The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 BOA Staff Report 02.25.2008Exhibits for Gendreau Variance Request BOA Fe bruary 25th, 2008 Exhibit Exhibit . Letter (A to Z) A Proof of Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication c Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 , as amended D Application E Staff Memorandum F Staff Power Point Presentation BOA 2/25/2008 CR Gendreau Variance PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT I OWNER LOCATION SITE DATA EXISTING ZONING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Variance from Front Yard Setbacks Alfred M. Gendreau 145 W. Main Street, Silt, Colorado (Hwy 6 & 24) 1.699 acres Commercial Limited Denial 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY: The subject property is situated in unincorporated Garfield County on Highway 6 & 24 west of Silt, Colorado. The subject property is currently improved with a concrete and steel frame building and storage yard. An existing storage tent is located within inches (0.6' to 0.9') of the property's front boundary line. §3.07.06-CL front yard setback-arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; . ·-' '~~~_,1'-.·-..-.. ~~~~--.,. .. ""'"""' I BOA 2/25/2008 CR 2. SUMMARY OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The Applicant erected a storage tent on the subject property without obtaining a building permit as required by Garfield County. When notified of the violation the Applicant submitted a building permit application to the Building and Planning Department at which time is was verified that the existing tent did not comply with the front yard setback Identified in §3.07.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended: 3. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE § 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution outlines the criteria that must be met in order to grant a variance. Specificlly, the granting of a variance must demonstrate 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 STAFF RESPONSE: The shape of the subject lot does not prevent the Applicant from placing the existing storage tent within the required setbacks identified in the Commierical Limited Zone District. The Applicant's desired location results in the need for a variance. The storage yard can be rearranged to comply with setback requirments and eliminate the need for the requested variance. 2 BOA 2/25/2008 CR (2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. STAFF RESPONSE: The subject lot is not encumbered with exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordianry and exceptional situation or condtion that would prevent compliance with the identified setbacks. Staff finds that the requested variance does not comply with this standard. (3) That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; STAFF RESPONSE: The required setbacks do not create an undue hardship upon the owner of the subject property. A variance is not required to place a storage tent on the subject property. The Applicant's desired location requires the approval of a variance. Since the Applicant has room to place the existing tent in compliance with the identified setbacks the request is not the "Minimum Necessary". Staff finds that the requested variance does not comply with this standard. (4) 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 RESPONSE: The Applicant's desired location creates the need for a variance. A variance should only be granted when no other options exist. Allowing Applicants to deviate needlessly from the zoning requirments that are used by the Building and Planning Department to help guide development in Garfield County creates an inconsistent application of the Zoning Resolution. Allowing unwaranted deviation would substantially impare the intent of the resolution. (5) 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 RESPONSE: This standard requires that the Applicant demonstrate that the hardship is not caused by the Applicant, and not due to or the result of genaral conditions in the district. A variance to place a storage tent on the subject property respecting the required setback is not required. The Applicants choice of location creates the need for the requested variance. The existing tent can be relocated to comply with the required setbacks. 3 BOA 2/25/2008 CR 4. SUMMARY As demonstrated throughout this memorandum the need for a variance is the result of the Applicant's choice to place the existing storage tent within the identified front yard setback. The requested variance does not comply with any standards identified in § 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution which is required in order to grant a variance. The Applicant has not demonstrated that a variance is warranted. 5. NEW ISSUES When reviewing the improvements survey provided by the Applicant, Staff was made aware of additional structures that may be in violation of setback requirments. Two (2) sheds are depicted on the southern boundary of the subject property. The structures appear to be in violation of the CL zone district's identified rear yard setback requirment. Additionally, two (2) existing sheds located along the northeastern boundary of the subject parcel also appear to be in violation of the identified fronUside yard setbacks. The Applicant will be responsible for providing documentation that the existing structures are not in violation of Garfield County Zoning standards or that they existed in the current location prior to January 1 •\ 1973. The Applicant will be contacted by Garfield County Code Enforcement regarding this issue. ... ~ I •' . . . • • f • • • • ·: . ' .. , . . . . ·. ·. ., • •• '1 • • ... . . .. .. .· • •• • t " .. . . . . . .. . ·. . . ,• .. .. Fr·~~·-:·~··:~.,~;:·::::~·~·~·~·~·_:_~.·~~~~·~··jr.:.-::-:-:"~·-:7-:-:-~·~:~~..:::..·· •. . . . '•• ... . . . .. . · . • .. • b 41.0' • . l!.J• •• .... ;. • . • .• ... ., .. 11 ll '"• .• ·.··4' .. .: .. :. : d SHED -; . '1 ' · • • ·•. : ,.. " . . " ~ i." ~ SHED ~-'• · · CnNc.."':YP. · · · ·• • . •' ·~ y, • ,. • . :· ... ,. •' .': ,·•"r ··,; '•, ... • • .. ~· • 4 ••• .. . . . · .. \ ...... ' ~ .... . 41.0' . •, .,. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . • ·, .. .. .. OE----- 0£----0£ N 85°24'27" \.-\ . '• . . - (existing structures -southern property boundary) ... ,_,....·~:-·~··-:·.-·"'i'-~--10~9~·~-";-~-r~o;t;-:r'-~-.I ·. . .. . . . . ' .. (existing structures -northeast corner) 4 BOA 2/25/2008 CR 6. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of Adjustment. 2. That the hearing 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 request for a variance is not in compliance with any of the requirements of §9.05.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 7. STAFF RECOMENDATION It is the recommendation of Staff that the Board of Adjustment deny the request for a variance allowing the deviation from the front yard setback requirement identified as a condition of the Commercial Limited Zone District for the following reasons: ~ A variance is not required to place desired storage tent (existing) on the subject lot while respecting the identified setbacks; ~ The need for a variance is created by the Applicant's choice of a specific location not the size, shape, or constraints found on the subject lot; ~ If granted when not required this request would set a precedent impairing the resolution that is used by the Building and Planning Department to help guide development in Garfield County; ~ The requested variance does not comply with the criteria outlined in §9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution; ~ The requested variance is not be the minimum necessary to alleviate hardship, no hardship exists; 5