The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Staff ReportExhibits for Public Hearing held on February 6, 2006 — BOCC. Proposed Text Amendment to 2.0.54 Applicant - Parachute Commercial Staff— Richard Wheeler Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Proof of Publication B Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended C Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Staff Report dated 2-6-06 F Application for the Text Amendment G Letter dated 1-5-06 from the County Assessor H I J K L �pmmnN az) G/rly — • • 0,A w 4/01,it r o $/pec• �A L'r!(�,sioN Rx b o(J P 7-- r/A/6 0L7 l /off 6T9A-1 Z • • BOCC 2-6-06 RW TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING RESOLUTION PROPOSED NEW DEFINITION FOR ONE BUILDING ON MULTIPLE LOT LINES BOCC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION & STAFF COMMENTS PROPOSAL: Amendment to §2.02.54 APPLICANT: Parachute Commercial LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Gerald D. Hafted, Attorney DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL - The applicant is proposing to accommodate construction of a building over multiple lot lines. Currently the County Zoning Resolution does not allow a building to be built on multiple Tots due to the fact that front, year and side setbacks need to be observed in relation to each specific lot. The only recourse is to amend a final plat and delete interior lot lines to create a larger lot that will allow a building that will fit within the required setbacks. The applicant is proposing a text amendment to §2.02.54 to add a fourth definition as follows: §2.02.54 (4) "(4) The definitions set forth in Subsections (2) and (3) immediately above notwithstanding, where a principal building is to be constructed upon multiple contiguous Lots, which building and the Lots which it is to occupy are held in unified ownership, the rear yard and the side yard shall be defined by reference to those rear and side Lot lines of such series of contiguous Lots nearest and external to the walls of the principal building structure to be constructed. For purposes of this Subsection (4), the series of contiguous Lots held in unified ownership shall be considered as a single Lot with respect to the definitions set forth in Sections 2.02.32 Lot; 2.02.33 Lot Area; 2.02.34 Lot Line; 2.02.35 Lot Coverage; 2.02.48 Setback and 2.02.54 (a) Yard, Front. And further, where the Lot comprised of the aforesaid series of contiguous Lots is bounded by two (2) adjacent streets, the Front Lot Line shall be designated by the owner of such Lot on the Building Permit Application and the Rear Lot Line shall be the Lot boundary line opposite and parallel thereto." -1- • • II. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS The issue of narrow, long lots is addressed more often in towns and cities that have very old platted lots where the parcels have dimensions of, for the sake of example, 25'X125'. It is very common for one building to be placed on multiple lots. In the County there are a few areas that have been platted similarly and have created a situation that is rather difficult to place a building on. For example, Travelers Highland Subdivision and Cooperton Townsite (Satank). The County setback definitions do not recognize the ability to place a building on multiple lots without an amendment to the Final Plat. The one major issue is the ownership of the lots where the building will be placed. Obviously, the Tots will have to be held in common ownership and will have to remain that way for the life of the building. In effect the building placed on multiple Tots will create an un -platted larger lot. III. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners 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 Text Amendment is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Zoning Resolution text amendment, as proposed by the applicant. Specifically, the section as stated in the Description of the Proposal (2.4,54 (4)). V. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend DENIAL of the proposed text amendment for the follow reasons: 1. This proposed amendment would "loud" the title work on the individual lots. The commissioners felt that having one building on several lots with separate -2- title could create legal issues if one of the lots encumbered by the building would be sold. 2. If an encumbered lot would be sold, this would create a zoning code violation in relation to the building and the appropriate setbacks. The commissioners did not want to create additional code violation enforcement issues. 3. This request would be for any subdivision in the county. This text amendment is not limited to just ancient subdivisions, but rather for the county as a whole. The commissioners were not certain what effect this would have on land use in the county. 4. The County already has regulations in place to allow a property owner to amend the final plat to create a large enough lot where a large building could meet the appropriate setbacks. 5. The assessor will continue to assess each lot individually. Even with a land improvement survey, the interior lot lines will not be erased and does not give "notice" to purchaser. 6. This request could affect septic and water well separation standards. 