Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 04.25.2005Exhibits for Ravana Family Partners Variance (BOA) 04/25/05 A Proof of Mail Receipts and Posting B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Staff Memorandum F Application Materials G Letter from Aspen Glen Homeowners Association Design Review Committee H Supplemental Site Grading and Drainage Plan BOA 04/25/05 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION Variance from the height restriction definition (Section 2.02.09 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended) Revana Family Partners, L. P. PO PO 4 67 )0 1410.114% Lot 6, Filing 5, Aspen Glen Planned Unit Development (PUD) LOT SIZE 0.542 acres or 23,609 sq. ft. +1 - EXISTING ZONING Planned Unit Development I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The Applicant requests a variance from the County's definition of "building height" (Section 2.02.09 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended) as measured from the undisturbed or natural ground surface for a single-family dwelling so that it could be measured from the newly adjusted finished grade where fill was required to be placed as a result of the County' s floodplain regulations. II. BACKGROUND The Board of County Commissioners approved the subject lot in Aspen Glen with a building envelope located entirely within the flood -fringe and not within any portion of the flood -way of the 100 -year flood plain. However, the required land use approvals to develop on that lot were passed on to the future lot owner and not approved as part of the original Aspen Glen development. As a result, the present owner recently obtained a Flood Plain Special Use Permit from Garfield County to develop a single-family dwelling in the building envelope on the lot. [As a side note, the flood plain is actually comprised of two portions: 1) the flood way (that portion closest to the river course that carries the water in a 100 -year event) and 2) the_ flood fringe (that portion outside the flood way in which the depth and velocity of water in a 100 -year event does not impose a serious threat to life and property and can be developed with proper mitigation).] III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The lot is located in the Aspen Glen PUD and is adjacent to the Roaring Fork River where a portion of the lot falls inside the 100 -year floodplain as mapped and jurisdictionally administered by FEMA. A building envelope was placed on the lot within the portion of the lot that is in the flood -fringe. The rear or north line of the building envelope also represents the edge of the flood - way portion of the floodplain where no development (or fill) is allowed. The lot sits at the end of a cul-de-sac where the point of access to the lot is 71/2 -feet above natural grade within the building envelope. The lot is served by central water and sewer services and development is further controlled by the Aspen Glen Homeowners Association Design Review Committee. IV. REFERRAL The application was referred to the following entities for addition review. 1) US Army Corps of Engineers: No Comment. 2) Aspen Glen Homeowners Association Design Review Committee: Supports the height variance request with conditions. (See Exhibit G) V. STAFF COMMENTS The Applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family dwelling on Lot 6 of Filing 5 within Aspen Glen. The lot is located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and is also located within a portion of the 100 -year floodplain as mapped and jurisdictionally administered by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). Because the building envelope is located in the flood -fringe, the first finished floor must be constructed no less than 1 -foot above the 100 -year base flood elevation. This means that a property owner is required to place fill within the building envelope in order to raise the first finished floor to that elevation which, in this case, is an elevation of 6,004 feet. (Refer to Exhibit H for all elevation issues.) This requirement to place fill on the lot to elevate the first finished floor of the structure is problematic as it relates to how allowable building height is calculated. More specifically, Section 2.02.09 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended states that allowable building height is calculated as "the distance, measured vertically, from the undisturbed or natural ground surface at the midpoint between the front and rear walls of a building to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the mid -point between the eave line and the peak of a gable, hip, shed, or similar pitched roof." The reason this measurement is calculated this way is to prevent structures being artificially elevated on mounds of fill to preserve neighborhood character where all structures remain at similar heights. The height limit for the subject lot in Aspen Glen is 25 -feet. However, in this case, the land use regulations adopted by Garfield County 1) allowed the subject lot to be platted in the flood -fringe of the 100 -year flood plain and 2) requires that fill be placed on the lot raising structures above the undisturbed or natural ground surface so that they are not adversely impacted by a 100 -year floor event. As a result, the Applicants are required to place 4 - feet of fill on the existing natural grade (located at an elevation of 5,999 feet) resulting in a new "adjusted" grade located at an elevation of 6,003. It is from this newly adjusted elevation that the Applicants propose to measure the building height of the new single-family dwelling. The height would still be a maximum of 25 -feet as measured from the adjusted elevation. Aspen Glen Design Review Committee The Aspen Glen Homeowners Association Design Review Committee (DRC) governs its own set 2 of protective covenants and restrictions which Garfield County does not enforce. In their letter, attached hereto, the DRC recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the height variance with the condition that the building envelope is adjusted consistent with the minimum setbacks for front and side yard for this zone district. This condition was required of the Applicant by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the condition approval for the Floodplain Special Use Permit granted on April 18, 2005. Hardship as a result of Zoning 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: 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 so that the required setbacks (or building envelope as applicable) have prohibited the reasonable use of the property for the placement of a residential structure. However, Staff does find that the