Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 10.22.20014., p06,07/%6- e- o6,o,{/%6- e- 44m' 4ctfs Fi,;•z . an = .L10 -4>/ 41k) /00s,/ REQUEST: PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS fik P BOA 10/22/01 Variance from Section 3..7 (2)(B) — rear yard setbacks for zero -lot -line and townhouse dwellings contained in Resolution No. 98-45, Battlement Mesa PUD APPLICANT: Roan Cliff Corporation Richard L. & Gladys M Witt LOCATION: Lots 8 & 9, Block 2, The Fairways, Phase I of the Battlement Mesa PUD SITE DATA: Approximately 4162 sq. ft. and 4342 sq. ft. WATER/SEWER: Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District ACCESS: Hogan Circle off of Palmer Drive EXISTING ZONING: MDR — Medium Density Residential Battlement Mesa PUD I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The subject properties are located on a loop street within a subdivision with detached zero -lot -line patio homes located within the Fairways Subdivision within the Battlement Mesa PUD. Improvements on the lots include an existing single-family home on each lot. A subdivision plan and site plan are included with this report. B. Request: The applicant is requesting a variance from the required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback, to correct an error in the placement of the existing dwelling units located on the lots in question. The proposed variances would place the dwelling on Lot 8, 14.8 ft. from the rear lot line and the unit on Lot 9, 15.5 ft. from the rear lot line. The applicant has stated that the encroachments were a result of incorrect staking of the building locations on very small lots. (See application pgs. 4-7D ) II. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: Sections 3.7 (2)(B) — rear yard setbacks for zero -lot -line and townhouse dwellings contained in Resolution No. 98-45, Battlement Mesa PUD requires that a rear yard setback of 25 ft. be observed for any house located in the MDR zone district that is accessed from the alley and has a rear facing garage. B. Section 9.05.03 states that "by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property at the time of this resolution or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property," the Board may authorize a variance. In addition, the Board must also find that: 1. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; and 2. That such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose ofthe General Plan or this Resolution; and 3. That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship was not caused by the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected; and 4. That the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the applicant. C. Staff Comments: The proposed variance is the result of incorrect staking of the structure corners, which resulted in the houses being placed in the present locations. It appears that the applicants intended to meet the setback requirements. Staff feels that the proposed variance was the result of a hardship created by the applicant and that the hardship can be practically corrected by the applicant and with the cooperation of the Battlement Mesa Partners. To require the applicant's to remove a section ofthe existing structure would create an unnecessary hardship that would ultimately result in the complete demolition of the buildings and rebuilding them within the building envelopes. There is a remedy to the situation that does not require a variance. The applicant's, with the concurrence of the Battlement Mesa Partners, could propose an amendment to the PUD zoning and amend the Final Plat to create building envelopes consistent with the amended zoning. This can be done without the Board of Adjustment granting a variance The approval of a variance will result in conflict with the Final Plat approved for the Fairways Subdivision. All of the lots have specific building envelopes that are shown on the plat, within which all structures are supposed to be located. The building envelopes 2 are consistent with the setbacks required by the zoning. Any approval of the requested variance should require the applicants to file an amended plat for Lots 8 and 9 of the Fairways subdivision, Phase I, as a part of any approval given for the variance. If an amended plat is not recorded, there is no recorded record of the variance since the County does not record the decisions of the Board of Adjustment in the public record. All files are kept in the County Planning Department files. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the application for Variance was not found to be consistent with the requirements and standards of Section 9.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 2. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required for the public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 3. That the variance requested has a practical solution that does not require a variance. 4. That the public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment was extensive and complete, that all facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the meeting. V. RECOMMENDATION DENIAL of the requested variance due to a practical solution to the problem being available by amending the PUD and the Final Plat for the Fairways Subdivision. Any APPROVAL of the proposed variance as requested, should be subject to the applicants filing an amended plat for Lots 8 and 9 of the Fairways subdivision, Phase I, with building envelopes consistent with the variance approval. 