CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

Transcription

1 Page 60 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO: C STAFF: MICHAEL SCHULTZ FILE NO: CPC UV QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: 1534 & 1536 W. CHEYENNE ROAD JOHN DWORAK ESTATES OF ELAINE DWORAK Site

2 Page 61 PROJECT SUMMARY: 1. Project Description: This is a request by John Dworak for a use variance to allow two (2) existing detached single-family homes on a single parcel. The property is zoned R (Single-family Residential), consists of acres (7,498 square feet) and is located at 1534 and 1536 W. Cheyenne Road. 2. Applicant s Project Statement: (FIGURE 1). 3. Planning and Development Department s Recommendation: Approve the use variance and development plan (FIGURE 2) to allow two (2) single-family homes on a single parcel within an R zone district subject to the technical modifications as outlined below. BACKGROUND: 1. Site Address: 1534 & 1536 W. Cheyenne Road 2. Existing Zoning/Land Use: R /HS (Single-family Residential with Hillside Overlay) / Two single-family homes on one parcel. 3. Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: North: R / Single-family Residential South: R / Single-family Residential East: R / Single-family (Across Cheyenne Rd.: R-2 / Single-family and Duplexes) West: R / Duplex 4. Comprehensive Plan/Designated 2020 Land Use: General Residential. 5. Annexation: Reannexation of the Southwest Annexation Area, Master Plan/Designated Master Plan Land Use: None. 7. Subdivision: Not platted. 8. Zoning Enforcement Action: None. 9. Physical Characteristics: The property is an unplatted flag-lot off of W. Cheyenne Road with a narrow driveway access with the grade rising up from the road; the property sits slightly above the adjacent property to the southeast. The property is heavily wooded as is the surrounding properties located between Cheyenne Road and Cheyenne Boulevard. STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND INVOLVEMENT: The standard City notification and posting process was used with 34 property owners within 500 feet of the subject property notified at the time of submittal. Staff received one in opposition to the proposed request (FIGURE 3). Prior to the City Planning Commission hearing, the site will be posted and postcards mailed once again. All applicable agencies and departments were asked to review and comment on the use variance; no significant concerns were identified.

3 Page 62 ANALYSIS OF REVIEW CRITERIA / MAJOR ISSUES / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE: 1. Review Criteria / Design and Development Issues: The two residential structures located on the subject property were both constructed in 1900 (according to the El Paso County Assessor s records). The area was annexed and zoned in 1980 as part of the Southwest Annexation (and later Reannexation). Staff at the time likely determined that the predominate land use in the area was single-family residential, thus establishing the R zone. It appears that these to structures have continuously existed as two separate dwellings. The applicant points out that the City, during its review in determining the appropriate zone district, gave no regard to the existing use of the property. The applicant further points out that there are at least six (6) other properties on the block that have two dwelling units, either as a single duplex structure or two free standing residential structures (FIGURE 4). The City Code (Section ) prohibits legal non-conforming uses to be added to, enlarged, or structurally altered for the nonconforming use, and if the structures are damaged beyond a value of 50% of the replacement costs, the nonconforming use shall no longer be permitted. Pursuant to City Code Section B, the following criteria must be found in the affirmative in order to approve a use variance: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same zone so that a denial of the petition would result in undue property loss; and b) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the petitioner; and also c) That such variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or convenience nor injurious to the property or improvements of other owners of property. Staff finds that the proposed use variance meets the review criteria as outlined in Section B of the City Code. 2. Conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan: Policy N 201: Protect Established and Stable Neighborhoods Protect the character of established and stable neighborhoods through neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory actions. Strategy N 201a: Preserve and Enhance the Physical Elements that Define a Neighborhood's Character

