Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Fulquet Variance
ACTIVITY #: PL-21-106 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE:
April 12, 2021 at 6:00 pm
PETITIONER: Estanislao Fulquet PETITION: Property line setback variance to allow for the
construction of a garage/shop LEGAL: Lot 4; Steamboat Hills Subdivision LOCATION: off of CR 35 approximately .5 miles west of the
intersection of CR 35 and CR 41 ZONE DISTRICT: Mountain Residential Estate (MRE) AREA OF PARCEL: 1.73 acres PROPOSED VARIANCE: Required: 50’
Proposed: 34.9’ (from the south property line) STAFF CONTACT: Alan Goldich, [email protected] ATTACHMENTS: • Narrative
• Site plan • Slope analysis • Site photos • Elevations • Thompson comments
History: This parcel was created in 1969, with the recording of the Steamboat Hills Subdivision plat. This subdivision was created prior to the County adopting zoning in 1972. When the County did adopt zoning, the Mountain Residential Estate zone district was applied to the Steamboat Hills Subdivision. A non-conforming lot variance to construct a single family home was granted on May 13, 1974 by the Board of Adjustment. Non-conforming lots no longer go to the BOA for approval of its legal status. This decision is now made at the staff level. The Assessor’s records indicate that the existing residence was constructed in 1992. Lot 5 is immediately to the south of Lot 4. Lot 5 received a variance in 2018 that allowed for a 1’ setback from the north property line. The 10’ utility easement on the south side of the shared lot line was vacated in 2018 as well.
1 of 21
Board of Adjustment – 4/12/21 Activity # PL-21-106 Fulquet Variance
Routt County Planning Department
Site Description: Lot 4 is located on the side of a hill. Most of the lot contains slopes that exceed 30%. The southern portion of the lot is the toe of the slope and flattens out a bit. The septic system is located above the house on the hillside so the proposed structure will not impact this system. The lot is covered in sagebrush, shrubs, and grasses. There is no other significant vegetation on the lot. There is a drainage to the east of the location of the proposed garage. Based on previous staff observations on other lots in this immediate vicinity, the swale drains the fields above it and does not meet the definition of a waterbody since it does not run continuously for 90 days or more in a year. There is a waterbody that runs on Lot 5 to the south, but the proposed disturbance would meet the 50’ required setback for this waterbody. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a garage/shop 34.9’ from the southern property line. The shop will not be located in the 10’ utility easement so this easement does not need to be vacated. Staff Comments: • The approval of the variance on Lot 5 should have no bearing on this application. Review of
each variance request is based on the specific circumstances of each individual application in relation to the five criteria that need to be complied with in order to obtain an approval.
• If this subdivision were proposed in 2021, large areas of Lot 4 would not be platted for development due to the slopes exceeding 30%.
• After the application was submitted, staff and the applicant worked on a re-design of the layout of the garage. This re-design resulted in the proposed structure being 25’ further away from the property line than the original design. The original design site layout is available upon request.
• The submitted site plan shows portions of the existing residence being located in the setback. A building permit was obtained for the residence and Planning signed off on it. The Building Department no longer has the site plan that was submitted with this permit so staff is unable to determine whether the residence was constructed in the proposed location. Because Planning signed off on the building permit, Planning acknowledges its existence and location.
• The applicant’s narrative references a 3:1 slope. This correlates to a 33% slope. Setbacks for MRE District Property Line Setback Proposed Required Variance
South: 34.9’ 50’ 15.1’ Section 3.4.6 – Standards for Granting or Denial of Variances
B. Under no circumstances shall a variance be granted on the sole basis of personal convenience, profit or special privilege to the applicant.
C. Under no circumstance shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under the terms of this Resolution in the appropriate Zone District.
2 of 21
Board of Adjustment – 4/12/21 Activity # PL-21-106 Fulquet Variance
Routt County Planning Department
D. Variances shall be granted with respect to specific plans or within defined parameters. Unless otherwise specified by the BOA, a variance may be transferred to successive owners prior to construction if no changes are made to the approved plan. Variances shall run with the land after the construction of any authorized structures and only for the life of such structures.
E. The BOA may condition the granting of a variance on the issuance of a building permit within a specific time period and may require the applicant to pursue completion of the construction with due diligence. If such conditions are not satisfied, the variance shall become null and void.
