Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 01.29.2007Exhibits 0/29/07) /29/07) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Proof of Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended (the Zoning Code) D Staff Memorandum E Application F Letter addressed to the Board of Adjustments From Jeff Wadley, (received 1/04/07) GJaLn .5-{-e�-�''� - It Jo� r S r. J r I.,- a-, Nan 6-1 Srv:N L 2,11 - rlo. 4r .S1 � L n r rr" tOr� BOA 1/29/07 CR PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Variance from the Minimum Front Yard Setback APPLICANT: Gregory Forbes PROPERTY LOCATION: 1227 County Rd. 106 (Satank Rd.) Carbondale, CO 81623 (Townsite of Cooperton, Lots 5, 6, and 7) ACCESS: Driveway off of County Rd. 106. EXISTING ZONING: Residential/Limited/Urban Density LOT SIZE: Approximately 11,737.5 sq. ft.-( .269 ac.) WATER/SEWER: Town of Carbondale Water and ISDS I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The subject property consists of Lots 5, 6 and 7of the Cooperton Townsite (Satank), located northwest of the Town of Carbondale and is approximately 11,737.5 square feet (.269 acres) in size. This exceeds the current minimum lot size requirement for this zone district. The property is accessed off of County Rd. 106 (Satank Rd.). The existing outbuilding is a legal non- conforming structure which deviates from the required front yard setback as shown in the Improvement Survey provided by the applicant. The proposed new garage is the subject of the variance request. II. SUMMARY OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE: The Applicant requests a variance to allow: 1. Deviation from the 25 foot front yard setback [section 3.04.06] by 15 feet in order to place the garage in the Applicant's desired location. III. REASON FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE: The Applicant submitted the request for a variance from the minimum front yard setback for the construction of a new garage_ The original outbuilding that will be removed is considered a legal non -conforming structure. Forbes Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page 2 Front Yard Variance: The Applicant noted that the lots within the Cooperton Townsite are narrow. Many residents of this area (including the Applicant) own multiple adjacent lots which allow room for development within this Zone District which has a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The Applicant also notes that the lot is serviced by an Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) which is located at the at the west end of the property as shown by a drawing provided by the applicant. The ISDS does not eliminate the applicant's ability to place the proposed garage within the required setbacks. 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 thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet [3.04.04] Maximum Lot Coveraze: Thirty-five percent (35%) [3.04.05] Minimum Setback: [3.04.06] (1) 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; (2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; (3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet. [3.04.07] V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF A VARIANCE (SECTION 9.050.03) Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution discusses what constitutes the granting of a variance in Forbes Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page 3 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 2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. Upon a site visit to the Applicant's property, Staff finds that since the applicant owns multiple adjacent lots that exceed the minimum lot size requirement for the Residential/Limited/Urban Density Zone District, the Applicant's parcel is not exceptionally narrow, shallow or configured in a peculiar shape. The Improvement Survey provided by the Applicant demonstrates that the building envelop is sufficient in size to accommodate the proposed.garage. Staff finds no exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or conditions are present that would prevent the applicant from meeting the front yard setback requirement. The Applicant cites the following reasons for requesting a variance. I. "The subject neighborhood including the subject property was platted as a Townsite in the 1880's prior to establishment of any Garfield County zoning regulations. Cooperton Townsite properties are exceptionally narrow by County standards, consistent more with towns and cities within the county, which have much smaller setbacks. There are no alleys in Cooperton, unlike most existing towns in the County, which limits vehicle access to a very limited area along the narrow front of the lot." Staff Response: The applicant owns three adjacent lots within Cooperton Townsite. The property owned by the Applicant is larger than the minimum lot size requirement for the zone district in which the property was located at the time of purchase. The size issue stated above is not valid since the Applicant possesses a sufficient amount of property to comply with all the requirements of the zone district. The subject property has served and will continue to serve as a residence without the need of a variance since the Garfield County Zoning Resolution was enacted. The need for a variance is created entirely by the applicant's decision to place the garage in the proposed location. The applicant has sufficient area to place the garage and should be required to meet the same requirements as other development within the R/L/UD Zone District II. "The Subject property was developed with a residence prior to 1900. Location of that residence further limits access to the interior of the lot and possible locations for a garage to be built." Forbes Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page 4 Staff Response: The location of the existing home in no way prevents the Applicant from constructing the proposed garage within the required setbacks. III. "The property is serviced with an individual septic system for waste disposal. This is not common for properties of this size and substantially limits the utility and usable square footage of the property. Although unavailable in Cooperton, similar properties located within the county tend to be serviced by community or town sewer systems, which give many more options in developing a property. Additionally, due to the location of the Rockford Ditch which runs along the property lines at both the front