Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.3 CorrespondenceRichard M. Poffenbarger Attorney at Law Phan (970) 328-7900 Facsimile (970) 328-7901 P.O. Box 3240 407-1 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-3240 Licensed in Colorado and Wyoming January 29, 2003 SENT FIRST CLASS, RETURN RECEIPT # 7002 0510 0002 9382 6188 ALSO TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE TO: 970.384-3470 7 pages including receipts Garfield County Building and Planning Attn: Mark Bean 108 8th St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 8161)1 RECEIVED JAN z1 1 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Request for Refund of Building Plan Review Fee, Zoning Variance Fee and Other Costs; Objection to Requirement to Obtain Variance Approval in Order to Obtain Building Permit for Otherwise Conforming Structure in A/R/RD Zone District on a Parcel of Land Pre - Existing, and Non -Conforming to Subsequently Enacted Zoning Regulations; Request for Variance Application Dear Mr. Bean: Pursuant to our telephone conversation with Mr. DeFord, yourself and I on today's date I am hereby requesting a refund/reimbursement of, and for, the $1,159.18 plan review fee, the $250.00 fee assessed for the Application for Variance from the Maximum Lot Coverage Regulation, the $73.12 Variance advertising cost, $4.42 for certified mailing to Travis Realty, Inc. and $31.37 for duplications of the Variance application and site plan for use by the staff and Board of Adjustments (copies of all receipts are included in this mailing). I am requesting refund of the Variance Fee and associated costs because it is now apparent from our conversation that the matter before the Board of Adjustments was premature in light of the County's espoused position that I must first obtain a variance allowing the construction of a single family residence on my property. I was not advised of that requirement and consequently did not request such a variance. Obviously if the County's position is correct, the Board of Adjustments could not have decided the latter matter without first deciding this threshold question, which they could not have done at that published meeting without appropriate additional publication, etc. By this letter I am also requesting another variance application. I will proceed to request a variance from nonconformity as discussed today to allow construction of a single family residential structure on my property at the earliest opportunity. For that purpose I will need your written statement of the County's position, confirming and stating clearly the information conveyed in our telephone conversation. I will also need this because I Page 1 of 2 Request for Refund of Building Plan Review Fee, Zoning Variance Fee and Other Costs; Objection to Requirement to Obtain Variance Approval in Order to Obtain Building Permit for Otherwise Conforming Stricture in A/RJRD Zone District on a Parcel of Land Pre - Existing, and Non -Conforming to Subsequently Enacted Zoning Regulations; Request for Variance Application intend to object to the requirement that I obtain a variance in order to construct a residential structure on my property, Please schedule that matter before the Board of County Commissioners at the earliest opportunity. If a different body is required to hear this matter of my objection please indicate so in your response correspondence and schedule the matter at the earliest possible date. One last matter for which I need your comment and attention. None of the uses listed in Section 3.02 of the Garfield County Regulations was an established use in 1973 or subsequently. Yet Mr. DeFord and you offered that I might make use of my property in the manner set forth in Section 7 of the County Regulations. I believe you also further suggested that such uses would include any uses set forth in A/R/RD except for a single family residence. Section 7 allows continuation of any existing uses only. Why would the County Staff have discretion to authorize some certain non -existing "uses by right" of a nonconforming parcel but not others? Where are the limits of this discretion set forth in the regulations and who conferred this discretion? What are my "uses by right" in this circumstance where none of the listed "uses by right" or "conditional" or "special" uses set forth in the applicable sections was established at the time of enactment of the regulations? I need your written response! Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. I am requesting your written responses to each matter set forth above on, or before, February 6, 2003. If for any reason you cannot, or do not, intend to meet that timetable, please advise by then as to why and when you will respond. I have already lost months of valuable time in my effort to construct a residence due to the erroneous process. Nevertheless I intend to proceed expeditiously and need your assistance as a public servant. Time is of the essence for me! Regards, � /, Richard M. P. "•nbarger cc: Board of County Commissioners Don DeFord, Esq., Deputy County Attorney Page 2 of 2 Request for Refund of Building Plan Review Fee, Zoning Variance Fee and Other Costs; Objection to Requirement to Obtain Variance Approval in Order to Obtain Building Permit for Otherwise Conforming Structure in A/R/RD Zone District on a Parcel of Land Pre- Erdsting, and Non-Confomiing to Subsequently Enacted Zoning Regulations; Request for Variance Application NOTES RECE I P„, D, _ r ba--.- 216 3 r NO. RECEIVED FROM ..._., AT . �lr� ADDRESS s tsy t) LlPIPreMra'Eei1- _.aa FOR ACCOUNT AMT. OF ACCOUNT AMT, PAID CASH HO CHECK MONEY ORDER PAID t/ Y -� BY Qom. $ raso. db /+2011 R0DIFORhl® 8L806 0 1-40 0 rr1 ri rR Certified Fee O U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) Postage Return Receipt Fee Rl (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) 0 Totes Postage & Fees O rR r1 A O 0 M1 Sentro • t Street, APL No.;04 or PO Box No. 1n a'_ city, Siete ZIP. 4 � - S form 3800, January 2001 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: ecw ni i al \t0 vrrr�t� V`- C -O O 1 %" 910/1 Car —I— gIio37-94,r See Reverse for Instructions COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Sig X rr B. Recei re ■• ■ enr Addressee (Printed -) C. Date of Delivery Y/ Y/ D. Is delivery address different from item 1? U Yes If VES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, August 2001 y� (Z-7 3.Asrvice Type 18 Certified Mail D Registered o Insured Mail 0 Express Mail O Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery'? (Extra Fee) 7001 1140 0003 0115 9010 Domestic Return Receipt ❑ Yes 10259501-M-2509 Cri It! ••••,11 i'17.2 I -4- CSji I! ; '.. •:', i .. Advertising Receipt Richard M. Potfenbarger Law Office of Richard Potienbarger PO Box 3240 EAGLE, CO 81631 Ad taker= c12 Salesperson: Classification: 50 Glenwood Springs Poet Ind Bold Words * Payment Reference: Credit Card Holder: Credit Card Number: Credit Card Expiration: Crack Card Verification 4: Credit Card Vordh:atltin Amt: 0.00 PUBLIC NOTICE ment Garfield County. TAKE NOTICE that Richard M. Poffenbarger has applied to the Boast of Adjust State of Colorado, to request a variance from D) zone 15% ot coverage o eragwith the forequirement owmgthe Agrlcutaual/ResidentiuVRural Density ( of Colorado; to -wit: described property situated in the County of Garfield. State Legal Description: See Attached 12/24/02 CO Richard M. Potenbargor ONSPIPIONOSS0330 07/05 Colorado Mountain News Media PO 3ox699 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Phon:-945-9937 Fax: (97D 945-0777 Cuatif: 31 00707 000 Adp: 3/504049 Phone: (9i 0)328-7900 Date: 1220102 0900 12/24/02 1 62.52 t ca_ :r • itYom" "a 1, 12/20/02 14:12 Total: Tax: Net: prepaid: 10.60 73.12 0.00 73.12 73.12 TX/RX NO.2097 P.002 e NOTES RECEIPT DATE L NO 2088 ,�/ RECEIVED FROM R ‘C44 A 12,4) SFr �,B 144/20/ ADDRESS FORRiL rk_ 04* '? $1/5-9/ct ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT. OF ACCOUNT CASH AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE DUE MONEY ORDER ©2001 REFORM® 8L806 t-? Richard M Poffenbarger Altomey at Law Lite (970) 328-7900 Facsimile (970) 328-7901 P.O. Box 3240 407-1 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-3240 Licensed in Colorado and Wyoming Janua_ry 30,_2003 _ _ TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE TO: 970.384-5005 and 384-3470 2 Pages Office of the Garfield County Attorney Attn: Don DeFord, Esq. 108 8th St., Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Request for Information Regarding Appeal of Decision of Planning Director to Require a Variance in Order to Obtain Building Permit for Otherwise Conforming Structure in A/R/RD Zone District on a Parcel of Land Pre -Existing, and Non -Conforming to Subsequently Enacted Zoning Regulations; Inquiry Regarding Transcript. of Board of Adjustment Variance Hearing Held on January 27, 2003 Dear Mr, DeFord: Since the variance hearing on January 27, 2003, and in my review of the zoning regulations, I have again read the language in Section 5.04.05. I am providing the relevant text from the section with highlighting applied to the language for which I seek explanation. 