F. In order to insure that the protection of the public good and the intent and purpose of these Regulations are preserved, the BOA may impose any other condition upon the granting of a variance, including those categories of conditions which may be placed upon Land Use Approvals under Section 3.2.6.
Applicable Regulations – Routt County Zoning Resolution 3.4.6 The Board may grant such variance if all of the following are found to exist: 3.4.6.A.1 Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or an unnecessary and unreasonable
hardship will be imposed on the property owner if the provisions of this Resolution are strictly enforced.
Petitioner Comments: We believe the 50’ setback from all property lines poses an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship on the property owner as it greatly restricts buildable area within the lot. The owner wishes to construct a barn / garage on the property. The 50’ setback limits the building location to only steep slopes exceeding 3:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) grade on the property. Gentler slopes exist closer to the south property line permitting a much less costly, safer, and economical construction of the proposed shop / garage building.
Staff Comments: An unreasonable and unnecessary hardship will be put on the landowner if this structure is required to meet the 50’ property line setbacks. Moving it further to the north would push it into the steep slopes of the site. It would also require significantly more grading for the foundation and stabilization of the uphill slope. If this lot was platted today, the area to the north of the proposed garage would be labeled a “no build zone” on the plat and Planning would not approve any structures in this area, nor would we consider a variance application that would put a structure into this area. 3.4.6.A.2 Circumstances creating the hardship were in existence on the effective date of the
regulations from which a variance is requested, or created subsequently through no fault of the appellant.
Petitioner Comments: Steamboat Hills Subdivision final plat was recorded on August 15, 1969. The Routt County regulations that enforce the 50 foot side setbacks for MRE Zoning went into effect in 1972. Therefore, the circumstances creating the hardship (i.e. the platted property lines) were in existence prior to the effective date of the Routt County Zoning regulations from which this variance is being requested. Staff Comments: The size and layout of the lot was created in 1969, prior to the County adopting zoning and prior to the applicant becoming the owner. 3.4.6.A.3 That the property for which a variance is requested possesses exceptional narrowness,
shallowness, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition which does not occur generally in other property in the same Zone District.
3 of 21
Board of Adjustment – 4/12/21 Activity # PL-21-106 Fulquet Variance
Routt County Planning Department
Petitioner Comments: We believe this lot exhibits characteristics of exceptional narrowness, steep topography, and natural drainage features that limit the buildable area of the property. The total acreage of the lot is 1.73 acres. The buildable portion of the lot within 50 foot setbacks limits the buildable area to just over 0.50 acres, less than 1/3rd of the overall area of the lot. The only buildable portion of the lot for the proposed structure has steep slopes exceeding 3:1 grades. The proposed building site next to the south-central property lines has 5:1 slopes that allow for a much
more economical and safer development. Lastly, there is a seasonal drainage ditch that runs north to south directly through easterly portion of the lot that further limits buildable area on the east part of the property.
Staff Comments: This subdivision layout would not be approved under today’s Subdivision Regulations due to the various development constraints, particularly the steep slopes and the creek that flows through Lot 5 to the south. The lots in the subdivision are also small for the Mountain Residential Estate zone district. This lot is 1.73 acres and the minimum lot size is 5 acres. Both the shape and topography of the lot contribute to the exceptional situation. Nearly half of the site has slopes that exceed 30% and eighty-five percent of the lot exceeds 15%. Due to the topography and the property line setbacks, the residence was constructed in its current location. The location of the house, the shape of the lot, the slopes, and the seasonal drainage to the east of the house, leaves very little land outside of the setbacks that can be developed. 3.4.6.A.4 That the variance, if granted, will not diminish the value, use or enjoyment of the
adjacent properties, nor curtail desirable light, air and open space in the neighborhood, nor change the character of the neighborhood.
Petitioner Comments: If granted, the proposed building location would not diminish the values, use, or enjoyment of the adjacent properties. The neighboring property to the south, Lot 5 Steamboat Hills Subdivision was approved for a variance of one foot from the property in 2019. The owner is currently constructing a 40’ x 60’ building that is larger in overall mass than any residence in the subdivision. Based on the size and location of the building under construction on Lot 5; an additional building located 35 feet from the property line will have little impact to Lot 5. The proposed shop / garage building on Lot 4 will be similar to that of surrounding development and character of the neighboring property. The size and orientation of the proposed building will not curtail desirable light in the neighborhood. Shadows cast from the proposed building would generally all be located on Lot 4. Neither desirable air nor open space will be affected. The proposed shop / garage will be setback on Lot 4 and not affect the character of the neighboring property owners.
