The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Director's Decision & Staff Report 04.21.2016Director Decision, April 21, 2016 Exhibits — Maiolo ADU Cooperton Townsite, File No. GAPA-03-16-8431 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Public Hearing Notice Affidavit, with attachments B Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended D Application E Staff Report F Email dated March 30, 2016 from Mike Prehm, Road & Bridge G Email dated April 19, 2106 from Bill Gavette, Carbondale & Rural Fire H Email dated April 19, 2016 from Mark O'Meara, Town of Carbondale I Letter dated April 19, 2106 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management J Email dated April 19, 2016 from Nancy Smith K Email dated April 20, 2016 from Denise and Mitch Gianinetti L Email dated April 21, 2016 from Mike Prehm, Road & Bridge M Director Decision N 0 P 0 R S T U Garfield County MAR 3 1 2016 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. D EXHIBIT 0 My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. n ,/�/� �+� Mailed notice was completed on the v day of J f IGt0 r,1 , 2016. All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other` means [list] t`f G 1`Y\\,A42Y'c.\ 1V\'eN'PSA S CM �('eC'c�.rcl ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. 0 My application required Published notice. Notice was published on the day of , 2016. ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. ❑ My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the day of , 2016. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: -;'02)\/\'" Y Y 1 G 1 6) 0 Signature:( - Date: 3) ? 1. . • os a ervice CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Dornestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website CARf3ONDALE,' CO 81623 Certified M Il Fes 45 $ at www.usps.com''. _., .., F,` ■ r IF 9 ;: ):5) ., LP Postm. p' Q _ Here p` y,' ,. 1G4/ 0 • Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee . — � 1 ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ '� ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ 1 1 I ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ 1 1 , � � DAdult Signature Required $ . ,,.e ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ • G;>GP Postage $0.49 t Z. • _ 416 and Total Postage d F es $ $6.74 s��egqt To V i5Y-v t.p "�[�'� &reel and.( pt 7�1' ., or FrUBoirl Via_ 2X_ i '' 1 CD PSForm 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530 52-000.0047 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service'" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com`'. or' .71, m $edified Mail Fee $3.45 1 c �� d *0531 N A�‹ 0$ y.Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee �� ❑ Retum Receipt (hardcopy) $ ` _'� Postm- 4,9 Here 0 °I.0".„ l6‘ ❑ Retum Receipt (electronic) $ $0.14 ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ 1 1 ❑ Adult Signature Required $ . - . ! ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ .. Postage $0.49 Oj �S r• " 1 6 `+ TotaloPstage and F$ees 6 74 $ SStietV 4' SG- ) L7 ti i ?••Le -it- andApt. No., orPO Boz No. Y ttate, 21P+45 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT 1 3 0 r n u 7 7 7 n a ti For de ebsite at www.usps.com'. CARBO -DALE? co 816n Certifi:d MAI $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, edd fee ❑ Retum Receipt (hardcopy) $ ❑ Retum Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ ❑ Aduf Signature Required $ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ total Postage and Fees $0.49 $ 161 Postmark Here MAR 3 i 2016 Sent To - (MIAS Foils\__ -3'1reeF ndApt 7�(0:; a tsd Box PTo. +A PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 753.0-02-000-9047 N ]U m 7015 1730 0002 3468 See Reverse for lnstructions r9 IT' M $ —0 m IL D D m r9 D r r-9 0— m —0 m n-1 D D D D m 13 ti . . • os a ervice CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only -For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com'. • ,w, t,: Certified Mail Fe ry $ $2.80 - r ��0 Ar':'. ' . ,p��7,,s_tmatk 0 , f/' �f� ea •+ 'er ■ 4$ v 4lip s t Extra Services & FeeD (check box, add fee ear oraaalYte) ❑ Retum Receipt (hardcopy) $ #iV�'. }�''MJ ❑ Retum Receipt (electronic) $ 0J40J� ,ry ❑ Certified Malt Restricted Delivery $ $fir r 00 ❑ Adult Signature Required $ $0-00 - ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ - Postage #0.49 total Postage and Fe.74 ii $ sprit jo` 1( SYN - -k eel imiti t -7W., of 1521Boz No. o : 4X5S" e, 21 a _ •. t. AL --4 0 : Z PS)rorrti-3800. Apri, 2015 PSN 7530 02=000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions i I U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Dornestic Mail Only 1 For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com". DEl.ia 1�sia i is r �■��1. Certified Mail Fee #3. 