5.04.05 Nonconforming Lots: Where a lot was held in separate ownership or was platted on a subdivision plat filed in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder prior to the adoption of the prior Garfield County Zoning Resolution enacted on November 27, 1973, and does not meet the minimum lot area requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located, such lot may be occupied by uses as provided under the appropriate Zone District Regulation ... . I submit that this code section controls the incumbent circumstances and means that I do enjoy the "uses by right" listed in the A/R/RD Zone Districts. It is my contention that Section 7.04 is not the applicable regulation for the circumstances at hand as "open space" is not a listed use within the zone district and cannot be cited as an established use from which greater nonconformity would measure. I need your prompt explanation and written response prior to moving forward. Understanding your work load I kindly request that you provide a written response on or before February 6, 2003, or a notice otherwise of your intentions and timetable. In the event that the County (Planning Department) still disagrees with me after consultation with you and after your review of this section, of course I still want to appeal that decision of the County Official requiring a variance in order to obtain a building permit on my lot. In my letter to Mr. Bean yesterday, a copy of which you should receive, I requested an appeal of that same verbally conveyed decision in front of the appropriate Page 1 of 2 Request for Information Regarding Appeal of Decision of Planning Director to Require a Variance in Order to Obtain Building Pemut...; Inquiry Regarling Transcript of Board of Adjustment Variance Hearing Held on January 27, 2003 body. This letter should then also serve as confirmation of my request for appeal of that position/decision, which I presently intend to drop only upon rescission of that decision, if applicable. Please forward any other particularly necessary forms and instructions —regarding that ppeal_to_ensure timeliness_of my application_ Per the instructions of Mr. Bean I intend to pursue the variance nevertheless, and simultaneously with the appeal. In the event the County changes its position or in the event I prevail in the appeal I will request refund of any paid fee for that variance request. Finally I need the written findings of the Board of Adjustments as soon as possible. Can you provide a timetable for when I should expect delivery? Is it possible also to obtain a certified transcript of the hearing? What would be the cost and who should I contact to obtain the transcript and certified copy? It would be very difficult to evaluate the merits of an appeal of that[those] decision[s] without a glance at the written findings. As you know the Board provided nothing in the way of oral findings at the time of the hearing and consequently I can't even describe the basis of a prospective appeal without at least the opportunity to review the findings. Will the County make that available? Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. Time is of the essence for me! Regards, kr* Richard M. Pt ff .nbarger cc: Mark Bean/Tamara P-regl/Building andPlanning Page 2 oft Request for Information Regarding Appeal of Decision of Planning Director to Require a Variance in Order to Obtain Building Permit...; Inquiry Regarding Transcript of Board of Adjustment Variance Hearing Held on January 27, 2003 Richard M. Poffenbarger Attorney at Law Ehcne (970) 328-7900 Facsimile (970) 328-7901 P.O. Box 3240 407-1 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-3240 Licensed in Colorado and Wyoming February 10, 2003 TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE TO: 970.384-3470 7 pages including receipts Garfield County Building and Planning Attn: Mark Bean 108 8th St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81631 FES 1 l 7003 By FI a P COUNTY G Re: Request for Clarification of Code Definitions; Request for Advise of County Building and Planning Position and Prior Treatment of Specific Code Language Dear Mr. Bean: Per your suggestion during our brief telephone conversation last week I have prepared several questions for consideration and discussion during your Staff meeting this week. 1. Does lot coverage include areas under/covered by berm or grade level soils? 2. Does lot coverage include shadow areas from cantilever constructions? 3. Does lot coverage include non -pervious, graveled areas, for patios, drives, parking areas and, or for xeroscapes? 4. Is required off-street parking required to be outside of a garage in addition to space within a garage when a garage is constructed? 5. Is the term "structure" defined within the code and if so, where? If not, what items are included in the County definitions historically? 