HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 09.24.2007,a
k
0
1 0 ° /-- .:'
ti stwo
Y Lio
N %4
J�
k/
� I- 22 �
1"
BOA Exhibits (9/24/07)
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
Comments from Colorado Department of Transportation, dated 9/4/2007
-T-u -i"4,/1 /111 c°2j
BOA 9-24-07 KM
TUNNICLIFFE VARIANCE
Staff Report to the Board of Adjustment
Project Information and Staff Comments
REQUEST: Variance to front yard setback
PROPERTY OWNER: Barbara Tunnicliffe
LOCATION:
IBD Highway 82, Carbondale, CO 81623
(Northeast of the Town of Carbondale)
SITE DATA: 2.57 acres
ACCESS: Highway 82
EXISTING ZONING: Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (A/R/RD)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
1. Description of the Property
The subject property is located
northeast of the Town of Carbondale.
The subject property is bordered by
Highway 82 to the north, the Roaring
Fork River to the south, and residences
to the east and west. The current
building envelope is situated on the flat
terrace and is located 25-35 feet above
the Roaring Fork River. The slope from
the terrace to the river ranges from 20%
to 38%. The current building envelope
is approximately 9410.89 square feet.
2. Description of the Proposal
[Site Map of the Subject Property]
The Property Owner requests a variance from the minimum front yard setback limit of 50 feet from
the property boundary. The proposal is for a front setback variance of 25 feet, a decrease of 25 feet.
The Property Owner is proposing this variance for the following reasons:
1
BOA 9-24-07 KM
1. The Property Owner states the building envelope defined by code is relatively confined.
2. The Property Owner states the building envelope is restricted by the steep grade from the
proposed building plat to the Roaring Fork River
3. Medical conditions create a need for the applicant to have a one story structure.
3. Applicable Variance Regulations
The subject property is situated within the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (ARRD) district.
The minimum lot size within the ARRD Zone District identified in 3.02.04 of the Garfield County
Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended (the Zoning Resolution) is two (2) acres. The subject property
complies with all regulations in the ARRD Zone District
52.02.48 Setback: The minimum dimension of a requiredyard.
53.02.06 Minimum Setback: (1)Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or
fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater.
59.05.03 Action by the Board ofAdjustment: After the properforwarding of an application for variance to the Board
and where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of
property at the time of enactment of this Resolution, OR by reason of exceptional topographic
conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of
property, the strict application of any regulation enacted under this Resolution would result in peculiar and exceptional
practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such properly, the Board may authorite,
upon the application relating to saidproper y, a variance from such strict application so as to relieve such difficulties or
hardship, provided, however:
(1) That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue
hardshp upon the owner of said properby
(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;
(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;
4. Review Criteria for Granting a Variance
§ 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution discusses what constitutes the granting of a variance in 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;
Staff Comments: Dimensional requirements that are identified today were in place when the subject
property was purchased by the property owner in 2006. The property is in compliance with all zoning
requirements of the ARRD Zone District.
2
BOA 9-24-07 KM
(2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property;
Staff Comments: The shape of the subject property does not prevent the intended use as stated in the
Zoning Resolution. The current building envelope allows for a dwelling unit similar to those found
throughout the ARRD Zone District.
The Property Owner states that the property is impacted by the Roaring Fork River in two ways. The
southern property line is located in the middle of the river, which the Property Owner considers this to
be an extraordinary and exceptional situation. The property boundary and the location of the river were
established prior to the Property Owner purchasing the subject property. The Property Owner states
that the river impedes the buildable area because of the steepness of the slope from the terrace to the
river. As stated earlier, the slope ranges from 2O% to 38%. The Zoning Resolutions states in g5.04.02 a
dwelling may be built on a grade up to 4O% grade. The location of the river and the slope to the river
do not restrain the building envelope to the extent the building envelope is unusable per the uses
contemplated in the ARRD Zone District.
(3) That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical
difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property;
Staff Comments: The variance requested is not a necessary measure in order for the Property Owner
to build a one story structure that will allow mobility and be of size desired. The 9,411 square foot
building envelope provides the Property
Owner with adequate space to build a
3,000 sq. ft. dwelling. The Property
Owner still has design options and
flexibility without decreasing the front
yard setback of the applicable zone
district.
"Applicant is asking for this envelope size
[6,824 sq. ft] because she is early in the
site design process and would appreciate
at least some flexibility." Desired design
of a dwelling is not within the purview of
the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of
1978, as amended. The desired design
cannot fit within the current building
envelope therefore the hardship is self-imposed.
A variance is not intended for this situation. To
this end, Staff feels that "exceptional topographic
conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation
or condition" does not exist on the property as a resul of by abiding by the front yard setback. This
requirement is not met.
Site Map of the Tunnicliffe Property. The Original Building
Envelope is marked by the solid blue line and the proposed
building envelope is displayed in red. The requested variance is
indicated by the hashed lines.]