Staff Comments: Lot 5 to the south would be the most impacted by this structure. It has an existing house and a garage under construction. Most of the view from the neighbor’s house towards the proposed structure will be blocked by their own garage. It is staff’s opinion that a structure 35’ from the property line will not have any more impact on the neighbor to the south than the same structure 50’ from the property line. 3.4.6.A.5 The variance, if granted, will not be directly contrary to the intent and purpose of this
Resolution or the Routt County Master Plan. Petitioner Comments: If granted, the proposed building location would not be contrary with the intent and purpose of this resolution of the Routt County Master Plan. The owner simply wishes to create indoor storage for working on his equipment by constructing a new workshop in a safe and economical manner.
4 of 21
Board of Adjustment – 4/12/21 Activity # PL-21-106 Fulquet Variance
Routt County Planning Department
Staff Comments: Accessory structures are a use by right in the MRE zone district. There are no apparent conflicts with the Zoning Regulations nor the RC Master Plan.
Board of Adjustment Options: Approve the variance if the above noted tests are met. Approve conditionally if the above noted tests are met or can be met by the application of certain conditions, or if certain conditions are necessary to mitigate concerns. Table for specific reasons; e.g. more information, site review, etc. Deny the variance if it does not meet the criteria stated above or if the variance would create a health or safety hazard or would negatively impact public welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the variance as requested with conditions of approval, based on the following findings of fact. FINDINGS OF FACT that may be appropriate if the Variance is APPROVED:
1. Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship will be imposed on the property owner if the provisions of this Resolution are strictly enforced because requiring the proposed structure to be located outside of the setback would involve significantly more grading for the foundation and final stabilization of the uphill slope.
2. Circumstances creating the hardship were created subsequently through no fault of the appellant because the present nonconformity was created in 1969 with the creation of this subdivision.
3. The property for which a variance is requested possesses an extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition which does not occur generally in other property in the same Zone District in that the site has a physical constraint limiting the building envelope. This physical constraint is the small acreage size, the steep slopes, the shape of the parcel, and the location of the current residence.
4. The variance, if granted, will not diminish the value, use or enjoyment of the adjacent properties, nor curtail desirable light, air and open space in the neighborhood, nor change the character of the neighborhood because the configuration and size of the structure is generally in conformity with the adjacent properties and neighborhood.
5. The variance is not directly contrary to the intent and purpose of this Resolution or the Routt County Master Plan as there are no apparent conflicts with RCZR standards or RCMP policies and there are no significant negative impacts that cannot be mitigated.
CONDITIONS that may be appropriate include the following:
1. The building shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Routt County Building Department.
5 of 21
Board of Adjustment – 4/12/21 Activity # PL-21-106 Fulquet Variance
Routt County Planning Department
2. If construction of the building does not commence within 1 year, this variance shall be subject to another review with full submittal. A 12 month extension may be approved administratively without notice.
3. This approval is specific to the plans submitted in the application. Any change in footprint, size, height or site location that increases the level on non-conformance will be subject to a new application. Minor variations that do not increase the level of non-conformance can be approved administratively, without notice.
4. A foundation only building permit will initially be signed off on by Planning. Prior to Planning signing off on the full building permit, a foundation location certificate shall be submitted showing compliance with the approved setbacks.
5. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) shall be utilized during construction to prevent erosion and drainage flow onto adjacent properties, drainage to the east of the parcel and the county road right of way.
6. A Grading and Excavation Permit will be required if necessary. 7. All exterior lighting will be downcast and opaquely shielded. 8. Revegetation of disturbed areas shall occur within one growing season with a seed mix
which avoids the use of aggressive grasses. See the Colorado State University Extension Office for appropriate grass seed mixes.
9. Existing and new accesses shall meet access standards set forth by the Routt County Public Works Department.
6 of 21
Ph: 970-871-6772 · Fax: 970-879-8023 · P.O. Box 775966 · Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477
March 23, 2021
Routt County Planning
136 6th Street
Steamboat Springs, CO 80480
Phone: (970)-879-2704
RE: Lot 4 Steamboat Hills Building Permit – Variance Request
31755 Red Stag Lane, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
Four Points Surveying and Engineering Job No 1950-001
Dear Planning Department
On behalf of our client Mr. Fouquet, the owner of Lot 4 Steamboat Hills Subdivision, we are requesting a variance to the
minimum 50’ side setbacks for MRE zoning in order to construct a barn / garage building 34.9’ away from the south
property line. The property is located at 31755 Red Stag Lane, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487.
