Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportEXHIBITS POFFENBARGER EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Proof of Certified Mailing Receipts Exhibit B: Proof of Publication Exhibit C: Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978 Exhibit D: Staff Report dated January 27, 2003 Exhibit E: Application Materials Exhibit G: Garfield County Building and Planning Minimum Application Requirements Exhibit H: Letter from James Bolen, dated January 21, 2003 Exhibit I: Letter from Chris Klein dated January 21, 2003 Exhibit J: Email from Steve Hackett, Garfield County Code Enforcement Officer, regarding yurts Exhibit K: Garfield County Assessor's printout of subject parcel. Exhibit L: Letter from Dan Kerst dated January 23, 2003 Additional Exhibits Exhibit M: Letter from Carol MacUmber dated January 22, 2003 Exhibit N: Letter from Gerald and Susan Semrod dated January 23, 2003 Exhibit 0: Letter from Jonathan Lengel dated January 24, 2003 Exhibit P: Letter from Marian Smith dated January 25, 2003 Exhibit Q: Letter from Kenneth and Jennifer Wright received by the Planning and Building Department on January 27, 2003 Exhibit R: Letter from Adrienna and Kent Scheu received by the Planning and Building Department on January 27, 2003 Exhibit S: Letter from Stephen Richards dated January 27, 2003 Exhibit T: Letter from Larry McKinzie dated January 26, 2003 01/23/2003 03:18 9705247258 CAROL MACUMBER P Carol MacUmber 4940 Sweetwater Lake Rd. Gypsuun, CO 81637 January 22, 2003 Planning Department 108 $`h Street, Suite 201 Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs, CO RE: Application of Richard M. Poffenberger Dear Sirs: EXHIBIT 9 r, -1/4 6. , Ly 'ti, , �V,NG I live beyond Sweetwater Lake Resort on Sweetwater Road. I am familiar with Mr. Poffenberger's building site and plans and pass by his property nearly everyday. My family has owned property in Sweetwater Creek at my location for over 20 years. 1 believe Mr. Poffenberger should be allowed the variance to build his approximately 2500 sq. f3. footprint home because I believe that size dwelling would be consistent with other recently constructed homes in the immediate area. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. If you have questions you can contact me at 970-524-7250. 6Vtruly yours, Carol MacUmber Jan 24 03 03:22p CRI-Semrod 970-524-7272 p.2 Gerald A. Semrod Susan I. Semrod 5097 Sweetwater Road Gypsum, CO 81637 Garfield County Board of Adjustments c/o Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Board Members, .REL DIVED MM3 (GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING January 24, 2003 EXHIBIT It TRANSMITTED VIA FACSIMILE 970.384.3470 We are writing this letter on behalf of, and in support of, Mr. Richard Poffenbarger's request for a variance from the zoning regulations prohibiting greater than 15% lot coverage in our zone district. We live full-time in a home, recently constructed, and located about 2 miles farther up the Sweetwater Creek drainage, at the base of the forest. We are familiar with the terrain and recent construction in the area along Sweetwater Creek, as well as the variance request of Mr. Poffenbarger and his justification for the request. We believe that a house footprint of roughly 2500 square feet including a garage, walkout basement and main floor above, is consistent with all of the recent construction in our area. We also understand that Mr. Poffenbarger's lot was created prior to the enactment of the applicable zoning regulations and that his lot now does not conform. Nevertheless, we believe his variance request will allow a reasonable solution to the predicament created by the subsequently enacted regulations imposed upon his pre-existing lot, because it will enable him to construct a more suitable and aesthetically pleasing living environment with a reasonably sized finished area including three bedrooms. Thank you considering our comments. If you have any questions about aur support for this request, please contact us at 970.524.7272. Sincerely, 01/24/2@03 15:17 9703285999 JEROME D BUTTERS CPA J.S. LENGEL and ASSOCIATES, Inc. REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS and CONSULTANTS January 24, 2003 EXHIBIT i E C.�,+ j VED JAN 2 4 2003 13Uj�� NGL� PLANNING ry Garfield County Board of Adjustments c/o Garfield County Building and Planning Department Re. Richard M. Poffenbarger application for variance; to be heard January 27, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen.. I understand that due to the size of Mr. Poffenbarger's proposed house in relation to his lot he is required to request a variance from the County for excessive lot coverage. Mr. Poffenbarger asked me to lend my opinion as to the obtrusiveness of his proposed house to the view of his neighbors and how that might affect the value of,their respective properties. I am a professional real estate appraiser who holds a Certified General Appraisal license with the State of Colorado and I have an MAI designation promulgated by the Appraisal Institute. I have been a professional appraiser for almost 17 years rued have had an office in Eagle, Colorado• for nearly ten of those years. The primary concentration of my practice is commercial, development land, rural residential and agricultural land. I work throughout the northwest region of Colorado and have not only had appraisal assignments in the Sweetwater area in the past teat years, but also have recreated frequently there over the past 20 years. Thus, I am very familiar with the Sweetwater neighborhood. Additionally, I was an alternate member of the Eagle County Planning Commission for over a year and a half. I have had the opportunity to review Mr. Poffenbarger's house plans, inspect his lot and see his scale model of the dwelling. I have also reviewed the AJR/RD zoning regulations adopted by the County. From all of this research it is apparent to me that the legal alternative for Mr. Poffenbarger's site given the setback requirements and maximum lot coverage requirement, especially when driveways and parking areas are necessarily factored in, is limited to a tall house with a small footprint — akin to a "sore thumb". In my opinion a structure of this nature would be very obtrusive and would impact the nearby properties. Mr. Poffenbarger's building plans were created by a professional architect and integrate berming, site placement, building height to footprint size ratios, compatibility with the natural surroundings and exterior finishes of natural wood and stone into a high duality, desirable home. It is my opinion that approval of this variance not only benefits Mr. Poffenbarger but also benefits his neighbors. With the variance lie is able to build an attractive professionally planned home that will enhance the neighborhood. The legal alternative without the variance could be a "sore -thumb". Therefore, I strongly urge you to vote in favor of Mr. Poffenbarger's variance. Thank you, for your consideration of my opinions in this matter. Respec Jonathan S. Lengel Jonalhaa 5. Lengel, MAI P.O. Box 2082, Eagle, Colorado, 81631-2082, (970) 328-7337 January 25, 2003 Garfield County Building and Planning Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing a letter in support of consideration of a variance for Rick Poffenbarger for property he owns in the Sweetwater Lake area. After reading of the yurts being constructed and used at the Winter Olympics in Utah, I was pleased to receive an invitation to see the one that Rick had placed on the unique building site overlooking the lake. He explained that with negotiations with a neighboring landowner, he hoped to build a permanent house on the site. While we were there, we walked the location and found it so unique in topography and footprint it really was not visible to most of the surrounding homes and only those closer to the Lakeshore could see the hilltop view from more than one aspect. I certainly hope that questions will be asked about concerns and that photos or videos or a site visit will be considered when this issue is discussed, since it does not seem inappropriate or overwhelming with the different elevations available for building. With an engineered septic system and water plan, some of the concerns for remote sites should be addressed. Again, I would hope his request will be seriously considered, with a trip to the area made if questions do arise about suitability, size, and other issues. Sincerely, L iii4 Marian I. Smith EXHIBIT p RECEIVED JAN 2 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING FROM: KENNETH WRIGHT 413.215.7881 To: 1300 Sweetwater Road Gypsum, CO 81637 January 26, 2003 Garfield County Planting Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 To Whom It May Concern: DATE: 1/28103 TIME: 2:40:10 PM PAGE 1 OF 1 REC.ETVED .lAN 27 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY 3UILDING & P1ANNING We are writing to express our support for the variance petition requested by Richard Poffenbarger on Lot I of Section 16 as it regards to maximum lot coverage. While we understand and support the regulations requiring no more than 15% cumulative lot coverage, we do not feel that a variance in this situation will result in public detriment or invalidate the principles our area zoning supports. We are familiar with Mr. Poi%nbarger`s plans and site, and we believe that a dwelling such as that planned is suitable use for his parcel. Since his parcel was created before the current two acre minimum lot size regulation was enacted, we believe that he should be grandfathered in and allowed to build; it is only fair since there are already several parcels with homes in our area of the county, and under the same zoning, that would not meet the current regulations. If he is not allowed to build a residence on his property, to what end was the parcel subdivided in the first place? We are unable to think of a justifiable reason to prevent Mr. Poffenbarger from pursuing his dreams of building a home on his land, although we do kindly petition the county to prevent any additional lots of this nature in the future by maintaining the two -acre minimum regulation as it pertains to our area, Kenneth Wright 1/2l6 t #1.:9e- ennifer Wright l/ FROM : AJBrink at Sweetwater Lake PHONE NO. : 970 524 9510 1. 