Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 10.27.2014Garfield County Board of Adjustment — Public Hearing Exhibits Building Height Variance Request October 27, 2014 (File VARA -8075) Applicant: Carbondale Glen Lot E-8 LLC Robert Shapiro Manager Exhibit Number Exhibit Description 1 Public Notice Hearing Information Form & Attachments 2 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 4 Application 5 Staff Report 6 Staff Presentation 7 Referral Comments from Aspen Glen Homeowners Association — Design Review Committee 8 Public Comments from Cintra Pollack 9 Public Comments from Marta J. Sundberg 10 Public Comments from Dorothy Segel 11 Referral Comments from County Consulting Engineer 12 Copies of County Correction Notices and Stop Work Order 13 Height Survey Verification Form 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 EXHIBIT 8 5 Board of Adjustment 10/27/14 Variance VARA -8075 GH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance Request REQUEST: Increase in the Maximum Building Height APPLICANT/OWNER: Carbondale Glen Lot E-8 LLC, Robert Shapiro Manager REPRESENTATIVE: Tim Thulson, Balcomb and Green PC PROPERTY: The site is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the Town of Carbondale at 60 Puma Court, Carbondale, CO 81623, within the Aspen Glen PUD. It is also known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2393-203-01-008. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot E-8, Aspen Glen Filing No. 1, according to the plat thereof recorded April 6, 1995 as Reception No. 476330. ZONING: PUD (1/2 Acre Residential Zone District) I. BACKGROUND — DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The Applicant is seeking approval for an increase in the maximum building height by approximately 30 inches above that allowed under the Aspen Glen PUD Zone Text. Review of the PUD Guidelines by the Planning Staff and County Attorney's Office confirmed that the request would be processed in accordance with the variance provisions of the Land Use and Development Code. Plans submitted to the Building Department for the proposed residence were reviewed and approved by the County and demonstrated compliance with the PUD height limitation of 25 ft. The submitted plans were calculated by the (Building Department to have a building height of 24 ft. Field inspections by the County Building Inspectors were conducted at the site as part of the normal review and inspection process. The inspections identified changes to the structure that had occurred in the field and were inconsistent with the submitted and approved plans. Those changes had resulted in an increase in the building height beyond that allowed by an estimated 30 inches. The history of correction notices and stop work orders is summarized below: • August 4th: Correction Notice was issued by County with the note "Eng. to address struc. modifications" • August 8th: Correction Notice was issued by County with the condition "Verify Elevation" • August 29th: Stop Work Order was issued by County with the requirement "Verify Elevation. • September 2"d: Applicant conducted a height survey by a professional surveyor that documents the height to be 24 ft. 11 inches above the ground elevation of 6025.6', adjacent to the foundation. Per code the building height for the site is measured from the natural grade of 6023 ft. The survey confirmed that the building had exceeded the building height limit from the natural grade by 30 inches. VICINITY MAP Applicant's Site 60 Puma Lane II. AUTHORITY — CRITERIA A. The request is being considered in accordance with Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-115 Variance. The review criteria for a variance is noted below. A finding of consistency with all six criteria is required. C. Review Criteria. The following standards shall be satisfied for approval of a request for variance from specific regulatory provisions of this Code: 1. Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist. One or more of the following circumstances or conditions exist with respect to the specific property: a. Exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the property at the time of the enactment of the regulation in question; 2 b. Exceptional topographic conditions of the property; and c. Other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of the property. 2. Not a Result of the Actions of Applicant. The special circumstances and conditions have not resulted from any act of the Applicant. 3. Strict Application Consequence. Because of the special circumstances and conditions found pursuant to section 4- 115. C.1., the strict application of the regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional, practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship on, the owner of the property. 