BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA - PDF Free Download

PLANNING DEPARTMENT 970.668.4200 0037 Peak One Dr. PO Box 5660 www.summitcountyco.gov Frisco, CO 80443 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA January 18, 2017-5:30p.m. Buffalo Mountain Room County Commons 0037 Peak One Dr., SCR 1005 Frisco, CO 80443 Commission Dinner: 5:00pm Call to Order Approval of Summary of Motions: November 16, 2016 Approval of Agenda: Additions, Deletions, Change of Order REGULAR AGENDA: PLN16-126 Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village A request for a variance to the 25' rear setback to allow for a garage to be located 16' from the rear property line, Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village; a 0.13 acre parcel zoned R-2. PLN16-127 Setback Variance; Lot 93, 39 Degrees North, F#2 Variance request for a garage located within the front and side setbacks, and a front entry addition located within the front setback; Lot 93, 39 Degrees North Filing #2,.50 acres, zoned R-2. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Countywide Planning Commission issues Follow-up of previous BOCC meeting Board of Adjustment Issues

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MOTIONS November 16, 2016 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Birenbach, Mark Provino, George Resseguie, Ryan Taylor, Jerry Westhoff, Donald Craig (Alt.), Anthony Lord (Alt.) STAFF PRESENT: Don Reimer, Planning Director, Jessica Potter, Planner II, Keely Ambrose, Assistant County Attorney George Resseguie, Chairman, called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order at 5:30 p.m. Approval of Summary of Motions: The Summary of Motions of the October 19, 2016 meeting was approved as submitted. REGULAR AGENDA PLN16-121 Appeal of Code Interpretation Carports An appeal of the Planning Director s Determination that a Carport is a structure with floor area that counts towards the maximum 600 square feet of floor area permitted for accessory structures in the Backcountry zone DISCLOSURE: BOA member Craig (Alt.) stated for the record that he is working with the Attorney for the Applicant, Danny Teodoru, in a professional manner. He and Mr. Teodoru confirmed that there is no financial relationship between the two of them. Member Craig affirmed that he can remain impartial in hearing this case. Keely Ambrose, Assistant County Attorney voiced no concerns and the applicant had no objections to Member Craig hearing this application. DISCUSSION: The BOA discussion found that a carport is an accessory structure, and per the regulations found in 3514.05.3 of the Code, a carport must be counted towards the total allowance of 600 square feet of accessory structure size allowed on a parcel in the Backcountry zone district. MOTION: Brian Birenbach made a motion to deny the appeal request and uphold the Planning Director s determination that a Carport is a structure with size that counts towards the maximum 600 square feet of structure size permitted for accessory structures in the Backcountry zone, with the findings as documented in the Staff Report. Jerry Westhoff seconded the motion which was approved unanimously on a vote of 5-0. Alternate members Donald Craig and Tony Lord did not vote. Findings: 1. Garages and storage sheds are specifically identified in Section 3514.05.B.3 of the Land Use and Development Code as Accessory Uses, however Carports are not. The Summit County Land Use and Development Code does not include a specific definition for a carport, or clearly exclude or include the area of a carport in the definition of floor area, so it is appropriate to look to other sources to define the use, occupancy and floor area associated with a carport. 2. The Summit County Building Code includes carports in the U classification, similar to a private garage or shed. Page 1 of 2

3. The definitions of building area and floor area in the Building Code each include the area of a building not provided with surrounding walls included within the horizontal projection of the roof above as building area or floor area. 4. Because the Building Code clearly defines a carport as a structure with associated floor area, and it is appropriate to apply the Building Code as may be needed when interpreting the Development Code, a carport is a structure with floor area that counts towards the maximum 600 square feet of structure size permitted for accessory uses in a Backcountry zone. DISCUSSION ITEMS Countywide Planning Issues: Don Reimer, Planning Director informed the BOA that the Country is in the process of updating the Countywide and Basin Master Plans. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Don Reimer Planning Director Page 2 of 2

