The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 BOA Staff Report 04.16.2007Exhibits for a Public Hearing held on April l 61h, 2007 Exhibit' :~tt~r; ~i;toc:Zy A B c D E F G H I J Proof of Publication Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended Ap lication Staff Memorandum Letter from Donna Humble and Dwayne Van Schoubroek dated April 2" , 2007 Letter from Sonlight Fours uare Gospel Church, dated March 14 1 , 2007 Applicants Power Point Presentation Applicants suggested findin s and conditions Staff Power Point Presentation BOA 4/16/2007 CR Damm Variance PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Variance from Front and Rear Yard Setbacks APPLICANT I OWNER LOCATION SITE DATA ACCESS WATER SEWER EXISTING ZONING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Stephen Damm County Road 130 (Donegan Rd.) (Lot 5, Herczeg Subdivision) 8,020 sq. ft. (0.184 ac.) Access Easement/County Road 130 West Glenwood Sanitation District West Glenwood Sanitation District Residential/Limited/Urban Density Denial 1. DESCRIPTION OF.THE PROPERTY: \ '\ .. '~ Herczeg Subdivision was created by an exemption plat approved by Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (the Board) memorialized in Resolution no. 77-60, dated July 21, 1977. The subje.ct lot is predominately triangular in shape .Qy design of the developer. \ \ '>,,.:>~-;r::n j I /'" \ !/1 l _/0 \·rel-\; . \ \ \ . \ ·,,.-1 / ,______ I ~~~- , , , r""'~lf-~"''' ' . ' The subject lot is situated within the ~ , , Residential/Limited/Urban Density (RLUD) ·- Zone District. The purpose of an urban , ,,"' r1,; ' '--HJ density zone district is to allow ,, •••. ,. development of lots smaller in size compared to rural zone districts. The minimum loJsize for developments within the RLUD Zone District identified in §3.04.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended (the Zoning Resolution) is 7,500 sq. ft. Lot 5, of the Herczeg Subdivision complies with all regulations and conditions found in the RLUD Zone District. 1 BOA 4/16/2007 CR 2. SUMMARY OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE In order for the Applicant to place the desired unit on the subject lot a variance from the front and rear yard setbacks will be required. The front and rear yard setback requirements are defined in §3.04.04 of the Zoning Resolution as: ~ Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; ~ Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; ~ Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (112) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. The requested variance is for the following: ~ Front Yard Setback Deviation: 11.65' ~ Rear Yard Setback Deviation: 14.33" 3. BUILDING ENVELOPE A building envelope created by the setbacks was platted with a utility easement when the subdivision was created. The Applicant,has stated that relocating the easement would exceed $20,000. It is not demonstrated how.this total was calculated. Should the Board of Adjustment (BOA) find that the easement does in fact create an undue hardship the BOA must determine if the requested variance is for the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship (§9.05.03 {3}). The desired 1523. 73 sq. ft. pre- manufactured home would not fit within the required setbacks regardless of the platted utility easement. Not all units within the RLUD Zone District or the Herczeg Subdivision are pre-manufactured single story homes. Existing units on the larger Lots 2 and 3 would fit within the building envelope created by a general condition of the zone district. \ \ The purpose of the RLUD Zone ~· 1 District is to allow development of t::===========~·§~~~·::· ··'.:!'"=· ======:'.:::'.:::= smaller lots utilizing a centralized water and sewer system. Smaller lots result in smaller r building envelopes. Landowners within an urban inspired zone districts are required to construct improvements that are appropriate to the configuration of the lot. The desired 1523.73 sq. ft. pre-manufactured home is not appropriate for subject lot. 2 BOA 4/16/2007 CR 4. 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. Specificlly, 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 STAFF RESPONSE: Dimensional requirments that are identified today mirror those that were in place when the subject lot was created. This condition is applicable to lots created prior to the enactment of zoning in Garfield County. The shape and size of the subject lot are both the result of the Developers design. The lot is compliance with all zoning requirments of the RLUD Zone District. (2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. STAFF RESPONSE: The shape of the subject lot does not prevent the construction or placement of dwelling unit similar in size and design of those found throughout the RLUD Zone District. Exceptional topographic conditions ~re not present on the subject lot. The Applicant has requested that the BOA consider the platted utility easement present at the time of purchase an extraordinary and exceptional situation on the subject lot. As stated earlier in this memorandum the desired pre-manufactured unit is not capablile of fitting within the ,.,,~,1 " established building envelope. ,f.