27 2003 05:31PM P1 +:rarfie41 County Board of Adjustments 0 Garfield County Building and Planning Da 8`r' Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs. CO $160i Dear Board n mbers, TRANSMITTED by FAX TO. 970.384_347(' This letter is in support ofRick Pofenbarger's request fora variance from the maximum 13t Coverage regulation. My husband and T own 12 acres where we live approximately- ': miles down the road £torn the lake. We also currently own and operate A.J. Brink Outfitters located at the Sweetwater Lake Resort. We have operated this and other businesses in the area for the past 20 years. We are familiar with Rick'3 home building plans and the a v-tensive planning he has done while putting together his plan. We know that he has spent a great deal of time in the area for the purpose of cleating a house plan that will be compatible with the surrounding k.eo graphy Wi2 also know that he has met with neighbors and discussed his house design and location over the past several years. We believe his plan includes a reasonable size Fore for this area, in fact :a -nailer than many recently built homes. A minimum size dwelling would not seem or appear appropriate in these surroundings. We sincerely believe that his plan is well done, that he should be allowed to move forward with it despite the £zct that it doesn't strictly comply with the zoning rules adopted after the creation of this l;rt, la fact that is why we believe variances were created, to address unusual circumstances and hardships created by zoning. Thank you for considering our comments in support of the variance. If you have any questions please call us at 524-9301 Sincerely, A.driertne and Kent Scheu 1503 Sweetwater Road 43 EXHIBIT JRN.27.2u 3 12:51PM NO.542 P.1/1 Stephen Richards Architect ‘91$ ()RICH ARCIIITECIITIRAL DESIGNS - • • P.O. Box 1114 • 4th qnd Broadway • Epgle, Cororado 81631 • (970) 328-6287-V January 27, 2003 Garfield County Commissioner 109 8th Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Richard Poffenbarger Residence Sweetwater Resort EXHIBIT s As the Architect for Mr. Poiienbarger's residence at Sweetwater Resort I have attempted to comply with all applicable regulations. Unfortunately in designing an adequate and serviceable residence we have ended up not conforming to the maximum coverage. An attempt was made to address the concerns of the adjoining property owners as to the height of the residence, therefore the home is nestled as low as possible and is spreadout slightly horizontally rather than increasing the space vertically. In my experience (I have designed over 300 residences in Colorado) it seems fairly restrictive to have a 15% site coverage for a lot of this size. Typically I work with a 35% number for this size of lot, for example lots in Eagle -Vail are approximately this size and 35% is their maximum coverage. In addition the location of the lot is such that there will be no houses adjacent to Mr. Poffenbarger's. The surrounding single 1.6 acre lot is of a size that would allow a substantially larger building than the one we are proposing. It seems to me that these are compelling enough reasons to allow the residence as proposed. Sincere Stephen Richards JAN -27-03 MON 02:17 PM January 26, 2003 FAX NO. P. 02 1 i Tamara Pregl and Members of the Garfield County 130A 1(18 8t'' SI. Suit, 201 (:il: rnwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Variance Request of Richard Poffenbarger EXHIBIT Dear Ms I'regl and Board of Adjustment members, 1 have worked in the architectural and planning fields in Pitkin and Eagle Counties for the past 20 years. 1 have worked in both the public and private sector and in that time have been a member of the Eagle County BOA, Town of Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission and Town I3oard. 1 have known Mr. Poflbnbarger for 7 or so years and have visited the site in question numerous tines since it was purchased in 1999. Given this introduction and background I would like to offer the following comments related to the variance request currently under your review. I. Although tine property in nonconforming in sive, it is, and should be allowed to be improved with a use by right allowed in the zone district in which it is located. The construction of a single-family residence is a confonning use and does not make the property less conforming than the current situation. Cetttainly land can remain vacant for long; periods of time, as this property 17as done. IIowever, "vacant" should not be considered as, or confused with an allowed or special use for a piece of property. 2. 1 would suggest that the size Huai shape of this property create an undue hardship and practical difiicultics for the property owner in the use of this parcel in this zone district. The propctty owner did not create this hardship. Strict application of the regulation of 15% nnixiinurn lot coverage results in practical difficulty. Practical being the key word contained in the land Use Regulations. This is precisely why variance language is developed and included in Land Uso Regulations, to address peculiar situations that arise that MI not typical within a zone district. JAN -27-03 MON 02:18 PM FAX NO. P. 03 3, do other residential zone districts where smaller lots are allowed, larger let coverage is allowed to accommodate reasonable development potential. i would suggest that it is reasonable to grant 'a variance for this residence and to consider it the mininunn uccussary to alleviate the hardship, as the request does not create a residence larger than what is typically allowed in the zone district and is not significantly different from what is being constructed in this area on conforming lots or on similar sized parcels in other znoa districts. 4. Granting of ibe requested variance is without substantial detriment to the public good. In granting a variance such as this the 130A is not impairing the intents and purposes of the Regulations. Granting of this variance allows a property owner to use his property in a nnumor similar to what is afforded any other property owncr in this zone district. Again this is why vuriancc language and processes arc included in any Land Use or Zoning Regulation, 'Mc only precedent granting this variance will set is one that allows a property owner reasonable use of their property. Onc could make the argument that granting tliis variance actually is in the interest of the public good as in doing so a > tructurc wi tl be built that is not as high as ono that might be constructed on a smaller footprint and needing multiple floors to approach the same total enclosed square footage. As this site is quite visible, a lower rooflinc with a larger footprint will have much less visual impact Than a higher rootline on a smaller footprint. I hope you find these eonuncnts helpful and worthy of discussion at your hearing. Please feel lino to contact me at 328-6354 if you have questions regarding these comments. i would enjoy discussing this matter with you or your i3oard members. Sincerely, 0 airy 1Jt :inzio (X.' Richard Poffenharger MATTHEW A. KAPSNEk L QUARTER CIRCLE RANCH 1864 SWEETWATER ROAD GYPSUM, COLORADO 81637 January 23, 2003 Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs, Colorado Dear Garfield County Commissioners, EXHIBIT My name is Matt Kapsner. I'm writing to address concerns I have regarding Richard Poffenberger's application to request a variance from the minimum 15% lot coverage requirement in the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density zone district. Let us first consider the fact that Mr. Poffenberger owns less than 1/4 of an acre. This isn't a suburban lot, but land located in a remote, rural area. His nearest neighbors include ranches, a Forest Service campground and a trail riding/outfitting operation. His lot sits high on a very prominent, treeless ridge top. The yurt Mr. Poffenberger currently resides in is clearly visible from the entrance to our ranch, a mile away. From his lot the land descends steeply on three sides --on one side towards Sweetwater Lake and on another down to Sweetwater Creek. His unusually small lot is entirely surrounded by property owned by my mother-in-law, Lislott Jacobson. In fact the only access to his 10,000 square feet of land is through her property. Needless to say, considering the terrain, and the awkward location of Mr. Poffenberger's lot, there isn't a lot of space available to him. To illustrate the space limitations, and Mr. Poffenberger's awareness of them, I'd like to recount an incident that occurred this past summer. At the request of Mr. Poffenberger, my wife and I met with him on his lot to discuss some concerns he had about building a house there. He wanted to know if he could use some of our land for construction purposes or buy some of it to provide him the added room he felt like he needed to construct his home. At the time there was the yurt, a small shed, a camper trailer and his truck parked on his property. And after our meeting we had troubles turning our Toyota truck around due to the lack of space. During this same meeting Mr. Poffenberger also asked if we'd agree to change the grade of our road --that is to lessen its incline --to better enable him access to his property. In addition to these requests Mr. Poffenberger has asked to use our land for other purposes relating to the building of his house: he's asked if he could locate at least part of his septic system on our property and if he could run a water line across our land. All of which clearly illustrates that Mr. Poffenberger himself is well aware of the substantial difficulties in building a house on his unusual', small piece of land. Why, I sincerely wonder, would he expect the county to grant him a variance when it's clear even to him that building on his lot will present a challenge at best. From the day Mr. Poffenberger bought his land he's known of the inherent limitations of the lot and the difficulties he would have in constructing a home there. He is a lawyer after all. I believe rural zoning exists for a reason --to ensure responsible use of the land. I don't believe building a 3,350 square foot home on 10,000 square feet of land is responsible usage. That's using more than a third of the land available to him just for a