6. Does the County Off -Street Parking regulation only require a single parking space of 200 sq.ft. for each full 600 sq.ft. of residential space, i.e. does a 1,198 sq.ft. residential dwelling require one or two spaces? 7. Does maximum building height measure from pre -excavation elevation or final grade and if from final grade, does that mean from the top grade of a berm at the midpoint of the (mid -point between the front and rear walls of the building? 8. Does the midpoint referenced in #7 mean the sides of the building? By this letter I am also requesting a written statement of the County's position regarding whether 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, [me]" and regarding my property? And if so, what is the County Staff's position on what is the "minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property?" Page 1 of 2 Request for Clarification of Code Definitions; Request for Advise of County Building and Planning Position and Prior Treatment of Specific Code Language In short, given your knowledge of my predicament I am asking whether the Building and Planning Department will support any variance request on my part for my property regarding my ability to exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage? Further I need the specifics, so as not to waste your department's or my time guessing, for what types of variances I might obtain County approval recommendations. Would you be able to support variances allowing decks, cantilevers, drives and impervious surfaces such as patios? How much deviation from the maximum lot coverage would you support, if any? These may appear as redundant requests because the Staff report previously prepared and published for use in the prior variance hearing contained multiple references to the necessary legal conclusions that the existing hardship was created merely by my own actions. However, given that much of the content of that former Staff report has now been retracted I am asking for your review and clarification. I believe Colorado has set forth a great deal of instruction on these topics, some derived from the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases and most of which was reviewed in the case Animas Valley Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of.. > , 38 P.3d 59 CoIo.,2001., Dec. 17, 2001. (Approx. 15 pages). Unfortunately I don't believe the cases resolve all of the questions to which I need answers so I am requesting your guidance and declaration/disclosure. Incidentally, I still have not received a written Notice of Decision with Findings of Fact as requested and promised. I am again requesting that you please respond in writing to the questions posed herein on or before February 14, 2003? If for any reason you cannot, or do not, intend to meet that timetable, please advise by then as to why and when you will respond in writing. If you request I will make myself available for a meeting or discussion of these matters. Because I have not been able to determine whether to appeal the previous variance request decision I still will need your promised written statement of the County's position, confirming and stating clearly the information conveyed in our telephone conversation with Mr. DeFord present on February 5, 2003. Thank you again for your efforts and time. As you know, time is of the essence for me! Regards, Richard M. Po ►"anger cc: Board of County Commissioners Don DeFord, Esq., Deputy County Attorney Page 2 of 2 Request for Clarification of Code Definitions; Request for Advise of County Building and Planning Position and Prior Treatment of Specific Code Language BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 14, 2003 Richard M. Poffenbarger, Esquire P.O. Box 3240 407-1 Broadway Eagle, CO 81631-3240 RE: Correspondence of February 10, 2003 Dear Mr. Poffenbarger: I am in receipt of your letter of February 10, 2003 concerning various issues involving interpretation of our land use regulations. My positions on the issues you raise in that correspondence are as follows: 1. Previously you have requested that I render an interpretation of Section 5.04.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Code read in conjunction with Section 7.01 of that same document. Previously members of my staff indicated in a report to the Board of Adjustment that 7.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Code, in conjunction with other provisions in that section, precluded the non -conforming use of your property for any residential structure without obtaining a variance from the Board of Adjustment. At the Board of Adjustment hearing of January 27, 2003, you presented your request for a variance from the lot coverage requirements of the A/R/RD Zone District. No request was submitted to that Board of Adjustment concerning a variance from Section 7.01, the Non - Conforming Use Regulations. However, while the aforementioned position of my staff constituted a relatively minor part of their report, I agree it is a position of which you may not have been aware of prior to the date of the hearing. 