PLANNING DEPARTMENT 970.668.4200 0037 Peak One Dr. PO Box 5660 www.summitcountyco.gov Frisco, CO 80443 STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Jessica Potter, Planner II FOR: Meeting of January 18, 2017 SUBJECT: Planning Case PLN16-126, Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village, APPLICANT/OWNER: REQUEST: Jen Kagan & Jeremy Deem A request for a variance to the 25 rear setback to allow for a garage to be located 16 from the rear property line, Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village; a 0.13 acre parcel zoned R-2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location: 206 Rasor Drive (CR 67) Legal Description: Loveland Pass Village, Lot 39 Existing Zoning: R-2 Proposed Use: Single-Family Residential Other Uses: N/A Total site area: 0.13 acres Adjacent land uses: East: Lot 40, Loveland Pass Village West: Rasor Drive (CR 67) North: Rasor Drive (CR 67) South: Lot 38, Loveland Pass Village DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Required Proposed Lot size (minimum): 20,000 sq. ft. 5,663 sq. ft. BACKGROUND The plat for Loveland Pass Village was recorded under Reception Number 91804 on June 3, 1960 (Attachment B). This plat created 45 residential lots on approximately 7 acres. On June 2, 1969, the date the County adopted zoning, Loveland Pass Village was zoned Residential 2 (R-2). R-2 zoning allows for approximately two units per acre with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The setbacks in R-2 are 25 feet along the front and 15 feet on the side property lines. The average lot in Loveland Pass Village is approximately one-tenth of an acre (~4,000 sq. ft.); accordingly, all of the lots in Loveland Pass Village are legally non-conforming with regards to minimum lot size. According to the records of the Summit County Assessor there is an existing 1,597 square foot home on the property constructed in 1965 and improvements were made in 1972 including a covered porch and an exterior deck. On December 6, 1984, SU84-12 was approved allowing an Accessory Apartment on the property. No historic building permits could be located; however, the site plan from the Accessory Apartment approval is attached (Attachment C). Lot 39 is a corner lot and access is currently taken from Rasor Drive on both the north and the west. The current configuration of improvements on the property, the historic access, and consultation with

the property owner become relevant when determining property lines for setback purposes. Determining the front for setback purposes on this lot is not entirely straightforward since the front door to the Accessory Apartment is on west, the front door to the main house is on the east, and the lot is accessed from Rasor Drive on the north and the west. The definition of Lot lines from Chapter 15 of the Land Use and Development Code is exerpted below. Lot lines: The legal boundaries of a parcel of land established by a recorded subdivision plat. Lot lines are classified as either front, side or rear as follows: a. Front: The property line separating a lot from the street except, where a lot is bordered by more than one (1) street, the property owner shall determine which side of the lot having street frontage is to be considered the front for setback purposes. Each lot proposed for development shall have at least one (1) property line designated as the front lot line. b. Rear: The property line opposite to and furthest away from the front property line except, where a lot is irregular in shape, the Planning Department shall determine which property line is to be designated as the rear property line for setback purposes. Each lot proposed for development shall have at least one (1) property line designated as the rear lot line. c. Side: Any property line bounding a lot that is not designated as either a front or rear property line. As discussed, no building permits could be located with a site plan designating front / rear / side lot lines; however, the site plan from the 1984 Accessory Apartment approval was located and shows a carport, still in existence, for the main house, accessed from Rasor Drive on the north. The resident of the main house then enters via a door on the east. While the property has been accessed from both the north (via a carport and entry door on the east) and the west for the historic cabin / Accessory Apartment, the conformity of improvements on this property suggests that the north should be considered the front for setback purposes as this determination of property lines allows for the most conformity with the existing structure. The definition of front property line from the Code is not based on access and does allow some discretion the determination of the north as the front was made by staff in discussions with the property owner using the logic discussed above. Accordingly, the southern property line (opposite to and furthest away from the front, per the definition above) is the rear property line. Per Table 3.6 of the Code, a 25-foot street side setback is applied to the west property line. This request is for a variance to the 25-foot rear (south) setback for a 400- square-foot garage to be located 16 feet from the rear property line. The proposal, outlined in red, as well as the property line setbacks is shown below. Approximately 149 square feet of the garage is located within the required setbacks. The applicant is also requesting a deck to be located on top of the portion of the garage located within the setback. The proposal will be discussed in more detail in this report; but for clarity it is noted here that Staff believes that the garage meets the criteria of approval for a variance; however, staff is unable to find that the deck meets the criteria. Rather than recommend denial of this application, Staff recommends that the BOA condition the approval of this request on the removal of the deck. The applicant is aware of Staff s position. PLN16-126: Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village 2 BOA 1-18-17