property contains exceptional topographic conditions and other extraordinary situations and conditions specifically related to the fact that the 100 -year floodplain covers the entire buildable area of the lot which prohibits a reasonable application of the building height definition for the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling on the lot. VI. REVIEW STANDARDS In order 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; As mentioned above, the Applicant requests to change from what point height is measured on the subject lot due to the required placement of fill to elevate the first finished floor of the structure to be at least 1 -foot above the 100 -year base flood elevation. Existing natural grade is 5,999 -feet. The Applicant is required to place four (4) feet of fill on the lot resulting in a newly adjusted grade of 6,003 so that the first finished floor is at 6,004. It is from the newly adjusted grade elevation of 6,003 that the Applicant is seeking to measure building height. It is important to note that the Applicant is not placing more fill on the property than what is minimally required to adhere to the floodplain regulations. Further, as a practical matter, the height of the two-story single-family 3 dwelling will still be lower than most the dwellings in the area because the general elevation of the lot remains lower than the neighboring area. Therefore, Staff finds the variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the owner of the lot. This standard has 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 It is evident that the floodplain regulations and the definition of building height in the County's Zoning Resolution are in conflict as practically applied. The Comprehensive Plan specifically sets out "protection of watersheds and floodplains" as one of its goals. The Board of County Commissioners approved a building envelope for the subject lot so long as that envelop is located in the flood -fringe and not in the flood -way. The Zoning Resolution specifically allows development in the flood -fringe so long as certain criteria are met regarding the elevation of the first finished floor and requiring the placement of fill to achieve that elevation. The Applicant is not asking to construct a residence higher than 25 -feet; it is asking for relief from how the measurement is calculated due to the hardship caused by the floodplain regulation. Staff finds that 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. This standard has 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 The reason for the variance request has been caused by the fact that Garfield County approved the platting of Lot 6 in Aspen Glen and also approved the definition of building height which, as a practically applied, conflict with one another to prevent the reasonable construction of a two-story single-family dwelling on the lot. As a result, Staff finds 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. This standard has 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 This shall be determined at the hearing before the Board. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of Adjustment. 4 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 setback variance has been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment APPROVE the variance request so that the building height shall be measured from an elevation of 6,003 within the building envelope rather than from the undisturbed or natural ground surface. 5 Aspen Glen Homeowner's Association Design Review Committee April 16, 2005 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Aspen Glen Lot -06 — Revana Special Use Permit & Variance Dear Fred, EXHIBIT Thank you for including the Aspen Glen Design Review Committee (DRC) in the referral process of these applications. The DRC, at the April 14, 2005 meeting, reviewed the applications for special use permit for the construction of a single family residence within the flood plain fringe and adjustment to existing grade in reference to the height limit. In addition, the DRC approved preliminary review of the home on January 24, 2005. Based upon the approved building envelop which was adopted when the Aspen Glen PUD was approved and recorded, the DRC comprehends the necessity of raising the base flood elevation of the building envelope. Once the grade of the land has been raised the DRC understands the applicant's need to request a variance to the method by which height is measured in Garfield County. The DRC recommends approval of the special use permit and the variance. However during review, the DRC raised one significant design issue and this issue has been discussed with the applicant. The proposed footprint of the home and its relationship to the building envelop leaves very little room to accommodate any grade transition from the existing natural grade to the new grades. Based upon the site plan submitted to DRC by the architect, a barrier wall is proposed on the south and east sides of the building envelop. The DRC is concerned that the grade transition is severe and the raised elevation with a two story home constructed on top will create a small island exacerbated by the wall. Having considered the minimum setbacks for this zone district the DRC believes that an expansion of the building envelop to the minimum side yard and front yard setbacks will enable the home to be shifted away from the barrier wall and/or the south and east edges PO Box 400 Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 Email:llamont@sopris.net of the envelop thus creating more room to provide the applicant with the greatest possible design flexibility to sculpt a more gentle or natural grade transition and/or undulate the wall. As part of the DRC final review for this development we will require that the grading and drainage plan and design of the barrier wall be reviewed by a licensed engineer to ensure that potential flooding of this site and the impact of new fill material does not pose a problem above or downstream of this home site. In addition, the DRC intends to work with the applicant to encourage a design of the home that attempts to "step-down" on the ends to soften the island effect. In summary, the DRC recommends approval of the special use permit and height variance with the condition that the building envelop is adjusted consistent with the minimum setbacks for front and side yard for this zone district. Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions. Sincerely, Leslie Lamont, Administrator Aspen Glen Design Review Committee Cc: Brad Jordan, Architect Mike Easley, Owner PO Box 400 Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 Email: llamont@sopris.net