for all employee housing.
Discussion: The board stated that it is not unreasonable to propose bigger living
quarters. The location is such that it won't bother any surrounding neighbors.
Public Comment: none
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Newsom) to approve the variance requests in
accordance with the findings as presented. The motion passed 2-0.
VARIANCE REQUEST 160 First Street Planner I Washam
The Applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a reduced front setback of 6.9
feet in lieu of the fifteen feet (15') and 16.4 feet in lieu of the twenty-five feet (25')
respective setbacks required in the CO (Commercial Outlying) Zoning District under
Section 4.4.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). Parking will be
eliminated on the northwest side to add a deck.
Discussion: none
Public Comment: none
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Holtzman) to approve the variance request for
reduced front setback and reduced arterial road setback with findings as outlined in the
staff report. The motion passed 2-0.
dra
f
t
3
Board of Adjustment, May 2, 2023 – Page 2
VARIANCE REQUEST 281 W Riverside Drive Planner I Washam
The Applicant proposes eliminating the front setback on Moraine Avenue and the
side setback on the north lot line in lieu of the 8- and 10-foot respective setbacks
required in the CD-Commercial Downtown Zone District. Setbacks are required to be
measured from the platted lot lines. The property to the south is Short Term Rental.
The property to the north has a pending Short-term rental license, making them
commercial use properties. Commercial use allows for zero setbacks.
Discussion: When asked why the pre-made unit can't be 10 feet from the property line,
Carolyn Newberry and Terry Boegener, applicants, explained that the original plan was
to have the container the long way against Moraine; the Town asked it be rotated. This
being a 60-foot lot, 40 feet with setbacks, the plat is at an angle, and there was no room
for outdoor seating. There will be access from Moraine onto the rooftop deck. Stairs and
handicap access will be installed.
The applicants stated they would provide privacy fences on the north and south and
enclose the garbage receptacles. Outdoor TVs, chairs and tables are planned for the
south side of the property. They will do all possible to make it aesthetically pleasing;
however, this hearing concerns the setbacks, not the structure's design.
Public Comment:
Mark Newman, 253 W Riverside and 250 Moraine, noted that the massage business
does have a setback on Moraine, thus setting precedence. Concerns with changing the
quiet artisan feel of the neighborhood, noise and many other food service issues. With
the loss of two bedrooms, a mixed-use building makes more sense.
Town Attorney Kramer clarified that while a vacation home is a dwelling,
accommodation use vs. household living makes it a commercial use, not residential.
Joe Hladic, 286 Moraine, has withdrawn his vacation home application; therefore, it is
no longer a commercial property or subject to zero lot line use. He feels that this is a
disregard for civil rights.
David Sward, 271 W Riverside, applied for STR on April 10. He feels as though the Bar
would be painting neighbors into a corner to have permanent STRs.
Gerald Mayo, 265 Lookout St., noise and establishments are part of Estes Park in the
Commercial Downtown zoning. Fence lines are not property lines. Replat wasn't filed
until Mr. Boegener bought the property, revealing the correct property lines.
Durango Kelly Steele, 251 W Riverside Drive, opposes the variance request. This will
drastically change the character of the neighborhood.
Paul Brown, 254 Solomon Drive, requested denial of the setback variances, arguing
that short-term rentals should not be considered commercial use. The retaining wall is
unreliable, as seen in the 2013 flood.
It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Moreau) to deny the variance requests with
the finding that Review Criteria 2.a.- there can be a beneficial use of the property
without the variance. The motion to deny passed 2-0.
There being no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.
Jeff Moreau, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
dra
f
t
4
5
Community Development Memo
To: Chair Jeff Moreau
Estes Park Board of Adjustment
Through: Jason Damweber, Interim Community Development Director
From: Kara Washam, Planner I
Date: October 3, 2023
Application: Variance Request for Rear Setback
1454 Narcissus Drive, Estes Park
Mountain Life Properties LLC, Owner/Applicant
Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering, Consultant
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance
request, subject to the findings described in the report.