Figure 1: Site Plan CRITERIA FOR DECISION Per Section 12503.01, the following criteria and standards shall be met and findings made by the Board of Adjustment to approve variances to development regulations and standards except variances to minimum lot size requirements: 1. The strict application of the County's Zoning Regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the property owner in the PLN16-126: Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village 3 BOA 1-18-17

development of the property because of special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical conditions. 2. The variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The variance can be granted without substantial impairment of the intent of the County's Zoning Regulations. 4. Granting the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege in excess of that enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. 5. Reasonable use of the property is not otherwise available without granting of a variance and the variance being granted is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use. 6. The parcel for which the variance is being granted was not created in violation of County zoning or subdivision regulations, or in violation of Colorado State Statutes. CRITERION 1: THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY'S ZONING REGULATIONS WOULD RESULT IN PECULIAR AND EXCEPTIONAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TO, OR EXCEPTIONAL AND UNDUE HARDSHIP UPON, THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY SUCH AS SIZE, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY OR EXCEPTIONAL PHYSICAL CONDITIONS As discussed, all of the lots in Loveland Pass Village are non-conforming as to minimum lot size; the average lot is approximately 1 / 10 th of an acre as opposed to the approximately ½ acre standard in R-2. The setbacks in the R-2 zone district, 25 in the front and rear and 15 on the side, create challenges when developing these smaller lots. Accordingly, more than 30 setback variances have been approved in Loveland Pass Village due to these constraints. The subject property is a corner lot bounded on the north and west by Rasor Drive. In addition to the front and rear, this lot has a third 25 setback from the right-of-way. The setback-compliant buildable area on this lot is 1,062 square feet. For comparison, the BOA has previously determined that a building envelope of less than 1,200 square feet is the minimum necessary to site a single family home and has granted setback variances when the size of the setback-compliant buildable area is less than 1,200 square feet. It should be noted that the existing structure is non-conforming as to setbacks, and the footprint outside of the setbacks is 245 square feet. This setback request is to accommodate a 400 square foot garage whereby approximately 149 square feet will encroach into the required setbacks. The small building envelope creates a hardship as a setback compliant garage cannot be reasonably sited on the property. CRITERION 2: THE VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE There were no referral agencies that expressed concerns with this proposal for a variance to setbacks. The Summit County Engineering Department submitted comments that the secondary access on Rasor Drive must be removed and revegetated per Section 5107.03.K and that the driveway proposed to remain on the west must meet all Code requirements. These requirements are consistent with the submitted plans which include abandoning and revegetating the access to the north. If approved by the BOA, this addition will not present any threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. PLN16-126: Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village 4 BOA 1-18-17

CRITERION 3: THE VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE INTENT OF THE COUNTY'S ZONING REGULATIONS The purpose and intent of the County Zoning Regulations is to ensure compatibility of land uses, efficient and economical use of land, and adequate light and air in development projects. They are also intended to prevent development of areas subject to environmental hazards, and encourage development projects that are functional, exhibit good design and aesthetics, and protect the County's natural resources and scenic beauty. Granting this variance is consistent with the County Zoning Regulations because the proposed garage complies with all County regulations and applicable development standards, excluding the required setbacks. The applicant will remove the secondary access to the north along Rasor Drive, ensuring compliance with current Road and Bridge standards. Based on a site visit, Staff was able to confirm that there are two sheds on the property. It has not been verified if these structures meet setbacks or the criteria in the Code to exempt them from meeting setbacks (less than 200 square feet and less than 8 feet in height). If this request is approved by the BOA, Staff recommends a condition that the applicant remove any sheds on the property not in compliance with the Code. CRITERION 4: GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IN EXCESS OF THAT ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT Approving a setback variance for the garage would not constitute a grant of special privilege since the BOA has approved numerous setback variances for garages of no more than 400 square feet throughout Summit County. Furthermore, there have been more than 30 setback variances approved in Loveland Pass Village. Staff believes that approving the deck on top of the garage encroaching into the setback would constitute a grant of special privilege. Previous policy of the BOA has not been to approve living space above or even storage above or below a garage where a setback variance is requested. The portion of the deck encroaching on the setback is shown in red below: PLN16-126: Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village 5 BOA 1-18-17

Figure 2: Proposed West Elevation Figure 3: Proposed East Elevation PLN16-126: Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village 6 BOA 1-18-17