The building and new access to the building are designed to limit disturbance to the surrounding properties and the site.
The proposed building is placed 34.9’ from the property line in an area of 3:1 slopes. If the building were placed at 50’
feet from the property line there is no way to contain the grading. The new access drive to the barn will require minor
grading in the unmaintained right of way of Red Stag Lane. By widening the existing driveway to twenty four feet there
will only be one access to both the residence and new garage/barn on Lot 4.
We believe the variance request meets all standards of Section 3.4.6.A of Routt County Zoning Regulations - The Board
of Adjustment may grant a variance if all of the following are found to exist:
1. Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship will be imposed on
the property owner if the provisions of this Resolution are strictly enforced.
We believe the 50’ setback from all property lines poses an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship on the
property owner as it greatly restricts buildable area within the lot. The owner wishes to construct a barn / garage
on the property. The 50’ setback limits the building location to only steep slopes exceeding 3:1 (Horizontal:
Vertical) grade on the property. Gentler slopes exist closer to the south property line permitting a much less
costly, safer, and economical construction of the proposed shop / garage building.
2. Circumstances creating the hardship were in existence on the effective date of the regulations from which a
variance is requested or created subsequently through no fault of the appellant.
Steamboat Hills Subdivision final plat was recorded on August 15, 1969. The Routt County regulations that
enforce the 50 foot side setbacks for MRE Zoning went into effect in 1972. Therefore, the circumstances creating
the hardship (i.e. the platted property lines) were in existence prior to the effective date of the Routt County
Zoning regulations from which this variance is being requested.
7 of 21
3. That the property for which a variance is requested possesses exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape or
topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition which does not occur generally in other
property in the same Zone District.
We believe this lot exhibits characteristics of exceptional narrowness, steep topography, and natural drainage
features that limit the buildable area of the property. The total acreage of the lot is 1.73 acres. The buildable
portion of the lot within 50 foot setbacks limits the buildable area to just over 0.50 acres, less than 1/3rd
of the
overall area of the lot. The only buildable portion of the lot for the proposed structure has steep slopes exceeding
3:1 grades. The proposed building site next to the south-central property lines has 5:1 slopes that allow for a much
more economical and safer development. Lastly, there is a seasonal drainage ditch that runs north to south
directly through easterly portion of the lot that further limits buildable area on the east part of the property.
4. That the variance, if granted, will not diminish the value, use or enjoyment of the adjacent properties, nor curtail
desirable light, air and open space in the neighborhood, nor change the character of the neighborhood.
If granted, the proposed building location would not diminish the values, use, or enjoyment of the adjacent
properties. The neighboring property to the south, Lot 5 Steamboat Hills Subdivision was approved for a variance
of one foot from the property in 2019. The owner is currently constructing a 40’ x 60’ building that is larger in
overall mass than any residence in the subdivision. Based on the size and location of the building under
construction on Lot 5; an additional building located 35 feet from the property line will have little impact to Lot 5.
The proposed shop / garage building on Lot 4 will be similar to that of surrounding development and character of
the neighboring property. The size and orientation of the proposed building will not curtail desirable light in the
neighborhood. Shadows cast from the proposed building would generally all be located on Lot 4. Neither
desirable air nor open space will be affected. The proposed shop / garage will be setback on Lot 4 and not affect
the character of the neighboring property owners.
5. The variance, if granted, will not be directly contrary to the intent and purpose of this Resolution or the Routt
County Master Plan.
If granted, the proposed building location would not be contrary with the intent and purpose of this resolution of
the Routt County Master Plan. The owner simply wishes to create indoor storage for working on his equipment by
constructing a new workshop in a safe and economical manner.
We look forward to your review and approval of the requested variance. Please call or reply with any questions.
Sincerely;
Walter N. Magill, PE-PLS
Four Points Surveying and Engineering
8 of 21
NORTH
Ste
am
bo
at
Hil
lsS
ub
div
isio
nR
ed
Sta
g L
an
e S
TE
AM
BO
AT
SP
RIN
GS
, C
O 8
0487
1
SIT
E P
LA
N
440 S. Lincoln Ave, Suite 4BP.O. Box 775966
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487(970)-871-6772
20'10'20'
20'
No
.D
AT
ER
EV
IS
IO
NS
IN
T
1" =
0
SHEET #
IF THIS DRAWING IS PRESENTED IN AFORMAT OTHER THAN 24" X 36", THE
GRAPHIC SCALE SHOULD BE UTILIZED.