4 Page 63 In considering development proposals, preserve the physical elements that contribute to a neighborhood's identity and character, such as natural features, buildings and development patterns, historic and cultural features, parks, open space and schools. Where appropriate, utilize historic preservation districts and conservation districts as tools to achieve preservation and enhancement of historic and cultural resources. Objective LU 4: Encourage Infill and Redevelopment Encourage infill and redevelopment projects that are in character and context with existing, surrounding development. Infill and redevelopment projects in existing neighborhoods make good use of the City's infrastructure. If properly designed, these projects can serve an important role in achieving quality, mixed-use neighborhoods. In some instances, sensitively designed, high quality infill and redevelopment projects can help stabilize and revitalize existing older neighborhoods. Strategy LUM 202b: General Residential Primary Uses Identify primary uses as all types of residential development at average gross densities greater than three dwelling units per acre. Cluster higher density developments along collector and major roads and as a transition to nonresidential uses. Staff finds that the proposed use variance meets the Comprehensive Plan s goals and objectives. 3. Conformance with the Area s Master Plan: There is no master plan associated with this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Item No.: C CPC UV Use Variance Approve the use variance at 1534 and 1536 W. Cheyenne Road to allow two (2) single-family homes within a R /HS (Single-family Residential with Hillside Overlay) zone district based upon the finding that the use and plan comply with the criteria for granting a use variance and a development plan as set forth in City Code Sections B and E, and is subject to the following technical modification to the development plan: Technical Modification Place the City file number, CPC UV , in the lower right hand corner of the plan page.

5 Page 64 ( -/ February 3, 2014 Mr. Mike Schultz, AICP Community Development Department Land Use Review Division RECEIVED FtB Colorado Springs Land Use Review 30 S Nevada Avenue, Suite 105 Colorado Springs, Colorado Dear Mr. Schultz: I am enclosing the attached request for a use variance for the property located at W Cheyenne Road in Cheyenne Canyon that is owned by the Estate of Elaine S Dworak. The property is a flag lot with an assessor parcel number of that is improved with two single family cottages that were built in When the property was annexed into the City of Colorado Springs, it was zoned R-l 6000 without regard to its existing use as a duplex. Since my mother's passing in 2013, we are having to liquidate the real property for estate purposes. This request for a use variance for the property is the result of the requirement by lenders that the property can be rebuilt in case of a catastrophic loss. Without the use variance as a duplex, fmancing is not available, and the property's value is severely impaired. This request is submitted with the specific understanding that, if granted, any replacement structure would conform to required side and front setbacks. The property has been in continuous as a duplex for over 100 years without disturbing the neighbors, and is an extremely non homogeneous neighborhood in the Canyon. There are six other properties in the same block that have similar duplex use at 1501 Cheyenne Blvd, 1503 Cheyenne Blvd, 1517 Cheyenne Blvd, 1523 Cheyenne Blvd, 1504 W Cheyenne Road, and the property that the subject backs to at 1532 Cheyenne Blvd. All but one of these duplex uses has two detached single family dwelling units and all have the same R-l 6000 zoning like the subject. Thank ~rj~i~ i!!:womk Personal Representative FIGURE 1

6 Page 65 FIGURE 2

7 Page 66 Schultz. Michael From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thursday, February 27, :06 PM Schultz, Michael File # CPC UV Use Variance Hi Mike, I received the post card regarding this Use Variance at 1534 & 1536 Cheyenne Road. This property abuts the rear of my property at 1531 Cheyenne Blvd. I understand that this request has been made to allow, when needed, for the reconstruction of two separate dwellings on this property. I am opposed to this variance for the following reasons: The density of dwellings is already too great in this part of the Canon. With the real threat of fire in our area, I have serious concerns about the existence of two dwellings being located behind yet another property (on Cheyenne Road) with very limited egress. This property is heavily treed. In the event of a fire, I believe it would be a serious hazard for residents to evacuate safely. Lastly, with the density of residents and dogs located on this small lot, I have concerns about the potential noise inflicted on neighbors. I am a good neighbor and wish to foster a positive environment in the Canon for its owners, renters and animals. I have no issues with Mr. Dworak and do not want to create any hardships for him. However, I do want him to be aware of the high risks that such a variance could bring. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Karen Brandner 1531 Cheyenne Blvd. Colorado Springs, CO (719) kbbrandner@msn.com 1 FIGURE 3

8 Page 67 FIGURE 4

9 - Page 68 FIGURE 4