CRITERION 5: REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE WITHOUT GRANTING OF A VARIANCE AND THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE The BOA has established a policy that not being able to site a garage on one s property constitutes a hardship. The BOA has also established a policy that a 400-square-foot garage constitutes the maximum necessary size for a garage. This request for a setback variance to accommodate the construction of a 400 square-foot garage is in accordance with this criterion as there is no other location on the property to site a garage and the proposed garage is within the established size parameters. The deck proposed on top of the garage and located within the setback does not qualify as the minimum necessary for reasonable use as the BOA has not established a policy that not having a deck on one s property constitutes a hardship. CRITERION 6: THE PARCEL FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED WAS NOT CREATED IN VIOLATION OF COUNTY ZONING OR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, OR IN VIOLATION OF COLORADO STATE STATUTES This parcel was legally created via the recordation of the subdivision plat for Loveland Pass Village recorded at Reception Number 91804 in June 1960. DISCUSSION / ISSUES As discussed throughout this report, Staff finds that the criteria of approval for a variance for the garage are satisfied. Staff cannot find that the deck above the garage constitutes the minimum necessary for reasonable use, nor does Staff find that not having a deck constitutes a hardship. As discussed, the buildable area within the setback is 1,062 square feet less than the 1,200 square foot minimum established by the BOA. However, there is already 245 square feet of structure encroaching into the setbacks, not including the proposed garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the BOA approve PLN16-126: a request for a variance to the 25 rear setback to allow for a garage to be located 16 from the rear property line, Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village; a 0.13 acre parcel zoned R-2, with the following findings and condition: Findings: 1. The strict application of the County's Zoning Regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional and undue hardship upon the property owner in the development of the property because the only reasonable place to site a garage is partially within the required rear setback. 2. The variance can be granted without impairment to the public health, safety, and welfare as there are no public safety concerns associated with the proposed addition. Additionally, the applicant will abandon their secondary access along Rasor Drive. 3. This variance can be granted without substantial impairment to the intent of the County s Zoning Regulations because the proposed garage will comply with all other County regulations, excluding the required setbacks. 4. Granting the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege since there have been numerous setback variances approved in Loveland Pass Village as well as throughout Summit PLN16-126: Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village 7 BOA 1-18-17

County for a garage of no more than 400 square feet in size. 5. Reasonable use of the property is not available without granting a variance since there is no reasonable location on the property available to site a garage aside from within the required setbacks. 6. The parcel for which the variance is being granted was not created in violation of County zoning or subdivision regulations or in violation of Colorado State Statutes because the subject property was legally created via the plat for Loveland Pass Village Subdivision, recorded under Reception Number 91804 in 1960. Conditions: 1. The deck above the garage within the required setback shall be removed from the plans since not having the deck does not constitute a hardship nor is it the minimum necessary for reasonable use. 2. Prior to Certificate of Completion for the addition, all sheds on the property must either be removed or be in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 3505.13 of the Code. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Loveland Pass Village Subdivision Plat Attachment C: SU84-12 Site Plan Attachment D: ILC Attachment E: Proposed Plans Attachment F: Narrative and Signatures Attachment G: Proposed Resolution cc: Jen Kagan and Jeremy Deem, Owners PLN16-126: Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village 8 BOA 1-18-17

Attachment A CR 67 Meisel Dr Rasor Dr CR 71 Rasor Dr Rasor CR 73 Sanctuary Ln CR 224 C T (CR 64) E Hanson Rd W Hanson Rd CR 68 CR 67 Caravelle Dr Hwy 6 PLN16-126: Variance Request Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village Jessica Potter Planning Department (970) 668-2968. This map is for display purposes only. Do not use for legal conveyance. Not necessarily accurate by surveying standards, and does not comply with National Mapping Accuracy Standards. 2016 Summit County Government Feet 0 75 150 300 450 600