DATE: 3-24-2021
JOB #: 1950-001
DRAWN BY: JLW
DESIGN BY: JLW
REVIEW BY: WNM
DR
AW
IN
G:
Contour Interval = 2 ft
Horizontal Scale
Feet
0 500 1000
9 of 21
NORTH
Ste
am
bo
at
Hil
lsS
ub
div
isio
nR
ed
Sta
g L
an
e S
TE
AM
BO
AT
SP
RIN
GS
, C
O 8
0487
1
SIT
E P
LA
N
440 S. Lincoln Ave, Suite 4BP.O. Box 775966
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487(970)-871-6772
20'10'20'
20'
No
.D
AT
ER
EV
IS
IO
NS
IN
T
1" =
0
SHEET #
IF THIS DRAWING IS PRESENTED IN AFORMAT OTHER THAN 24" X 36", THE
GRAPHIC SCALE SHOULD BE UTILIZED.
DATE: 3-24-2021
JOB #: 1950-001
DRAWN BY: JLW
DESIGN BY: JLW
REVIEW BY: WNM
DR
AW
IN
G:
Contour Interval = 2 ft
Horizontal Scale
Feet
0 500 1000
10 of 21
Southern portion of the building site. Garage on Lot 5 in the background.
Northern portion of the building site.
11 of 21
View from the center of the cul de sac.
Northern portion of the building site with steep hillside in the background.
12 of 21
View from property line into Cul-De-sac, property corner at telephone pedestal.
Aerial View of Lots 4 and 5
13 of 21
Front View of Residence, property corner at stake
New Building on Lot 5 from Lot 4
14 of 21
New Building from end of existing driveway on Lot 4
View from driveway into Red Stag Lane. Property corner is over left side of truck cab
15 of 21
16 of 21
17 of 21
18 of 21
April 5, 2021
Routt County Planning
136 6Th Street Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
Phone: 970.879.2704
RE: Lot 4 Steamboat Hills – Variance Request 31755 Red Stag Lane, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
Activity #: TPL-21-106
Dear Planning Department,
On behalf of our client, Terry Jean Thompson at Lot 5 Steamboat Hills, we are requesting the Planning Department recommend to the Routt County Board of Adjustment the application for setback variance be denied for Lot 4 Steamboat Hills. For the reasons outlined below, we believe the variance request does not meet all the standards of Section 3.4.6.A of Routt County Zoning Regulations.
We also would like the Planning Department Director, and Planning Commission, to review the current policies for applications that have been advised by Planning Staff that the application will be proceeding to the Board of Adjustments with a Staff Recommendation of denial. Specifically, for this variance request, such advice was given to the applicant and revisions to the application were made. Prior to any revisions to the applicants application as advised by Staff, we submitted feedback on behalf of our client outlining many of the same reasons below. The applicant took our observations into consideration, along with Staff’s and revised the variance and narrative.This variance was the only agenda item on the Board of Adjustments public hearing previously scheduled for March 8th 2021, and the hearing was subsequently cancelled.
We do not feel adequate notice has been given per Section 3.3 of the Routt County Zoning Regulations for Published, Posted, or Mailed Notices. Subsequent Notices should have been performed due to the rescheduling of the Board of Adjustment meeting to April 12th 2021. Additionally, we feel the revised application should be considered a new application thus requiring additional fees in full or in part, to be paid to Routt County as the entire variance was reviewed previously but rendered a recommendation by Staff of denial. Our continued objection to this specific variance request, in its current form, has required additional financial obligation from our client and feel it unjust the applicant should be allowed to revise the application without any additional fees for resubmittal.
While property disputes are a civil matter and the Planning Department and Planning Commission do not have purview, it should be noted that my client feels like this variance request is being used as a tool for harassment. Three police reports have been filed against my client by the applicant for property disputes. In the current application, photos are provided generally only of our clients property depicting what was previously approved for construction by both the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission. Lot 5 had very specific hardships and should not be used as a comparable as not all property is created equally. It appears that by supplying these photos, this furthers our opinion that the variance request is solely to harass our client. Using 3 year old aerial photos that do not convey existing conditions of the property, do not provide adequate context for the Board of Adjustments to understand the actual property this variance request is for, Lot 4.
