The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTAFF REPORT Variance 2842 Fall River Rd 2024-07-30 Community Development Memo To:Chair Jeff Moreau Estes Park Board of Adjustment Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Date: August 6, 2024 Application: Variance Request for River Setback 2842 Fall River Road Marae LLC, Greg & Angela Walter Owner/ Applicant Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny the variance request, subject to the findings described in the report. Future Land Use Designation (Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan): Neighborhood Village Zoning District: E (Estate) Site Area: 0.96 Acres (+/- 41,818 SF) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTIONOTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Hold a public hearing to consider a variance request from the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) related to the construction of a new house and deck at 2842 Fall River Road. Background: A variance for the property was first considered by the Board of Adjustment on July 2, 2024. The Board voted to continue the request to a future meeting date. Based on feedback from the Board at the July meeting, the applicant has revised the application to define the annual high-water mark of the river in accordance with EPDC requirements. This Memo and Project Analysis reflect the revised application and request for an encroachment of 6.8 feet rather than the previous request of five feet into the 50 foot river setback. The subject propertyis 0.96 acres in size and is zoned E Estate. The zoning, land use, and future land use designation of surrounding properties is summarized in the table below. The lot is undeveloped except for an unnamed private drive which bisects the property. The private drive provides access from Fall River Road to approximately 10 residential lots to the west. The property is addressed off Fall River Road although there is not direct access toor fromFall River Road. The property slopes significantly, dropping approximately 100 feet from the north to the Fall River to the south, with an average slope of around 27%. The steepest portion of the property is north of the private drive. Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Future Land Use Zone Uses Designation (Comp Plan) Subject Neighborhood Village E (Estate) Undeveloped Site A (Accommodations North Accommodations Accommodations Highway Corridor) A-1 (Accommodations Low- South Neighborhood Village Accommodations Intensity) Single-Family East Neighborhood Village E (Estate) Residential A (Accommodations Single-Family West Neighborhood Village Highway Corridor)/ E Residential (Estate) 2 Vicinity Map 3 Zoning Map A A-1 E Subject Parcel A-1 Variance Description The applicant desires to construct a two story (walk out) single-family home with a footprint of approximately 1,750 square feet and total square footage of approximately 3,000 square feet. The proposed building complies with all applicable setbacks; however, the proposed south deck would encroach 5’ into the 50’ river setback. The applicant requests avariance from Estes Park Development Code Sec. 7.6.E(2)(a) which requires a 50’ setback from the annual high-water markofthe river. The proposed deck would be constructed as close as 43.2’ from the highwater mark of the Fall River rather than the required 50’. 4 Site Images 5 Topographic Map 6 Proposed Site Plan 7 River Cross Section Proposed Floor Plans 8 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:Theprivate drive bisecting the property is not common to most lots and could be considered a special circumstance. A rock outcropping and steep topography north of the private drive are additional special circumstances. However, a smaller home and deck could be constructed on the property in conformance with all setbacks. The requested variances will have a mixed effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of Section 7.6 of the Development Code – Wetlands and Stream Corridor Protection. The purpose and intent of that section is described as: The following requirements and standards are intended to promote, preserve and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and educational functions that stream and river corridors, associated riparian areas and wetlands provide. The hydraulic function of the river corridor will not be negatively impacted by the variance. The hydraulics of a river refer to the depth, velocity, and direction of flow. The proposed deck piers and small portion of the house would not impact the hydraulics of the river in normal conditions. The location of the deck piers makes it unlikely they would impact the hydraulic function of the river in a flood. The lowest portion of the structure would be located approximately 30’ from, and elevated seven to eight feet above, the 500-year floodplain (i.e. 0.2% chance event). There could be some impact on the biological and ecological functions or aesthetic, recreational and educational functions of the river corridor. Among other purposes, the setback is intended to protect riparian areas from development. However, an encroachment into the setback will reduce the riparian corridor along the Fall River, potentially resulting in reduced biological and ecological functioning of the corridor. 9 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 is beneficial use of the property without the variance. A house with a smaller deck and footprint could be constructed in the proposed location or a house with a larger footprint and deck could be constructed north of the private drive. Given the lot is currently undeveloped, the opportunity is available to redesign the plans to comply with the current setback requirement. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variance is not 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; Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered with the variance and adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial determent. The houses immediately east and west of the subject property are located north of the private drive; (i.e. setback 100’ to 200’ from the river) however, there are four houses west of the subject property which are setback approximately 15’ from the river. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. Staff Finding: The site plan depicts the deck encroaching into a recorded water line easement. The Water Division has indicated the proposedencroachment is acceptable and thus will not negatively impact delivery of public services. Other public services should not be impacted by the variance. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The applicant appears to have purchased the property in 2023. The current requirements were in place at that time but it is unknown if the applicant had knowledge of the river setback requirement. However, proper due diligence would have identified the setback requirements for this property. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. 10 Staff Finding:The Applicant could decrease the size of the deckand building footprintor locate the house north of the private drive. The lot is undeveloped, and as such, the applicant is not constrained by existing development or structures. Redesigning the home and/or deck is a viable alternative at this time. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: Alternative designs could potentially provide a usable deck and house with a lesser encroachment. 5. 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: Not applicable. 6. 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 conditions as listed below. Review Agency Comments The application was referred to all applicable review agencies for comment. Public Works indicates the revised application sufficiently justifies the identified high-water mark. Public Works is not opposed to the variance request. No concerns or opposition were received from other agencies. 11 Public Notice Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements. As of the time of writing this report, Staff has received no inquiries regarding the variance request. Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on July 18, 2024. Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on July 19, 2024. Application posted on the Town's "Current Applications" website. Signsposted on the property by the applicant 12 Action Recommended Staff recommends denialof the proposed variance. Finance/Resource Impact N/A Level of Public Interest Little or none. Sample Motions I move to deny the variance requests with the with findings as outlined in the staff report. I move to approve the variance \[state reason/findings in support of approval\]subject to the following conditions: I move that the Board of Adjustment continue the variance to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that \[state reasons for continuance\]. 13 Attachments 1. Application 2.Statement of Intent 3. Site Plan 4. Public Works Comments 14 PROJECT ROUTING REFERRAL FORM AGENCY Public Works REVIEWER Jennifer Waters SIGNATURE DATE 07/30/24 No Comments Resubmittal Required Comments Provided via Comment Letter (attached) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: 2842 Fall River Rd Î Application to Board of Adjustment for Setback Variance Letter (7/19/24) and Site Plan (7/15/24) by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying appear to sufficiently justify the location of the annual high-water mark on the applicantÓs parcel. Public Works finds that approval of the requested variance, based on the proposed building envelope and its elevation, would not significantly compromise the purposes of the River Corridor setback listed in previous Public Works Comments (5/30/24). It is acknowledged that no construction would be proposed in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) of the Fall River. 170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG #®¬¬´¨³¸$¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³$¤¯ ±³¬¤³ΘΖΏΔΖΖΒΖΑΐ 0« ¨¦ $¨µ¨²¨®¯« ¨¦͔¤²³¤²ȁ®±¦