2. As a result of our discussions and your correspondence, I have taken the opportunity to review the historical background of Section 5.04.05 and Section 7.01. It has been many years since this office was required to construe these provisions in the context of a non -conforming lot. Most of the non -conforming lots in this county have been the subject of consideration many years past. For the most part, my review included files, records, and regulations involving non -conforming lot issues occurring many years before my tenure with the County or that of any staff in my office or the County Attorney's office. After reviewing the treatment of non -conforming lots in the early -to -mid 1970's, the point in time closest to the adoption of these regulations, for the most part, I agree with the position you have stated in your correspondence. At this juncture, I formally enter an opinion that 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Richard M. Poffenbarger, Esquire February 13, 2003 Page 2 pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.04.05, and Section 7.01, I believe that you are entitled to place on your property all uses permitted by right, Special Use Permit, or Conditional Use Permit in the A/R/RD Zone District subject to all of the requirements for implementing those rights set forth in the zone text for that district. The sole exception for those requirements would be minimum lot size, as Section 5.04.05 makes such exceptions specific. Therefore, I believe you are entitled to construct a residence, or other permitted use, on your property, so long as you comply with all of the requirements of the A/R/RD Zone District, except for minimum lot size. Additionally, you will need to demonstrate that a safe and adequate sewage disposal system can be placed on your property. 3. In regard to your previous specific request for a variance, you have already asked for relief from the A/R/RD Zone District maximum lot coverage requirements. That was denied, attached is a signed order in that regard. Therefore, I believe you are required to comply with all provision of the A/R/RD Zone District, except lot size, absent an additional request for variance which would need to be granted in order to alleviate any other identified hardship. 4. In response to your specific numbered questions in your letter of February 10, 2003, I respond as follows: (1) Lot coverage is defined as that portion of the lot "which is covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking and drives". It would be my interpretation that a berm or some other soil added to the landscaping of a property would not be considered lot coverage. (2) The shadow area of a cantilevered portion of a building that can be utilized as a functional yard area would not be subject to the lot coverage restriction, as that would not be an "occupied" area. In other words, if a person can stand below a cantilevered section of a structure (i.e. second floor) then it would not be considered to be part of lot coverage. If a cantilevered section effectively covers and occupies an area, making it unusable as a yard area, it would be subject to the lot coverage limitations. (3) The definition of lot coverage does not directly address impervious or non -impervious surfaces. Therefore, the answer to your question is yes. Richard M. Poffenbarger, Esquire February 13, 2003 Page 3 area. (4) Garage space can be counted as an off-street parking (5) The term "structure" is defined in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, which has been adopted by Garfield County. "Structure" is defined as "that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner". We will utilize the above definition if there is a question about what may be a structure. (6) We have always required a parking space for each portion of 600 square feet of floor area. Therefore, in your example, an 1198 square foot floor area requires 2 parking spaces. (7) Maximum building height is measured from the "undisturbed or natural ground" surface. That means the grade prior to any construction activity. (8) The midpoint referenced in #7 means the midpoint of the "front and rear walls" which has always been measured from the outside wall surface. 