19 of 21
1. Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship will be imposed on the property owner if the provisions of this Resolution are strictly enforced.
The applicant’s narrative describes that the 50’ setback restricts the location of the building to an area where the steepness of the slope is less economical, yet they are proposing to regrade an area within the buildable portion of the property. The proposed grading could be redesigned for concrete wall retainage and incorporated into the building design so less sitework is needed. This would allow the building to fit entirely outside the property setbacks while still providing for proper drainage. Furthermore if the variance is granted, the applicant would still have the right to develop the property with an addition to the existing residence in the area described as not suitable for economical construction.
2. Circumstances creating the hardship were in existence on the effective date of the regulations from which a variance is requested or created subsequently through no fault of the appellant.
We have no objections to the applicant's narrative stating a fact. Although the current Zoning Regulations state that the minimum lot size for MRE is 5 acres and Lot 4 is 1.73 acres, the lot possesses a substantially buildable location suitable for the construction of a barn this size within the prescribed setbacks of 50’.
3. That the property for which a variance is requested possesses exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition which does not occur generally in other property in the same Zone District.
While we acknowledge the buildable area is limited to just over 0.50 acres, the 1:1 boulder retaining wall could be replaced with concrete retainage integrated into the buildings design to allow the building to be placed fully outside the setbacks.
4. That the variance, if granted, will not diminish the value, use or enjoyment of the adjacent properties, nor curtail desirable light, air and open space in the neighborhood, nor change the character of the neighborhood.
Our client was approved to construct a 40’x60’ building on Lot 5 Steamboat Hills one foot from the property line for a variety of reasons. Most notably, Lot 5 has water running through the property further limiting the placement of the building with a single access driveway as per Routt County Road and Bridge Standards. There was no other location to build elsewhere on the property. It was determined, by the Routt County Planning Commission, to be unavoidable and a waterbody setback permit was granted for the unavoidable conditions of Lot 5 with single driveway access.
The applicant’s proposed development is widening the access point from the right of way against Road and Bridge Standards. Based on the topography presented in the applicant’s design, it should simply be an extension of the existing driveway.
It is further noted, the applicant for this variance on Lot 4 has not communicated their intent to request a variance from Routt County Planning and the Board of Adjustments or to construct this barn to any adjacent neighbors for either the previous submittal or this
20 of 21
current application. Prior to commencing a formal variance request on Lot 5, our client discussed at length the intent and practicality of constructing a barn of this scale with all adjacent neighbors and the reasons for the chosen location. It should also be noted that the applicant on Lot 4, did not object to the location at the time of the variance request. There have been no negative comments from the adjacent neighbors of the barn on Lot 5 and it is seen as not obtrusive to the neighborhood.
As per below, the proposed location for the barn will reduce the open space in the neighborhood.
5. The variance, if granted, will not be directly contrary to the intent and purpose of this Resolution or the Routt County Master Plan.
The Routt County Master Plan does not specifically mention variances. Property line setback variances are in place to ensure adequate spacing between structures and neighboring properties, and the County has determined the minimum setback for the MRE zone district as 50’. The Zoning Regulations are in place to mitigate significant negative impacts. The placement of the proposed structure is within approximately 41’ of Lot 5’s barn, which is less and contrary to the intent and purpose of this Resolution and the Routt County Master Plan. The barn on Lot 5 is approximately 75’ from the residence on Lot 4.
While we understand the applicant's request, we feel the request for variance to be substantially deficient in it’s reasoning. Constructing the proposed barn on Lot 4 is technically feasible outside the property setbacks and should be designed as such.
In response to the applicants previously submitted application, we had also inserted two pictures into the Site Overlay document indicating encroachment into the right-of-way by the applicant. The applicant claiming this space for their own personal use, has negatively impacted
all neighbors’ enjoyment of the shared property of the right of way. Our client has privately maintained, for the past 23 years, the public way, keeping it clear and open and would like to see the space restored for the purposes of safety. Upon completion of the construction project on Lot 5, a restoration of the public way was expected. This work is now scheduled for May 1st and will be bringing the public way up to County standards.
We are attaching the previous submittal by the applicant for the Board of Adjustments, Planning Department Director, and Planning Commission, to understand the history of the application as necessary. We hope you understand our position that the application should be tabled until proper notification has been established.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks
Caleb Simon
CS Services
970.846.4259
21 of 21
