Gabe Sevigney, Project Manager/Planner I Gilbert LaForce, Engineer II Craig Dossey, Executive Director Planning & Community Development

Transcription

1 COMMISSIONERS: DARRYL GLENN (PRESIDENT) MARK WALLER (PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE) STAN VANDERWERF LONGINOS GONZALEZ PEGGY LITTLETON PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CRAIG DOSSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO: FROM: RE: El Paso County Board of Adjustment Gabe Sevigney, Project Manager/Planner I Gilbert LaForce, Engineer II Craig Dossey, Executive Director Planning & Community Development BOA : Jackson Creek Kennel Assessor s Schedule No: OWNER: Carol Hibbert P.O. Box 14 Peyton, CO REPRESENTATIVE: Dale Parker P.O. Box 14 Peyton, CO Commissioner District: 2 Board of Adjustment Hearing Date: 1/10/2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A request by Dale Parker, on behalf of Carol Hibbert, for a dimensional variance to allow a side yard setback of 67 feet where 100 feet is the minimum side yard setback for a kennel in the RR-5 (Residential Rural) zoning district. The property, also known as Lot 29 Blue Springs Ranch, is located south of Highway 24, east of Peyton Highway on the south side of Elliott View within Section 8, Township 12 South, Range 63 West of the 6 th P.M. Sub-note 6 of Table 5-4, Density and Dimensional Standards for Agricultural, Residential and Special Purpose Districts of the El Paso County Land Development Code (2016) states: Kennels, pens and fur farms shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from all property lines INTERNATIONAL CIRCLE, SUITE 110 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO PHONE: (719) FAX: (719)

2 A. REQUEST A request for a dimensional variance to allow a side yard setback of 67 feet where 100 feet is required for a kennel within the RR-5 (Residential Rural) zoning district. B. APPROVAL CRITERIA Section B.2.a, Variance to Physical Requirements, of the Land Development Code (2015), states the following: The Board of Adjustment is authorized to grant variances from the strict application of any physical requirement of this Code which would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of the property. Practical difficulties and hardship, in this context, may exist where the legal use of the property is severely restricted due to: 1) The exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the specific piece of property. Legal use of the property is not severely restricted due to any exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the property. 2) The exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition of the piece of property. Legal use of the property is not severely restricted due to any exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or conditions. However, Section B.2.a, Variance to Physical Requirements, of the Code continues by stating the following: The Board of Adjustment may also grant variances from the strict application of any physical requirement of this Code based upon equitable consideration, finding that the burdens of strict compliance with the zoning requirement(s) significantly exceed the benefits of such compliance for the specific piece of property and; The variance provides only reasonably brief, temporary relief; or Approval of the variance would provide permanent relief. The variance request includes an alternative plan, standards or conditions that substantially and satisfactorily mitigate the anticipated impacts or serve as a reasonably equivalent substitute for current zoning requirements; or 2

3 There are no anticipated impacts that would require an alternate plan, standard, or condition. Some other unique or equitable consideration compels that strict compliance not be required. The accessory structure, which is now being used as a kennel, was built by a previous owner in 2004 at a distance of approximately 67 feet from the side lot line. The structure meets the setbacks established in the Code for general accessory structures; however, the use of the structure as a kennel, which has a setback requirement of 100 feet from the property line, requires the structure to either be moved 33 feet further away from the side property line or a new structure to be built. This would require the owner to relocate the current structure, if possible, or build a new structure at a significant cost to the owner. Table 5-4 of the Code requires a 100 foot setback for a kennel in the RR-5 zoning district. Per the applicant s letter of intent, the structure in question was built in its current location in 2004, by a previous property owner; however, no permits were obtained from the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department. In addition, there is no record of a site plan being reviewed or approved by El Paso Planning and Community Development Department for the structure. It should be noted that the structure does meet the 25 foot setback requirements for a general accessory structure in the RR-5 zoning district. C. BACKGROUND The applicant was operating a kennel with proper state licenses; however, proper approvals from the County were never obtained. The state agency controlling kennel licensing found that many kennels with current state licenses never obtained proper County zoning and referred them to the Planning and Community Development Department for review. Many of these kennels have been in operation for years. The kennel that is the subject of this specific request has been in operation since Further research indicated that there was no County review or approval associated with this kennel. The applicant was notified by Code Enforcement that having a kennel in the RR-5 zoning district requires approval of a special use. The special use application was received October 13, The site plan associated with the special use application showed the existing kennel as being located at a distance of 67 feet from the side lot line where 100 feet is required by the Code. The applicant was promptly notified of the failure to meet side yard setbacks for a kennel. Staff informed the applicant that a special use to legalize the existing kennel could not be approved until and unless a dimensional variance is approved, which would legalize the location of the kennel relative to the 100 foot setback requirement. 3