3 • The Battlement Mesa Company August 24, 2001 Board of Adjustment Garfield County, Colorado Re: Variance requests of Roan Cliff Corporation and Richard L. and Gladys M. Witt Ladies and Gentlemen: Battlement Mesa Partners is the developer of Battlement Mesa PUD. A portion of the development is a subdivision known as "The Fairways". The Fairways is designed to contain seventy one (71) homes. Phase I of the development has been approved and seven (7) homes have been constructed. Four (4) of the homes have been sold to persons other than Roan Cliff Corporation and Mr. and Mrs. Witt. The undeveloped lots in The Fairways, Phase I, are owned by Battlement Mesa Partners. Roan Cliff Corporation and Mr. and Mrs. Witt have explained to us the problem with the siting of the homes on Lots 8 and 9 of Block 2 and the masonry fence encroachment on the common area. We have been furnished a copy of their Application for Variance. We have inspected the homes relative to the location on the Lots and have considered the impact and effect thereof relative to the remaining lots in Phase I. We are of the opinion that granting the variance as requested by the applicants will have no adverse impact upon The Fairways and request that the Board of Adjustment grant their request. If the Board has any questions that it feels our company can answer or desires further information, please contact the undersigned. Thomas B. Beard, President Battlement Mesa Company copy: Roan Cliff Corporation Richard L. and Gladys M. Witt NARRATIVE EXHIBIT D P.O. Box 6000 • Battlement Mesa, Colorado 81636 • 970-285-9740 • Fax 970-285-9721 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO: Garfield County Board of Adjustment FROM: Roan Cliff Corporation and Richard L. Witt and Gladys M. Witt Re: Variance to accommodate set -back violations DATE: August 30, 2001 Applicants are the owners of Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, The Fairways, Phase I, Battlement Mesa, Colorado. The Fairways is a subdivision located in Battlement Mesa, the first Phase of which contains eighteen (18) lots. Homes have been constructed on seven (7) of those lots. The attached plat (denominated Exhibit A) shows the locations of the lots upon which homes have been constructed, including the two (2) lots for which variances are now being requested. The building envelopes for Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, require a ten (10) foot set -back on the front of the Lots and a twenty-five (25) foot set -back on the rear of the Lots. The homes were constructed with a front yard set -back of twenty point two (20.2) feet on Lot 8 and nineteen point six (19.6) feet on Lot 9. In effect, the homes were located approximately ten (10) feet deeper on the front of the Lots than required and approximately ten (10) feet deeper to the rear than allowed. See copies of Improvement Surveys for Lots 8 and 9 attached hereto as Exhibits B and C. Variances are hereby requested from the strict application of the set -back requirements for the improvements now located on the Lots. The location of the homes was caused by a misinterpretation of the plat of The Fairways by the person locating the homes on the Lots. The Fairways, Phase I, is designed for the construction of "patio homes" which allow a home to be constructed on one of the property lines without any set -back. The lots in a patio home development are narrow and allow little, if any, adjustment for the location of the home. It must fit the tight building envelope imposed on each lot. In the case of the two Lots for which variances are now being requested, the person siting the homes on the two Lots located them approximately ten (10) feet too deep on the Lots. Granting the variances will not affect any utilities, streets or other public amenities. Granting the request will not affect the homes located across the street from the subject Lots. There are no homes located southeasterly of the Lots and none across the alley from the Lots. 5 Except for the homes located across the street from the Lots, all other lots in Phase I are owned by applicant Roan Cliff Corporation and Battlement Mesa Partners. Battlement Mesa Partners requests that the variances be granted as appears in Exhibit D attached hereto. Not granting the variances herein requested would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship upon the owners of the Lots. The requested variances are the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties and undue hardships upon the owners of the Lots; will cause no detriment to the public good; will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the general plan or subdivision and zoning resolutions of the County of Garfield; the circumstances were not caused by the applicants; are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district; and cannot be practically corrected. It is, therefore, requested that the following variances be granted: 1. The rear yard set -back for lot 8 be set at 14.8 (14.8) feet; 2. The rear yard set -back for Lot 9 be set at fifteen point five (15.5) feet; Respectfully submitted, Roan Cliff Corporation liAn1v( irk_ Cheri Witt Brown, President Gladys M. Witt copy: Battlement Mesa Partners