Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 04.28.2003Exhibits for Zamansky Variance (BOA) 4/28/03 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Proof of Mail Receipts and Posting B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1 J h , as amended D Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 F Staff Memorandum G Application Materials u, REQUEST: APPLICANT: PROPERTY LOCATION: 0262 Stagecoach Drive, Carbondale, CO LOT SIZE: 0.28 acres or 12,197 sq. ft. +/- EXISTING ZONING: R/1/6 (PUD) of 1970 ej; 14s— BOA 04/28/03 FAJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Variance from the 25 foot Rear Yard Setback L, O n° Dave,Zamansky I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The subject property, located in the Ranch at the Roaring Fork, is zoned R/1/6 within the PUD which provides that the minimum rear setback is 25 feet. The Applicant would like to construct an addition to their existing single-family dwelling which would extend approximately 9 feet into the rear setback. Therefore, the Applicant requests the Board of Adjustment grant them zoning relief from this setback standard from 25 feet to 16 feet in order to construct their addition in their rear yard. ^' II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY / HISTORY The property is a corner lot (located on the corner of Stagecoach Drive and Brown Court), is flat, and contains approximately 12,197 square feet. The lot is improved by a one-story wood frame single-family dwelling. The lot was approved as part of the Phase 4 in Filing No. 2 in 1976 by the Board of County Commissioners. The unit has remained in its current configuration within its setbacks since its original construction. III. STAFF COMMENTS The property is located within the Ranch at the Roaring Fork, which maintains its own set of protective covenants and restrictions which requires the rear setback for the Applicant's property to be 30 feet (which is 5 feet more restrictive than the zoning in Garfield County). However, the Applicant received approval from the Ranch at the Roaring Fork Architectural Committee approving a setback variance to 18 feet from the property line. As you are aware, the protective covenants may only be more restrictive than county regulations and not less restrictive. Further, the county does not enforce protective covenants. Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution provides that the Board may approve a variance request if the strict application of any regulation enacted under this Resolution (i. e. minimum setback) would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship on the property owner if the following findings can be made: 1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property at the time of enactment of this Resolution, or 2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. In response to these two points, Staff finds that 1) the shape of the subject property is not exceptionally narrow or shallow so that the required setbacks have prohibited the reasonable use of the property for the placement of a residential structure; and 2) the property does not contain exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situations or conditions. The property is flat and basically square and has been improved by a single-family dwelling for many years within the required setbacks. Staff is aware that the lot is somewhat different than other lots in its immediate vicinity in that it is a corner lot. This means the lot effectively has 2 front yards as they front both Stagecoach Drive and Brown Court. The rear yard is determined to be opposite the front yard that provides the vehicular entrance to the property. In this case the driveway comes off of Stagecoach Drive and as a result, the rear yard is directly opposite that frontage. Because the lot has two front yards does not mean it has two back yards. Staff does not believe the configuration of this lot, having two front yards, is cause for hardship. 2 IV. REVIEW STANDARDS In order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, they must find the Applicant has satisfied the four main criteria or standards provided in Section 9.05 of the Zoning Resolution. 1. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; Staff Finding Staff finds that no practical difficulties exist on the lot which the variance requested would alleviate. In fact, the owners could build an addition in that same location as proposed but not construct is as large. In other words, there is some room for expansion in the rear of the house without having to actually build into the setbacks. The Applicant has lived in the existing house within all the minimum setbacks for many years without the desired addition. Therefore, Staff does not believe that a variance would provide the minimum necessary relief to a practical difficulty or undue hardship on the owner. This standard has not been met. 2. That such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or this Resolution; Staff Finding Staff finds the requested variance represents a detriment to the public good and impairs the intent and purpose of this Resolution. The Applicant is creating the need for a variance. The Applicant purchased the property understanding where the setbacks were located. The dwelling has existed for many years without the need for a variance to expand into the setbacks. Further, there is room for limited expansion without the need for a variance at all. This request, if granted, would set a poor precedent for subsequent similar requests. The Board cannot be expected to determine whether small expansions are better than larger expansions. Where does the Board draw the line as to how much of an expansion is acceptable? This variance request, if approved, will erode the authority of the Board as well as the zoning regulations that serve to guide development in the county for the benefit of the public good. Staff remains unconvinced a denial of this variance will cause undue hardship to the Applicant if they cannot construct a sufficiently large addition. Staff finds this standard is not met. 3. That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected; Staff Finding The reason for the variance request is caused entirely by the applicant's desire to construct an addition to the rear of their existing structure that would extend into the rear yard setback. To be clear, an addition could be constructed on the rear of the house without a need for a variance if it's slightly smaller than the proposed design. This request before the Board represents a design 3 preference that could be amended to comply with the setback standard. No variance has been needed since the structure was originally constructed. In other words, no variance has been needed to this point in time and no changes have occurred to the lot size, depth, shape, or topography to constitute an undue hardship due to the strict application of zoning provisions that have been in place since 1970. Further, Staff does not find that there exist circumstances that are the result of general conditions in the district. Staff finds an addition protruding into the rear yard setback would constitute a hardship caused by the applicant; therefore, this standard is not met. 4. That the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the appellant. Staff Finding This shall be determined at the hearing before the Board. V. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of Adjustment. 2. That the meeting before the Board of Adjustment was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed setback variance has been determined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY the variance request. 4