4 D. ALTERNATIVES EXPLORED There are alternative options for the applicant that would not require a dimensional variance request: 1. Move the structure to a new location meeting the required setbacks. 2. Build a new structure (kennel) and repurpose the existing accessory structure for a use allowed within the zoning district. 3. Discontinue all operations as a kennel. E. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Should the Board of Adjustment determine that the application is consistent with the criteria for approval of a dimensional variance for a 67 foot setback for a kennel when a 100 foot setback is required, and that the applicant has met the review and approval criteria for granting variances from the applicable standards, staff recommends the following conditions and notation of approval: Conditions 1. The approval applies only to the plans as submitted. Any expansion or additions to the proposed kennel may require separate Board of Adjustment application(s) and approval(s) if the development requirements of the applicable zoning district cannot be met. 2. A building permit must be secured through Pikes Peak Regional Building Department to legalize the structure. 3. A commercial well permit shall be obtained within 120 days of the approval date from the Board of Adjustment. The due date may be administratively extended by the Planning and Community Development Department Director if the Director determines that the applicant is making a good faith effort to obtain the well permit. 4. Approval of a Special Use to legalize a kennel shall be obtained within 90 days of the approval date from the Board of Adjustment for the side yard setback of 67 feet to apply. F. APPLICABLE RESOLUTIONS Approval: Resolution 3 Unique and Equitable Circumstances Disapproval: Resolution 4 G. LOCATION North: RR-5 (Residential Rural) South: A-5 (Agricultural) East: RR-5 (Residential Rural) West: A-5 (Agricultural) Residential Vacant Residential Vacant 4

5 H. SERVICE 1. WATER/WASTEWATER Water is provided by a residential well monitored by Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water per well permit number WASTEWATER Wastewater is provided by an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) that was permitted under number EMERGENCY SERVICES The site is located within the boundaries of Peyton Fire Protection District. The District was sent a referral and had no response. I. ENGINEERING 1. FLOODPLAIN FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel number 0841C0375 shows the property within the zone X area which is determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. 2. DRAINAGE AND EROSION The property is located within the Upper Bracket Creek (CHBR0600) drainage basin which is unstudied and has no drainage or bridge fees. There are no drainage or erosion issues identified with this request. 3. TRANSPORTATION There are no transportation issues identified with this request. J. PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOTICE The Planning and Community Development Department notified six (6) adjoining property owners on 12/11/2017, for the Board of Adjustment meeting. Responses will be provided at the hearing. K. ATTACHMENTS Letter of Intent Vicinity Map Site Plan 5

6 LETTER OF INTENT Variance allowing setback of less than 100 feet October 30, 2017 Owner/Applicant: Carol Hibbert/Dale Parker Elliott View Peyton, CO Site Information: Location: Elliott View Size: 35 Acres Zone: RR5 Request and Justification: We are requesting that the building at Elliott View be allowed to remain in its current location with a less than 100 feet set back. The building is exactly 67ft from the property line on the east side. 1. The building was built in its current location in 2004, by Doug Faul the then said owner. 2. Carol Hibbert purchased the property and all buildings at Elliott View, Peyton, CO 80831, on November 7, Our neighbor to the east has no problem with the building being used as a kennel or that is less than 100 feet from the property line. Leaving the 60 x 40 building where it sits now is not just a desire, moving it would create an extreme hardship if it could even be moved. We would have to excavate a new site, do soils testing, get another engineered foundation design, pull permits and build a new foundation. Then we have to find a moving company with the proper equipment to be able to move a 60 x 40 building. 4. Prior to the move we have to hire licensed professionals to disconnect and remove from the building all the utility lines, water, septic, propane and electric. Once the building was moved to its new foundation then the licensed plumbers, excavators and electricians would need to return to redo hookups at the relocated building. I can t even begin to estimate the cost of this much work. The cost would be prohibitive to say the least. 6

7 5. Building a new building would be more of a hardship and the cost would be prohibitive as well. We believe that this setback variance be approved because. There is no harm to any adjacent property owner There is no doubt that moving the 60 x 40 building would create extreme hardship as would building a new building. 7

8 9/30/2017 El Paso County Parcel Viewer Help Map Search Database Search Zoom to Region Measure Tool Print AERIAL ROAD Schedule Owner: HIBBERT C Location: ELL More Info ft 8 1/1

9 9