~ ~$. •-l""'r" /~:c-·:------- exceptionally small for a lot .. . created in the RLUD Zone •'"0 ' ' \ \ \ ' . \ \ The building envelope is not ~/"-_ .··· • District. A unit similar to others ,L.. _______ _,_,~=w.-. ... .,.,,,,------~~--r within the Herzceg Subdivision and throughout the RLUD Zone Distrisct could comply with the setback requirments. 3 BOA 4/16/2007 CR (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: Should the BOA find that the platted easement constitutes a hardship, The BOA must determine if the request by the Applicant is the minimum necessary to allevate the hardship. Staff finds that the requested variance to allow the placement of the desired 1523.73 sq. ft. unit would not be the minimum necessary. The desired unit as demonstrated in this memorandum is too large for the subject lot. A dwelling unit of approriate size could be placed on the lot without encroaching on adjacent property lines. Two story structures exist in the RLUD Zone District and in the Herzceg Subdivision. This option would be more approriate considering the circumstances that exist on the platted lot. (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: Relief to construct a dwelling unit within the building envelope is not required. The Applicant's desired unit creates the need for a variance. A variance should only be granted when no other options exist. Allowing Applicants to deviate needlessly from the zoning requirments that are used by the Building and Planning Department to help guide development in Garfield County creates an inconsistent application of the Zoning Resolution. Allowing unwaranted deviation would substantially impare the intent of the resolution. (5) That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant, are not due to or the result o(general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected; STAFF RESPONSE: This standard requires that the Applicant demonstrate that the hardship is not casued by the Applicant, and not due to or the result oLgenaral conditions in the district. A variance to place a dwelling unit within the building envelope respecting the platted easement present at the time of purchase is not required. The Applicants choice to place a specific pre-manufactured home on the subject lot creates the need for the requested variance. A two-story pre-manufactured home or stick-built unit could be constructed on this lot without requiring a variance. The established front and rear yard setbacks are a common condition in the RLUD Zone District. Requesting a variance from a common condition within a zone district is not consistant with this standard. 5. SUMMARY As demonstrated throughout this memorandum the need for a variance is the result the Applicants choice to place a specific dwelling unit on the subject property. The proposed unit would require variance with or without the existing easement that is present on the lot. The current regulations and conditions governing the subject lot were in place when the 4 BOA 4/16/2007 CR Herczeg Subdivision was platted and at the time the Applicant purchased the property. The Subdivision's plat is on file at the County Clerk and Recordor's Office depicting the existing easement. Contacting the Building and Planning Department and conducting due dilligance would have revealed the building envelope created by the setback requirments on the subject lot. More commonly, "contingency contracts" are utilized in circumstances where a potential landowner requires a specific improvement or use and is not willing to alter from a desired unit to conform with aplicable rules and regulations. A variance to place a dwelling unit appropriate for a 0.184 ac. lot is not required. The RLUD Zone District is intended to provided smaller lots. Improvements on lots within this district should not be allowed to deviate from the established conditions to place a desired unit too large for the subject lot. Should the BOA find the platted easement does create a hardship, a determination of whether Applicant's request is the minimum necessarv to alleviate this hardship is required. Staff finds that the requested variance is not for the minimum necessary to place a dwelling unit on the subject property. The Applicant has requested a variance to allow a dwelling unit that is not capible of complying with setback requirments, even with the absence of the platted easement. 