The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 BOA Staff Report 06.05.2006BOA 06/05/06 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION LOT SIZE EXISTING ZONING Variance from 25 foot rear yard setback & 35% lot coverage Marco & Shelley Carani 330 Village Drive and legally described as Lots 41 and 42, Block 3, Rifle Village South Subdivision, Filing 1, located approximately Yi mile south of Rifle, CO 13 ,200 sq. ft. Residential I Limited Urban Density (RLUD) I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The Applicant requests approval for the following two variances: 1) Reduction of the 25 rear yard setback to 15 feet; and 2) Increase in the 35% lot coverage percentage to 37.5%. The purpose of the variance requests is to accommodate a 500 sq. ft. addition (20' x 25') to the rear of the Applicant's single-family dwelling on the main floor. The Application states the purpose of the addition is to accommodate the Applicant's elderly father-in-law to be cared for in the Applicant's home. The addition consists of a 1 bedroom suite design with a living area, bedroom and bath. Regarding the rear yard setback, the proposed addition will reach into the rear yard setback by approximately 15 feet. This is shown on the site plan in the Application. Note, the existing single- family dwelling was constructed so that the footprint is approximately 10 feet from the rear yard setback. Regarding Lot Coverage, Section 2.02.35 of the Zoning Resolution defines lot coverage as "The portion of a lot which is covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking and drives." In this case, the 13,200 sq. ft. property is improved with a split-level single-family dwelling containing approximately 2,592 sq. ft., two 6' x 8' sheds, a 12' x 15' gazebo, and a paved front driveway. The Application shows that the dwelling and paved driveway improvements cover approximately 33. 7% of the lot. The Application states that the 500 sq. ft. addition will increase the lot coverage to 37.5%. However, this calculation does not include the gazebo and two sheds which are also structures as contemplated in the definition of lot coverage. Therefore, the added square footage of those structures (276 sq. ft.) also counts as lot coverage. As a res al lot coverage with the new addition is actually 39 .6% which represents a 4.6° o increase to the requirement. II. REVIEW ST AND ARDS I CRITERIA 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 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 and the review criteria can be met: 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 the shape of the subject property is not exceptionally narrow or shallow or that there exist exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions which would prohibit the reasonable use of the property for the placement of a residential structure within the required setbacks . In ord er for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance , they must find the Applicant has satisfied all of the four criteria provided in Section 9 .05 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff has provided the criteria in italicized bold text followed by a response in normal text. 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 This criterion can only apply ifit has been demonstrated that special circumstances exist, that the special circumstances meet the standard for hardship and that the Applicant did not create the hardship. If thi s is the case, the BOA needs to determine how much of a variance can be granted. This criterion helps ensure that the granting of the variance does not confer special privileges on the property owner that are not enjoyed by other similarly situated properties. In this case, Staff has determined that there are no special circumstances that exist to create the hards hip and that the hardship is created entirely by the Applicant in their request to add living space to accommodate the father-in-law. Ultimately , this is not the minimum variance possible ) due to the fact that the Applicant could remodel the interior of the existing residence and add an addition out to the existing rear yard setback (10 feet) to accommodate additional living space. Staff finds thi s criterion is not met. 2 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 that the proposed addition will not cause detriment to the public good or impair the general intent and purpose of the general plan or the zoning resolution. This standard is 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 purpose of a variance is to provide relief from the zoning code for a hardship caused by zoning. For example, ifthe setbacks were so restrictive that reasonable use of the property was precluded (i.e. the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot whose setbacks left virtually no building envelope), a variance could be granted because the hardship was caused by zoning. In this case, there is no hardship caused by zoning. The hardship is caused by the Applicant wanting to expand the single-family dwelling into the setbacks and covering more of the lot than the zone district allows. Staff finds the zoning parameters set out in the zoning are not unreasonable; they do not preclude the construction of a single-family dwelling which is a use-by-right in the zone district. Further, the dwelling was constructed such that it left room for expansion without going into the setbacks (10 feet in the rear). Staff finds the hardship is caused by the Applicant's desire to expand the single-family dwelling beyond what the zoning reasonably allows. This criterion is not met. 4) That the concurring vote of/our (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. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recognizes that there are many types of hardships. Additionally, Staff certainly understands the Applicant's desire to care for a family member to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, the type of hardship for which relief may be provided by the Board of Adjustment is a hardship that is the result of zoning. Therefore Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny the variance request finding the following: 1) That proper posting and public notice was provided as required/or the meeting before the Board of Adjustment. 2) That the meeting before the Board of Adjustment was extensive and complete, that all 3 pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were lteard at that meeting. 3) That for the above stated and otl1er repa,2jthe proposed rear yard setback and lot coverage variance has been determb1e'71.-11ot o be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosp'eri and welfare of the citizens of Gat:field County. 4) That tl1e variances requested are ~. he minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue lzards!l.alpon the owner of said prol\~rty. ~·"' 5) That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were causedr#Jy the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and t~n be practically corrected. \ The property is not exceptionally narrow or shallow or has an exceptional shape at the ui\~e of enactment of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 7) The property does not contain exceptional topographic conditions or other -} I r extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions. ___ L }w 1~ ~wry 1A1~ IV. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to deny the request for a rear yard setback and lot coverage variance based on the findings presented by Staff listed as I -7 in Section III of the Staff Report." [Note, the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the applicant}. / bv) S\'"' / G(/\ / ~v-j 1~ j )~ / 4 ~/