4. Variance is Necessary for Relief. The granting of the variance from the strict application of the provisions set forth in this Code is necessary to relieve the owner of the peculiar and exceptional, practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship. 5. Not Detrimental to the Public Good. Granting the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public good. 6. Variance Will Not Impair the County's Zoning. Granting the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of this Code. B. Decision making authority for a variance is with the Board of Adjustment. Any appeal of the Board of Adjustment decision is a court decision. The Board of Adjustment decision can be approval, approval with conditions, or denial. C. The definition for building height is found in Article 15, Definitions of the Land Use and Development Code. It stipulates that the building height is measured from the natural or original grade. Excerpts from the definitions section are provided below: • Height, Building. The distance measured vertically, from the average undisturbed or natural ground grade horizontal plane of a building footprint to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the mid -point between the eave line and the peak of a gable, hip shed, or similar pitched roof. • Grade, Natural. The elevation of the ground surface in its natural state before manmade alterations. III. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is generally level with a drainage swale/ditch running along the rear (south side) of the lot. The lot slopes slightly down to the swale. There is only minimal vegetation on the lot, with some grasses along the drainage swale. The site currently is a construction site with the proposed residential building partially constructed and fenced. Adjacent properties to the south and west are developed with existing single family residences. Lots to the east and north of the site across Puma Lane. are 3 vacant. The surrounding vacant lots appear to have been graded and prepared for construction. Mel • CCM AW 1544. `\ \ I 11 ,(s4 1 `, f \~ t \ LOT ES fid' \ \ \ 0.534 acres ff— \ \\ sp ,;- IV. REFFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS The Applicant will be required to provide documentation of proper public notice for the public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Publication, posting, and mailing notice to property owners within 200 ft. was required. Public comments and comments from referral agencies are summarized below and attached as exhibits. A. Referral to the Aspen Glen Homeowners Association: Comments from the Association indicates that their Design Review Board (DRC) conducted a noticed meeting on the request and voted to 6 — 1 to deny the request. They indicate that they are formalizing a resolution to document the DRC action. B. Written comments have been received from several neighboring property owners (see attached). Concerns expressed included impacts to views, setting precedents for future height variances, and affect on property values. 4 C. Referral to the County's Consulting Engineer: The referral did not generate any comments. D. Garfield County Building Department: Staff has worked closely with the Building Department and they have provided background information and history of original plan set approval, the stop work order, the building height calculations including natural grade determination, and the determination that the building height had been exceeded. 1 CURRENT CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. The following analysis of the Variance review criteria is provided for the Board's consideration. The criteria are shown in bold italics with staff analysis below. CRITERIA 1: Special Circumstances or Conditions Exist. One or more of the following circumstances or conditions exist with respect to the specific property: a. Exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the property at the time of the enactment of the regulation in question; b. Exceptional topographic conditions of the property; and c. Other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of the property. Special Circumstances or conditions associated with the Lot do riot appear to exist. 5 Criteria 1a. The shape of the lot is typical for the Aspen Glen PUD with no exceptional conditions noted. Criteria 1 b. No exceptional topographic conditions exist on the lot and it is a generally level site within the building footprint. The level condition of the lot and the provision on the Applicant's grading plans of the topographic grades prior to construction assisted in the determination of the average natural grade within the building footprint. Criteria 1 c. No other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions that would affect the building height on the property appear to exist on the property. CRITERIA 2: Not a Result of the Actions of Applicant. The special circumstances and conditions have not resulted from any act of the Applicant. The actions resulting in the current situation appear to have been undertaken by individuals acting as agents or contract employees of the Applicant. Consultation with the County Attorney's Office has confirmed that this relationship results in a determination that the criteria is not met. CRITERIA 3: Strict Application Consequence. Because of the special circumstances and conditions found pursuant to section 4- 115.C.1., the strict application of the regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional, practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship on, the owner of the property. While the strict application of the building height restriction may result in significant practical difficulties for the Applicant due to the current stage of construction and the cost to bring the structure into compliance, no special circumstances and conditions were found to exist pursuant to Section 4-115 C.1. CRITERIA 