house. Which, given his lot is less than 1/4 of an acre, doesn't leave much room for a septic system, a well or even a driveway. And the County Commissioners who originally drew up the zoning district obviously didn't think such a tight squeeze was prudent either or they would've allowed for such usage all along. And should we alter pre-existing laws and codes for the whim of any individual citizen? We're all forced to abide by the very same set of codes. My family is currently building a home on our ranch on Sweetwater, a ranch away from Mr. Poffenberger's property. We accept each building code because we understand they're there for a reason. Yes, some of them seemed a little inconvenient --we had to have surveyors come out three times in fact to satisfy the county's concerns. And in the end we were pleased to know the county, even in its remote, rural corners like Sweetwater, demanded to know where our house was going to be located in relation to our neighbors, our septic system, water supply and the creek, among others. We would imagine the county would be just as interested in Mr. Poffenberger's project, perhaps even more so given the very unique space limitations --less than a 1/4 of an acre vs. the usual minimum of 35 acres --as well as the prominent location of his lot on a pristine and beautiful sage covered hill overlooking Sweetwater Lake and the upper valley of Sweetwater Creek. A few final points: Let's remember that this isn't a request for a small variance, a few feet here or there. This is more than a doubling of the current buildable square footage. Can we reasonably expect Mr. Poffenberger to safely and responsibly build a 3,350 square foot house with a well and a septic system on 10,000 square feet of land? I don't believe so. Let me reiterate that this is not a suburban lot with a water and sewer system he can tap into. But a plot of land that sits above the shores --and the water table --of Sweetwater Lake and Sweetwater Creek. And I would simply like to ask the Commissioners to abide by the zoning district as it exists. It was, after all, written that way for a reason. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Matthew A. Kapsner EXHIBIT 20 January, 2003 Dear Commissioners, I am the owner of the property that surrounds Richard Poffenberger's lot and I'm writing to oppose his application for a zoning variance. Ever since Richard Poffenberger bought the tiny parcel of land that sits in the middle of my land --both his property and mine make up an old subdivision on the shores of Sweetwater Lake -- he's made many inquiries to me about the road he uses to access his property, about water and about buying more land, to name just a few of the issues that spring to mind. It's obvious to me that from the first he's understood the Limitations of his property and tried to find ways around them. I also oppose his request because I'm very concerned about any damage being done to my property during the construction process. There isn't much room to maneuver up on that ridge line to begin with and with all the large trucks and heavy machinery required to build a home I think it's very likely there will be negative effects to my property. With just a 20 foot road easement I wonder where all those trucks will turn around, for one. But those are my own personal concerns. More important are the larger, environmental issues I see surrounding this project. I would like to know just how exactly a 3,350 square foot home, a well that no doubt pulls from the lake's water table and a septic system will all safely fit ori just 10,000 square feet of land. With only 6,650 square feet of land left I'xn worried about his water supply and septic system mixing, and possibly contaminating either the lake or creek or quite possibly both. When I first moved to Sweetwater in the early sixties, my late husband, Travis Anderson (founder of Anderson Camps) worked with a couple of long time residents to stop people from discharging their sewage into Sweetwater. Creek, a long standing practice of some locals at the time. We worked hard back then to make it the beautiful creek we take for granted today. A place where our children, and now our grandchildren, can swim, fish and play freely without any concerns of contamination. Today, Sweetwater Lake and Sweetwater Creek are the source not only for recreation but for irrigation of pastures, water for horses, elk, and mule deer, not to mention a fishery for birds of prey including bald eagles --this winter we have a bald eagle living in our hay meadow and the stretch of Sweetwater. Creek running through it. Richard Poffenberger's property sits right above Sweetwater Lake. There's about 10 miles of Sweetwater Creek below his lot. is it right to threaten the water table of the lake and the clean flow of the creek for one man's convenience? No, it's not or we wouldn't have such things as zoning regulations to begin with. And if we allow this project to go ahead just where does this stop? Does that mean I can split up my surrounding 17 acres into 1/4 acre parcels according to the original subdivision and build 3,000 plus square foot homes? Each with their own water and septic? It would be a great money maker but I'm afraid to say I don't think it would be very good for the area. Let's not turn back the clock 40 years to a time when we let people do what they wanted out of convenience. Let's not threaten all the hard work my late husband and others made in the name of clean water, a resource we know today is more important than ever. Sincerely, Lislott Jacobson 1721 Colorado River Road Gypsum, Colorado 81637 970-524-7887 970-256-1775 01/27/03 "18:18'/FAY 970 328 7901 POFFENBARGER < Mary Ann Davenport PO Box 28 Eagle, CO 81631-0028 January 27, 2003 Garfield County Board of Adjustment Garfield County Building & Planning Dept 108 8111 Street, Suite 201 Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Richard M. Poffenbarger Variance Request Dear Board Members: I am writing this letter in support of Richard Poffenbarger's request for a variance for the construction of a single family residence on Sweetwater Road, near Sweetwater Lake. My great-grandfather originally awned Sweetwater Lake, and my other great- grandparents homesteaded the Grundel Ranch in Gypsum. This in now the Cotton Ranch Golf Course and Cotton Ranch home area. As a fourth-generation Eagle County native, I do care about the growth and changes in our area. I have known Mr Poffenbarger for about seven years. Having worked with him for the past six years, 1 have seen the house plans, the Sweetwater site, and his scale model. His plans were based on building a home that would blend in as much as possible with the natural environment. He wanted to have a minimum visibility to any neighbors. Rick is active in Club 20. the Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations. He has a great love for our area, and is concerned about water rights, environmental issues, etc_ His plans are based on his desire to build a structure compatible with the natural beauty of the area, rather than a castle -like building which would overlook Sweetwater Lake. I hope you will vote in favor of his variance. Sincerely, Mary Ann Davenport Telephone: (970) 524-9411 V1002 ADDENDUM TO STAFF'S MEMORNADUM TO: Garfield County Board of Adjustment FROM: Tamara Pregl, Senior Planner RE: Poffenbarger Variance DATE: January 27, 2003 This is an addendum to the attached memorandum. The reason for this addendum is outlined below. I. ISSUE The application was deemed technically compliant by staff on December 20, 2002. According to the application, the Applicant represented that "there are no permanent improvements located on the property at this time." Staff conducted a site visit to the subject property on Monday, January, 20, 2003. During the site visit, it was observed that the property is not vacant as represented by the Applicant. The property is currently improved with a well, a yurt encompassed by a deck, two storage sheds, a porta-pottie and a large camper. To staff's knowledge, no applicable building permits have been issued by the County for these improvements. In addition, according to the Assessor's records, the property, since owned by the Applicant, has been assessed as vacant (Exhibit K). Pursuant to section 9.05.02 of the Zoning Resolution, outlined below, the request for a variance should not have been forwarded to the Board of Adjustment ("BOA") since the current use of the property does not comply with applicable zoning, building and health and sanitation regulations. 9.05.02 Action by the Building Official: The Building Official shall utilize services of the Environmental Health Officer, the County Planning Director and any other county or state officials or agencies to arrive at a determination that the proposed building, structure or use is in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision, building, health and sanitation regulations except for those provisions of this Resolution from which variance or relief is requested; and if the proposed building, structure or use is in compliance except for said provisions, shall forward the application along with his report to the Secretary of the Board of Adjustment If the application is not so in compliance, the Building Official shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies. No application for variance shall be forwarded to the Board until such compliance is achieved by the applicant. Poffenbarger Variance Addendum BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 2 According to Steve Hackett, Garfield County Code Enforcement Officer, yurts are considered structures, however, since they do not meet Uniform Building Code ("UBC") requirements for residential structures, the County does not permit these structures as dwellings (Exhibit J). The two storage sheds may require applicable building permits depending on the size of these structures. In addition, it is unclear as to whether the existing improvements meet basic zoning requirements, such as setbacks and height. Finally, according to the Department of Public Health and Environment, under the "Guidelines on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Revised 2000", portable chemical toilets are prohibited for wastewater