Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 160 S Saint Vrain Ave 2023-01-03 Community Development Memo To:Chair Jeff Moreau Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From: Kara Washam, Planner I Date: January 3, 2023 Application:Setback Variances for Front and Arterial Road st 160 1Street, Estes Park EPCO Properties LLC (Mark & Jean Rissmiller), Owner/Applicant Jacob Gruver, Van Horn Engineering, Representative 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: Commercial Outlying (CO) Site Area: 0.99 Acre PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a reduced frontsetback of eight and three-tenths feet (8.3’) and a reduced arterial road setback of twenty-two feet sixinches (22’-6”) in lieu of the fifteen feet (15’) and 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).The applicant is proposing to eliminate three parking spaces in the subject area to construct a deck foroutdoor seatingat the ElMex-Kal Family Restaurant. Background: The subject property islocated on the northern end of a strip mall owned by the applicant, EPCO Properties LLC. The commercial strip shares a large parking lot northeast of the building with on-street parking along CO-7 to the west, two spaces along the southside of the building, and four spaces along the northwest side of the restaurant. The proposed deck would eliminate three out of the four parking spaces along the northwest side of the buildingandwould accommodate up to thirty-two people or eight tables with four chairs. Variance Description This is a requestto approvea varianceto allow a reduced front setback of eight and three-tenths feet (8.3’) and a reduced arterial road setback of twenty-two feet six inches (22’-6”) in lieu of the fifteen feet (15’) and twenty-five feet (25’) respective setbacks, as depicted on the attached drawings. Location and Context: st The 0.99-acre lot is located at 160 1 Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection st of 1 Street and S. Saint Vrain Street in Estes Park. The subject property and adjacent properties to the north, east, and south are zoned CO (Commercial Outlying). The property to the west, known as the Estes Park Convention Center, is zoned A (Accommodations). This area has a mixture of uses, including restaurants, retail, office, hospitality, and other services. 2 Vicinity Map Zoning Map 3 Zoning and Land Use SummaryTable Comprehensive Plan (2022)Zone Uses SubjectCO (Commercial Mixed-Use Centers & CorridorsCommercial Site Outlying) CO (Commercial North Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors Gov/Organization Outlying) R-2 (Two-Family South Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors Residential Residential) CO (Commercial East Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors Commercial Outlying) West Mixed-Use Centers & Corridors A(Accommodations) Hospitality 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 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:Special conditions exist, due to the location of the existing four parking spaces along the northwest side of the building. Eliminating these parking spaces could provide a safety benefit to the community as vehicles st currently have to back up onto 1 Street. The requested variance will not nullify or impair the intent and purposes of the setback standards, the EPDC, or the Comprehensive Plan. 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; 4 Staff Finding:There may bebeneficial use of the property without the varianceif the area remains as existing, with four parking spaces. However, the design and utility of the proposed deck would be constrainedwithout the variance. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding:The variance of the front setback issomewhat substantial due to the proposed setback being nearly half of what is required by code. However, the arterial road proposed setback variance is minor when compared to the existing setback between the arterial road and the face of the building, which is substantially less than the twenty-five feet required by code. 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 does not find that the mixed-use character of the immediate neighborhood would be altered, nor would adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: Public services such as water and sewer will not be affected by the variance. The proposed deck will not obstruct the manholes used to access the grease interceptor. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Applicant purchased the property years ago and prior plans to request a variance for constructing a deck are unknown. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: There is no alternative to mitigate the Applicant’s predicament aside from a complete redesign of the Project. 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. 5 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. 5. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding:The proposed variances would be the least deviations 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 zone district contained the property for which the variance is sought. Staff Finding: The applicant requests a setback variance in order to construct a deck for outdoor seating. Outdoor seating or food service is permitted by right in the CO (Commercial Outlying) zoning district per Table 4-4 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 recommends that if the variance is approved and the deck constructed, all four parking spaces on the northwest side of the property be removed. The Applicant suggested that only three of the four parking spaces would need to be removed. However, leaving one parking space would not be practical and could presentsafety issues forcustomers using the deck for outdoor dining. Review Agency Comments The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public Works supports approval subject to the removal of all four parking spaces rather than just the three spaces indicated in the Statement of Intent. Keeping a space adjacent to the new deck is not approved per EPDC Chapter 7.11 K.1. Public Works acknowledges the bollards shown on the proposed sketch plan are a safety amenity. In addition, if the variance is approved and the deck constructed, Public Works will verify that there is no encroachment in the sight triangle. No other agencies had concerns or comments. Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, no written comments have been received for the variance request. Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on December 14, 2022. 6 Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on December 16, 2022. Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website onDecember 15, 2022. Advantages This variance would allow El Mex-Kal to construct a deck that would be beneficial to the community of Estes Park by creating expanded business opportunities through the use of outdoor seating. In addition, the proposed construction of the deck would eliminate the four parking spaces on the northwest side of the building. These spaces have posed st a safety concern due to vehicles backing up directly onto 1 Street. The proposed deck should not encroach on the sight triangle; design shows approximately 0.5’ of clearance. Disadvantages The proposed variance and deck construction would eliminate four parking spaces from the property. However, an informal traffic study provided by Van Horn Engineering suggests that existing parking remains sufficient for the property’s needs after the proposed increased square footage of customer service area and the eliminated parking spaces. Action Recommended Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with setbacks consistent with the El Mex-Kal Project plans provided in Attachment 3. Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motions I move to approve the variancerequestfor reduced front setbackand reduced arterial road setback for the subject property addressed as 160 1st Street in the Town of Estes Park, 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 for El Mex-Kal Setback Variance 7