Land Use: 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Designation: (Future Land
Use): Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors
Zoning District: Estate (E-1)
Site Area: 1.27 Acres (+/- 55,321 SF)
☒PUBLIC HEARING ☐ORDINANCE ☐ LAND USE☐CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ☐ RESOLUTION ☒ OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL ☒ YES ☐ NO
Objective:
The Applicant requests approval of a variance to reduce the rear setback along the
north property line to ten feet (10') in lieu of the twenty-five feet (25') rear setback
required in the E-1 (Estate) Zone District under Section 4.3.C.4. (Table 4-2) of the
Estes Park Development Code (EPDC).
Background:
The subject property is in the Park Entrance Estates Subdivision and contains one
single-family residence constructed in 2013. The Applicant, Mountain Life Properties
LLC, purchased the property in 2019. The lot is 1.27 acres and is conforming to
dimensional standards and use. The unusual shape and topography have limited the
buildable area of the lot. Existing access to the property is by a gravel driveway from
Narcissus Drive. No new access is proposed at this time.
6
2
Variance Description
The Applicant requests a variance to allow a reduced rear setback of ten feet (10')
along the north property line in lieu of the twenty-five feet (25') rear setback required
in the E-1 (Estate) Zone District. The Applicant proposes to construct a 24'x24'
detached garage with access in line with the existing gravel driveway.
Proposed Site Plan
Location and Context:
The 1.27-acre lot is located at 1454 Narcissus Drive, approximately 1,800' north of
Moraine Ave. The subject property and all adjacent properties are zoned E-1 (Estate)
except the parcel to the south, which is zoned EV E Estate in unincorporated Larimer
County. All adjacent parcels are residential in use and low density.
7
3
Vicinity Map
Zoning and Land Use Summary Table
Comprehensive Plan (2022) Zone Uses
Subject
Site Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential
North Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential
South Suburban Estate Unincorporated Larimer
County Residential
East Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential
West Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Residential
8
4
Zoning Map
Project Analysis
Review Criteria:
The Board of Adjustment (BOA) is the decision-making body for variance requests. In
accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., Variances, Standards for Review, applications
for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria
contained therein. The Standards with staff findings for each are as follows:
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. 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: Special conditions exist due to the unique shape of the property,
zoning setbacks, topography, and easements. The parcel is shallow in the
center, where garage placement is feasible. In addition, substantial rock
outcroppings limit buildability in other areas of the lot.
9
5
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: The property can be beneficial without the variance and a garage,
but that feature is common in the neighborhood and desired in winter weather
conditions.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The variance request for a ten-foot (10') rear setback in lieu of
twenty-five feet (25') is moderately 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;
10
6
Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood will not be
substantially altered with this proposed garage in proximity to the existing house.
It is not in a view line of others, nor in a significant environmental area where
there would be an impact. The Board of Adjustment approved a similar variance
request for an adjacent property at 530 Heinz Parkway on February 2, 2010
(Attachments 5 & 6). That property's owner constructed a garage due to that
variance approval.
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services
such as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The placement of the garage will impact the existing sewer line.
The owners are willing to relocate the sewer line at their expense. Other public
services are not affected by this variance request.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: The current owners purchased the property knowing that placing
a garage might be challenging. As they have used the property, they desire a
garage, which drives the need for a variance, a utility relocation and easement
changes.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some
method other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The Applicant could consider proposing an attached garage.
However, that approach would radically impact the entrance of the house. If the
garage were smaller, a variance may not be needed. The proposed 24'x24' is
reasonable in size for use but still requires some form of variance to avoid the
steeper portions of the lot and work with the current access for the parcel with
minimal additional disturbance.
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: 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.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
11
7
5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the
regulations that will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The proposed variance would be the least deviation from the
Development Code.
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 zoning district containing the property for which the variance
is sought.
Staff Finding: The Applicant requests a setback variance to construct a
detached garage. This is an accessory use permitted by right in the E-1 (Estate)
zoning district per Table 5-1 of the EPDC.
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.
Staff Finding: Staff has no recommended conditions of approval.
Review Agency Comments
The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. No
concerns were received. Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) states that the
proposed "new sewer main and three new manholes" and a new 20-foot utility
easement are agreeable (Attachment 4)
Public Notice
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing
requirements. As of the time of writing this report, Staff received two inquiries for the
variance request. Neither inquiry expressed opposition to the proposed variance
request.
● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on September 18, 2023.
● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on September 15, 2023.
● Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website.
Advantages
This variance would allow the Applicant to construct a detached garage.
Disadvantages
There are no known disadvantages of the variance to allow a reduced rear setback of
ten feet (10') in lieu of the twenty-five feet (25') rear setback required in the E-1 (Estate)
Zone District.
Action Recommended
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with
setbacks consistent with the Sketch Plan (Attachment 3).
12
8
Finance/Resource Impact
N/A
Level of Public Interest
Little or none.
Sample Motions
I move to approve the variance request for a ten-foot (10') rear setback along the north
property line for the subject property addressed as 1454 Narcissus Drive in the Town of
Estes Park, with findings as outlined in the staff report.
I move to approve the variance request for a ten-foot (10') rear setback along the north
property line for the subject property addressed as 1454 Narcissus Drive in the Town of
Estes Park, with conditions [state conditions] and with findings as outlined in the staff
report.
I move to deny the requested variance with the following findings [state
reason/findings].
I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance].
Attachments
1. Application
2. Statement of Intent
3. Sketch Plan
4. Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) Comment Letter
5. 530 Heinz Variance 2010 Report
6. 530 Heinz Variance Approval Letter
.
13
Revised 2020.04.23 ks
Condominium Map
Preliminary Map
Final Map
Pre-App
Development Plan
Special Review
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Final Subdivision Plat
Minor Subdivision Plat
Amended Plat
Project Description
Lot Size Area of Disturbance in Acres
Proposed Land Use
Town Well None
Town Well None
Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic
Is a sewer lift station required?Yes No
Existing Gas Service Other None
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Are there wetlands on the site?Yes No
Site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete?Yes No
Name of Primary Contact Person
Complete Mailing Address
Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer
Existing Land Use
Existing Water Service
Attachments
Proposed Water Service
Site Access (if not on public street)
Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which
may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report,
wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information.
Project Address
Parcel ID #
Legal Description
General Information
Boundary Line Adjustment
ROW or Easement Vacation
Street Name Change
Rezoning Petition
Annexation Request
Time Extension
Other: Please specify
Project Name
Supplemental Map
ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION
Type of Application
Submittal Date:
Site Information
Application fee
Statement of intent
2 copies (folded) of plat or plan
11" X 17" reduced copy of plat or plan
Xcel
Primary Contact Information
Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721 Fax: (970) 586-0249 www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment
Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Digital Copies of plats/plans in TIFF or PDF format emailed to
planning@estes.org
PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE BOX
Sign Purchase ($10)
14
15
16
STATEMENT OF INTENT for the
SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION of
LOT 2, BLOCK 2 OF PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES
ALSO KNOWN AS 1454 NARCISSUS DRIVE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517
August 25, 2023
PROJECT LOCATION:
The proposed development is within the Town of Estes Park, in Section 26, Township 5 North, Range
73 West of the 6th P.M. The property is located adjacent to and north of Narcissus Drive which is in
the High Drive area (NW Estes Park area). The property address is 1454 Narcissus Drive.
OWNER:
The owner of this land is Mountain Life Properties, LLC with a contact of Melody Stone (record
owner), who owns both adjacent lots shown on the attached sketch plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project is proposed as a detached 24’x24’ garage with 2’ eaves on the subject property. The
proposed location of the garage is approximately 8.4’ west of the west edge of the existing house. This
property is zoned E-1 (Estate), which dictates 25’ building setbacks on all sides. The existing lot is
approximately 1.27 acres; however, due to the unique shape of the property, zoning setbacks, existing
topography, and existing easements the buildable area is minimal. Therefore, the intent of this
application is to achieve a setback variance to allow building of the proposed garage in a suitable
location on the lot. We are proposing a variance to allow the garage to be 10’ from the north property
line and far exceeding the existing 25’ setback on the east, west and south property lines.
