Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 06.09.2008BOA 6/9/2008 dd Sanders Variance PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Variance from Front Yard Setbacks APPLICANT / OWNER James Curtis Sanders LOCATION 630 Meadow Creek Drive, Parachute, CO (Battlement Mesa) EXISTING ZONING STAFF RECOMMENDATION PUD Subzone: Rural Residential Density (RDR) Denial 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY: The subject lot is identified as Lot 7, Block 7, Battlement Creek Village, Section 2. The 20,453 sq. ft. lot is currently improved with a single-family dwelling unit. 2. SUMMARY OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE As represented in the Application, due to a surveying or construction error, the southwest corner of the existing garage encroaches fifteen (15) inches into the front yard setback. Creek Dr Meedo t`eeK� Yki t % f 630 Meadow Creek Drive 'I lilt :v • WI.. Pa, • Battlement Mesa 1 BOA 619/2008 dd Photo shows garage face that fails to meet the front and minimum setback. Photo at Teff: The front yard minimum setback distance is to be 25'. The distance depicted by the dashed line is 23'9". 3. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE § 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution outlines the criteria that must be met in order to grant a variance. Specifically, the granting of a variance must demonstrate the following: (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 BOA 6/9/2008 dd STAFF RESPONSE: This standard is only applicable to lots/parcels created prior to the enactment of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. Battlement Creek Village was platted in 1981; therefore, the requested variance is not exempted from compliance with portion of the standard. Furthermore, it would be the narrowness, shallowness or shape of the lot that constitutes a hardship, not circumstance created by, or related to, the owner/builder. (2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. STAFF RESPONSE: Undue hardship is to be related to the topographic conditions of the lot, such as a stream corridor or steep embankment. The subject lot is relatively flat. The need for the requested variance is not a result of the topographic conditions of the property. Staff finds that the requested variance does not comply with this standard. (3) That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; STAFF RESPONSE: A variance is not required to place the existing dwelling unit on the subject property. Since a variance is not required to alleviate practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the property owner resulting from exceptional physical (topographic) conditions or the shape of the subject lot any variance granted would not be the "minimum necessary". The requested variance is not in compliance with this standard. (4) 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 RESPONSE: Allowing deviation from the standards identifed in the existing land use code will set a precedent for future requests. Approval of requests such as this one will only send conflicting messages to developers and subcontractors throughout Garfield County. Future developments might deliberately violate setback requirements knowing the Board's actions would allow for this. Staff cannot recommend approval of the requested variance. (5) 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 RESPONSE: This standard requires that the Applicant demonstrate that the requested variance is not the result of general conditions in the zone district. Front yard setbacks are a general condition of the district. The requested variance is not in compliance with this standard. While it is regrettable that the claimed error in the placement of the structure built by the 3 BOA 6/9/2008 dd applicant has resulted its location in the required setback area, the applicant nonetheless created the hardship; it was not caused by the natural topography of the lot or conditions existing in the district. Further, setbacks in front of garage entries are sized to allow for the parking of vehicles so as not block public sidewalk areas. People walking on sidewalks should not be required to travel into the street because the sidewalk has been compromised. (In this case there are no pedestrian facilties at all.) A remedy to physically alter the garage may not be appealing to the applicant, but it can be physically accomplished to satisfy the code requirements for the setback. (A standard parking space depth ranges between 18' and 25'; the 31' depth of the garage structure is more than sufficient to accommodate vehicle length if the 15 inches of encroachment is removed. Further, the building code allows for up to 18" of roofline overhang into setback areas, but not anything that constitutes a structural element of the building.) 4. SUMMARY The requested variance does not comply with the standards identified in §9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution. In order to grant a variance, the Applicant must demonstrate to the Board of Adjustment that the request is in compliance with these standards. Staff cannot recommend approval of the requested variance. 5. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of Adjustment. 2. That the hearing 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 request for a variance is not in compliance with any of the requirements of §9.05.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of Staff that the Board of Adjustment deny the request for a variance allowing the deviation from the front yard setback requirement identified as a condition of the Battlement Mesa PUD Rural Residential Density (RDR) Zone District, as it does not meet the conditions in §9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution. 4