Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 01.29.2007Exhibits (1/29/07) Exhibit Exhibit Letter (A to Z) A Proof of Mail Rece ipts B Proof of Publicat ion c Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended (the Zoning Code) D Staff Memorandum E Application f -~~\¥-r \\c,v\ {'1r h CC (;J -I °fv'(\('. G ~ ~w ·(_,~\} a...~>\fp-,),_: ,~ <>{ bv:lt'-5 ' PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOA 1/29/07 CR REQUEST: Variance from Front and Rear Yard Setbacks APPLICANT: PROPERTY LOCATION: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: LOT SIZE: WATER/SEWER: Stephan Damm County Road 130 (Donegan) Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (Lot 5 of the Herczeg Subdivision) Driveway off of County Rd. 130 (Donegan). Residential/Limited/Urban Density 8,020 Sq. Ft. (.184 ac.) City of Glenwood Springs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY This variance request is for relief from the front and rear setbacks for Lot 5, of the Herczeg Subdivision. Herczeg Subdivision was created by an exemption plat approved by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners as demonstrated by Resolution no. 77-60, dated July 21,1977. The subject lot is currently vacant and is triangular in shape, but meets the requirements found in the R/L/UD Zone District. The R/L/UD zone district is zoned in such a way to allow for development of smaller lots within the County. The subject lot located within this zone district meets all conditions that apply to lots created within this district. II. SUMMARY OF THE REQUESTED VARIAN CE: The Applicant requests a variance to allow: 1. Deviation from the front ·yard setback [section 3.04.06] by 6.58' feet and 10' feet from the required rear yard setback in order to place the desired 27.79' x 67.83' pre- manufactured home on the platted lot. III. REASON FOR REQUESTED VARIAN CE: The Applicant submitted the request for a variance from the required setbacks in order to place the specific pre-manufactured home desired on the subject lot. The building envelope created by the setbacks is 2,036 sq. ft. in size and provides the Applicant with sufficient room to build a Damm Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page2 structure within the required setbacks. The Applicant has not provided proof that the utility easement shown on the plat cannot be relocated. If the easement cannot be relocated, a dwelling unit can still be constructed within the building envelope while respecting the utility easement. IV. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS A. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE R/L/UD ZONE DISTRICT Pursuant to sections 3.04.04 -3.04.07 of the Zoning Resolution, the Dimensional Requirements for the R/L/UD zone district are outlined as follows: Minimum Lot Area: Seven thousandfive hundred (7,500) square feet [3.04.04] Maximum Lot Coverage: Thirty-five percent (35%) [3.04.05] Minimum Setback: [ 3.04.06 J (1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50)feetfromfront 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; (2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25)feetfrom rear lot line; (3) Side yard: Ten (JO) feet from side lot line, orone-ha/f(l/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. Maximum Height o(Buildings: Twenty-five (25)feet. [3.04.07] Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 0.2511.0 and as further provided under Supplementary Regulations. V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF A VARIAN CE (SECTION 9.050.03) Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution discusses what constitutes the granting of a variance in Garfield County. Specifically, the granting of a variance should be mainly due to 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 Damm Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page3 Staff Response: This point addressing the shape of a piece of property is only relevant to lots that existed pre-zoning. When the Herczeg Subdivision was created in 1977, the zoning requirements (including setbacks) were the same as they are today. The shape of the subject lot should not be considered a reason for granting a variance since the zoning requirement that the Applicant is seeking relief from was in place when subdivision was created. When zoning was enacted the subject lot was part of a larger parcel that was eventually subdivided into 5 lots affected by the setback requirements already in place. 2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. The shape of the subject lot in no way prevents the construction or placement of a dwelling unit. This application and a site visit to the subject lot have not demonstrated the need for a variance to place a dwelling unit within the building envelope. The setbacks in place when the subject lot was created were the same as they exist today. The Applicant is proposing to place an 1884.9 sq. ft. pre-manufactured home on the lot. The building envelop is sufficient in size to place a home of this size. It is the Applicant's desired design that will not allow them to do so. It is the choice of design that is preventing the placement of the desired unit on the lot not the size of the building envelope. This lot is relatively flat with no topographical restraints. The Applicant cites the following circumstances that constitute a variance. I. ''The unusual shape of the lot and the exceptionally small building envelope." Staff Response: The shape of the lot was created by the subdivider and was apparent at the time of purchase. Garfield County does not regulate the shape of lots, only the requirements found within the zone district and Subdivision Regulations. The subject lot is in compliance with the requirements of the R/UUD Zone District and the building envelop created by the setbacks is not exceptionally small (2036 sq. ft.). The size or shape of the building envelope does not create a hardship. The hardships cited in the variance application are a result of the Applicant's choice of placing a specific pre-manufactured home on the subject lot. At the time of the creation and purchase all R/L/UD Zone Requirements were in place and applied to the subject lot. The subject lot does not appear to have any topographical constraints. VI. ACTION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 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 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution. Damm Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page4 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: A variance is not required to place a dwelling unit on the subject Jot. Therefore, the requested variance is not for the minimum necessary. Since there is not an undue hardship to alleviate, 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: Relief to construct or place a home within the building envelope is not needed. By allowing someone to purchase property within an established zone district and then deviate from the requirements when it is not necessary would create an inconsistent application of the Zoning Resolution used by the Building and Planning Department to help guide development within the County. The need for a variance is created by the Applicant's desire to place a pre- manufactured home of a specific design on the subject lot. The Applicant has a building envelope that allows for the construction or placement of a dwelling unit without requiring a variance. Staff finds that this standard has not been 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: This standard requires the Applicant to demonstrate that the hardship is not caused by the applicant or is not the result of the general conditions in the zone district. It is stated in the Applicants letter that "The circumstances that constitute the hardship (i.e. The unusual shape of the lot, and the exceptionally small building envelope) were not caused by the applicant as it was previously platted when the applicant took title to the subject property and it is a general condition within the zone district." As the Applicant demonstrates, the shape of the building envelope is a result of the conditions within the zone district. Therefore, the size and shape of the building envelope does not constitute a hardship under this standard. The setbacks do not result in an exceptionally small building envelope. The hardships cited are the result of the Applicant's choice of design. When the Applicant purchased the subject lot, the property had already been platted making the shape apparent. The "hardships" cited by the Damm Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page5 Applicant are results of the general conditions of the zone district, and can be practically corrected by choosing a design that compliments the building envelope. The placement or construction of a structure on the subject lot is not prohibited by the shape or size of the building envelope. Staff finds that this standard has not been 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: Four concurring votes from the members of the Board of Adjustments will be required to grant the proposed variance. VII. SUMMARY: The following information should be considered by the BOA with respect to the variance requested: 1. All zoning requirements affecting this property were in place when the lot was created. 2. The setbacks do not create an exceptionally small building envelop (2,036 sq. ft.) 3. The zone district in which the subject lot is located is zoned to allow for the development of smaller lots that result in building envelopes created by the setback requirements. 4. No topographical constraints are present that would present the Applicant from meeting the required setbacks. 5. There is no undue hardship since the subject property has sufficient area for the location of dwellings similar in size of others found within the Herczeg Subdivision and throughout the Residential/Limited/Urban Density Zone District. 6. The hardships cited by the Applicant are the results of the Applicants choices of design and size of the desired unit. 7. The subject property does not meet the criteria outlined in section 9 .05 .03 [Action by the Board of Adjustment]. VIII. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS I. 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 request for a variance allowing deviation from the required front and rear setbacks has been determined not to be in Damm Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page6 compliance with any of the requirements of 9.05.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY this request for a variance from the required minimum front and rear yard setbacks.