Attachment B

Attachment C

Attachment D

Attacment E

RESOLUTION NO. 2017 - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SUMMIT STATE OF COLORADO A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLN16-126, A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 25 REAR SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A GARAGE TO BE LOCATED 16 FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, LOT 39, LOVELAND PASS VILLAGE; A 0.13 ACRE PARCEL ZONED R-2 (Applicants Jen Kagen & Jeremy Deem), and; WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the 25 rear setback to allow for a garage to be located 16 feet from the rear property line; Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village, a 0.13 acre parcel zoned R-2, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Department has reviewed the application and recommends approval with conditions to the Board of Adjustment; and; WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment reviewed the application at a public hearing on January 18, 2016, with public notice as required by law and considered the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing; and; WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment finds as follows: 1. The strict application of the County's Zoning Regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional and undue hardship upon the property owner in the development of the property because the only reasonable place to site a garage is within the required setbacks. 2. The variance can be granted without impairment to the public health, safety, and welfare as there are no public safety concerns associated with the proposed addition. Additionally, the applicant will abandon their secondary access along Rasor Drive. 3. This variance can be granted without substantial impairment to the intent of the County s Zoning Regulations because the proposed garage will comply with all other County regulations, excluding the required setbacks.. 4. Granting the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege since there have been numerous setback variances approved in Loveland Pass Village as well as throughout Summit County for a garage of no more than 400 square feet in size. 5. Reasonable use of the property is not available without granting a variance since there is no reasonable location on the property available to site a garage aside from in the required setbacks. 6. The parcel for which the variance is being granted was not created in violation of County zoning or subdivision regulations or in violation of Colorado State Statutes because the subject property was legally created via the plat for Loveland Pass Village Subdivision, recorded under Reception Number 91804 in 1960.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SUMMIT, STATE OF COLORADO THAT a request for a variance to the 25 rear setback to allow for a garage to be located 16 from the rear property line, Lot 39, Loveland Pass Village; a 0.13 acre parcel zoned R-2, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The deck above the garage within the required setback shall be removed from the plans since not having the deck does not constitute a hardship nor is it the minimum necessary for reasonable use. 2. Prior to Certificate of Completion for the addition, all sheds on the property must either be removed or be in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 3505.13 of the Code. ADOPTED THIS 18 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. ATTEST: COUNTY OF SUMMIT STATE OF COLORADO BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT George Resseguie, Chair Jessica Potter, Planner II

PLANNING DEPARTMENT 970-668-4200 fax 970-668-4225 Post Office Box 5660 0037 SCR 1005 Frisco, Colorado 80443 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: Board of Adjustment Sid Rivers, Planner II FOR: Meeting of January 18, 2017 SUBJECT: Planning Case PLN16-127: A request for a variance from the 25-foot front and 15-foot side yard setback to allow for a garage to be located 15 feet from the front property line and 6 feet from the side property line; and for a front entry addition to be located 18 feet from the front property line; Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2, 0.50 acres, zoned R-2. APPLICANT: Marc Hogan, BHH Partners OWNER: REQUEST: John Burcal A request for a variance from the 25-foot front and 15-foot side yard setback to allow for a garage to be located 15 feet from the front property line and 6 feet from the side property line; and for a front entry addition to be located 18 feet from the front property line; Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2, 0.50 acres, zoned R-2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location: 914 Range Road, Blue River Legal Description: Lot 93, 39 Degrees North Sub F#2 Existing Zoning: R-2 Proposed Use: Garage, and mud room entry for an existing single-family residence Other Uses: N/A Total site area: 0.50 acres Adjacent land uses: East: Range Road (CR 625) West: Lot 92, 39 Degrees North, zoned R-2 North: Lot 95, 39 Degrees North, zoned R-2 South: Lot 91, 39 Degrees North, zoned R-2 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Per R-2 Zoning Existing Density limit: 1 unit per 20,000 sq. ft. 1 unit per 21,780 sq. ft. Lot size (minimum): 20,000 sq. ft. 21,780 sq. ft. Setbacks: Required Proposed: Garage Entry Front (East): 25 feet 15 feet 18 feet Rear (West): 25 feet 25+ feet 25+ feet Side (North): 15 feet 6 feet 15+ feet Side (South): 15 feet 15+ feet 15+ feet

BACKGROUND The plat for 39 Degrees North Filing #2 was recorded on August 9, 1966 at Reception #105420. The subject parcel is Lot 93, a 0.50 acre parcel. There is an existing three story, 2,358 square foot, singlefamily residence situated in the northeast portion of the lot that was constructed in 1980 and with an addition/remodel occurring in 2003. No garage currently exists on the site. Currently, no portion of the existing single-family residence encroaches into any required setback; however there is a roof covering the entry door that encroaches into the 25 front setback area. There is also an at-grade deck/patio on the north side of the residence, although structures less than 18 inches in height can be located within setback areas. The existing structure in relation to setbacks is shown below. Existing (Setbacks Shown in Red) 15 Side Setback 25 Front Setback Existing Encroachment N The applicant is requesting a setback variance to encroach into the required 25 foot front setback and the required 15 foot side setback. This variance will allow for the construction of a 400 square foot garage that will be setback 15 feet from the front property line, and 6 feet from the north side property line. The applicant is also proposing a front entry remodel that will encroach into the 25 foot front setback. The proposed entry would be setback approximately 17 feet from the front property line. The patio and entry roof setback encroachments will each be removed with the construction of the proposed garage. Staff supports the proposal for a garage to encroach in to the setbacks. However, staff is unable to support a variance to the setback requirement for the proposed entry remodel that would create a new setback encroachment for the residence. The proposed setbacks are shown below. PLN16-127 Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2 BOA January 18, 2017 Page 2