6. 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 anp 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 Gartield County Zoning Resolution. 7. STAFF RECOMENDATION It is the recommendation of Staff that the Board of Adjustment deny the request for a variance allowing the deviation from the setback requirements identified as a condition of the RLUD Zone District in §3.04.05 of the Zoning Resolution for the following reasons: ~ A variance is not required to place a dwelling unit on the subject lot while respecting the platted easement; ~ All rules and regulations governing the subject lot existed when the lot was platted and 5 BOA 4/16/2007 CR at the time of purchase by the Applicant; ~ The need for a variance is created by the Applicant's choice of a specific pre- manufactured home not.the size, shape, or constraints found on the subject lot; ~ If granted. when not required this request would set a precedent impairing the resolution that is used by the Building and Planning Department to help guide development in Garfield County; ~ The requested variance does not comply with the criteria outlined in §9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution; ~ The requested variance would not be the minimum necessary should the BOA determine a hardship is present, the proposed dwelling unit still would not comply with the required setbacks if the easement was not present; 6 Donna Lee Humble Dwayne VanSchoubroek 0038 Donegan Rd Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Owners of Lot 4 Re : Lot 5 variance request Steve Damm April 2, 2007 EXHIBIT I :E RE(~l~i' J.~ APR 0 3 2007 Th 4 . . h . h H S bd' . . d' . lb ·1 h 8UIL01NGd PLt.1 , ;, e ex1stmg omes m t e erczeg u 1v1s1on are tra itlona m t omes exclu mg ours which is in the process of a major upgrade. None of the homes in this subdivision have garages , except for Lot 1 the large lot which is 2 - 4 times larger than the other 4 lots. Each of the homes on Lot 2 and 3 would fit within the envelope without requiring a variance. The proposed 1500 sq ft prefab home would not. Even if the sewer and utilities were moved and the 1500 sq. ft. home was put in the center of the lot it would still require a variance . We bought our home at prime price 2 Y2 years ago. A big decision factor to purchase this home was it's seclusion and privacy, knowing that eventually someone would build a reasonable size home on the empty adjacent lot, lot 5. We would like to do our best to retain the value along with the other homes in our area and continue adding to it's curb appeal by upgrading. Keeping in line with the set back is a major factor for us. All of the other home s in Herczeg Subdivision have honored the set back conditions . We initially considered rebuilding on our lot since Dwayne is a builder. We then planned to refurbish, remodel and get our home reclassified as a (stick build home). During the past 2 years we have made extensive interior, complete re-roofing and foundational improvements. We are implementing our next phase this spring with replacement of remaining windows and extensive exterior upgrade with stucco. These improvements would well classify our home as a stick build as are the other homes in the Herczeg Subdivision, versus a pre fab home. However, our biggest concern is that the proposed home on lot 5 remain within the setback. We have concluded that there are many creative options for having a home built on lot 5. It wouldn't have to be triangular and would give close to the same square footage of living space excluding the proposed garage. 8j;:;~;/ o:::#.ii~b e Dway d/~ an Schoubroek SOl\...;IGHT FOURSQUARE \....OSPEL CHURCH March 14, 2007 Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Plaza Building 108 gth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 0 355 Co unty Roa d 132 Gl enwoo d Spr ings , Color ado 8 1601 970-945 -96 57 sonlight@sopris.ne t RE: Application for Setback Variance by Stephen Damm Lot 5, Herczeg Subdivision (Mitchell Creek Rd) Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Board of Adjustment: As property owners at 0355 County Road 132 (Mitchell Creek Rd) we are in favor of EXHIBIT G granting a variance from the required minimum setbacks as defined in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit: Legal Description: Practical Description: Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 89, West of the Sixth Principal Meridian Lot 5, Herczeg Subdivision Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (Mitchell Creek Rd) Thank you for your favorable consideration of the application before you. Sincerely, Sonlight Foursquare Gospel Church Bernie Masi.mer, Pastor copy: Stephen Damm The A-Team, Inc. cap - c ~XJ t1 ~ - ~~C\~c~"~ Variance Request Lot 5, Herczeg Subdivision Exemption Plat April 16, 2007 • • • I ' ! I ~ • • ' i ~ • I ~ • 2 ~ a ' • . <, ~ • • ' • • 0 ---~--------- ru<N '6~>N~,= ~MU4RC$11>ttN<::li: .,.,, ...... ----------------W~~......,.,i..,., ....... -~-~-------- I I I i ' I i ~ ~ • ~ ~ I ~ ~ GH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, fNC. , • ....,._.J.