purposes on a permanent basis. Until staff's site visit on January 20, 2003, it was understood by Staff that the subject property was vacant. Pursuant to section 9.05.02 of the Zoning Resolution, outlined above, since the application for a variance was forwarded to the BOA under misrepresentations, it is Staff's opinion that the BOA has no authority to proceed with the variance request, since the subject is not in compliance with applicable zoning, building, and health and sanitation regulations. BOA 1/27/03 TP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Variance from Maximum Lot Coverage APPLICANT: Richard M. Poffenbarger PROPERTY LOCATION: Sweetwater Road, 3.4 miles inside Garfield County, near Sweetwater Lake. WATER: Well SEWER: Dry Well ACCESS: Easement off of Sweetwater Road EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD LOT SIZE: 0.25 acres (non -conforming) I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE: The Applicant requests a variance to allow deviation from the Maximum Total Lot Coverage requirement in the A/R/RD Zone District [section 3.02.05] on a pre-existing, non -conforming lot in the Sweetwater area. A 2,550 sq. ft. single-family residence has been recently designed for this existing, vacant, 10,000 sq. ft. (100' X 100') parcel. According to the Applicant, the residence will contain the following elements: walk -out lower level facing the view of Sweetwater Lake, garage incorporated into the lower level on opposite view face of lower level, grade level living area, kitchen and master bedroom. The site plan submitted with the application delineates the proposed footprint for this residence. II. REASON FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE: The Applicant submitted the request for a variance as a result of a letter from Steve Hackett, Garfield County Code Enforcement Officer, dated November 27, 2002, which has been included with application. A building permit for the proposed residence was submitted to the Building and Planning Department on November 15, 2002. As part of the County's building permit process, building plans are reviewed by the Chief Building Official, as well as the Code Enforcement Officer. The Code Enforcement Officer reviews the building permit/plan for Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 2 compliance with all applicable zoning requirements, such as Maximum Total Lot Coverage. The definition of Lot Coverage in the Zoning Resolution of 1978 [section 2.02.35] is "the portion of a lot which is covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking and drives." The Applicant has designed a single-family residence to be placed on the subject parcel with a Maximum Total Lot Coverage of approximately 3,350 sq. ft. (33.5%) in the A/R/RD zone district which only allows for Maximum Total Lot Coverage of 15% (1,500 sq. ft.). This exceeds the allowable lot coverage by a full 1,850 sq. ft. (or 18.5%). The Applicant maintains that the building plans submitted for the proposed residence conforms in every way to the Garfield County Building regulations distributed to, and received by, the Applicant from the office of the Garfield County Building and Planning, prior to the commencement of Applicants' architectural and engineering planning, including limits related to setbacks and spacing of potable water from Engineer -designed ISDS. The "Minimum Application Requirements for Single Family Dwelling Construction..." handout (Exhibit G) distributed by the Building and Planning Department outlines the appropriate information/documentation an Applicant is required to submit at the time of building permit application. This handout, indirectly, requires compliance with appropriate setbacks and height requirements, however, `Maximum Total Lot Coverage' is not addressed. Given that a few basic zoning requirements are addressed it the handout, such as setbacks and height, it would be a fair indication that all zoning requirements in a particular zone district, such as Maximum Total Lot Coverage, would also be applicable. ENACTMENT OF ZONING The Applicant noted that Zoning and the lot coverage limitation regulations were both enacted well after the creation of the subject parcel. The Applicant asserts that adjacent lots, if subdivided and conforming, would each be eligible to cover as much as 13,068 sq. it (2 acres X 15%) with dwelling footprint, parking, and drive, nearly four (4) times the calculated limit applied to this non -conforming lot. The Zoning Resolution was first adopted in November of 1973, with a major amendment January 2, 1979. Pursuant to section 1.04 [Establishment of Districts] of the Zoning Resolution, Garfield County was divided into 16 zoned areas in order to carry out the purpose and provisions of the Zoning Resolution. Section 1.07 [Application of Regulations] of the Zoning Resolution outlines how these regulations shall be applied to the entire unincorporated areas of the county. Pursuant to section 1.07: 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 Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 3 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; Uses permitted by this Resolution shall also be subject to provisions of other applicable county and state regulations except as specifically provided herein; and further, where the provisions of this Resolution impose a greater restriction than set forth by such other regulation, the provisions of this Resolution shall govern. In addition, pursuant to section 9.01.02 [Action of the Building Official] of the Zoning Resolution, the Building Official ("...designated by the County Commissioners to administer and enforce this Resolution and the building Code Resolution of Garfield County") shall utilize the services of county or state officials or agencies to arrive at a determination that the proposed building or structure is in compliance with all applicable zoning regulations. Section 8:01 [Office of Building Official] of the Zoning Resolution, states that "It shall be unlawful to erect, construct, reconstruct, alter or change the use of any building or other structure within the unincorporated territory of the County without obtaining a permit from the Building Official, who shall not issue any permit unless the plans for the proposed erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration or use fully conform to all provisions of this Resolution and all provisions of the Building Code affecting the subject property.... (A. 79-132) Therefore, as clearly outlined above, although the parcel was created prior to the enactment of Zoning, the parcel is subject to the basic zoning requirements established in the A/R/RD Zone District, with includes the 15% Maximum Total Lot Coverage. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE A / R / RD ZONE DISTRICT The Applicant proposes a dwelling unit footprint of approximately 2,550 sq. ft on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. The Total Lot Coverage proposed is approximately 3,350 sq. ft. (33.5%). The drive and parking coverage area of the proposed development will be approximately 800 sq. ft. According to the Zoning Resolution, a 10,000 sq. ft. lot in the A/R/RD Zone District would allow for a Maximum Total Lot Coverage of 1,500 sq. ft. (15%). Pursuant to section 3.02.05 of the Zoning Resolution, the Dimensional Requirements for the AIR/RD zone district are clearly outlined. These dimensional requirements are as follows: Maximum Lot Area: Two (2) acres [3.02.04] Maximum Lot Covera e• Fifteen percent (15%) [3.02.05] Minimum Setback: [3.02.06] (1) (2) (3) Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 4 Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet. [3.02.07] Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations). [3.02.08] In summary the following table illustrates what is being proposed and what is required by the Zoning Resolution. ** 800 sq. ft. drive and parking coverage areas calculated by Applicant. Lot Coverage: The portion ofa lot which is covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking and drives. Essentially, a lot of approximately 23,333 sq. ft. (13,000 sq. ft. larger than the existing property), could accommodate, per County regulations, a Maximum Total Lot Coverage of approximately 3,350 sq. ft. (15%) as proposed by the Applicant. County Regulations Existing Condition Proposed Lot Size 2 acres 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Maximum Total Lot Coverage** 15% 15% (1,500 sq. ft.) 33.5% (3,350 sq. ft.) Dwelling Footprint 13,068 sq. ft. To be determined by Applicant 2,550 sq. ft. Drive & Parking coverage areas To be determined by Applicant 800 sq. ft.* ** 800 sq. ft. drive and parking coverage areas calculated by Applicant. Lot Coverage: The portion ofa lot which is covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking and drives. Essentially, a lot of approximately 23,333 sq. ft. (13,000 sq. ft. larger than the existing property), could accommodate, per County regulations, a Maximum Total Lot Coverage of approximately 3,350 sq. ft. (15%) as proposed by the Applicant. Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 5 NON -CONFORMING USES Pursuant to section 7:00 [Non -Conforming Use Regulations] of the Zoning Resolution, "all uses of land and buildings, other than in conformity with this Resolution, shall be regulated as follows:" The lawful use of a building or structure or the lawful use of any land, as existing and lawful at the time of adoption of this Resolution or in the case of amendment to this Resolution, then at the time of such amendment, such use or building hereafter referred to as "nonconforming" may be continued although such use does not conform with the provisions of this Resolution or amendment thereto; and such use may be extended throughout the same building, provided that no structural alteration of such building is proposed or made for the purpose of such extension. [section 7.01: Non -conforming Uses and Buildings] The Applicant provided copies of two Warranty Deeds for the property. One of the deeds is dated December 13, 1962 and the other Deed, in the name of the Applicant, is dated April 19, 1999. The property has not changed configuration from 1962 to date. Since the property was created prior to the enactment of Zoning in 1973, pursuant to section 7.01 of the Zoning Resolution, summarized above, the subject property is non -conforming and may be continued although it does not conform to the provisions in the Zoning Resolution. The Applicant asserts that given the extensive site planning, architectural work, and engineering design of the proposed improvements completed prior to learning of the existence of the maximum lot coverage regulations as applied to this small sized lot, the requested variance represents the minimum necessary to alleviate practical difficulties and undue hardship to the owner applicant. Essentially, the Applicant maintains the subject property, although non -conforming in size, should be allowed to vary the dimensional requirements, such as Maximum Total Lot Coverage, since `extensive site planning, architectural work and engineering designs' have been completed. Pursuant to section 7:04 [Change in Use] of the Zoning Resolution: A nonconforming use shall not be replaced by a use considered to exhibit a greater degree of nonconformity than the existing use; however, a nonconforming use maybe replaced by a use considered to exhibit an equal or lesser degree of nonconformity than the existing use; the degree of conformity to be determined by the Building Official based on the intent and purpose of this Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 6 Resolution; for example, a mobile home may be replaced by a permanent conventional single family dwelling provided it meets all other site requirements of this Resolution. (A. 93-061) Pursuant to section 7:04 (and 7:01) of the Zoning Resolution, summarize above, development on the property is clearly prohibited since the construction of a single-family residence would "exhibit a greater degree of non -conformity than the existing use", which is a vacant parcel. Constructing a single-family residence as proposed, does not "exhibit an equal or lesser degree of non -conformity than the existing use." III. APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT The Applicant asserted that "the proposed improvements were designed so as to not cause detriment to the public good, and to not impair the intent and purpose of the general plan of zoning, building regulations, and this applicable limiting lot coverage." Although this may be the case, the proposed improvements on the property violates a basic zoning requirement of the A/R/RD zone district, Maximum Total Lot Coverage, which can clearly be met on this property without a hardship. The Applicant provided the following points -of -view with respect to the hardship created on the subject property. These points -of -view are taken directly from the application. 1. In the Sweetwater drainage, where A/R/RD zoning has been applied, the application of the maximum lot coverage regulation to conforming lots results in maximum lot coverage calculation of up to 13,068 sq. ft. Staff Response: The Applicant is correct that within the A/R/RD zone district, in which the property is subject, a minimum lot size of 2 acres would allow a Maximum Total Lot Coverage of up to 13,068 sq. ft. However, the Applicant acquired a non -conforming parcel which is subject to the County's regulations, enacted in November, 1973, that established zone districts with specific basic dimensional requirements, such at Maximum Total Lot Coverage. 2. The property is surrounded by a single, large 16 acre parcel for which no development plans presently exists. Staff Response: To staff's knowledge, there is no proposed development on the 16 acre property that encompasses the subject property. However, development may occur in the future. 3. All recently constructed homes in the vicinity of the lot substantially exceed the footprint of the proposed improvement. The Applicant unofficially submits that during the past several years, no less than 10 residential building permits have been issued by Garfield County to Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 7 properties within 4 miles of the subject property, none with lesser lot coverage than the proposed plan for the subject property. If the regulations were intended to apply to conforming lot sizes than all of these lots could cover as much as 13,068 sq. ft., nearly four times the lot coverage allowed on the subject property. Staff Response: In the past few years, no building permits have been issued in the Sweetwater area for parcels with less lot coverage than the allowed on the subject property. However, the Applicant's indication that in the past few years none of the building permits issued in the Sweetwater area were for lot coverage less than the proposed plan for the subject property is incorrect. The table below summarizes a couple building permits issued, over the past three years, with lot coverage less than what is being proposed on the subject property. The lot coverage noted below are on parcels that have almost triple the amount of acreage of that of the subject parcel. Property Size Structure Size (sq. ft.) Date of Building Permit Issuance 696,960 sq. ft. (16 acres) 1,717 10/27/88 1,524,60 sq. ft. (35 acres) 7,590 5/30/00 66,211 sq. ft. (1.52 acres) 900 (approx.) 10/20/01 4. The Applicant asserts that the circumstances outlined above [in 1, 2, 3] creates the hardship were not caused by the applicant as the lot pre-existed the enactment of the limiting zoning and building regulations. The application of the subsequently enacted zoning and maximum lot coverage limitation regulations directly gives rise to the hardship. Staff Response: Staff does not agree with the Applicant's argument that the enacted zoning and a maximum lot coverage limitation regulation directly gives rise to hardship. On the Warranty Deed, submitted with the application, the Applicant obtained the subject property on April 19, 1999. As noted previously in this memorandum, the Zoning Resolution became fully effective in November, 1973. Although the subject property was created prior to the enactment of Zoning, in 1999, when the Applicant purchased the subject property, basic zoning requirements, such as Maximum Total Lot Coverage, were already in place. And, pursuant to section 1.07 of the Zoning Resolution, "no building or structure shall be erected...except in conformity with the ...lot coverage...". In addition, Pursuant to section 7:00 of the Zoning Resolution, development on the property is clearly prohibited since the construction of a single-family residence would increase the non- conformity of the existing use, vacant land. Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 8 5. The general conditions in the [this zoning] district include few other non -conforming lots to the best of the Applicant's knowledge. The diminutive resulting, allowable improvement footprint cannot be practically corrected without purchase of additional adjacent land. The Applicant has approached the adjoining land owner who indicated unwillingness to convey additional lands without further discussion of appropriate consideration. Staff Response: The Applicant has not provided evidence to support his statement that "general conditions in the [A/R/RD zone] district include few other non -conforming lots." An investigation of all non -conforming lots in the A/R/RD zone district and their relationship to basic zoning requirements would require an extensive analysis. It is unfortunate the Applicant is unable to acquire additional land from the adjoining land owner, however, the parcel, regardless of this size, is subject to the basic zoning requirements, such as Maximum Total Lot Coverage, pursuant to section 1.07 of the Zoning Resolution (seen on page 3 of this memorandum). 6. The calculation of a practically allowable footprint on this lot would result in a peculiarly diminutive dwelling with no greater than a 700 sq. ft. footprint. Very few, if any, recently constructed homes in Garfield County would meet this practical limitation. No other recently constructed, conforming structures in the Sweetwater Creek region would meet this severe limit to the best of the Applicant's knowledge. Because of the exceptional size, shape and shallowness of this particular piece of property at the time of the lot creation and at the time of the enactment of zoning and the maximum lot coverage regulations (Section 2.02.35), the strict application of the resolution pertaining to the maximum lot coverage regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship upon the owner/application of the subject property. Staff Response: A building footprint, as represented by the Applicant, of approximately 700 sq. ft. does create challenges to architectural and engineering designs. However, basic zoning requirements were in effect when the Applicant purchased the subject lot. Due -diligence should have been conducted on the subject property prior to purchase, which would have undoubtedly revealed the restrictions the parcel would face upon construction, due to basic zoning requirements of the A/R/RD zone district. In addition, to the hardship proposed by the Applicant with respect to the Maximum Total Lot Coverage, pursuant to section 7:00 of the Zoning Resolution, development on the property is prohibited since the construction of a single-family residence would "exhibit a greater degree of non -conformity than the existing use" which is a vacant parcel. Constructing a single-family residence as proposed, does not "exhibit an equal or lesser degree of non -conformity than the existing use." Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 9 IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF A VARIANCE (SECTION 9.050.03) Section 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; or 2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. As noted previously in this memorandum, the Applicant claims that "because of the exceptional size, shape, and shallowness of this particular piece of property..., the strict application of the resolution pertaining to the maximum lot coverage would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship... ". However, one could presume, by looking at the site plan, that the parcel does not experience exceptionally narrowness, shallowness or have exceptional topographic conditions since the residence designed for the parcel is proposing lot coverage of 3,325 sq. ft. In addition, it appears on the survey submitted with the Building Permit that the parcel is fairly level. Pursuant to the criteria of section 9.05.03 outlined above, and the fact that the property does not appear to have any topographical constraints, a variance, to allow deviation from the 15% maximum total lot coverage required in the A/R/RD zone distraction, should not be granted. ACTION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT In order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, they must find the Applicant has satisfied the four main criteria or standards provided in Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution. 1. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; Staff Finding: The Applicant asserts that given the extensive site planning, architectural work, and engineering design of the proposed improvements completed prior to learning of the existence of the maximum lot coverage regulations as applied to this small sized lot, the requested variance represents the minimum necessary to alleviate practical difficulties and undue hardship to the owner applicant. A variance, based on an `inadvertent' omission of basic dimensional requirements during the design of the proposed residence, is not warranted. A 3,350 sq. ft. of total lot coverage on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot should not be considered "minimum". The Applicant is proposing to increase Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 10 the density of the parcel by 18.5%. The Applicant could construct a residence that can meet basic dimensional requirements outlined in the A/R/RD Zone District without creating undue hardship. Furthermore, since the property is considered non -conforming, construction of a residence is contrary to section 7:00 of the Zoning Resolution, which clearly states "a non -conforming use shall not be replaced by a use considered to exhibit a greater degree of nonconformity than the existing use." Staff finds this standard has not been met. 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; Staff Finding: The Applicant asserted that "the proposed improvements were designed so as to not cause detriment to the public good, and to not impair the intent and purpose of the general plan of zoning, building regulations, and this applicable limiting lot coverage." Staff finds the requested variance represents a detriment to the public good and impairs the intent and purpose of this Resolution. The Applicant is creating his need for a variance where one is clearly not needed. As noted in Section 1.07 of the Zoning Resolution, "no building or structure shall be erected...except in conformity with...lot coverage...". The proposed improvements on the parcel violates a basic zoning requirement of the A/R/RD zone district, Maximum Total Lot Coverage, which can clearly be met on this property without undue hardship. Staff believes the variance request is not the answer to fix a hardship created by the Applicant. This variance request, if granted, would set a poor precedent for subsequent similar requests. If approved, this request will erode the authority of the BOA as well as the zoning regulations that serve to guide development in the county for the benefit of the public good. Staff remains unconvinced a denial of this variance will cause undue hardship to the Applicant. Staff finds this standard is not met. Two letters of opposition have been submitted and are attached to this memorandum (Exhibits H & I). 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; Staff Finding: As noted by the Applicant "extensive site planning, architectural work, and engineering design of the proposed improvements [were] completed prior to learning of the Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 11 existence of the maximum lot coverage regulation...". However, staff finds this validation does not supercede the fact that basic dimensional requirements, such as Maximum Total Lot Coverage, in the A/R/RD Zone District were in-place at the time the Applicant purchased the parcel, as well as during the planning and architectural and engineering design of the proposed residence. Staff finds that the "hardship" and need for this variance is created entirely by the Applicant. Staff finds the Applicant has created his own hardship based on the lack of reviewing all the basic zoning requirements that pertain to the parcel. Staff finds the Applicant has caused the need for the hardship and therefore this standard is not met. 4. That the concurring vote offour (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the appellant. Staff Finding: As stated in the criterion listed above, in order for the Board to approve the variance request, there needs to be at least 4 concurring voting members. This shall be determined at the public hearing. V. SUMMARY: The following information should be considered by the BOA with respect to the variance requested: 1. The subject property is considered legal, non -conforming pursuant to section 7.01 of the Zoning Resolution. However, pursuant to section 7:04 [Change in Use], "a nonconforming use shall not be replaced by a use considered to exhibit a greater degree of nonconformity than the existing use; however, a nonconforming use may be replaced by a use considered to exhibit an equal or lesser degree of nonconformity than the existing use." As per these regulations, development, such as the construction of a single-family residence, is prohibited since it creates a greater degree of nonconformity than the existed use, which is a vacant parcel. 2. The undue hardship is entirely created by the Applicant. 3. The Zoning Resolution became effective in November, 1973. Dimensional requirements, such as Maximum Total Lot Coverage, were established at that time. 4. The Applicant acquired the property in 1999, at which point dimensional requirements in the A/R/RD zone district were effective. Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 12 5. Section 1.07 of the Zoning Resolution states that "no building or structures shall be erected...except in conformity...with lot coverage...". 6. Section 8.01 of the Zoning Resolution states that permits shall not be issued "unless the plans...or use fully conform to all provisions of this Resolution...". 7. The 10,000 sq. ft. parcel, per basic zoning requirements, is allowed a Maximum Total Lot Coverage of 1,500 sq. ft. (15%). The proposed Maximum Total Lot Coverage of 3,350 sq. ft. (33.5%) exceeds the allowable lot coverage by 1,850 sq. ft. (18.5%). 8. The proposed residence subject property is excessive compared to the allowed density. A lot approximately 23,330 sq. ft. is more suited for a proposed Maximum Total Density Lot Coverage of 3,350 sq. ft. (15%). 9. Shall the proposed Drywell fail, the Applicant may have difficulty replacing the Drywell due to a limited area for repair as a result of residence with 3,350 sq. ft. lot coverage. 10. The subject property does not meet the four main criteria outlined in section 9.05.03 [Action By the Board of Adjustment]. VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of Adjustment. 2. That the meeting before the Board of Adjustment was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed total lot coverage variance has been determined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the construction of a single-family residence on a legal, non -conforming lot is in violation of section 7:04 of the Zoning Regulations. The parcel, as it existed and lawful at the time of adoption of the Zoning Regulations, was vacant. Construction of a single-family residence will "exhibit a greater degree of nonconformity than the existing use." Poffenbarger Variance BOA: January 27, 2003 Page 13 VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY the variance request. VIII. ALTERNATIVE Should the Board of Adjustment ("BOA") establish that a variance to allow deviation from the maximum total lot coverage should be considered, the BOA shall first make the following determination: 1. That the Applicant has the right to erect a structure on the non -conforming parcel, created prior to the establishment of Zoning, and, pursuant to Section 7.04, not "exhibit a greater degree of non -conformity than the existing use ", a vacant parcel. If the BOA establishes that the Applicant does have the right to erect a structure on the non- conforming parcel, the Board shall make the following determination: 2. Whether the Applicant's request to vary the 15% Maximum Total Lot Coverage established in the A/R/RD zone district to 33.5% is appropriate and consistent with the criteria and standards provided in Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution, as follows: a. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; b. 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; c. 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; d. 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. GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING 970-945-8212 MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS for SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION including NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS ALTERATIONS and MOVED BUILDINGS In order to understand the scope of the work intended under a permit application and expedite the issuance of a permit it is important that complete information be provided. Adequate and complete information will prevent delays in the plan review process. Reviewing a plan and the discovery that required information has not been provided by the applicant may result in the delay of the permit issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The owner or contractor may be required to provide this information before the plan review may proceed. This causes delays because other plans that are in line for review may be given attention before the new information may be reviewed after it has been provided to the Building Department. Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design your project and provide adequate information to facilitate a plan review. If you do not, it may be helpful to obtain a book titled "Dwelling Construction under the Uniform Building Code". This book is available to you through this department at our cost. Also, please consider using a design professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for construction of your project. To provide for a more understandable plan in order to determine compliance with the building, plumbing and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following checklist prior to and during design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit the completed checklist at time of application for a permit. 1 Plans to be included for a Building Permit, must be on drafting paper at least 18"x24" and drawn to scale. Plans must include a floor plan, a concrete footing and foundation plan, elevations all sides with decks, balcony, steps, hand rails and guard rails, windows and doors, including the finish grade line. A section showing in detail, from the bottom of the footing to the top of the roof, including re -bar, anchor bolts, pressure treated plates, floor joists, wall studs and spacing, insulation, sheeting, house - rap, (which is required), siding or any approved building material. A window schedule. A door schedule. A floor framing plan, a roof framing plan, roof must be designed to withstand a 40 pound per square foot up to 7,000 feet in elevation, an 80 M.P.H. windshear, wind exposure B, windload of 15 pounds per square foot, and a 36 inch frost depth. All sheets to be identified by number and indexed. All of the above requirements must be met or your plans will be returned. All plans submitted must be incompliance with the 1997 UBC, UMC and 1997 UPC. 1. Is a site plan included that identifies the location of the proposed structure or addition and '47 distances to the ro ert lines from each comer of the proposed structure(s) prepared by a icensed surveyor and has the surveyors signature and professional stamp on the drawing? Properties with slopes of 30% or greater must be shown on the site plan. Yes 2. Does the site plan also include any other buildings on the property, setback easements and utility easements? ----- Yes 3. Does the site plan include when applicable the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System) and the distances to the property lines, wells (on subject property and adjacent properties), streams or water courses? Yes 4. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or private road accessing the property? Yes 5. Do the plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all reinforcing steel in accordance with the uniform building code or per stamped engineered design? Yes 2 6. Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces and the clearances required between wood and earth? Yes 7. Do the plans indicate the size and location of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces's and soffits? Yes 8. Do the plans include design loads as required by Garfield County for roof snow loads, (a minimum of 40 pounds per square foot up to & including 7,000 feet above sea level), floor loads and wind loads? Yes 9. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor, and roof construction? Yes 10. Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceiling joists, roof rafters or joists or trusses? Yes 11. Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive connection of all columns and beams? Yes 12. Does the plan indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the highest point of the building or addition measured at mid span between the ridge and the eave down to existing (undisturbed) grade contours? Yes 13. Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including make and model and Colorado Phase II certifications or phase II EPA certification? Yes No 14. Does the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace section indicating design to comply with the Uniform Building Code Chapter 37? Yes No 15. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows from sleeping rooms and/or basements comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code? Yes No 3 16. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide natural light and ventilation for all habitable rooms? Yes No 17. Do the plans indicate the location of glazing subject to human impact such as glass doors, glazing immediately adjacent to such doors; glazing adjacent to any surface normally used as a walking surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub enclosures and specify safety glazing for these areas? Yes No 18. Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters indicated on the plan? Yes No 19. Do you understand that if you are building on a parcel of land created by the exemption process or the subdivision process, are building plans in compliance with all plat notes and/or covenants? Yes No 20. Do you understand that if you belong to a homeowners association, it is your responsibility to obtain written permission from the association, if required by that association, prior to submitting an application for a building permit? If you do not have written permission from the association, do you understand that the plan check fee will not be refunded should the architectural committee deny or reject your building plans? Yes No 21. Will this be the only residential structure on the parcel? Yes No If no -Explain: 22. Have two (2) complete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the application? Yes 23. Do you understand that the minimum size a home can be on a lot is a 20ft. x 20ft.? Yes No 24. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other construction code requirements? Yes No 25. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection by the Garfield County Building Department? Yes No 4 26. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required prior to the application of these changes? Yes No 27. Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from you at the time of application submittal and that you will be required to pay the "Permit Fee" as well as any "Road Impact" or "Septic System" fees required, at the time you pick up your building permit? Yes No 28. Are you aware that twenty-four (24) hour notice is required for all inspections? Inspections will be made from Battlement Mesa to West Glenwood in the mornings and from Glenwood Springs to Carbondale in the afternoons. All inspections must be called in by 3:30 p.m. the day before. Failure to give twenty-four (24) hour notice for inspections will delay your inspection one (1) day. Inspections are to be called in to 384-5003. Yes No 29. Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the Uniform Building Code including approval on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and occupancy of the building? Yes No 30. Are you aware that the person signing the Permit Application, whether the "Owner", "Agent of the Owner", "General Contractor", "Contractor" or otherwise, is the party responsible for the project complying with the Uniform Building Code? Yes No 31. Are you aware that prior to issuance of a building permit you are required to show proof of a driveway access permit or obtain a statement from the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department stating one is not necessary? You can contact the Road & Bridge Department at 625-8601. Yes No 32. Do you understand that you will be required to hire a State of Colorado Licensed Electrician and Plumber to perform installations and hookups, unless you as the homeowner are performing the work? The license number of the person performing the work will be required at time of applicable inspection. Yes No 5 33. Are you aware, that on the front of the Building Permit Application you will need to fill in the Parcel/Schedule Number for the lot you are applying for this permit on prior to issuance of a building permit? Your attention in this is appreciated. Yes No I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand and answered these questions to the best of my ability. Signature Date Phone: (days); (evenings) Project Name: Project Address: Notes: If you have answered "No" on any of the questions, you may be required to provide this information at the request of the Building Official prior to beginning the plan review process. Delays in issuing the permit are to be expected. Work may not proceed without the issuance of a permit. If it is determined by the Building Official that additional information is necessary to review the application and plans to determine minimum compliance with the adopted codes, the application may be placed behind more recent applications for building permits in the review process and not reviewed until required information has been provided and the application rotates again to first position for review, delay in issuance of the permit or delay in proceeding with construction. bpminreq 08/2002 6 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS Codes: 97 UBC, 97IPC, and 97 UMC. Setbacks: 25 feet front and rear and 10 feet on the sides (check subdivisions). Snowload: 4OPSF up to 704t. elevation, SOPSF 7001 to 8000ft. 75'PSF 8001 to 900011. 100PSF 9001 to 10000ft. Seismic: Zone 1 Windshear: 80mph Wind Exposure: B Windload: 15PSF. Frost Depth: 36in. to 8000ft. elevation. 421n. 8001 to 10000ft, Insulation: R-11 Floors over unheated areas R-19 Wads R-29 Ceilings If floors over crawl spaces are not Insulated% the crawl space walls must be insulated, Basement walls trust be inserted to frost depth. Connnon walls garage to house must have R-19 insulation. Cocoon ceiling/floor garage to house must have 8441 Take precautions to protect plumbing in these garage areas from freezing. Information required by Garfield County road & Bridge for driveway permits or exemption letters: -State your request (driveway permit vs. exemption). -Legal description; lot & block # preferred, meets & bounds if necessary. -Plat or sketch, showing driveway location and any easements (must show nearest County road & be legible). -Owner of record (as appears on the tax roll). -Owner's mailing address, phone, fax (& cell if applicable). -Subcontractor (if applicable) w/ contact person, address, phone, fax & cell. -Be prepared to show your property pins/corners, and meet Road Foreman if necessary. Quick reference guidelines for new or change of use driveways: - Only one access per parcel (unless demonstrated need) -90 degree intersection w/County road for first 30 feet -4% maximum grade for first 30 feet -3" thick hot asphalt apron if County road is pavedor chipped -250 feet visibility in both directions -Corrugated steel culvert if a road ditch is crossed (15" min, no plastic or aluminum) - Driveway runoff must not reach County road ! -Obtain permit before commencing work, pay fee & sign, keep on site -Complete the driveway within 30 days of pulling permit, DO NOT DELAY! Initial Contact: District 1, (from Canyon Creek east to Couty line) Doug Thoe 945-1223 District 2, (North of I-70 and west to County line) Kraig Kuberry 625-8601 District 3, (South of I-70 and weat to County line) Jake Mall 625-8601 Secondary Contact: Road & Bridge Main Office, 0567 County Road 352, (Airport Road) Rifle CO 81650. ph 625-8601. Mike or Wendy can fax you the completed permit or you can stop in and pick it up. You can pay in person or by mail, and you can sign in person or by fax (625-8627). 