Title
ZV(R)2023-0084 & 0085, Marta De La Pezuela, 18652 NW 23 Street
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND:
Marta De la Pezuela, owner, submitted two residential zoning variance requests to legalize an existing driveway and patio for the single-family residence located at 18652 NW 23 Street in Keystone Lake neighborhood. The property is part of the Big Sky Planned Unit Development (PUD) and follows PUD Zone SF-1 (single-family conventional lot) guidelines. The PUD does not address driveways, walkways, or patios; therefore, the provisions of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC) apply when PUD guidelines are silent.
On May 20, 2022, the City’s Code Compliance Division cited the property owner (Case No. 22050034) for work performed without permits.
In June 27, 2022, the owner submitted a building permit application (No. RX22-03944) to legalize the driveway and patio/walkway; however, the permit cannot be approved as the existing work exceeds the limitations of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC).
The owner is requesting:
• ZV(R) 2023-0084 is to allow a 38% front lot coverage (total) instead of the allowed 35% front lot coverage (total) in a typical single family residential lot for an existing driveway.
Per the survey, there are existing paved areas along the east and west side yards of the home’s structure, closer than the required five-foot (5’) setbacks. The applicant, via demolition permit (RO22-09445) is permanently removing gazebo, reducing the footprint of unpermitted driveway, and patio.
Nevertheless, the applicant would like to keep the existing three-foot wide walkway located on the side yard (west) and running parallel to the western property line. Specifically, the owner is requesting:
• ZV(R) 2023-0085 is to allow four feet (4’) side setback along a portion of the eastern property line instead of the required five feet (5’) side setback for an existing fifty-four feet by three feet (54’ x 3’) patio.
The applicant is aware that Board consideration of residential variance request does not preclude the property owner from obtaining all necessary development related approvals or permits. This request does not include any landscape exemptions.
The subject property is in the Keystone Lake neighborhood. No HOA approval has been provided.
VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS:
ZV(R) 2023-0084) is to allow a 38% front lot coverage (total) instead of the allowed 35% front lot coverage (total) for an existing driveway in a typical single-family residential lot.
ZV(R) 2023-0085) is to allow four feet (4’) side setback along a portion of the eastern property line instead of the required five feet (5’) side setback for an existing fifty-four feet by three feet (54’ x 3’) deck or patio.
Code References:
Table 155.620 Accessory Building and Structures
ZV(R) 2023-0084)
Type, Driveway, Typical-Lot, Maximum Dimensions, 35% front lot coverage
ZV(R) 2023-0085)
Type, Deck or patio, Setback, Side, 5 feet
VARIANCE DETERMINATION:
The Board of Adjustment shall not grant any single-family residential variances, permits, or make any decision, finding, and determination unless it first determines that:
Its decision and action taken is in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinances of the city and is not contrary to the public interest, health, or welfare, taking into account the character and use of adjoining buildings and those in the vicinity, the number of persons residing or working in the buildings, and traffic conditions in the vicinity.
In the granting of single-family residential variances, the Board shall follow Section 155.301(O) Variance:
1. Purpose: To allow for the provision of relief from certain development standards of this LDC for one or more of the following reasons:
a) There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances are peculiar to the land or building and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinances would result in an unnecessary hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or building; or
b) Any alleged hardship is not self-created by any person having an interest in the property nor is the result of a mere disregard for or in ignorance of the provisions of the zoning ordinances of the city; or
c) Granting the variance is not incompatible with public policy, will not adversely affect any adjacent property owners, and that the circumstances which cause the special conditions are peculiar to the subject property.