Proposed (Setbacks Shown in Red) 15 Side Setback 25 Front Setback Proposed Encroachments N CRITERIA FOR DECISION Per Section 12503.01, the following criteria and standards shall be met and findings made by the Board of Adjustment to approve variances to development regulations and standards except variances to minimum lot size requirements: 1. The strict application of the County's Zoning Regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the property owner in the development of the property because of special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical conditions. 2. The variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The variance can be granted without substantial impairment of the intent of the County's Zoning Regulations. 4. Granting the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege in excess of that enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. 5. Reasonable use of the property is not otherwise available without granting of a variance and the variance being granted is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use. 6. The parcel for which the variance is being granted was not created in violation of County zoning or subdivision regulations, or in violation of Colorado State Statutes. PLN16-127 Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2 BOA January 18, 2017 Page 3

THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY'S ZONING REGULATIONS WOULD RESULT IN PECULIAR AND EXCEPTIONAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TO, OR EXCEPTIONAL AND UNDUE HARDSHIP UPON, THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY SUCH AS SIZE, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY OR EXCEPTIONAL PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The 39 Degrees North Subdivision, Filing 2 was platted in 1966, prior to the County s enactment of subdivision regulations. Accordingly, some of the lots in this subdivision have had challenges to development. This particular lot is constrained by topography and the existing driveway layout. The location of the existing driveway and residence on the site provides additional challenges to locating a garage within the required setbacks. The location of the existing home leaves little room where a garage can reasonably be located. The most reasonable location to place an attached garage is to the northeast of the existing home and within the required front and side setbacks. It has been determined that not having a garage in Summit County may result in an undue hardship for a property owner, and the Board of Adjustment has previously determined that a 400 square foot garage is the minimum size needed for reasonable use of the property. Per the County Assessor s records, there is an existing 2,358 square foot, single-family residence on site. The applicant is also proposing an interior and front entry remodel that would encroach into the front setback. The addition of a bathroom on the main floor results in the front entry being pushed out into the front setback area. Staff is unable to support the interior and front entry remodel that encroaches into the required 25 foot front setback. Not granting a variance for the proposed front entry to the home would not result in an undue hardship to the property owner since the existing home does not have any enclosed living space encroaching into the setbacks. Existing: Main Level (Setbacks Shown in Red) N PLN16-127 Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2 BOA January 18, 2017 Page 4

Proposed: Main Level (Setbacks Shown in Red, Note Bathroom Addition) N THE VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE Granting this variance will not have a negative impact to the public health, safety, or welfare. This proposal was referred to all of the applicable review agencies. The Environmental Health Department noted that they have no regulatory concerns with this proposal, but that the home must be no more than 3 bedrooms per the established septic system, or the existing wastewater treatment system must be designed, permitted and upgraded to accommodate any additional bedrooms. Additionally, while the proposal encroaches into the setbacks, there is no proposed encroachment into any utility easement and none of the utility providers expressed concern with the proposal. THE VARIANCE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE INTENT OF THE COUNTY'S ZONING REGULATIONS PLN16-127 Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2 BOA January 18, 2017 Page 5