and rear of subject property, the septic system must be located in the center of the property in order to meet setbacks for both distance from running water and distance from property lines, which further limits the property." Staff Response: The location of the Individual Septic Disposal System does not represent a hardship since it does not eliminate the ability to place the proposed garage within the required setbacks. IV. "The subject property has numerous established trees on the property which are well over 100 years old and are about as large as trees grow in this part of Colorado. They are a pre-existing feature of the property that is extremely desirable for the shade, privacy, and habitat that they provide. They are also a further limitation in regards to the access and utility of lot." Staff Response: A site visit confirmed that the improvement survey provided by the Applicant is correct in its depiction of only one established large tree located within the building envelope created by the required setbacks. Drawn to scale this survey confirms that there is enough room to design and build a one car garage within the required envelop without removing the desired trees. V. "Another key feature of the subject property is the unobstructed Mt. Sopris view from the existing residence. Without approval of the variance, this view will be substantially restricted by the construction of a garage" Staff Response: The Applicant has chosen to construct a garage on the subject lot. In order to be in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution the proposed unit shall be placed within the building envelope on the property. There is not a hardship preventing the Applicant from constructing the garage within the required building envelope. There is no guarantee that the adjacent property to the south will remain undeveloped in the future preserving the Applicants view. Forbes Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page 5 VI. "Solar gain is an additional consideration in this variance request. Currently a substantial portion of the heating for the residence is provided by passive solar gain via large south facing fenestration. Without the setback variance as proposed, solar gain will be substantially limited, which, will be a notable hardship" Staff Response: Requiring the Applicant to comply with the general conditions of the zone district does not create an undue hardship. The "notable hardship" cited is caused by the Applicant's desire to construct a garage and does not constitute an undue hardship. Many residents within the Townsite function without a garage. Choosing to construct a garage is the choice of the Applicant that requires the new structure to be in conformance with the standards and conditions within the zone district. Pursuant to the criteria of section 9.05.03 outlined above, and the fact that the property does not appear to have any topographical constraints, a variance, to allow deviation from the 25 foot front year setback required in the R/L/UD zone district should not be granted. 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. I. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; Staff Finding: There are no practical difficulties present that would prevent the Applicant from building the proposed garage in accordance with the requirements of the R/L/UD Zone District. 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: Staff finds the requested variance represents a detriment to the public good as demonstrated in the letter submitted by Jeff Wadley (exhibit F) expressing concerns. Staff feels allowing nonconforming development to continue impairs the intent and purpose of this Resolution. The Applicant is creating the need for a variance where one is clearly not needed. The proposed improvements on the lots will violate a basic zoning requirement of the R/L/UD Zone. District's, Front Yard Setback, which can clearly be met on this property without undue hardship. Forbes Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page 6 This variance request, if granted, would be an unwarranted deviation from the zoning regulations that serve to guide development in the county for the benefit of the public good. Staff remains unconvinced a denial of this variance will cause undue hardship to the Applicant. Staff finds this standard is not 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: There is no hardship and the Applicant's request is due to the general conditions in the zone district. The hardships cited are the result of the desire and design of the Applicant. The construction of the garage is not limited to the desired location. Therefore, the Applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Staff finds 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. VIII. SUMMARY: The following information should be considered by the BOA with respect to the variance requested: 1. There is no undue hardship since the subject property has sufficient area for the location of the proposed garage to be constructed in conformance with all standards of the Residential/Limited/Urban Density Zone District. 2. The subject property does not meet the criteria outlined in section 9.05.03 [Action by the Board of Adjustment]. IX. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. 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. Forbes Variance BOA: January 29, 2007 Page 7 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed request for a variance allowing deviation from the Minimum Front Yard Setback requirement has been determined not to be in compliance with any of the requirements of 9.05.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY this request for a variance from the required minimum front yard setback. r January 3, 2007 Board of Adjustments, Planning Department, Garfield County, State of Colorado 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 80601 Ref; Variance from minimum front setback Gregory Forbes 1227 Co. Rd 106 Carbondale, CO RECEIVED JAN 0 4 2007 GARFIE , BUILDING & PLAN NG 1- Forbes's Lot size is 11737.5 square feet. He has more then enough building envelope with very little in it to use for a garage or any new residential construction. 2- There is not another structure in the front set back on Mesa Ave except Forbes's existing noncompliant structures. Everyone else has respected the openness of our community by not crowding the street sides with any structures. 