4 $ 0531�< 9,p 08 O PostRl( • t7A Here !6A, A4t . S CIF) f_13l311l2t71 b Extra Services & Fees (check box add fee ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ �r�j ■ lI ❑ Retum Receipt (electronic) $ $0-00 o Certsfied Mall Ve" 1 #O. (ii',;., . signature Required ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ $0.00 Postage $0.49 Total Postage and Fees $ $6.74 Sent To '1)1 vel -- ' - - - - - - 1 t. o., r Ivo. .tare, 2;Pi 4e !r A. ‘i • t02. •-112°1 IPS Form 3800, April 2015 PON 7530.02 000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions ' U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only •v yi t iQ it a .s. .t, CA TIN. VYI i 0531 08 •V `+a Y;, Q BON HereIllor .� n .... o co S ? °? Certified Mail Fee #3.45 $ $9_:1 A.13J31-1121 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee t$ -Y . ,� Y- ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ inA ■ ❑ Retum Receipt (electronic) $ $0 . 000 ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ $0.00 ." ['Adult Signature Required $ ! 11 ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0.49 $ Total Postage and F $66.74 $So, ti ro it WV—K. Egan Ifr1e - , &feel elf- ApiTfo, or750 Box ilio. it Certi" � ri D�z rare,e Le,(D r/1o23-IS-7Z * PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal ervice CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information visit our yrebsite at www.usps.com'. CARBONDALE. CO Certified Mail Fee $3.4.5 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add feeagU e ❑ Retum Receipt (hardcopy) . $ irU . 1.1. ['Return Receipt (electronic) $ ['Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ ❑ Adult Signature Required $ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ $0.49 Total Postage and Fiet74 $ S To Svee andApCli'fo:,orrFrOWox7t%. O ti Q ( ,PS Form 3800, April 2015PSN7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only f_ "nforma CARBOND 'sit our website at www.usps.con1 . i E r CO 81623 Certified Mail Fw 3 2 / r $ Extra Services & Fees (check box add fee ❑ Return RPs9 $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ ❑ Adult Signature Required $ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0.49 Total Postage and Fb.74 $0 -Ori 80.00 Salt To i hey lfilkox Gt"i!"YIG�_ GQ..De"? � � tandA__.__7: ptTo., or ,. rmoa1e GO ; /102 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions 1. . 'os a ervice CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com. • •a;,�t, .,., t Certified Mail Fee $3.455' $7-80 Extra Services & Fees (check box add tee aa.t ypre ate) ❑ Retum Receipt (hardcopy) $ 7U tJU ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ ❑ Adult Signature Required $ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0.49 $ Total Postage and Fees 74 $ SSntTo SiYeeanifi Mstare,iP,aaa Cwt i 17cra4tcic/cu ffox7rfo. Co 2 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions N D co m ru i D i D D m N ri rR D N ru D m N rq rR D U.S. Postal Service''" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www,usps.com'". '7`??:rFee Certified Mall Fee $3.45 Extra Services & Fees (check box add fee Rp) ❑ Retum Receipt (hardcopy) $ i • ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ $0.01) . ❑ Certified Mali Restricted Delivery $ ❑Adult Signature Required $ ['Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ Total Postage and $0.49 .74 Sent To .{o�to (),In . Ic}nw l -��tvi eeiandApf. . orP goic ro. oy cit • ..-LA Le a2 , to Z PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 753002.0009047 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery i, nfornlation,.-vtslt-ourwebsite at www.usps.com'. CARBONDAL_E , CO 8 Certified Mail Fee $3.45 Extra Services & Fees (check box add ❑ Retum Receipt (burdcopy) $ ❑ Retum Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ ❑Adult Signature Required $ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ $0.49 Total Postage and Nee 74 Sent To T tand �lt r , or' �oirlCro. ai , - f'1` - ft�iP+a 623 • Ro 23 4 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02.000-9047 See Reverse for instructions _a r r n 0 0 r1 J3 3 U.S. Postal Service'm CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivep inform boo vist o ,website at www.u.sps. corn% E ? CE1 gt 623 Certifie-dTviaIl Fee• $3.45 Extra Services & Fees (check 1)048d:tree o Return Receipt (hardcopy) 0 Retum Receipt (electronic) 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ El Adult Signature Required El Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0.49 • Total Postage and Fees 6.74 $0_00 NI $0.00 Sent To &ACV 4DeAr \I Ve t Or ME& W•Q___S-Gl ,?TP -1-4* • PS Form 3800, April 2015 P3f17530-02-c00-9047 81(02 3 See Reverse for Instructions, 1. . 