The proposed garage location is in an existing utility easement and overtop of an existing sanitary
sewer line. Therefore, a new sewer main and 3 new manholes are proposed along with a new 20’
utility easement. One of the 3 new manholes is an existing manhole on Heinz parkway that will be
replaced to accommodate the grade change in the sewer line. The existing sewer easement will be
vacated and a portion of the existing sanitary sewer line will be abandoned. This utility modification
will happen if the variance is approved and likely won’t happen otherwise. Also, some modification to
the existing 10’ drainage easement is proposed to assure the proposed garage (and eaves) are out of
said easement.
No new access is proposed as a part of this application. The existing gravel driveway currently extends
to the location of the proposed garage.
Regarding “Practical Difficulty” justifying this variance, the following items are offered:
a. There can be beneficial use of the property without the variance and without a garage, but that
feature is common in the neighborhood and desired with our winter weather conditions.
b. The variance could be considered to be substantial when we are asking for 11’ and 25’ is the
standard; however, the 11’ requested is in keeping with easement dimensions around the parcel.
c. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered with this proposed
garage in proximity to the existing house. It is not in a view line of others, nor in a significant
environmental area where there would be impact.
17
d. The placement of the garage will impact the existing sewer line; however, the owners are willing to
relocate the sewer line at their expense. This is an indication of the limited area on site for a garage and
their desire to have a garage for indoor parking and storage.
e. The current owners did purchase the property with knowledge that placing a garage might be a
challenge. As they have used the property, they desire a garage, which drives the need for a variance, a
utility relocation and easement changes.
f. Other ways to obtain a garage without a variance would be to attach the garage. That approach would
radically impact the entrance of the house. If the garage were smaller, a variance may not be needed.
The proposed 24’x24’ is not an oversized garage and reasonable in size for the use, but still requires
some form of a variance to avoid the steeper portions of the lot and work with the current access for the
parcel with minimal additional disturbance.
Subject Property Legal Description (Taken from Deed at Reception NO. 20190065289):
Parcel I: Lot 2, Block 2, Park Entrance Estates (Subject Parcel)
Parcel II: Lot 16, Division 8, High Drive Heights, County of Larimer, State of Colorado
Also Known As: 1454 Narcissus Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
18
19
P.O. Box 568 | Estes Park, CO 80517
970-586-4544 | utsd.colorado.gov
September 9. 2023
RE: Setback Variance Application of Lot 2, Block 2 of Park Entrance Estates.
1454 Narcissus Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
Greetings Kara Washam, Planner I:
The Upper Thompson Sanitation District submits these general comments (in addition to those
submitted July 5, 2023) for the above referenced property:
1. The narrative in the Project Description of the proposed “new sewer main and 3 new
manholes” and a new 20-foot utility easement is agreeable to Upper Thompson Sanitation
district.
2. The property owner shall provide the District with engineered plans and profile drawings
of the proposed relocation of the sanitary sewer main for review and approval by District
staff. Prior to construction, the excavation company and engineering firm shall also have
a “Pre-Construction meeting with UTSD staff.
3. Sanitary sewer mains shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Appendix C –
Wastewater Collection System Specifications of the District’s Rules and Regulations.
Upon construction, the new sewer main extension shall enter a 2-year warranty period
with the excavator. Acceptance of the new sewer main extension is contingent upon
acceptance by the UTSD Board of Directors.
4. All costs of a sewer main relocation, including easement acquisitions, engineered design,
and construction of mains and manholes are the sole responsibility of the property
owner/developer.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at nromig@utsd.org
or 970.692.4237.
Respectfully,
Nathanael Romig
Collection Superintendent
20
P.O. Box 568 | Estes Park, CO 80517
970-586-4544 | utsd.colorado.gov
Figure 1. 8-inch vitrified clay pipe traverses 1454 Narcissus Drive.
Figure 2. UTSD Easement. Book 1655, page 0506.
21
DATE: February 2, 2010
REQUEST: Variance from the “E-
1” Estate 25-foot yard setback
requirement.
