Carbondale board approves variance for ADA bedroom addition at 689 Lincoln Ave with limits on setbacks and impervious area

The Carbondale Board of Adjustment on an unspecified meeting date approved a variance allowing a reduced front-yard setback, a reduced street-side setback and an increased maximum impervious lot coverage for a proposed accessible bedroom and bathroom addition at 689 Lincoln Avenue.

Staff recommended approval, citing a qualifying medical need; the board approved the variance with conditions that set numeric limits on the encroachments and on maximum impervious coverage. Jared (staff planner) told the board that “staff is supporting and recommending approval of the variance as presented,” and provided draft findings and recommended conditions tied to the submitted design.

Why it matters: The homeowners said the addition is needed to accommodate mobility loss from a recently confirmed medical diagnosis. Applicant Michael described the diagnosis and mobility risks: “inclusion body myositis is a rare, nonfatal, degenerative progressive disease of the large muscles of the arms and legs,” and said the addition would improve circulation within the house and access to outdoor living areas. Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing largely supported the application; one neighbor asked the town to consider drainage and impervious-surface impacts.

The board heard that the variance package requests three specific changes to Lincoln Avenue East PUD standards: (1) reduce the 15-foot front-yard setback to 10 feet along Lincoln Avenue (limited by condition to no more than 40 feet along the property), (2) reduce the 10-foot street-side setback to 5 feet along Seventh Street (limited by condition to no more than 50 feet), and (3) increase the permitted maximum impervious lot coverage to 55% for the site (reduced from the applicant’s requested 60% as an agreed compromise). Jared summarized staff’s review of the variance criteria and said staff found the record met the review standards in the application because of the qualifying medical circumstance and the demonstrated practical hardship.

Board members discussed whether the relief requested was the minimum necessary and whether drainage or neighborhood impacts could follow from increased impervious surface. Janet (board member) emphasized the code’s “minimum variance” requirement and said the applicant should leave themselves “enough wiggle room” while still meeting accessibility needs. Several board members said they preferred numeric limits rather than a purely descriptive or plan-tied approval so that later review of a building permit would be straightforward. The applicant, Michael, and co-applicant Olivia said the design as submitted shows about 593 square feet of building addition plus roughly 240 square feet of new walkway/paved surfaces (staff and the applicant noted some inconsistencies in how those numbers were reported in public comments; see clarifying details). Michael said the total of building plus walkways was discussed in public comments as 833 square feet but clarified the plan breaks that into building area and impervious walkways.

Board action and conditions: The board adopted a motion to approve the variance with the following elements reflected in the motion and its conditions: a 10-foot front-yard setback (along Lincoln) for up to 40 feet of frontage measured from the southwest corner of the lot; a 5-foot street-side setback (along Seventh Street) for up to 50 feet measured from the same corner; maximum impervious lot coverage limited to 55% for the property as built under the approved improvements; and a requirement that the approval be limited to the proposed improvements shown in the submittal (the board struck staff’s original draft condition that would have required removal of the addition if future permits removed ADA conformity). The motion passed on a roll-call vote in which the voting members recorded “yes” (see Votes at a glance below). The minutes approval earlier in the meeting also passed by unanimous voice vote.

Drainage and code issues: Concerns raised in a late public comment letter about impervious area, stormwater runoff and potential ponding at the Lincoln/Seventh intersection were discussed. Jared said he would consult with public works about whether additional drainage analysis is needed; staff did not recommend adding a civil drainage study as a condition at this time. A board member noted that building-code applicability differs: the structure is governed by the International Residential Code (IRC) rather than the International Building Code (IBC), and the accessibility work is being pursued for the homeowners’ benefit rather than because the IRC requires it.

Public comment: Several nearby residents spoke in support: Lenny Bullier (659 Lincoln Avenue); Bill Yocums (717 Lincoln Avenue); Brad Zeigel (610 Lincoln Avenue); and Mark Mahoney (742 Euclid). Speakers praised the applicants and asked the board to be compassionate while keeping any relief limited to what is necessary.

What happens next: Staff will issue findings consistent with the board’s motion and conditions; the applicant may proceed to building permit review with plans consistent with the approved variances and the numeric limits the board adopted. If future owners seek to alter the space in a way that removes ADA design features, the board tied scrutiny to permitting rather than requiring demolition.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes (09/25/2024): voice vote, unanimous (aye votes recorded). Outcome: approved. (Mover/second: not specified in the record.) - Variance for 689 Lincoln Ave (front-yard setback reduction to 10 feet for up to 40 feet; street-side setback reduction to 5 feet for up to 50 feet; maximum impervious coverage 55%): motion passed by roll-call vote with recorded “yes” votes from the five voting members present; outcome: approved. (Mover: Russ Criswell; second: not specified.)

Acknowledgment of uncertainty: The record contains inconsistent figures about the precise breakdown of new building area versus walkway/impervious area (public comments referenced 833 total square feet; staff and applicant discussed 593 square feet of building plus about 240 square feet of walkways; the applicant also said the building component may be under 500 square feet). The board limited the approval to the proposed improvement as drawn and set a 55% impervious cap to provide additional constraint.

Ongoing items: Staff said it will follow up with public works regarding the drainage concerns raised by a late public comment and will circulate finalized findings and conditions to the board.