-~"i"'"....m'.'lN~~~ .. ~· .. - ~ b L • I I OJ > I I • • • ~ n tti ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~· (1) (1) r:n q ~ f""'+- (""""!--~· ~ ~ N (JQ ::r 0 0 ~ n M--~· 0 ~ 0 (JO (JO ~ ~ ~ ~ CL (1) ::r (JO ~· rJl ~ f""'+- ~· ~ 0 ~ (""""!--~ ~· 0 r:n ~ rJl RLUD Zone District Regulations R/L/UD --RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED/URBAN DENSITY (Garfield County Code § 3.04 et. seq.) • Uses by Right: Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses; including buildings for shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the lot for single-family residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features; park. (3.04.01). • Conditional Uses: Church, community building, day nursery and school; row house; home occupation; group home for the elderly. (3.04.02). • Special Uses: Two-family dwelling, studio for conduct of arts and crafts, water impoundments, utility lines, utility substations, communication facility, corrections facility; Mass Transit Facility; Temporary; Employee Housing. (3.04.03). • Minimum Lot Area: 7,500 square feet (as further provided by Supplementary Regulations). (3.04.04). • Maximum Lot Coverage: Thirty-five percent (35%). (3.04.05). • Minimum Setback: -(I) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50)feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five__G.5). feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; -(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; -(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line or one-half(l/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. (3.04.06). • Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet. (3.04.07). • Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.25/1.0 (as further provided by Supplementary Regulations. (3.04.08). • Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5. (3.04.09). III. Variances Requested Applicant Requests: 1. Front Yard Setback: -Reduced from 25 Ft. to 13 .3 5 Ft. 2. Rear Yard Setback: -Reduced from 25 Ft. to 10.67 Ft. ------------------ - ------------- IV. Variance Criteria Variance: Action by the Board of Adjustment "[W]here by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property at the time of enactment of this Resolution, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, the strict application of any regulation enacted under this Resolution would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property, the Board may authorize, upon the application relating to said property, a variance from such strict application so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship ... " (Garfield County Code§ 9.05.03). IV. Variance Criteria "[Where the] strict application of any regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties ... or exceptional and undue hardship ... " a. Practical hardship: Existence of utility easement and constructed utilities splits the building envelope. b. Undue Hardship: Cost of relocation exceeds $20,000. IV. Variance Criteria Variance: Action by the Board of Adjustment. -"( 1) That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property ... " (Garfield County Code§ 9.05.03). IV. Variance Criteria " ... minimum necessary to alleviate practical difficulties or undue hardship ... " • No standard for "minimum necessary" in Code. • Proposed residence is modest: -Meets needs of the applicant; and is -Consistent with surrounding neighborhood. • Proposed footprint meets lot coverage requirements for RLUD Zone District. • Proposed setback adjacent to Lot 4 (13.35 ft.) is consistent with abutting side-yard setback (10 feet in the RLUD Zone District). • Single story limitation reduces impact to neighbors. IV. Variance Criteria Variance: Action by the Board of Adjustment. • "(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 ... " (Garfield County Code§ 9.05.03). Variance Criteria " ... without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the [Comprehensive] Plan .. " • Comprehensive Plan envisions development and maintenance of a variety of housing types and prices. • Modular home maintains a lower price point consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. • Single story modular is consistent with housing mix within the Herczog Subdivision. • Single story modular is consistent with housing mix in the RLUD Zone District. IV. Variance Criteria Variance: Action by the Board of Adjustment: • "(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 ... " (Garfield County Code § 9.05.03). IV. Variance Criteria " ... hardship [was] not caused by applicant [and] cannot be practically corrected ... " • Current applicant not the original developer: -Did not create the lot shape or the easement causing hardship. • At time of purchase applicant believed the setbacks being treated as front and rear to be side yard setbacks. V. Conclusion Applicant meets standards set forth in the Regulations and respectfully requests the following variances: 1. Front Yard Setback: -Reduced from 25 Ft. to 13.35 Ft. 2. Rear Yard Setback: -Reduced from 25 Ft. to 10.67 Ft. ) ) EXHIBIT Proposed Findings of Fact for Variance Application of Lot 5, H erczeg Subdivision Exemption 1. The proposed variance meets the statutory criteria for the granting of the variance because: a. The Lot in question is uniquely shaped, and it presents many practical and challenging difficulties for the design and construction of a residence; b . Because of the s hape of the Lot, a variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or the Zoning Resolution; c. The circumstances constituting a hards hip were not caused by the Applicant, are not the result of general conditions in the di strict, and cannot be practically corrected; and d. The Applicant's d esign is the minimum n ecessary to alleviate the practical difficulties and undue hards hip. ) ~~ r-~~ \,~ ~ Proposed Conditions of Varia nce for Lot 5, Herczeg Subdivision Exemption 1. Applicant will inst all, at the request of the owner of Lot 4 , a privacy fence six (6) feet in height be tween the Lots 5 and 4 of the Herczeg s ubdivi s ion; 2. Applicant will restrict the building on Lot 5 to one (1) story; and 3. Applicant will deed res trict the outlot parcel of the Betz subdiv ision to no structures. ) Stephen Damm Variance Request Property Description Lot 5, of the Herczeg Subdivision was created by an Exemption Plat approved by the Board of County Commissioner memorialized by Resolution no . 77-6 0 -July 21,,1977 . 1 ,;~\ n,;~s ubject lot is ge nerally trian gu lar in shap e by design of the developer, and meets all conditions found in th e R/L/UD 1 Z:9ne :Di strict. !. ~"""'''' Lot 1 . 577 ac. ) EXHIBIT I l Variance Request for Relief from Front and Rear Yard Setbacks ... Applicant -Stephen Damm ... Prop erty Description -Lot S, Herczeg Subdivision R/L/UD 8,020 sq. ft . (.184 ac.) Summary of the Requested Variance The applicant is requesting relief from the required front and rear yard setbacks found in the Res id ential/Limited/Urban Density. Lot 2 .384 ac. Lot 3 .268 ac. Also located on the property is an existing easement present at the time of purchase and depicted on the Exemption Plat. The Applicant would like the Board of · Adjustment to consider the easement present at the time of purchase a hardship. Lot 4 .297 ac. Reason for Requested Variance The Applicant would like to place a specific pre-manufactured home and garage on the subject lot. The desired dwelling unit alone can not comply with the established setback '.equir!'ments. ---~' ... .:... _____ J 2 If granted the requested variance would allow a 1,523.73 sq. ft. pre-manufactured home that as demonstrated by the last slide is inappropriate for the subject lot. This request would also allow for a garage to be placed on the subject lot. Not all homes found in the Herczeg Subdivision are pre- marit:ifactured homes and only one, located the11arger .577 acre Lot lhas a garage. ~ oiflcallvL<>t5 of!krC>:e'Sul>di\'i>lon cxom lion is o~cc .1i~nlll'' naITT>\\ lnd im -ular inshn 'rt,., ""ate.< an cx:rn<>rdinBry '''~ c'cq>tio1d ''""''~"for rii<'>nbiecl PWf'<'rl) U> •·umpm"'1 l~_lhc 1,:hcrlo1'wE! "'" '", <n:«·~ ~\I' J\l>JOll. resn "-'' \\ 10 avo""":1uced?""ul1arnndpr•':"1cal d;fficult1es. as ""ll a> cxccp1ionul hllf<lship u~n the D;imms and their dome I~ crta•e a Smj!lo family rt•idencc for ih~m<elvc.• A stick built home could be constructed within the required setbacks and still respect the existing easement. Constructing a two-story stick built home would alleviate the,need to construct a triangular structure. Absent the existing easement the dwelling units found on Lots 2 and 3 could be placed on the subject lot respecting the required setbacks. Lot 3 3 Dimensional Requirements ,. MinimluJblofArea: Seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet ff04.04 ,. Maximum tot Coveraae: Thirty-five percent (35%) [3.04.05) ,. Minimum ]etback: !3.04.06) ,. (I) Front yard: (aJ arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty {50) feet from front lot line, whidlever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty !50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (2~/ feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; --j..