5. In regard to your question concerning application of the Standards for a Variance Request, we cannot judge our position until we can compare the specific proposed variance against the standard of self-imposed hardship. At this juncture, it appears that you have the right to construct a reasonably sized house on your property and still meet the basic zoning requirements. However, if you wish to propose a variance to our regulations, we will make a judgment at the time of that request. I hope this is an adequate response to most of your inquiries of February 10, 2003. Sincerely, :+ MAR BEAN Dir-ctor MB:mj Enclosure cc: BOCC County Attorney F:\MyFiles\PLAN\Poffenbarger Ltr 2-13-03.wpd BOA RESOLUTION NO. 02003- 01 (Series of 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AREA FOR PROPERTY IN GARFIELD COUNTY LOCATED ON SWEETWATER ROAD, 3.4 MILES INSIDE THE GARFIELD COUNTY LIMITS NEAR SWEETWATER LAKE BEING A PART OF LOT 1, SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE 6m P.M., GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Richard M. Poffenbarger filed an application with Garfield County, Colorado for the construction of a single family residence on Sweetwater Road, on a 100 x 100 foot parcel of land which is described as follows: That part of Lot 1, Section 16, Township 3 South, Range 87 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, described as follows:. Beginning at a point, whence the northeast corner of said Section 16 bears: N. 28° 39' E. 851.0 feet; thence S. 32° 57' W. 100.00 feet; thence N. 57° 03' W. 100.0 feet; thence N. 32° 57' E. 100.0 feet; thence S. 57° 03' E. 100.0 feet to the point of beginning. Together with a 20 foot road easement from the above described property to a county road as constructed and in place, in Lot 1 of Section 16, Township 3 South, Range 87 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of the above described property whence the southeast corner of the above described property bears: N. 32° 57' E. 10.0 feet; thence along the centerline of said easement S. 48° 58' E. 45.0 feet; thence S. 43° 50' E. 241.1 feet; thence N. 71° 14' E. 69.6 feet; thence N. 1° 03' W. 132.5 feet; thence N. 42° 19' W. 281.8 feet; thence N. 67° 53' W. 187.0 feet; thence N. 50° 56' W. 52.1 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of said county road. 2. On November 27, 2002, the Garfield County Code Compliance Office determined that the property was located in the A/R/RD Zone District, but the proposed 2,545 square footprint of the building, plus the additional approximately 800 square foot coverage required for parking and a driveway, substantially exceeds the 15% lot coverage allowed in that zone district. 3. The Garfield County Building and Planning Department declined to issue a building permit; on December 18, 2002, within the time limits provided by the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, the applicant filed an application for a variance to permit the construction of the dwelling he sought on his lot. 4. Garfield County is a legal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado for which the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to act in this matter; and pursuant to law the Board of County Commissioners has appointed the Garfield County Board of Adjustment. 5. The Garfield County Board of Adjustment conducted apublic hearing on January 27, 2003 to determine whether or not the proposed variance of the lot coverage area as provided by Section 3.02.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 should be approved or denied. 6. Proper notice of the proposed variance hearing was been provided to the surrounding property owner in accordance with Section 9.05.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, and the owner appeared at the hearing. Evidence of the proper filing of Notice is on file with the Building and Planning Department. 7. At the hearing, the Garfield County Building and Planning Department requested that the Board of Adjustment decline to hear the matter, because staff had discovered that the applicant had constructed ayurt, a temporary living structure, on the property, and was using a chemical toilet and storage sheds, all apparently in violation of existing regulations. The Board determined that the County had adequate remedies to resolve this issue outside of the variance application process, and the request by the Planning staff to withdraw the application was denied, and that issue had no part in the Board' s decision. 8. The meeting before the Board of Adjustment was extensive and complete, and all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 9. The action taken by the Board of Adjustment in this matter does not deprive the owner of all economic use of his property. 10. The variance sought does not constitute the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of the property. 