4: Variance is Necessary for Relief. The granting of the variance from the strict application of the provisions set forth in this Code is necessary to relieve the owner of the peculiar and exceptional, practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship. The variance may provide relief of the practical difficulty of reducing the building height at this phase of construction. CRITERIA 5: Not Detrimental to the Public Good. Granting the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public good. Referral comments from the Aspen Glen Homeowners Association and public comments do not support a finding that the variance will not cause substantial determent to the public good. The comments indicate significant concerns and areas of 6 potential negative impacts. The extent of the height encroachment at 30 inches reflects a more significant potential for impacts on neighboring properties. CRITERIA 6: Variance Will Not Impair the County's Zoning. Granting the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of this Code. Granting a variance in this case would be substantially contrary to the intent and purpose of the Code to provide clear limits to building heights. In addition, allowance to build outside of the scope of permitted building plans is contrary to the purpose of the adopted building Code. VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS Based on the staff analysis the following suggested findings for denial of the variance request are provided for the Board's consideration. 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of Adjustment. 2. That the hearing before the Board of Adjustment was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, approval of the request for a variance from the maximum building height for the Carbondale Glen E-8 LLC is not in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the Application does not meet the variance review criteria contained in Section 4-115 C. Items 1 - 6 of the Land Use and Development Code. VII. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION - RECOMMENDATION A resolution of the Board will be drafted for the Chairman's signature formalizing the Board's action. The recommended option for the Board is outlined below: Denial based on the above suggested findings and lack of the submittals to meet the variance approval criteria. 7 EXCERPT FROM THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION GRADING PLANS YELLOW LINE = 6023 FT. CONTOUR IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT 8 EXCERPT FROM BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL K, re Mle• 111•11••••••••• IMMO MU IM•• OM MOM Me MIN 174 in n in n i . 2 :IN M 1M MI =I MUM = SMMII OM MEM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MI.,-. • ,.....1.. .. !_,A7 111111111nall 1 MN ime••••••••••11f WM Irmo, eV 3;110o6LM. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM i.":= MMMMMMM Mirn• ... Of MN NW Mt WS NM rinr• Venni Elm MrIm• !ow • .re. •••••••••■ Ell 1111101 WM MUM, NINNIIIIIIIIINIIIRMINRIMIERPRINNE.....r. EAWIRIIINRIIRRPIRIA. ..... =MR EMMEN MAMIIIM• MI EMM =In ..' \OM MEM"MN ...Noun himninninunin ...... ...u.............--,........ . ........... _ ,...... -.....„..rm rum. lir- mum, ...m...•••mo =Nom. mu, 'NI...Ewen ram le- -"mom ilMmr• -411,111011, -1=1" Me I le en •••1••••■•••• • Irli ... MIME, WM MU • 111•• MN MI Mill• ••• 11..:. "MOIR ev••• • .. = • * IMI=IMI a ..' • . ; • ===1 MMMMMMM WHIN MI= MI MN MEM MB •••••11101.01111.•••••1 Ns Ern ••• NM Ern Nil MI 11.1 MMMMMMM NM =im MINN MI Arm sni am me me re Ns rum re nnnnfln `WIWI= MME111111= MINIII, MB MIMI MOM In MIBMIIMI ••••eloanommli mom OM M•Mirl .11111111111 =NM =NM INIIMO=1 MIL” MI r• MINN NM VII EMIn1 NEM ••••111•11.11.•11 Iry • MN ORM= 1.1•111111111. 111111•1•1 01..== MEM II NM •••I'M Mining Ns eln•11 EV rum as um re NV =1.1.1111111=1 ERMAN. MI 1110.11111•1 =1•111•1•1•30•• MI MI NUM, EV 1••••• .1•••••••• 111.1.11 ere•21 AA' • k ,...157 • ammerframmeasi— pmnb.: a P... Wdr iMO.1 - IMPZ :...;.;'3701e • 11111110 r/ 7-Z74-4. 10 111 111 111 111 111 BUILDING HEIGHT HIGHLIGHTED IN RED - =rm. • rne. M.. tor5 •1 SOUTH ELEVATION Garage Slab Ars, -cr 0,4,41 Iroxit v 6 enJ3 9 VIEWS OF THE SITE East Elevation South Elevation 10 C WEST ELEVATION DISTANT VIEW OF THE EAST ELEVATION ' 1 11 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Leslie Lamont [lezlamont©gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:32 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Aspen Glen Height Variance Request Lot E-08/60 Puma Good evening Glenn. I am working on a Resolution that reflects the Aspen Glen DRC decision regarding the height variance request for 60 Puma by Mr. Robert Shapiro however I don't think I will have that ready for your packet deadline of Oct. 20. I plan to attend the BOA meeting on Oct. 27 but wanted to provide a brief summary of the DRC's decision. The DRC held a meeting on October 15, 2014 to review a request from Mr. Shapiro to vary the height limit of 25' for the partially constructed home on Puma Lane. The DRC considered this request primarily because Section 4.22 of the Master Declaration gives the DRC the ability to "authorize variances from compliance with any of the provisions of this Amended Declaration, including restrictions upon height...." And secondly your department requested a referral from Aspen Glen and the DRC