--fl) ,, R&r yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; ' (J) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the 'fieighttJf the principal bulld/ng, whiChever is greater. H. i fJ f ii. I s: Twenty-five (25) feet. [3.04.07} 'foorA R, ·: 0.25/J.Oandasfurtherprovidedunder wentary Regulations. Criteria for Granting a Variance found in Section 9.05.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Code ~pedflcul!y L-0t 5 ofl krczcg Z.ubd1vi.<ion exemption is extcptio1U11Jy narrow and irreJ!L~"I" in !hap<. lhis crea!o.< an c>.·uaor<linary 4nd cxccption3! 'itua1ion for !I"' •ubjcc! prop(!1y '" •·ompareJ l<>the ~tbcr lots "'ithin !he Herczc~ Suhdi\'i<inn. llie re•u!ls of \\hicb ha'<: produced P"'Culim imJ prudical d11liculues. as '"'ll as c.~ccptiunil hmlship upon 1hc Damms and 1heir desire !<J cuate a single famil; residcn"c for thcm~lvcs • FrootY&r~ J.) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property at the time of enactment of this Resolution; or This standard is only relevant to lots that existed pre-zoning. The Zoning requirements found in the R/L/UD Zone 1• ; District.existed when the Herczeg 'Subdivision was created. The shape of the · ·~properfy should not be considered a reason . °'\or granting the variance. This Standard 1 .has not been met The Lot is not exceptionally narrow. As demonstrated, absent the existing easement other dwelling units found within the Herczeg Subdivision could be placed on the subject lot in compliance with the requirements identified RLUD Zone District. .• [ The.Jrregular shape was by design of the !>peveloper apparent at the time of purchase '"arid not the result of the implementation zoning. 4 "'/ oy reason or excepr1ona, .:opograpn1c conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. The shape of the subject lot does not prevent construction or placement of a dwelling unit An existing easement shown onJti~ Exemption Plat on file in the Garfield ,, !: C':ouryty;Clerks Office reduces the size of the pt!;Juilding envelope, but it can still be utilized, '<(1017,5 sq, ft) There are no topographical ,:: constraints found on the property, ( Ti><'"!'"""'' miann"S ""th< tnmimum n«<»'I) to •ll"i"• tho f""'-~l<al <liffirnlt"' .,,,;·~~·.:;;:; I h.!tililHpup<>n th< lJamrn.< uiorW"<' !h< •uh)«< F~'pc.rt) Tl>< tn<<lulor><i<:<t«I ''°"""'n«! ;g ~·~ I :;~':=··;~r<G~'~j·:~z.~·:;:;1 :..;'!:~:~~·~~::~;:;;~~:;;'::o~=~~!L"'~ 1itep!1bli<~""""'1h<mlon•mpaIJ>OS<'1nf1"0!'1tC<•lplano''""'"lxl"'<">n1<~uialmn>m!h.,i1! I""'''""' lor' <onso>t'"lt hc0u.<m~ l)J>! "'th oO.l in !ho "'"!h"-'l'llood"' well., th<· ociJoinini! n<1i;l>Oott.,.;_ Fon!><•. tho <<i1<fl><m~ ""l""'t«l "'11 prnn1mo lh' !"'rf'll•" oftl..,Garficld COUlli:', «>mr«it<"'"' plo.'1. m tl'"t u "'''"" "'' •lfoidio\'1< h•«~i11g op1wmnit) "'tl"r !h.m fnmui Ill< •rpl1"'"' "' mau :in "'"""""'' "'° """"'"I '"'""" "'1me which ;, ""'"mi!1<:m -...ilh th<i ,,,;~h\..•rl>cuil '"'"""'d"'"" . -,.~---w ...... )}~',~::.'!::;;::';:,';:·; ;~\ff?;;'i'~i'-'::c;:~;;:"~;;~ .. ~ ~::,.,.~;:;:::-:.:;:,c:: ', "'" ~ , . .,, ,,,, .•• ,, _ _,,,,.,_ ~ Allowing deviation from the Zoning Resolution used to regulate development in Garfield County when not required or when the request is not in in compliance with any ... ·. ofth~ standards identified in § 9,05,03 ,, would substantially harm its intent. ~" a e variance gran e 1s e m1n1mum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; A variance is not required to place a dwelling unit on the subject lot Even if the utility easement did not exist, the Appli<;ant's desired unit would not fit within /l,tf1e building envelope, where other units ·~i:existing'within the same subdivision would. (~~~-.... J!; '-: '\ Staff Response Requesting a variance to allow a strucutre that would not comply with the required setbacks absent the existing easement is not the minimum nesaccary, . Exhibit F, a letter from the owners of Lot 4 :t, ~xpre~sing their concerns regarding the ·· ~;iproximtty the proposed structure will be \placed to their property line, ,: \~. '. Regarding the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan (the Plan), the proposed structure does not create "affordable housing", affordable housing is defined as resident-occupied housing units, the sale or rental of which units have been limited to ~peclfic.segments of the market with permanent 1,, affordability insured through appreciation rates ;ccontrolled by deed restriction or another legally- ~ihinding mechanism approved by the County Commission. 