The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVARIANCE Setback 262 Fall River Ln 2022-01-04 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Chair Wayne Newsom Estes Park Board of Adjustment (BOA) Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From: Alex Bergeron, Planner II Date: January 4, 2022 RE: Variance request regarding front setback for 262 Fall River Lane (“Richey Variance”) Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider and make a decision on a request for a variance to Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) Table 4-2 to permit an eight-foot (8’) front setback in place of the required 15’ front setback. Location: Parcel 3526105010, legally described as LOT 10, AMD LOTS 10 & 10A, ELKHORN CLUB ESTATES ADD AMD, EP and hereinafter referred to as “the Property” (see also, Attachment 1: “Vicinity Map”). Present Situation: The subject Property, zoned E (Estate), is a multiple frontage lot, with the minimum front setback of the zone district applying to the westerly, southerly and easterly property lines. The setbacks for the lotare 10’ on the northerly (rear) property line (as determined by the driveway access on the multiple frontage lot), 15’ on the westerly and southerly property lines, and 25’ on the easterly property line (which borders arterial US- 34). The southerly property line is the subject of this variance request, and currently features a structure encroachment. Fall River flows directly over the easterly portion of the Property. Proposal: The Applicantseeks an eight-foot (8’) variance to the minimum front setback standard for the E (Estate) zone district to permit the construction of a garage enclosure pursuant to the elimination of an existing shed and existing carport structure, which encroach into the front setback along the southerly property line (see Attachment 2: “Application Form,” Attachment 3: “Statement of Intent,” and Attachment 4: “Proposed Site Plan”). Review Criteria: The Board of Adjustment is the decision-making body for this application. In accordance with EPDC §3.6.C. (Variances – Standards for Review), applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and criteria contained therein. Staff findings on these standards and criteria are outlined below: §3.6.C.1: Special circumstances or conditions exist.Affirmative. The Property is a multiple frontage lot, and must meet front setback standards on the westerly, southerly, and easterly property lines. The Property may have been developed with the subject southerly property line being considered a side lot line; as the existing carport is located partially in the current setback area, and the street on that frontage has the unlabeled street name “Fall River Stub,” and is inconsistently shown on maps. Additionally, and importantly, the proposed location of the attached garage enclosure places the use in a conveyance shadow of the floodway, which would help protect it and reduces the regulatory burden that flood mitigation imposes. A significant portion of the Property is in the regulatory floodway, given the flow of Fall River, as shown on Attachment 4. §3.6.C.2(a): Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Affirmative. The property could be used for the proposed type of development, as covered parking exists now, though the proposed enclosure could not be as easily built elsewhere on the site – especially when considering the 30-foot river setback, which relates to preservation of life and property. §3.6.C.2(b): Whether the variance is substantial. Negative. Existing conditions of the site include a setback encroachment and the proposed use is generally of the same character. §3.6.C.2(c): Alteration to neighborhood character/local detriment. Negative. The proposed use is generally of the same character as what exists today. §3.6.C.2(d): Adverse effect on the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Negative. The Property is adequately served by utilities and there would be no disruption to utilities, according to the Estes Park Utilities Department. §3.6.C.2(e):Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement.Unclear. §3.6.C.2(f): Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance.Affirmative. It seems possible to locate the proposed development further back into the interior of the lot and remain within the front setback and river setback, though this would require considerably more burdensome flood mitigation activities; specifically, that the applicant's burden for meeting the 'no-rise' condition required in the floodplain regulation is substantially less if the enclosure occurs in the conveyance shadow. §3.6.C.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. Affirmative. The issues are site specific. §3.6.C.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. Affirmative. The size of the lot will not change with this proposal. §3.6.C.5: Variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Neutral. A lesser setback variance was initially requested, though the current request (involving an additional two-foot deviation) represents a more desirable condition in terms of natural hazard mitigation. §3.6.C.6: No variance for non-permitted use. Affirmative. Garages, carports, and off- street parking areas are permitted accessory uses in the E (Estate) zone district. §3.6.C.7: BOA may grant conditions to ensure objectives are met. Acknowledged. Reviewing Agency Comments: This request has been routed to reviewing agency staff for review and comment. Comments received were either neutral or in favor of the request (see Attachment 5: “Agency Review Comments”). It should be explained that the application was routed for review twice; first with a 10’ variance request on the subject property line and then an amended request seeking an eight-foot (8’) setback, which is the application being presented to the Board of Adjustment. Public Notice: A legal notice was published in Estes Park Trail-Gazette on December 17, 2021, and a “Development Proposal Under Review” sign was posted at the Property prior to that date. Adjacent property owners received mailed notice of the proposal. Advantages: Approval of the variance will bring the Property into greater conformance and allow a modification to an existing usewithin the best location on the site as it relates to flood hazard mitigation. Disadvantages: None identified. Action Recommended: Staff recommends APPROVAL of thevariance request. Finance/ResourceImpact: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low. To date, no public comments have been received on this proposal. Sample Motion: I move that the Board of Adjustment APPROVE the variance request, in accordance with the findings as presented. I move that the Board of Adjustment deny the variance, finding that \[state findings for denial\]. I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that \[state reasons for continuance\]. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application Form 3. Statement of Intent 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Agency Review Comments 6. Evidence of Posted Notice