11. The variance requested may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Garfield County General Plan, or the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 12. The circumstances found to constitute the hardship were caused by the applicant, were not due to or the result of general conditions in the Zone District or in this area, PoffenbargerVarianceResolution Page 2 January 30, 2003 and the circumstances can be practically corrected if the applicant desires to build a more modest structure. 13. For these and other reasons, the proposed modification for the lot coverage are is determined by the Board of Adjustment not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, moral, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 14. An affirmative vote of four members of the Board would be necessary to decide in favor of the applicant, and the Board of Adjustment voted three in favor of denying the application, and one in favor of approving the application. ORDER The Board of Adjustment, by a vote of three to one, hereby adopts the foregoing Findings of Fact, and based thereon denies the application for a variance described above. Dated and signed this /3'µ'day of February, 2003, to have effect January 27, 2003. Garfield County Board of Adjustment ATTEST: By: Secretary to the Adjustment Boa of Chair PoffenbargerVarianceResolution Page 3 January 30, 2003 CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The undersigned duly appointed and acting Secretary to the Board of Adjustment certifies that the foregoing is a true and at a accurate meetingcopy ofld onJanuary2aion p20adopted bythe Board of Adjustment of Garfield County,Colorado, Secretary to the B of Adjustment January 30, 2003 Page 4 Poffenbarger V arianceResolution VU cw ua 1l:uz £AA 9711 a2B 79111 POFFENBARGER I_je01 Richard M Poffenbager Attorney at Law Itcce (9701 29-7900 picnitnlc (910( 328-9901 P.O. Box 3240 407-1 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-3240 Licensed 1n Colorado and Wyoming February 24, 2003 TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE TO: 970384-5005 and 384-3470 2 Pages Office of the Garfield County Attorney Attn: Don DeFord, Esq. 108 8th St., Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Code Definition Clarification; Meeting Content Acknowledgment Dear Mr. DeFord: Per our meeting today with Mark Bean, Garfield County Director of Building and Planning, it is my understanding that the County agrees that 1 can obtain a building permit for construction ofa single family residence on my lot in the Sweetwater Creek area, i.e. a portion of Lot 1, Section 16, T3S, R87W, 61b PM, so long as I abide by the regulations applicable to the A/R/RD zone district. I also understand that lot coverage shall not include permeable areas such as drive, parking or walking areas so long as those areas are not covered by compacted road base, or impervious surfaces and instead are covered on the surface with "washed" rock. It is also my understanding that cantilever construction shall not be counted as lot coverage so long as the area beneath the cantilever construction is at least 8 feet above grade_ Presuming then that my house plan calls for less that 15% lot coverage in footprint and not counting these permeable areas and all other code requirements are met I will be issued a building permit without necessity of requesting a variance. The last thing that we discussed was my acknowledgment that "drywell" 1SDS structures are occasionally problematic though they fulfill the State Health Department requirements so long as designed with adequate capacity. I understand that progressive failure caa be a problem and that if my engineer -designed and engineer -stamped system should fail I will need to replace it with another State Health Department compliant system in possibly the same location as the proposed drywell. Page 1 o(2 Requeafor(nfnnlmaiioo Regrading Appall of Decision of Pluming Directories Rewire a Variance in Order lo Obtain Building Pnst...; Inquiry Rev/ding Transcript of Board ofAdjualmrm Valiance llwtis'gHeld on January 27, 2003 02/24/03 17:02 FAX 970 328 7901 POFFENBARGER Q002 I ask that you confirm your understanding of our meeting by signing this letter at the bottom and faxing it back to me by tomorrow at noon. Thank you for your efforts on this matter, Regards Richard M. Pofftbarger Mark Be. Direct() of Planning Don Deford, County Attorney cc: Mark Bean/Building and Nanning Page 2 oft Raryestfor tntbenwion Regarding Appeal of Decision ofPlanning Biraa rio Requns a Variance in Ordeto Obtain Building Klink .. ; LxryiryRe.¢JingTmosaipl of Hoard of Adjustment VariadceHeaimg Held onJanuary27. 2003