Granting a variance for this proposal is consistent with the County Zoning Regulations because the proposed development complies with all County development regulations and applicable development standards, excluding the required setbacks. GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IN EXCESS OF THAT ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT The Board of Adjustment must find that granting a variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege in excess of that enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. The BOA has granted setback variances throughout Summit County for garages. As discussed in more detail in the following section, the BOA has deemed that not having a garage in this climate constitutes a hardship and that a garage of up to 400 square feet in size is the minimum necessary for reasonable use. The proposed garage is 400 square feet in size and is consistent with other variance requests that have been granted by the BOA. There have not been any setback variances granted for garages in the 39 Degrees North, Filing #2 subdivision. Granting a variance for the front entry addition as proposed would constitute a grant of special privilege since the existing 2,358 square foot, single-family residence does not have any enclosed living space currently encroaching into any setbacks. The property owner clearly has reasonable use of the single family residence on site in its existing configuration. With a different front entry design, a front door could be added on the east side of the residence without encroaching into the front setback. REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE WITHOUT GRANTING OF A VARIANCE AND THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE The Board of Adjustment must find that reasonable use of the property is not otherwise available without granting a variance and the variance being granted is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use. The BOA has previously determined that due to the harsh winter climate in Summit County, not being able to construct a garage on one s property constitutes a hardship. Due to site constraints, without granting a setback variance, a garage could not reasonably constructed on the subject property. The proposed garage will be located in the most reasonable location on the site based on the topography and location of the existing home. The proposed garage will not encroach into any utility easements. Additionally, the BOA has previously determined that a 400-square-foot garage is a reasonable size for a two-car garage. The applicant is proposing an approximate 20 x 20 footprint, resulting in a 400 square-foot garage. The garage as designed is the minimum necessary for reasonable use, and the construction of a garage on this property would not be possible without a setback variance. The property owner already has reasonable use of the existing three bedroom, three bathroom home without the proposed entry addition. A smaller entry addition would fit within the allowable buildable area and not encroach into the front setback. As there is reasonable use of the home, staff cannot support the entry addition to the residence which would result in encroachments into the front setback. THE PARCEL FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED WAS NOT CREATED IN VIOLATION OF COUNTY ZONING OR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, OR IN VIOLATION OF COLORADO STATE STATUTES PLN16-127 Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2 BOA January 18, 2017 Page 6

Lot 93, 39 Degrees North Subdivision, Filing #2 was created via a plat, recorded August 9, 1966 at Reception #105420. The subject parcel was created legally and does not have any zoning, subdivision or state statute violations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment approve PLN16-127, a request for a variance from the 25-foot front and 15-foot side yard setback to allow for a garage to be located 15 feet from the front property line and 6 feet from the side property line; Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2, 0.50 acres, zoned R-2 with the following findings and conditions. FINDINGS 1. The strict application of the County's Zoning Regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon the property owner in the development of the property because the lot s topography, and existing house location preclude the construction of a setback-compliant garage. However, the requested variance for the entry addition does not constitute a hardship as the existing single family residence is of adequate size and meets all setbacks. 2. The variance can be granted without substantial impairment to the public health, safety, and welfare because the location of the proposed development is outside of the existing utility easements. 3. Granting this variance is consistent with the County Zoning Regulations because the proposed structure will comply with all applicable development standards, excluding the required setbacks. 4. Granting the variance for the garage does not constitute a grant of special privilege as variances to setback requirements have been granted within Summit County for similar sized garages due to constraints including topography and existing driveway locations. However, the requested variance for the entry addition would constitute a grant of special privilege as the existing single family residence is of adequate size and meets all setbacks. 5. Reasonable use of the property including a two-car garage is not available without granting a variance and the variance being granted is the minimum necessary for reasonable use since the proposal is sited on the most reasonable location for a garage and is less than 400 square feet in size. However, the requested variance for the entry addition is not the minimum necessary for reasonable use as the existing single family residence is of adequate size and meets all setbacks. 6. The parcel for which the variance is being granted was not created in violation of County Zoning or Subdivision regulations or in violation of Colorado State Statutes because the subject property was legally created via the plat for 39 Degrees North, Filing 2 recorded under Reception #105420 in 1966. CONDITION 1. At the time of building permit submittal for the garage, the building plans shall exclude any addition to the existing residence that will encroach into any required setbacks. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant Narrative 3. Building Plans PLN16-127 Lot 93, 39 Degrees North F#2 BOA January 18, 2017 Page 7

3 1 2 4 8 7 6 5 4 27 47 28 46A 29 44A 30 Rocky Mountain Way 62 63 64 CR 630 Dr Red Fox Red 71 69 70 31 43 72 15 1,2,3 32 41 42 94 96 95 73 74 CR 627 CR 628 33 40 CR 625 75 34 39 93 76 7 8B 92 90 91 77 5 6 8A 36 35 10 CR 625 78 79 Township Way 88 37 86 87 80 81 38 84 85 82 83 9B PLN16-127 914 Range Road Lot 93, 39 Degrees North Subd.. This 1 inch = 220 feet map is for display purposes only. Do not use for legal conveyance. Not necessarily accurate by surveying standards, and does not comply with National Mapping Accuracy Standards. 2016 Summit County Government Feet 0 55 110 220 330 440