is the entity that typically weighs in on matters related to improvements to property. The DRC was in receipt of the application submitted to the County, notified neighbors within 200 feet of the property, and posted the property with a meeting date notice. During the meeting the DRC considered a presentation from the applicant's representative, considered 8 pieces of correspondence from property owners in Aspen Glen, and considered some comments from meeting attendees. The DRC voted 6-1 to deny the variance request to exceed the 25' height limit in Aspen Glen. EXHIBIT 8 7 If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for the opportunity for the Aspen Glen DRC to provide comments. Leslie Lamont, Administrator Aspen Glen Design Review Committee October 14, 2014 Cintra Pollack Revocable Trust PO Box 22066 Denver, CO 80222 Community Development Department Garfield County Plaza Building 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Garfield County Board of Adjustment 1 EXHIBIT Hello my name is Cintra Pollack. Through my revocable trust, 1 own a house and part of a lot at 322 Diamond -A Ranch Road, in Aspen Glen. I am writing in response to the request for variance (File No. VARA -8075) submitted for your approval by Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC, address: 60 Puma Ct, Carbondale CO 81623 (Assessor's Parcel No. 2393-20301-008), to increase building height by 30 inches above the allowed Aspen Glen PUD Zone Text. I request that the application be denied. I'm concerned that allowing property developers to increase building heights above previously determined acceptable levels will prompt other property owners to request increased building height throughout Aspen Glen. One of my favorite things about my house in Aspen Glen is my view of Sopris. While I am aware that owners of the lots across from me may some day build houses, I bought my property with the understanding that while my entire view will not be preserved as lots are developed, the rules in place would prohibit my view from being largely obstructed. The house at 60 Puma Ct, Carbondale CO 81623 will not obstruct my particular view, but if we start making exceptions, exceptions become rules. I fear that one day soon I will come home to a monstrous monument to excess being built across the street from me. Sincerely, 0 Cintra Pollack Marta J. Sundberg 218 East Valley Rd. #104-282 Carbondale, CO 81623 October 6, 2014 Community Development Department Garfield County 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 To Whom It May Concern: EXHIBIT 1 AAA V E OCT 1`u1014 GARS i E.1.D COUNTY FiFLOFMENT My home is located on Lot E-14 in Aspen Glen and I am very concerned about the requested Variance from the maximum building height for the house under construction on Lot E-8. If this Variance is allowed, it will set a precedent for other homes to be built on Puma Court and because of the lovely view of Mt. Sopris, they may all request such Variances. I am concerned that the allowance of this Variance will impact the value of my home. I respectfully request that you deny the requested Variance from the maximum building height for the house located on lot E-8. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, /14-4:1 Marta J. Sundberg EXHIBIT 0 Com. CoA6\06-Q. L_LC uA\ ovnuL auvn o GC.0C-t) G, Cit cen\cOncQ.� October 18, 2014 Mr. Glenn Hartman Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design ____,) EXHIBIT 1 Il RE: Review of Building Height Variance, Carbondale Glen Lot E-8: VARA -8075 Dear Glenn: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Building Height Variance Application of Carbondale Glen Lot E-8. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated no comments. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mou ain Cross Eng,'neeri g, Inc. is Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com EXHIBIT 112- COUNTY OF GARFIELD - BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at ? Permit No, '3/a'% I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: 4�z AppKiels-sc ❑ Call for Re -Inspection ❑ $50.00 Re -Inspection Fee must be paid prior to Re -Inspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 1-888-868-5306. Date Building Inspector Phone (970) 945-8212 20 Z COUNTY OF GARFIELD - BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at Permit No. I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: ❑ CaII for Re -Inspection ❑ $50.00 Re -Inspection Fee must be paid prior to Re -Inspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 1-888-868-5306. Date 20 Building Inspector Phone (970) 945-8212 STOP WORK ORDER - INSPECTOR'S PORTION re. K'ily L.( to DATE PERMIT NO. 902014 T 12pt HEIGHT 60 PUM... PDFzen I HEIGHT 60 PUMA.pdf Height Survey Verification Form (Jo he filled (lot h sun eyor prior to completion of rough framing and befor rough framing inspection) Property Location: ' Date: LILL I, f.11- Professional Land Stip:our of (name) The state of CuIoiidt Ithe proposed ground is: Fee Above Sea Level, I found the building height u he I Feet L nches abo‘e the proposed ground surface, ( please state as e sea it:VC1) .5urveyor°,,; signature Printed name t • '1 Company name -1 - Address T, City: State. /.its Phone Seal 12' /14 '*•• ,, () • 1.• ' About PDFzen Please Rate PDFzen 5 gfattciw Us On Twitter Report a Bug httWIrw,lf7ens-114d9,-4,h10,29+Mant6t