'os a ervice CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com'. 14 0,21 USE • ...0531 .138 Certified Mail Fee $3.45 a Extra services & Fees (checkbox, add fee arepratire) El Retum Receipt (hardcopy) Ei Retum Receipt (electronic) 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ o Adult Signature Required [(Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0.49 Total Postage and F74 ai t To 19-nv-p-A I —rjes treet anc170-1.1%., on156Eralrki. ---- • tc)t.n. ricsr • riLeZ SFdrm38OO, April 2015 RStV 7530 02-000-9047 dt-aCenell See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.coar CARBONDALE/ CO 81623 Certified ivi ail Fe , 3.45 $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, ed.80 ocjilge Retum Receipt (harclooPY) 0.1 o Retum Receipt (electronic) o Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ [(Adult Signature Required [(Adrift Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ $0.49 Total Postage and Fees $6.74 L -r) nt To 1-9 gilieliind - t.195.:OFFO-IffiiWo. r N ./F" F -----I • 110(-c tiy,-atili:2- i US ef PS Form 3800, April 2015-PSN7i30-02-000-904.7 See Reverse for Instructions EXHIBIT Maiolo ADU APA -03-16-8431 April 21, 2016 KE PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW Administrative Review — Land Use Change Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) APPLICANT (OWNER) Brent and Cara Maiolo LOCATION West of the Town of Carbondale in the Cooperton Townsite (aka Satank) at 70 Mesa Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION Cooperton Townsite, Tract A, Block 3 Assessor's Parcel No. 2393-283-03-012 ACRES .56 -acres (24,393.6 square feet) ZONING Residential Urban Maiolo Parcel Red mi Town of Carbondale P -- Figure I Vicinity Map I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Applicant is requesting approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit on a .56 -acre parcel located within the Residential Urban zone district, as shown in Figure 1. The required minimum lot size in this zone district is 7,500 square feet, and an ADU is subject to a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The subject site is 24,393.6 square feet and therefore qualifies to apply for an ADU. The ADU proposed will be less than the maximum 1,500 square feet and is proposed to contain one bedroom. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE A single family home has been constructed on the site and the owner seeks allowance for a secondary unit located above a detached garage on the lot. Access to the site is an existing driveway off of Mesa Avenue and the site has adequate areas for off-street parking and snow storage for the proposed ADU Maiolo ADU Director Decision, April 21, 2016 and other existing uses on the property. Mesa Avenue is a public road that is not maintained by the County. III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. The Land Use Tables contained in Section 3-403 of the LUDC designates an Accessory Dwelling Unit within the Residential Urban Zone District as requiring Administrative Review. B. Section 4-103 of the LUDC sets forth the Administrative Review Procedures by which the current Application is being considered. C. Article 7 of the Land Use and Development Code sets forth General approval standards in Division 1, General Resource Protection Standards in Division 2 and Site Planning and Development Standards in Division 3. Accessory Dwelling Units are also subject to Section 7-701. The standards are addressed in the Application submittals and in the Staff Analysis section of this report. 2 Maiolo ADU Director Decision, April 21, 2016 IV. PUBLIC AND REFERRAL COMMENTS The Applicant has provided documentation that all required notice mailings have been completed in accordance with the LUDC. Referral and public comments received on the Application are attached as Exhibits and summarized below: Garfield County Road and Bridge, Exhibits F and L: No driveway permit is necessary for the site. Mesa Avenue is not maintained by Garfield County. Garfield County Vegetation Manager, Exhibit 1: Disturbance is minimal therefore Vegetation Management has no comments. Town of Carbondale, Exhibit H: Mike O'Meara responded that the water supply will be through the Satank Water Association who purchases water from the Town of Carbondale. The provision of supply on record for this house and ADU is 1 tap for each lot. Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, Exhibit G: There is adequate water supply and access for fire protection to the site. Book Cliff, Mount Sopris & South Side Conservation District: No response received ar 1 a.<. a PPCc' PITY FO NC kV?, k *CST Figure 3 Site Plan yB!TMCP 3, TRAIT h #M:trWAY PLAT, 1iE4:? P7 .E 4AFAC3 C PL'C• 91Ct Proposed ADU over garage north S1T:1 FLAN L1 44: w: 3 Maiolo ADU Director Decision, April 21, 2016 Nancy Smith, Exhibit J: Ms. Smith is the Applicant's architect as well as the manager of the Satank Water Authority. This email raises questions with regard to the provision of water to serve the proposed ADU, stating that the shared well may be utilized due to tap fee costs to the Town of Carbondale. Adjacent Property Owners — 1. Mitch and Denise Gianinetti, Exhibit K: The Gianinetti's have responded in opposition to the requested ADU due to the following issues: a. The possible use of a shared well that serves multiple properties; b. OWTS c. Neighborhood Impact d. Traffic Impact 2. Charlotte Bailey: Ms. Bailey contacted the County by phone on April 21, 2016 to voice her opposition to the application. She cited issues regarding the area being too crowded with buildings and overcrowded in general, Mesa Avenue conditions included the size of the road and the volume of traffic, the shared well of which she is one of the properties, access and easements related to the well house which is located on the Applicant's property, proposed parking area on the well access easement, and septic issues. V. LUDC Review Article 7, Division 1: General Standards Section 7-101: Compliance with Zone District Use Regulations The property is in general compliance with Zone District Regulation for the Residential Urban Zone District. Section 7-102: Conformance with Comprehensive Plan and compliance with IGAs The site is designated as Urban Growth Area by the Future Land Use Map in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The review then is based upon the Town of Carbondale Comprehensive Plan which designates this site as Phase 2 Potential Annexation: Infill Areas. Satank (Cooperton) is a low priority according to the explanation of the Phase 2 InfiII Areas, but also states that the area currently functions as a part of the town. Demand for sewer could motivate petitions for annexation but the opportunities for public benefit to the town are few. Section 7-103: Compatibility The proposed use is located in a residential area and will not significantly alter or impact this residential character. The area surrounding the subject property is predominantly residential in nature. Section 7-104: Sufficient, Adequate, Legal and Physical Source of Water The Applicant stated that the site will be served public water by the Town of Carbondale 4 Maiolo ADU Director Decision, April 21, 2016 through the Satank Water Association. The Town has confirmed this by email, Exhibit H. Section 7-105: Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Mark O'Meara responded for the Town, Exhibit H, "...that there is a provision for supply on record for this house and ADU as 1 tap for each lot." Section 7-106: Adequate Public Utilities The site appears to be currently served with adequate public utilities. Section 7-107: Access and Driveways The application was referred to the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department and they indicated that the current access is sufficient. Adjacent owners have identified road traffic and maintenance as an issue, however the road is public but not maintained by Garfield County based upon Exhibit L. Section 7-108: Natural Hazards The area is a developed subdivision, therefore little impact from natural hazards is expected to occur. Section 7-109: Fire Protection The Application was referred to the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District and no issues were identified by the District. Article 7, Division 2: General Resource Protection Standards Section 7-201 Agricultural Lands The proposed development is accessory to the primary dwelling unit on the subject property. The property is not currently being used for agricultural purposes, however a ditch does exist at the rear of the lot. There is adequate distance and the ditch is lined. Section 7-202 Wildlife Habitat Areas The proposed ADU is located adjacent to the single family home, therefore no significant impact to wildlife habitat is expected. Section 7-203 Protection of Waterbodies