LOCATION: 530 Heinz Parkway,
within the Town of Estes Park
APPLICANT: Andy Human
PROPERTY OWNER: Scott
Spreen
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Shirk
SITE DATA TABLE:
Surveyor: England Surveying
Parcel Number: 3526311006 Development Area: 1.57 acres +/-
Number of Lots: One Existing Land Use: Single-family residential
Proposed Land Use: Same, with a detached
garage
Existing Zoning: “E-1” Estate
Adjacent Zoning-
East: “E-1” Estate North: “RE” Rural Estate
West: “E-1” Estate South: “E-1” Estate
Adjacent Land Uses-
East: Single-family residential North: Single-family residential
West: Single-family residential South: Single-family residential
Services-
Water: Town Sewer: UTSD
Fire Protection: Estes Park Volunteer
Spreen Variance 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
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
(/3 6
(/7
Cheley
Camps
USFS
USFS
22
Page #2 –Spreen Setback Request
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a
variance to Table 4-2 “Base Density and Dimensional Standards” of the Estes Valley
Development Code to allow a detached garage to be built with a corner located 5-feet
from the 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:
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: Staff finds that special circumstances exist and practical difficulty
may result from strict compliance with Code standards. Specifically, the shape,
slope, existing site disturbance, and location of the existing structure combine to
create special circumstances.
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: The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of
the property. Specifically:
∙ The existing single-family dwelling may continue it’s use.
b. Whether the variance is substantial;
Staff Finding: The requested variance could be considered substantial, with a
proposed setback of 5-feet. There is an unused 60-foot wide right-of-way
adjacent to the lot.
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: The essential character of the neighborhood would not be
substantially altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial
detriment.
23
Page #3 –Spreen Setback Request
d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such
as water and sewer.
Staff Finding: The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of public
services. Specifically:
∙ Public service providers received the variance application for opportunity to
review and comment. No concerns were expressed about adverse impacts to
the delivery of public services.
e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the
requirement;
Staff Finding: This factor addresses whether or not requirements changed during
current ownership of the property. For example, did the property owner purchase
the property prior to adoption of the required setbacks?
This factor is not intended to address whether or not the property owner reviewed
Estes Valley Development Code to determine which setbacks are applicable to
his/her property.
f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method
other than a variance.
Staff Finding: The applicant’s predicament could be mitigated through some
method other than a variance, though it would result in additional site
disturbance and grading.
3. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief.
Staff Finding: The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that
will afford relief. The Board should use their best judgment if the request represents
the least deviation.
4. 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 has provided suggested conditions of approval at the end of the
Staff report.
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.
24
Page #4 –Spreen Setback Request
Neighboring Property Owners. Staff has received one email from a neighbor, who
requested clarification about the location. Once clarified, the neighbor had no objection.
Staff has not received any other correspondence regarding this request.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, staff
finds:
1. Special circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict
compliance with Code standards.
2. The property can be put to beneficial use, according the zoning of the property.
3. The requested 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 applicant was unaware of the Code requirement when the property was
purchased.
7. The Applicant's predicament could be mitigated through some method other than a
variance, though it would result in additional grading and site disturbance.
8. The variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford
relief.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Approval of the variance 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.
25
Page #5 –Spreen Setback Request
12. Approval of the variance 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;
13. 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.
Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested variance to allow a rear yard
setback of 5-feet in lieu of the 25-foot setback required CONDITIONAL TO:
1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide
to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that
specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall
include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a
surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the
approved variance.
SUGGESTED MOTION: I move APPROVAL of the requested variance(s) with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff.
26
February 9, 2010
Scott and Michelle Spreen
530 Heinz Parkway
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: Spreen Variance Request
To Whom It May Concern:
The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment reviewed the Spreen Variance Request
variance request on Tuesday, February 2, 2010, at the regular monthly meeting. At
that time, the Board of Adjustment voted unanimous APPROVAL CONDITIONAL
TO:
1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall
provide to the Community Development Department a signed and stamped
certificate that specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved
variance, and shall include a specific reference to the distance to property lines.
Staff recommends a surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure
compliance with the approved variance.
Pursuant to Section 3.6 D. of the Estes Valley Development Code, “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.”
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to
contact Community Development at your convenience.
Respectfully,
_____________________
David W. Shirk, AICP
Planner
cc: Andy Human
27