3
BOA 9-24-07 KM
(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 Comments: The request of the variance to decrease the front yard setback from Highway 82
may obstruct future development of Highway 82 and impair the intent of this Resolution. Highway 82
is classified as an express highway and future growth and development may require the expansion of
this highway. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has expressed concern that granting
this application could impact future public transportation. "CDOT would prefer that the variance...
be denied. There is a reason why there are set back for highways especially State Highway 82" (See
Exhibit F).
f1.07APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS
These regulations shall apply to the entire unincorporated area of Garfield County, Colorado. Except as hereinafter
provided:
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;
(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 Comments: The proposed variance is based on the Property Owner's desired building design.
Desired design should not dictate development in Garfield County nor should design preference take
precedence over the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. For a variance to be granted, a hardship in
which no other alternatives exist must be established. The proposed structure is said to be
approximately 3,000 square feet. The established building envelope is 9,411 square feet and
approximately over 6,000 square feet is on level terrain. With the current building envelope the
Property Owner is able to
build a single level 3,000
square feet house.
Approximately 4,200 Sq. Ft.
of level terrain exists with
the original building
envelope and the proposed
building envelope. The
Staff feels that a decisive
hardship does not exist
which requires a variance
from the minimum front
yard setback of 50 feet.
Level Terrain Within Original and Proposed
Building Envelope:
,aApproximately 4200 Sq. Ft.
- _____
4•10.di6G.F1.
4
BOA 9-24-07 KM
The Property Owner states permanent easements established within the property boundaries confine
the building envelope. Both easements obtained by CDOT were created prior to the property owner's
purchase of the property. The easements were recorded in 1973 and Miss Tunnicliffe purchased the
property in 2006. The property owner purchased the property aware of the conditions that exist with
the subject property. This requirement is not met.
5. Suggested Findings: Staff fmds the request does not meet the criteria set forth for variances; and,
1. Proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the
Board of Adjustment.
2. The hearing before the Board of Adjustment was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matter and issue were submitted and
that all interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Variance is not in
the best interest of the order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County.
4. That the application is not in conformance with the Garfield County
Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending the Board of Adjustment DENY the Applicant's
request for a Variance from the minimum front yard setback of 50 feet.
5
Tunnicliffe variance Page 1 of 1
From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STA1L.CO.US]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:35 PM
To: Kathleen Middleton
Subject: Tunnicliffe variance
Katy - Thank you for the opportunity to review the Tunnicliffe variance. As indicated in the
application, CDOT would prefer that the variance would be denied. There is a reason why
there are set back for highways especially State Highway 82. This highway is classified as an
expressway and at this time we have no plans to make improvements on SH 82; however, this
could effect public transportation in the future.
If the property owner does decide to build a dwelling unit on this property, they will also need to
have an access permit for the driveway.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Dan Roussin
Colorado Department of Transportation
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th, Suite 100
Grand Junction, Co 81501
970-683-6284
970-683-6290 FAX
file://T:\kmiddleton\Land Use 2007\Varaince\Tunnicliffe\CDOT referral.htm 9/17/2007
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
November 16, 1998
Barbara Tunnicliffe
12694 Highway 82
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-8454
Phone 970 945-7988
lob No. 198 757
Subject: Percolation Testing and Subsoil Evaluation, 2.57 Acre Parcel between
12665 and 12905 State Highway 82, Carbondale, Colorado
Dear Ms. Tunnicliffe:
As requested, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed
percolation testing to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at
the subject site. We were also requested to evaluate the subsoils encountered in the
profile pit for foundation support. The findings of our work are presented in this report.
The work was done in accordance with our agreement for geotecluiical engineering
services to you, dated November 6, 1998.
Proposed Construction: We understand that building plans for the proposed residence
have not been developed and the findings of our report will be considered in your
purchase of the property. We assume the residence will be a one to two story structure
over a walkout basement level, with cut depths ranging between about 4 and 8 feet.
Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light.
Site Conditions: The site was vacant and covered with up to 8 inches of snow at the
time of our field work. The assumed building area is located on top of a fairly flat
terrace approximately 20 to 30 feet above the Roaring Fork River. The riverbank along
the south portion of the site is very steep down to the south. The site is bordered by
State Highway 82 to the north. Vegetation at the site consists of grass, weeds and
sagebrush with scattered deciduous trees.
Percolation Test: Percolation tests were conducted on November 12, 1998 to evaluate
the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and
three percolation holes had been excavated by others at the locations shown on Fig. 1.
The test holes (nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) had been hand dug by others
at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked by us with water one day prior
to testing. The soils were protected from freezing overnight with rigid foam insulation.
The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit
and consist of sandy silty clay. Subrounded sandy gravel and cobbles with boulders
were encountered in the profile pit at a depth of 6 feet down to the bottom of the profile
Barbara Tunnicliffe
November 16, 1998
Page 2
pit at 8 feet. No free water was observed in the profile pit. The percolation test results
presented in Table I indicate an average soil percolation rate of 26 minutes per inch.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the
tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system.
