Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report• • BOCC — 2/3/03 Regular Meeting TP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW: Amended Plat APPLICANT(S): Walter Eugene Roberts and Debra Gene Fender LOCATION: ZONING: LOT SIZE: Parcels 1 and 2, Townsite of Cooperton R/L/UD (Residential / Limited / Urban Density) Parcel 1 contains approximately 9,916 sq. ft. Parcel 2 contains approximately 13,320 sq. ft. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The Applicant is requesting approval to relocate the property boundary line between Parcels 1 and 2 approximately 9 feet to the east to align with an existing fence. According to the Applicant, the fence has been in its current location since the 1960s (for more than 40 years). The proposed change in the property boundary line would add approximately 633 sq. ft. to Parcel 1. In addition, Ms. Fender proposes to deed back her share of the shared well easement, which is located on Parcel 1, to Mr. Roberts. The well for Parcel 2 located on Parcel 1 is not utilized. Both parcels have domestic water taps from the City of Carbondale. Currently, Parcel 1 contains approximately 9,916 sq. ft. and Parcel 2 contains approximately 13,320 sq. ft. As a result of the requested property boundary line adjustment, Parcel 1 will contain approximately 9,283 sq. ft. and Parcel 2 will contain approximately 13,953 sq. ft. Both lots currently conform with and will conform to, as a result of the proposed property boundary line adjustment, the 7,500 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area requirement established for the R/L/UD zone district. Parcel 1 is improved with an single-family residence and an existing garage. The Applicant verbally indicated to staff that the only reason the garage is the only structure on Parcel 1 that is delineated on the site plan, is that the garage is the only structure on Parcel 1 that is affected by the proposed boundary line adjustment. According to the Applicant, the existing garage has been on Parcel 1 since the early 1940s or early 1950s. Parcel 2 is improved with a single-family house and a green house. • • Roberts/Fender Amended Plat BOCC — 2/3/03 Page 2 Parcel 1 is bordered by County Road 106 to the west and Sopris Avenue to the south. Parcel 2 is bordered by Sopris Avenue to the south and Pine Street to the east. Staff did not conduct a site visit of the subject property. A copy of this application was referred to the Town of Carbondale, however, no comments were received. II. ISSUE The location of the garage on Parcel 1 currently does not comply with the side yard setback requirement established in the R/L/UD zone district. The garage is approximately 5 feet from the eastern property boundary line. In the R/L/UD zone district, section 3.04.06 of the Zoning Resolution, the side yard setback requirement is as follows: "ten (10) feet from side lot line or on -half (1/2) the height of the principal building, which ever is greater." Pursuant to section 7:00 [Non -Conforming Use Regulations] of the Zoning Resolution, "all uses of land and buildings, other than in conformity with this Resolution, shall be regulated as follows: " The lawful use of a building or structure, or the lawful use of any land, as existing and lawful at the time of adoption of this Resolution or in the case of amendment to this Resolution, then at the time of such amendment, such use or building hereafter referred to as "nonconforming" may be continued although such use does not conform with the provisions of this Resolution or amendment thereto; and such use may be extended throughout the same building, provided that no structural alteration of such building is proposed or made for the purpose of such extension. [section 7.01: Non -conforming Uses and Buildings] Therefore, since the garage existing prior to the enactment of zoning in this area, October 1970, staff has no issue with the garage not conforming to the side yard setback requirement established for the R/L/UD zone district. However, if the garage is ever replaced, compliance with the side yard setback is required. The greenhouse on Parcel 2 currently complies with the side yard setback requirement in the R/L/UD zone district. The greenhouse lies approximately 16 feet from the western property boundary line. It appears, according to records in the Building and Planning Department, that the greenhouse was constructed in 1992. By relocating the property boundary line between Parcels 1 & 2, the Applicant is decreasing the non -conformity status on Parcel 1, however, it creates a non -conformity on Parcel 2, where one currently does not exist. The relocation of the property boundary line would decrease the non- conformity on Parcel 1 by 3 feet (5 feet to 13 feet), however, non -conformity being created on • • Roberts/Fender Amended Plat BOCC — 2/3/03 Page 3 Parcel 2 by approximately 1' (16' to 7'). Pursuant to section 1.07 of the Zoning Resolution: No building or structure shall be erected nor shall any existing building or structure be moved, removed, altered or extended nor shall any open space surrounding any building or structure be encroached upon or reduced in any manner, except in conformity with the lot area, lot coverage, floor area ratio, setback and height provisions hereinafter provided in the Zone District Regulation for the district in which such land, building or structure is located; Uses permitted by this Resolution shall also be subject to provisions of other applicable county and state regulations except as specifically provided herein; and further, where the provisions of this Resolution impose a greater restriction than set forth by such other regulation, the provisions of this Resolution shall govern. Although the non -conformity being created on Parcel 2 is only 1 foot, creating non -conformity, where one currently does not exist, through the relocation of the property boundary line, is prohibited pursuant to section 1.07 of the Zoning Resolution outlined above. The Applicant has been notified of this matter, however, the Applicant has chosen to proceed with the request to relocate the property boundary line as proposed (Exhibit A). III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board DENY the Roberts/Fender Amended Plat application based on the fact that non -conformity is being created on Parcel 2 where one currently does not exist. IV. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Should the Board determine that that proposed boundary line adjustment is appropriate, the Board shall APPROVE the Roberts/Fender Amended Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board, shall be considered conditions of approval; 2. The plat shall be titled "Amended Final Plat of (subdivision name)". Within 90 days of approval, the Amended Final Plat shall be signed and dated by the County Surveyor, than signed and dated by the Chairman of the Board and recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Garfield County. The Amended Final Plat shall meet the minimum CRS standards for land survey plats, as required by Colorado state law, and approved by the County Surveyor and shall include, at a minimum, the information outlined in Section 5:22 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. • • Roberts/Fender Amended Plat BOCC — 2/3/03 Page 4 3. A copy of the Quit Claim Deed for the abandonment of the waterline easement on Parcel 1 shall be submitted with the Amended Final Plat. EXHIBIT A. Letter from Debra Fender dated December 30, 2002 • December 30, 2002 • Debra Fender 0036 Sopris Ave. Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-3937 Garfield County/ Building & Planning att: Tamara Pregl 108 8'" St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Fender/ Roberts Amended Plat D L 9 EXHIBIT RECEIVED DEC 3 :1 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING In response to your letter of December 12, 2002, I would like to proceed by having the application presented before the commissioners. Although the amended plat does not meet the minimum yard set back, the distance between buildings is more the adequate. Also, the question of the Quit Claim Deed for the Waterline Easement is contingent on the lot line change. This issue is an agreement between Mr. Roberts and me. Sincerely, Debra Fender