The proposed ADU is located on a site that is adjacent to the Roaring Fork River however the grade change is significant and as a result no impact to waterbodies is anticipated. Section 7-204 Drainage and Erosion The topography of the subject property shows general positive drainage from the property. As the driveway is currently in place no significant change to the topography or drainage from the property is expected. The Applicant has requested and was provided a waiver from submitting a full Grading and Drainage Plan for the ADU. 5 Maiolo ADU Director Decision, April 21, 2016 Sections 7-205 Environmental Quality No water or air quality issues are anticipated from the proposed project. Section 7-206 Wildfire Hazards The subject property is generally identified as a low wildfire hazard rating according to the Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Section 7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards No significant natural or geologic hazards have been identified on the subject property. Section 7-208 Reclamation Minimal disturbance is anticipated in completing the ADU as the driveway and other improvements are currently in place. Article 7, Division 3, Site Planning and Development Standards Section 7-301 Compatible Design The ADU use is generally compatible with surrounding residential land uses. Section 7-302 Off- Street Parking and Loading Standards: The Applicant has demonstrated through site plans that adequate off-street parking exists for the ADU and primary dwelling unit. This parking is required to be provided outside of the 15' Well and Waterline Easement on the property. Sections 7-303 Landscaping Standards: The LUDC specifically exempts ADUs from Section 7-303. Section 7-304 Lighting: The Applicant has stated that the structure will comply with this standard and that all lighting will be downcast and shielded. Section 7-305 Snow Storage Standards: There is adequate area within the lot to meet minimum snow storage standards. Section 7-306 Trail and Walkway Standards: No recreational or community facility access areas are proposed. Article 7, Division 7, Accessory Dwelling Unit Section 7-701.A Maximum Floor Area: The proposed ADU will not exceed the maximum of 1,500 square feet in size. Section 7-701.B. Ownership Restriction: The Applicant understands that the ADU is restricted to leasehold interest. 6 Maiolo ADU Director Decision, April 21, 2016 Section 7-701.C. Compliance with Building Code: The Applicant has represented that the ADU will comply with all building codes. Section 7-701.D. Minimum Lot Area: The lot area is .56 -acres and as a result the minimum lot area requirement of twice the minimum lot size in Residential Urban zone district is satisfied. Section 7-701.E. Entrance to Dwelling Unit: The Applicant is proposing the ADU to be above a separate building from the primary dwelling unit. As a result, the ADU as proposed will comply with this standard. VI. STAFF COMMENTS A. Adequacy of Water — A public water supply is available to serve this site, subject to compliance with the Satank Water Association and Town of Carbondale requirements. Provision of a public water supply is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is stated in the application as the water supply for the ADU. Adjacent owners have identified issues with regard to the ADU sharing the well that is currently used for the Maiolo single family home and other properties on Mesa Avenue, Exhibit K, however the application clearly states that the site will be served by public water and a condition of approval has been added to assure this provision. B. Impact to Neighborhood Character — Exhibit K, comments from an adjacent owner questions the potential impact to the neighborhood character, including the increase of traffic to what is essentially a dead-end street. Garfield County does not maintain this road, apparently by request of some of the adjacent property owners, and given the age of the subdivision it does not appear that a formal agreement exists with regard to who is responsible for maintaining the road. Maintenance issues were also identified with regard to the shared well and it doesn't appear that there is an agreements between users of the well on sharing of costs for the maintenance and operation of the well. With regard to the impact to the character of the neighborhood, the ADU will be residential in character and the existing zoning permits this use pursuant to compliance with the LUDC. C. On-site Ditches — This issue was identified by an adjacent owner, Exhibit K. The site plan does indicate the existence of a lined irrigation ditch running north/south on the east end of the site. A second ditch is located at the northwestern portion of the property and it does not appear that the proposed ADU will impact this ditch. 