Foundation Recommendations: The subsoils encountered below about ' foot of
topsoil, consist of 51/2 feet of sandy silty clay overlying subrounded sandy gravel and
cobbles with boulders. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on a relatively
undisturbed sample of sandy silty clay, presented on Fig. 2, indicate moderate
compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading. No free water was
encountered in the profile pit and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
Considering the conditions exposed in the profile pit and the nature of the proposed
construction, we recommend spread footings placed on the undisturbed sandy gravel
and cobble subsoil designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for
support of the proposed residence. Shallower footings bearing on the upper silty clay
soils can be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of 1,200 psf with the risk of
some post -construction settlement. Foundation for the proposed residence should be set
back from the edge of the steep riverbank. We recommend the footings be set back or
deepened so that a 1' horizontal and 1 vertical slope from the outside bottom edge of
the -footings does not daylight on the steep slope below the building area. Footings
should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns.
Loose and disturbed soils in footing areas should be removed and the bearing level
extended down to the undisturbed natural soil. Exterior footings should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Continuous
foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by
assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining
structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for on-site soil as backfill. A perimeter foundation
drain should be provided to prevent temporary buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind
the walls and prevent wetting of the lower level. Structural fill placed within floor slab
areas can consist of the on-site soils compacted to at least 95 % of standard Proctor
density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed around the structure should
be compacted and the surface graded to prevent ponding within at Least 10 feet of the
H -P GEOTECH
Barbara Tunnicliffe
November 16, 1998
Page 3
building.
The recommendations submitted in this letter are based on our observation of the soils
exposed within the profile pit and do not include other subsurface exploration to
evaluate the subsurface conditions within the loaded depth of foundation influence.
This study is based on the assumption that soils beneath the footings have equal or
better support than those exposed. The risk of foundation movement may be greater
than indicated in this report because of possible variations in the subsurface conditions.
We should be contacted to review our recommendations during residential design and
construction.
If there are any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mark Mackie E.I.T.
Reviewed by
MM/ksm
attachment
Hardin, P.E.
H -P GEOTECH
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
12665 HWY 82
di
Oc
P 3 P 2
A A
P 1
PROFILE ■
PIT
0
0
0
O
W
0
0
0
PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
EXISTING RESIDENCE 12905 HWY. 82
APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 60'
•
HIGHWAY 82
01
cn
198 757
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLES I Fig. 1
Compression %
V cn vi -A W N O
Moisture Content = 19.5 percent
Dry Density Weight = 103 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: profile Pit at 3.5 Feet
1
No movement
upon
wetting
11111
11
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
198 757
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 2
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
PERCOL
757
NOTE: Percolation testing was performed by a representative of H -P Geotech on Novmeber 12, 1998. The average percolation
rate is based on the last three readings of each test.
vv✓ ,SIV. •JU
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-1
42
15
10
9
1
9
8
1
8
7 1/2
1/2
7 1/2
7
1/2
7
6 1/4
3/4
26
6 1/4
5 3/4
1/2
P-2
43
15
9
7 3/4
1 1/4
26
7 3/4
7
3/4
7
6 1/4
3/4
6 1/4
5 3/4
1/2
5 3/4
5
3/4
5
4 1/2
1/2
P-3
42
15
11
9 3/4
1 1/4
26
9 3/4
8 1/2
1 1/4
8 1/2
7 3/4
3/4
7 3/4
7
3/4
7
6 1/2
1/2
61/2 _
6
1/2
NOTE: Percolation testing was performed by a representative of H -P Geotech on Novmeber 12, 1998. The average percolation
rate is based on the last three readings of each test.
Tunnicliffe variance Page 1 of 1
From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:35 PM
To: Kathleen Middleton
Subject: Tunnicliffe variance
EXHIBIT
Katy - Thank you for the opportunity to review the Tunnicliffe variance. As indicated in the
application, CDOT would prefer that the variance would be denied. There is a reason why
there are set back for highways especially State Highway 82. This highway is classified as an
expressway and at this time we have no plans to make improvements on SH 82; however, this
could effect public transportation in the future.
If the property owner does decide to build a dwelling unit on this property, they will also need to
have an access permit for the driveway.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Dan Roussin
Colorado Department of Transportation
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th, Suite 100
Grand Junction, Co 81501
970-683-6284
970-683-6290 FAX
file://T:\kmiddleton\Land Use 20071Varaince\Tunnicliffe\CDOT referral.htm 9/17/2007
Imago c1 2007 DigitalGlobe
Pointor 39'24'55.52" N 107'12'24.52" W ulov 6119 ft Stroarning I I I I I I1I II :14Q,°
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
11NCH= 40 FEET
Highway 82
HVVY 82 ROW ( 2.518 acres)
Found CDOH
ROW Marker
Found YPC
PLS #14111
Footprint #1
Driveway
10.00' Offset
Found YPC 2
PLS #14111 ----a-Q
High Water Mark of River
Footprint #2
/7/ \/ 77
ilding Envelope
\10.89 Sq. Ft. \
//c/1_71Z4
30.00' Offset
Tract A
High Water Mork of River
Found YPC
PLS #14111
Approximate location of property line
Approximate location of property line
Property lines extend to centerline of
the center channel of the R.R. River
Property lines extend to centerline of
the center channel of the R.R. River