Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVARIANCE Setback 445 Skyline Dr 2022-09-13 Community Development Memo To:Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through: Jessica Garner, AICP, Community Development Director From: Jeffrey Woeber, Senior Planner Date: September 13, 2022 Application: Setback Variance 445 Skyline Drive, Estes Park Mary Whittenburg, Owner/Applicant Glen Shultz, Representative Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request, subject to the findings described in the report. 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 rear setback of zero feet (0’) in lieu of the 15 feet required, and side setbacks of 0 feet and 4.2 feet in lieu of the 10 feet required in the R-1 (Residential) Zone District under Section 4.3.C.4. of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). Location The 7,616-square foot lot, legally described as Lot 5, Village Greens Subdivision, is located at445 Skyline Drive, west of the intersection of Vista Lane and Skyline Drive and south of Big Thompson Avenue. Background The subject lot was approved and recorded as the “Final Plat and Development Plan for Village Greens Subdivision, a Replat of and PUD Amendment to: Lots 5 – 18, Mi Casa Subdivision, a PUD.” This was in 1993, well before EPDC adoption. The Development Plan at that time had building envelopes for the Village Green Lots. The Subdivision, PUD and Development Plan was an overlay on property zoned CO (Outlying Commercial). In 2000, the entire Estes Valley, including the subject lot, was rezoned. The lot was zoned to R-1(Residential). The existing single-familyresidence was constructed in 2001. The property changed ownership numerous times. In approximately 2016, a patio was built. Due to slopes on the rear of the lot, a blockretaining wall and fill dirt elevated an area for construction of a large, level patio. The construction of the patio was unpermitted by both the Building and Planning Division at the time. The current owner, after purchasing the property in April 2021, was notified the patio did not comply with minimum setback requirements for the R-1Zone District. Following a complaint filed by an adjacent property owner, the applicant prepared a new survey and submitted an application for a building permit in January, 2022. An Improvement Survey showed the patio encroached slightly over the property line, approximately 4 inches. While this portion was reconstructed, the zoning violation for setbacks remained. The block wall/patio was on the property line on the south and on the west (a zero-foot side setback and rear setback, respectively). The block wall/patio (as well as a small, plastic portable shed) has a side setback of 4.2 feet on the north. See the attached Improvement Survey. Variance Description This is a requestto approvea varianceto allow the side and rear setbacks as described above, and as depicted on the attached Improvement Survey. No new development is proposed. Vicinity Map 2 Zoning Map Land Use Summary Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary Comprehensive PlanZoneUses Subject PUD-R (Residential)R-1 (Residential)Residential Site NorthPUD-R (Residential)R-1 (Residential)Residential SouthPUD-R (Residential)R-1 (Residential)Residential EastPUD-R (Residential)R-1 (Residential)Residential WestA (Accommodations)A (Accommodations)Lodging 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 foreachare as follows: 3 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 relatively small size of the subject property, along with slopes to the rear of the residence.The EPDC does have provisions for patios and decks to be within setbacks, but only if they are at grade.Building the patio at grade wasnot feasible due to the slope. 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; Staff Finding: There may be beneficial use of the property without the variance. However, the current property owner is disabled, and would have little or no beneficial use of the back yard of the property without the hard surfaced patio. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is substantial as far as the setbacks being at the property line. The patio and shed that do not comply with setback standards but have minimalimpactto the area and are insubstantial. 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 the character of the neighborhood would be (or has been) altered from a patio or a shed (both are commonly associated with residential properties throughout Estes Park), and any detrimental impacts to adjoining properties are extremely minimal. 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 adversely affected by the variance. The subject patio has been in place for 5 – 6 years and there have been no adverse impacts to the delivery of water and sewer services. 4 e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Applicant wasnot aware that the existing patio did not comply with setback standards until after purchasing the property. The property owners were notified prior to the closing of the sale that there may be a boundary dispute regarding the retaining wall that runs along the subject’s southern property line. Since then, the Applicant resolved the dispute by moving the retaining wall so that it doesn’t encroach on the property line, and prepared the revised survey that is associated with this request. 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 tearing out parts of the existing patio. 3. 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. 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 Finding: Staff does not recommend conditions. Review Agency Comments The variance application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. There were no objections or requirements from any review agency. 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 August 18, 2022. Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on August 19 2022. Application posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” website on August 3, 2022. Advantages The applicant would have continued use of an existing patio. Disadvantages None. 5 Action Recommended Staff recommendsapproval of the proposed variance described in this staff report, with setbacks consistent with the Improvement Survey Plat attached hereto. Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motions I move to approve the variance request, for a rear setback of 0 feet, and side setbacks of 0 feet at the south property line and 4.2 feet at the north property line, for the subject property addressedas 445 Skyline Drive in the Town of Estes Park. 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. Applicant’s Standards for Review 4. Improvement Survey Plat 6