3- This is at the very entrance to the Town Site of Cooperton. I believe this area has an important reflection on the neighborhood and it's property values and should respectfully be improve only with the required set backs. 4- Would this be an attachment to Forbes's existing noncompliant ABU (auxiliary bedroom unit) and or other building_ Would the garage be another separate added structure?. 5- The Rockford ditch occupies the same setback area. 6- There has been no Posting of this site as of today. Sincerely, P.O. Box 333 Carbondale, CO 81623 JAN -26-2007 01:49 AM JOHN B. STEWART BUILD January 24, 2007 970 704 1253 P.01 Craig Richardson, Garfield County Department of Building and Planning Garfield County Board of Adjustment 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2007 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Setback Variance request for Greg Forbes, 1227 County Road 106, Satank, Colorado To whom it may concern; We are neighbors of Greg's in Satank who support his request for a setback variance which would allow him to build a single -car garage in place of two existing sheds in front of his house. As we understand it, the existing sheds extend over the front setback line about ten feet, and the front of the garage would come to approximately the same line. The front of the garage would still be 25 feet away from the edge of pavement, so there will still be plenty of room for a driver to back a vehicle out of the garage and look both ways before backing onto the road. So there appears to be no reason to deny the application on the grounds of safety. Visually, we think that this would be an improvement over the existing situation. The garage would be better looking than the sheds, and would provide more useable storage space, so that there would be less junk visible in the front yard. Also, since they are avid gardeners, I suspect that Greg and Wendy will make use of the south wall of the garage for some sun -loving plants. The south wall of this garage will be the first thing someone sees after turning the corner into Satank, so this will be a big improvement. The frontage of the existing sheds along County Road 106 is 25', so the square footage of the existing encroachment is about 250 square feet. The proposed garage would have a frontage of only 13'. so the actually area of encroachment would be decreased if you grant this variance to allow the garage to replace the sheds, Greg has talked to us about this project for months, and we've asked him why he hasn't pursued other options for locating this garage which wouldn't require a setback variance. We now understand that this is the only location which wouldn't cause the loss of a significant part of Greg and Wendy's vegetable garden. or solar access for their house. There is also a nice big, hundred -year-old, green ash tree which we agree should be saved. In summary, it seems that there are several good reasons to approve this variance, and no reason to deny it. Thanks for listening. .)'01,.‘b 6. 1-c (,Ja, r+ /UoiNcAl v. A John B. Stewart and Nancy V.A. Smith (Mr. s. John B. Stewart) 27 Mesa Avenue, Satank, Colorado Ex January 27, 2007 Board of Adjustments/Planning Department Garfield County State of Colorado I08 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co 80601 Ref: Variance from minimum front setback Gregory Forbes I227 Co. Rd 106 Carbondale, Co 81623 RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2007 3Mt.HELL) COUNTY BUILDING 8, PLANNING 1 am responding to Public Notice I received that Gregory Forbes has applied for a variance from the minimum front setback at his property. I have not seen a posted notice on his property this past month. Today I went looking for it and found one in the trees blocked by parked vehicles. It is my concern that proper notice has not been made to the community members that did not receive written notice and the posted notice is hidden. I object to this variance for the following reasons. 1. Mr. Forbes often has 4-6 vehicles parked at his house, parked in the ditch right of way along County Rd. 106. He has done mechanical maintenance from his home and often the vehicles parked in the county road are not his and not working. Is this garage for his professional mechanical maintenance business? 2. Mr. Forbes has a large lot with plenty of room for build within the legal setbacks as everyone else has been required to do. If he has a garage 10 feet from the county road this will increase parking on the county road and not onto his property. There is a very dangerous curve beyond his property which has poor visibility now and this will only make that worse. 3. Mr. Forbes has done very little to clean up the junk and trash on his property where it remains an eyesore to the entrance of the Satank community, 4. Mr. Forbes has been in violation of the IBCIUBC laws with the shed that he remodeled and has rented out as a bedroom. 5. Mr. Forbes was aware of the asbestos in his house when he bought it. He knowingly burned and scraped the asbestos off of the floor without notice or precaution to the neighbors, himself, The Environmental Protection Agency or the county. This exposure caused a health risk of a known carcinogenic to us all and was illegal. Mr. Forbes did this for his own benefit only. 6. The Rockford Ditch is m the setback and requires access and maintenance every year. It has backed up into the setback at different times and would become a bigger maintenance problem for the people using the water. I urge you to reject this variance and to hold him responsible for the laws set in place and the same setbacks as the rest of Satank has complied with. Sine rely, ] lene Singer 1171 Co. Rd. 106 Carbondale, Co 81623 970 963-1280 9709630569 Carbondale Fire District RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2007 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & P4NNI.G 03:16:10 p_m_ 01-29-2007 1 /2 ?loa,d ;07as-itA,J3 '"7/) i(a? ro6�zd G�nzq C7500461,62_,ee,%---aAK Ic) �-{z,v) 43,,�7cc� a 144--Jart re,d a-- C -��- 0-7 Gi'l CrLeq �/-62. y6 ver �� c tea'` , \i N V ,, -Z a . . k - / 1 k M \ 4 M °] ' i 't - I 4 \ 11 . \- I) ilt CC// :'; k , , C) ()-. N 4 ''.t'. t Q 1Z -‘ Q, \ (1,_ l\) -V--. C-) ''' .-- '"\.- t G1 ti � j s S -_-' a '-' To ._- -rn u 9 Pape #121 Photograph Addendum Borrower/Client Property Address 1227 County Rd. 106 City Carbondale County Lender State CO Zip Code 81623 Form GPICPIX — "WinTOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. — 1-800-ALAMODE