5 The subject lot is and will be a free-market lot that will appreciate in value. Improvements on the subject lot should be appropriate for a lot it's size. A two-story free market structure is not an unusual "custom home". Two-story structures are common within the RLUD Zone District and orne exists in the Herczeg Subdivision. Two- < t. storf'!l):ructures are not inconsistent with 1Jithe·surrounding neighborhood. The existing ~~o0ile home park is an existing non- ~onforming use in place prior to zoning in ••.. Garfield County that is located within a different zone district. 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. Relief to construct a home within the building envelop is not needed. The Applicant's choice of design is creating the needJor the variance request. Allowing . ,, App!itants to deviate from the setback 'l!i!reqt.lirements when it is not necessary ~4creates an inconsistent application of the irzoning Resolution used by the Building and Planning Department to help guide development in Garfield County. Should the Board of Adjustment (BOA) determine that the easement present on the Exemption Plat at the time of purchase by the Applicant creates an undue hardship the B()A must determine if the requested : L yarian.ce is for the minimum necessary to · ;+alleviate the hardship. If granted the i1yariance will allow the desired dwelling unit /l.tobe placed in close proximity to two lot lines. This request is not for the minimum necessary to place a dwelling unit similar in size of other units found in this subdivision. This Standard has not been met. The desired unit will result in detriment to neighboring properties by encroaching the property boundary. 6 5) That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused bv the aDDlicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district. and cannot be practically corrected; This standard requires that the Applicant demonstrate that they are not causing the hardship or that it is not the result of the ... c genefalconditions in the zone district. The lineed to deviate from the required setbacks ~is a fesult of the Applicants choice of design ~nd the setbacks are a general conditions found in the R/L/UD Zone District. This standard bas not been met. Applicant's Summary In <ummaiy. 111c flcmm• roqucs1 lluit 1hc Bo.irJ of /\Uju~mcnl• approve tho>~ "'uianc<.• 10 allow for • mode_<t '1n!'-i< fomily ,.,,;d""''" on LN S, which confonns (I) tho cx,;uug ooi{!hb.lfh<)(\<f nfth• .'. Hen:u~ SobJni•ion. Shm1ld you hnw •n} fur~r quc;1iN1S or the nocJ for hinhcr infom1a1ion prior"' !he Boord of AJ.iUSlmems h<~ring please do nnl hc•itatc \0 cnn!llC! us at 9'.!8·S~9'l. Staff Recommendation It is the recommendation of Staff that the Board of Adjustment~ the request for a variance allowing the deviation from the setback requirements identified as a condition of the RLUD Zone District in t;, §3,o!l:os of the Zoning Resolution for the rU.'followi ng reasons: "'.d.' ' ;1 'C • I , ,..,,·~ "'~'-''-""''"'"'''-'' ... ··""-'''''""'' Th<: circum,lllm;c, thm «>n.•timte th,· hanbhip fi.c. lhe unusual sh.ape of 1he lot-a<l<i the exccpli<:>nolly sm~ll huildin~ cnYclopi:) w~ro not caw;ed by !he npplicam as ii was pm onoisly plaited "hen the applicant twk title to lhe suh.ie<:t propcny and 1t is" genornl ~onJi1ion 1rnhin the ,nnc dimi<t. fITTthcr, it con not pn•ctio;illy t>e <.'\:ltn:Clcd wilh oul a ':rri"nr~ :>.< req1"'5lrd for !ht: !foot •!ld rear yard sci b~Ck$ Staff Response The desired single-family residence is inappropriate for a .184 acre lot. Not all dwelling units in the Herczeg Subdivisions are pre-manufactured homes. 1 , Ihe'adjacent mobile home park is located 1 ;1:.within 'a different zone district. Summary ~ A variance is not required to place a dwelling unit on the subject lot while respecting the platted easement; ~ All rules and regulations governing the subject lot existed when the lot was .platted and at the time of purchase by the 11 Appli,;ant; ',1.,, The need for a variance is created by the ' 1 Appli.cant's choice of a specific pre- • manufactured home not the size, shape, . or«:'.onstraints found on the subject lot; 7 .,. The requested variance does not comply with any of the criteria outlined in §9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution; .,. The requested variance would not be the minimum necessary should the BOA determine a hardship is present, the proposed dwelling unit still would not comply with the required setbacks if the easero_ent was not present; 8