HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 CorrespondenceGlenn Hartmann
From: Tim Thulson [Tim@balcombgreen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:01 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann
Cc: Bobshapl @aol.com; Larry Green; Robert Gavrell
Subject: RE: Carbondale Glen Lot E-8 Packet Materials
Glenn,
To follow-up on my earlier telephone message, Carbondale Glen Lot E-8 LLC has instructed me as its
representative to withdraw the above referenced application for variance; accordingly, the hearing presently scheduled
to occur before the Garfield County Board of Adjustment on October 27th should be vacated. Thanks for your efforts on
this matter, they were appreciated.
Tim Thulson
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 790
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6546
(970) 618-9914
From: Glenn Hartmann[mailto:ghartmann@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:57 PM
To: Tim Thulson
Subject: Carbondale Glen Lot E-8 Packet Materials
Hi Tim: Attached is the packet materials for the Board of Adjustment meeting. I'll look forward to meeting tomorrow
afternoon at 4:00 p.m. We can discuss any questions you have at that time. If you can bring the public notice
information to the meeting I will get it to Kelly Cave so she can review it prior to the meeting.
Thanks.
Glenn Hartmann
Community Development Department
1
Erik J. & Katherine S. Blomqvist
5 Cambria Road East
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
October 20, 2014
Community Development Department
Garfield County Plaza Building
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
OCT 242014
Re: File No. VARA -8075
Lot E-8, Aspen Glen Filing No. 1, according to the plat thereof recorded April 6, 1995 as
Reception No. 476330
To whom it may concern:
I request the applicant be DENIED its request to increase the maximum building height by
approximately 30 inches above that allowed by the Aspen Glen PUD Zone Text for the
following reasons:
1) My wife and I recently completed a home at 540 Diamond A Ranch Road East ("Our
Residence"), and complied with all zoning laws and restrictions. To comply with height
restrictions, we incurred additional architectural and engineering fees; as well as made
design modifications. Needless to say additional construction costs were incurred. These
laws/restrictions are clearly documented in various publications, and the local architects,
engineers, contractors and attorneys know them well. My attorney even had me read so
we understood. Most of the laws/restrictions were known to us before we bought the lot,
and abided by such during construction.
2) From the front of Our Residence, we can see the applicant's property, and to view a home
that is 30 inches out of compliance, when other residences are within known guidelines in
this planned community, is unacceptable. One of the reasons we selected the Aspen Glen
area was restrictions like this that preserve the attractiveness of the community and
surrounding area.
3) A variance of one or two inches is one thing, but 30 inches is unconscionable and
irresponsible.
4) We are concerned this will set a precedent for other unreasonable variance requests.
I will be unable to personally attend the public hearing in Glenwood Springs on October 27,
2014 at 6:30pm, but I will be glad to explain or clarify my concerns by phone or in writing.
Very truly yours,
Blofgvist
Cc: Leslie Lamont
Tim Thulson, Balcomb & Green
October 22, 2014
Board Members of Garfield County Community Development
We are in receipt of the notification of request for a height variance for Lot E-8 in Aspen Glen.
This lot is located directly behind our home.
We feel the Aspen Homeowners Association guidelines for homedimensions always have been,
and still are there to provide building parameters, thus respecting existing property owners' interests.
It is our understanding that the height guidelines for Aspen Glen follow the county guidelines.
We bought into the development early nearly 15 yearswith the understanding that the homes
would be buiilt to the highest architectural standards.
It is indeed unfortunate that the structure in question is erected, but its' design is now out of scale
and somewhat unsightly. Developers need to be responsible for the actions/mistakes of their builders
and construction site managers.
We would be very disappointed if the county allowed the variance, and feel it would be a
very slippery slope to descend, possibly leading to the building of more unsightly structures in
Aspen Glen.
Thank you so much,
Respectfully, Dr. Paula Barclay and Dr. Collyer Kelling