7. The proposed new land use code has provisions through an overlay district for ancient subdivisions that could take care of this issue. • January 5, 2006 Mark Bean Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mark, I had a meeting with both Carolyn Dahlgren and Don DeFord concerning legal title on parcels exceeding 35 Acres. During our conversation, they gave me a copy of the application for a text amendment to Section 2.02.54 of the zoning resolution of Garfield County. As you are probably aware, this amendment is being submitted by Parachute Commercial LLC. My understanding of the amendment is that construction of a building can occur on multiple lots without an amended plat. From a valuation standpoint, if this amendment is approved, it then becomes difficult for us to correctly value properties. As a possible solution, I would suggest that we impose a requirement that an improvement survey must be recorded prior to the final C.O. If you have any further questions or comments, I would be happy to speak with you. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Shannon G. Hurst Garfield County Assessor • • PC 1-11-06 RW TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING RESOLUTION PROPOSED NEW DEFINITION FOR ONE BUILDING ON MULTIPLE LOT LINES PROJECT INFORMATION & STAFF COMMENTS PROPOSAL: Amendment to §2.02.54 APPLICANT: Parachute Commercial LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Gerald D. Hartert, Attorney DESCRIPTION OF THE. PROPOSAL - The applicant is proposing to accommodate construction of a building over multiple lot lines. Currently the County Zoning Resolution does not allow a building to be built on multiple lots due to the fact that front, year and side setbacks need to be observed in relation to each specific lot. The only recourse is to amend a final plat and delete interior lot lines to create a larger lot that wilt allow a' building that will fit within the required setbacks. The applicant is proposing a text amendment .to §2.02.54 to add a fourth definition as follows: §2.02.54 (4) "(• 4) The definitions se't ""forth in Subsections (2) and (3) immediately above notwithstanding. where a principal building is to he constructed utxm multiple contiguous Lots. which building and- the ,Lots which it is to occupy are held in unified • ownership, the rear ydt'tt',arld the side yard shall be deli*d by reference to those rear and .side =Lot lines of such series of contiguous Lots nearest .and external to.the walls of the principal building structure to he constrticted. For purposes of this Subsection (4), the series of contiguous Lots held in unilied ownership shall he considered as a single tot with ,respect to the definitions set forth in Sections 2.02.32 Lot: 2.02.33 Lot 'Arca: 2.02.34 Lot Line: 2.02.35 Lot Coverage: 2.02.48 Setback and 2.02.54'(a) •Yard. Front. •An�i, further: where the Lot comprised of the aioresaid series of contiguous Lots is bounded by two (2) adjacent streets. the Front Lot Line shall be'di~sinated by the owner of such Lot on the 'Building Permit Application and the Rear Lot Line shall be the Lot boundary 'line opposite and parallel thereto.- -1- • • II. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS The issue of narrow, long lots is addressed more often in towns and cities that have very old platted lots where the parcels have dimensions of, for the sake of example, 25'X125'. It is very common for one building to be placed on multiple lots. In the County there are a few areas that have been platted similarly and have created a situation that is rather difficult to place a building on. For example, Travelers Highland Subdivision and Cooperton Townsite (Satank). The County setback definitions do not recognize the ability to place a building on multiple Tots without an amendment to the Final Plat. The one major issue is the ownership of the lots where the building will be placed. Obviously, the lots will have to be held in common ownership and will have to remain that way for the life of the building. In effect the building placed on multiple Tots will create an un -platted larger lot. III. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the meeting before the County Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and all interested parties were heard at the hearing. 2. That the proposed text amendments have been presented to the Planning Commission for their recommendation as required by the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as amended, and recommended for approval. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Zoning Resolution text amendment is in the best interest of the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the Zoning Resolution text amendment, as proposed by the applicant. Specifically, the section as stated in the Description of the Proposal (2.05.(4)). 216' S(1J( ‘. Ldr3 0(- /1 t ( - /1t e. ft• ko -,. , 0 -2-L, 1 4) N e -\ 1 • January 5, 2006 Mark Bean Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mark, I had a meeting with both Carolyn Dahlgren and Don DeFord concerning legal title on parcels exceeding 35 Acres. During our conversation, they gave me a copy of the application for a text amendment to Section 2.02.54 of the zoning resolution of Garfield County. As you are probably aware, this amendment is being submitted by Parachute Commercial LLC. My understanding of the amendment is that construction of a building can occur on multiple lots without an amended plat. From a valuation standpoint, if this amendment is approved, it then becomes difficult for us to correctly value properties. As a possible solution, I would suggest that we impose a requirement that an improvement survey must be recorded prior to the final C.O. If you have any further questions or comments, I would be happy to speak with you. Thank you for your time and consideration. • Sincerely, Shannon G. Hurst Garfield County Assessor