The findings for approval of our variance request can be addressed as follows: 1. USE- Our request is for a 400 square foot garage connected to the home by a new entry. These uses are permitted by the county development code. 2. SPECIAL PRIVEALAGES- Our variance request is for a garage and a new entry and is typical for other properties having the same residential classification. No special privilege is being granted. 3. PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELLFAIR- The granting of this variance has no impact on neighbors or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property. 4. PHYSICAL HARDSHIP-No physical hardship is created by the granting of this variance. The 400 square foot garage and the small connecting entry to the home are reasonable based on the climate of Summit County. The granting of this variance is consistent with previous variances granted by Summit County 5. CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO HARDSHIP- The owner is a recent purchaser of the property and the granting of this variance is reasonable to provide minimal garage area and entry to the home. The home is located on a steep slope creating difficult access to the property. 6. HARMONY WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE- The 400 square foot garage and entry feature to the home is in harmony with the intent of the development code related to single family home provisions. The steep site and north exposure for the garage create the design configuration as proposed. Clearly this variance request is the minimum request that can reasonably be provided to create a small garage and entry to the home. The garage must be 4 feet above the main level floor due to the nature and steepness of the existing drive. It is reasonable to enclose the stair from the garage down to the main level of the home based on the fact that the entry is on the northeast side of the structure. John Burcal will be returning to Summit County in the next few weeks and we request a meeting with the staff to review our proposal and request for the variance. Once I know his schedule I will communicate further with you. Thank you for your help with our project. Regards, Marc P. Hogan, A.I.A

FASCIA TO MATCH EXISTING 2 REVISIONS: JOB NO: 11117.1 DATE: 12/28/16 DRAWN BY: MIKE R 4' 0" CHECKED BY: MPH 2016 THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT ARCHITECT'S WRITTEN PERMISSION 8' 0" 8' 0" T.O. UPPER LEVEL = 118'-0" VARIANCE SUBMITTAL: 12/28/16 (REVISIONS) 1 10' 0" GARAGE LEVEL T.O. CONC.= 113'-0" T.O. MAIN LEVEL = 109'-0" T.O. LOWER LEVEL = 100'-0" COLOR LEGEND 1 2 EXISTING AND NEW SIDING EXISTING AND NEW STANDING SEAM ROOF EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" COLOR AND TYPE TO MATCH EXISTING COLOR AND TYPE TO MATCH EXISITNG 2 7' 0" 1 NEW CASEMENT WINDOW 6' 0" 0 2' 4' 8' 16' T.O. UPPER LEVEL = 118'-0" GARAGE LEVEL T.O. CONC.= 113'-0" P.O. BOX 931 160 EAST ADAMS BRECKENRIDGE, CO 80424 (970) 453-6880 BURCAL RESIDENCE ADDITION 914 RANGE ROAD, BLUE RIVER, CO 80424 ELEVATION NOTE THESE ELEVATIONS ARE GRAPHIC IN NATURE. THE ELEVATIONS ILLUSTRATE EXTERIOR IMAGE AND COLORS. DO NOT SCALE OFF ELEVATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. T.O. MAIN LEVEL = 109'-0" c 2016 MATERIAL COLORS ARE TYPICAL FOR ALL ELEVATIONS REFER TO COLOR LEGEND, VERIFY ALL COLORS WITH OWNER A-4 SEE BUILDING SECTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" T.O. LOWER LEVEL = 100'-0" 0 2' 4' 8' 16' OF:

REVISIONS: 2 JOB NO: 11117.1 DATE: 12/28/16 DRAWN BY: MIKE R CHECKED BY: MPH T.O. UPPER LEVEL = 118'-0" 2016 THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT ARCHITECT'S WRITTEN PERMISSION 7' 0" VARIANCE SUBMITTAL: 12/28/16 (REVISIONS) GARAGE LEVEL T.O. CONC.= 113'-0" T.O. MAIN LEVEL = 109'-0" 1 T.O. LOWER LEVEL = 100'-0" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 7' 0" 0 2' 4' 8' 16' NEW STANDING SEAM ROOF TO MATCH EXISITNG T.O. UPPER LEVEL = 118'-0" GARAGE LEVEL T.O. CONC.= 113'-0" P.O. BOX 931 160 EAST ADAMS BRECKENRIDGE, CO 80424 (970) 453-6880 BURCAL RESIDENCE ADDITION 914 RANGE ROAD, BLUE RIVER, CO 80424 T.O. MAIN LEVEL = 109'-0" c 2016 A-5 T.O. LOWER LEVEL = 100'-0" OF: SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2' 4' 8' 16' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"