1. Permit Owner: 2. Address: 3. Phone No: 4. County Rd. No 5. Location of driveway: 6. Side of road: N ❑ E ❑ S ❑ W ❑ 7. Width of driveway: 30 -foot 0 40 -foot 0 other 8. Culvert required: Yes ❑ No 0 9. Size of culvert required: 12 -inch 0 15 -inch ❑ 18 -inch 0 other 10. Length of culvert required: 30 -foot 0 40 -foot ❑ other 11. Asphalt or concrete pad required: yes ❑ No ❑ 12. Size of pad: 30 -foot wide X 10 -foot long X 4 -inches thick: Yes ❑ 13. Size of pad: 40 -foot wide X 10 -foot long X 4 -inches thick: Yes 0 14. Size of Pad: other 15. Gravel portion required: Yes ❑ No 0 16. Length of gravel portion: 40 -foot ❑ 50 -foot 0 100 -foot 0 17. Trees, brush or fence removed for visibility: Yes 0 No 0 Driveway Permit Form Fax No: 18. Distance and direction from driveway to be removed 18. No more than 3% slope away from County Rd: 19. Driveway must be constructed so no drainage accesses County Rd. from driveway: 20. Inspection of driveway will be required upon completion and must be approved by person issuing permit or representative of person issuing permit. 21. Person issuing permit: 22. District permit issued in: 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 0 Date: 1 Jan -21-2003 02:2Ipm From -CARDIOLOGY CONSULTANTS +407 898 4483 CARDIOLOGY CONSULTANTS T-409 P 001/ EXHIBIT JAMES L BOLEN. M D.. F A C.C. P A. ROBERT R. 8OSW ELL, M.D . f• A C C., P.A, ROBERT L. ROTHBARD. M D.. F.A.C.C.. f A C.P..P.A. EGERTON K VAN DEN BERG. JR , M.D., F.A C.0 . P.A. January 21, 2003 PlanningDepartment 108 8`1 Street, Suite 201 Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs, CO RE: APPLICATION OF RICHARD M. POFFENBERGER Dear Sirs: OJrLOMATESOF AMERICAN F )ARI) OF INTERNAL MEI KINE ANIrCARNOvAFCVLAR IN! -ASFa ?003 p�N :Ukti.D"11:14177.-81) Y ING I am the owner of the Ranch on Sweetwater, the last ranch before one reaches Sweetwater Lake. The ranch fronts approximately three quarters of a mile on Sweetwater Road (approximately 3 miles inside Garfield County boundary). The ranch consists of approximately 410 acres and extends north to south from Sweetwater Road to the 7W Road. We have pursued a 7 -year restoration of this historical ranch, and particularly in renovation of the main ranch lodge, which was constructed in the 1 880's. I am therefore very sensitive to the rural and ranch nature of this portion of Garfield County. I strongly object to the variance that Mr. Poffenberger has requested to increase the minimum 15% lot coverage to almost 35% lot coverage. At the present time Mr. Poffenberger has some sort of unsightly temporary building on his very small (less than 114 acre lot). This structure is built on a "ridge line" and is visible from almost all locations of the upper valley because of its location on a ridge line. A larger structure such as the 3350 sq ft home proposed would even be more unsightly and artificially dominant this mountain landscape. Along with my neighbors therefore, I strongly oppose this variance. V truly yours, fAMES L. BOLEN, M.D. JLB:dg c: Hope Anderson SPECIALIZING IN DISEASES OF THE CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM 2320 N. ORANGE AVENUE ORLANDO, FL 32804 (401) 896.0054 3102 KURT STREET EUSTIS, FL 32727 (352) 557.0055 4550 U.S. 2.7 : OUTH SEBRING. FL 33870 (941} 386•. 054 l WOODSTONE HOMES, INC. Garfield County Planning Department January 21, 2003 Re: Application for Poffenberger lot on Sweetwater Road Dear Sir/Ms, EXHIBIT 1 jAN >> 2 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING It has come to my attention that a Richard M. Poffenberger has applied for a variance on his lot to increase his coverage from 15% total lot coverage to more than double the allowed density to 33% total lot coverage. Being a builder/developer for over 20 years, with projects ranging from High-end custom homes to hundreds of multi family residences, it is inconceivable to allow a residence to exceed 33% total lot coverage. Not only does the proposed variance allow too much house on too small of a lot, obviously no consideration is being accounted for the well, septic, and leach field, along with the driveway that has to be installed on this lot. To put this in perspective we are currently building a "Multifamily project in Breckenridge of 56 units spread out over 411,048 square feet. This works out to 15% lot coverage on a "Multifamily" site, not a "single family residence". To clarify, my Breckenridge project is considered high-density housing and still we are not exceeding 15% lot coverage. With the project being on city water and city sewer further enhances the open space that we are trying to achieve without creating the hardship of accounting for space requirements of well and septic systems. I truly hope that the Garfield county planning department will take this information into consideration and turn down this variance. To allow this type of variance goes against the rural aesthetics of ,what Sweetwater is all about and what the Garfield Planning Department is trying to achieve when they instill these types of requirements to begin with. Thank you for your attention to this matter. P.O. Box 3939 -*-Vail, Colorado 81658 Stone Creek Business Center -*-40800 Highway 6 & 24, Unit 8 -*-Avon, Colorado 81620 970/845-9698 X970/845-9475 FAX Tamara Pregl From: Steve Hackett Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:31 PM To: Tamara Pregl Cc: Mark Bean Subject: Yurts Tamara Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT The policy concerning these structures is that, since they will not meet Uniform Building Code requirements for residential structures, we do not permit their use as dwellings. Steve 1/22/2003 JAN -23-2003 03:10PM FROM-GARFIELD COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE Account R300004 Year istrict 2003 030 uwner Nal ddress !—r-POFFENBARGER, RICHAk... M. Apr Dist rSt IIA Parcel Number 1853.181.00.011 Street No Dir P o BOX 3240 EAGLE CO 81631-3240 Noi1 Street Name [Location City 1Ioation zip 3.87 SEC 16 TR IN LOT 1 BACode •wner I• ]Owner Location Business Name M SpacnSeq Acct pe Map o +19709453953 rPo ILagt • T-391 P.001/001 F-170 39.888000 Elj AFIC ff Legal Description SECT,TVVN,RNG 16 3 8T DESC: TR IN LOT 1 BK:0493PG:0491 BK:0740 PG:0174 BK:1125 PG:550 BK:1125 PG:54T EXHIBIT • �Versinn r Oate tt1'.1pIcAMA 4O3DlofOGO i OCr,Z002 , 01 0B RM PS '20030122000 ';❑ Name Tax Items[ i Protest (T) en CAMA(A) .: ,:�� �' ' ' ACS ----t1iSD FA -CRSS ] situs Li Pre/SUC [1 Mobile Auth[ j Personah(P) t: ' LAND 50,004 14,500] 0,230 0 'IL( Mobile ;< Remarks IMPS 0 OI 0 ❑ I� Value I] Oil and Gas ',' :.' 1 ' Tract F] Tax Sale fl State Asd [] Recording '; I'''1 'ID Condo ❑ SpcAsmt❑ Control ❑ Imaging ?❑ Block Ll Mines ❑ History ❑ Photo iE Sales .❑ Sibling ❑ PPCertLtr 0 Sketch Queries '[; miscou rlags ❑ Exemption IGIS Map :TOTAL NAME 50,005 14,500 SQ FT 7 - Currant Year Prlor Version Tax Trx Prior Year Ne(x)t Version Abatement Next Year Characteristics Property Card Update Clear Exit .01 `,Z 2O Gp,� F\ELD CO NNING IOLC\NG & PLA JOHN R. SCHENK DAN KERST WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III CAROLYN M. STRAUTMAN SCHENK, KERST & deWINTER, LLP A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 302 EIGHTH STREET, SUITE 310 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2447 TELECOPIER: (970) 945-2440 January 23, 2003 Garfield County Building and Planning Garfield County Courthouse Annex 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 R EXHIBIT JAN 2 3 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Poffenbarger Variance Application Our File #9550 Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent Travis Realty Corp. which owns property which adjoins the property subject of the referenced Application. Travis Realty Corp. strongly opposes the requested variance. The applicant's contention that the circumstances creating the hardship were not caused by the applicant is not plausible. At the time of acquiring the subject lot in 1999, the applicant knew or should have known that the zoning applicable to the lot allowed only 15% maximum lot coverage. The applicant seeks to justify a 70% increase in the allowed lot coverage by suggesting that the applicable zoning would allow a building footprint of only 700 square feet. This reasoning further emphasizes the unreasonableness of the applicant's request. The applicant is, in fact, saying that the zoning will allow only a 700 square foot footprint, but that the applicant seeks a building footprint more than 300% larger. The fact that the zoning allows the construction of a more modest home than the applicant desires does not establish an undue hardship not caused by the applicant as required to support the requested variance. My client. as well as other property owners in the affected area, should be able to rely on the protections of the zone district regulations applicable to their properties. The lot in question is already a non -conforming lot. The applicant should not be allowed to exacerbate the non -conformity through a variance which would result in a substantial detriment to the public good and would substantially impair the intent and purpose of the County's regulations. On behalf of the adjoining property owner, it is urged that thpplication be denied. DK/emb xc: Travis Realty Corp. Richard M. Poffenbarger OAM.Pa cabmiLT R-0ARCO PLV s1'LW. fnn Yours ST