7 Maiolo ADU Director Decision, April 21, 2016 V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Staff recommends approval of the request for an ADU, subject to the conditions of approval, and provides the following findings in support: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Administrative Review Land Use Change Permit. 2. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 3. That with the adoption of conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. All representation of the Applicant contained in the application shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall submit a revised site plan removing allowance for parking from the 15' wide Well and Waterline Easement. No parking shall be permitted within the easement area. 3. The Applicant shall comply with Additional Standards for Residential Uses contained in Section 7-701, Accessory Dwelling Units, of the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. 4. The ADU shall be provided water through the Satank Water Association, with water provision from the Town of Carbondale. 5. Floor Area for the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. 6. The ADU shall be limited to one bedroom due to septic constraints. Should an expanded or new OWTS be permitted and constructed to serve the site the number of bedrooms may be increased. 7. The ADU shall be subject to all Garfield County Building Code Requirements. The property owner shall obtain any necessary Garfield County Building Permits for the proposed ADU structure. 8. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded and comply with Section 7-304, Lighting Standards, of the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. 8 Maiolo ADU Director Decision, April 21, 2016 9. An ADU is restricted to leasehold interest in the dwelling unit and is for residential or Home Office/Business use only, as described in the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. 9 Garfield Coun Re: Maiolo Accessory Dwelling Unit Kathy, Road & Bridge Date: March 30, 2016 In reviewing and doing a site visit, driveway has gravel, visibility for sight distance and drainage from residents is acceptable. No Driveway Permit would be required. Road & Bridge have no concerns with this application. Thanks for the opportunity to review this application. Mike Prehm Foreman R & B / Glenwood District (970) 945-1223 office (970) 945-1318 Fax Kathy A. Eastley From: Bill Gavette <gavette@carbondalefire.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:48 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: Maiolo Accessory Dwelling Unit - GAPA-03-16-8431 Kathy, a B EXHIBIT G- I have reviewed the submittal for the proposed Maiolo accessory dwelling unit. There is adequate water supply and access for fire protection to the site. I have no other issues with the proposal. Thanks, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District www.carbondalefire.org 970-963-2491 FIRE .LMS • RESCUE 1 Kathy A. Eastley From: Mark O'Meara <momeara@carbondaleco.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:55 AM To: John Leybourne; Kathy A. Eastley Cc: 'Nancy Smith' Subject: RE: ADU Attachments: satank watertap.pdf - Adobe Acrobat.pdf John & Kathy, b 9 EXHIBIT The water supply will be through the Satank Water Association (SWA). The SWA purchases water from the Town's municipal system. The SWA Colorado Public Water System ID# is CO0123726. The SWA Operator in Charge is Alberts Water & Wastewater Specialists, Inc., Marie Taylor is the contact I have for Alberts: Marie Taylor Water Compliance Manager Alberts Water & Wastewater Specialists, Inc. 425 John Deere Dr Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-549-8876 970-456-7946 Cell marie@awws.org Nancy Smith is probably the best contact for the SWA directly, she has been involved with the conversations we have had. I have copied her on this correspondence. There is provision for supply on record for this house and ADU as 1 tap for each lot. I understand that there will be one 3/4 " tap which will serve both the house and ADU. Let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks, Mark O'Meara Utility Director Town of Carbondale 970-963-3140 1 Note: The 5 Moore Moos - Moore Moore taps on Cedar 56. COM N N N ❑ member tapped Into system be used on either side of the street N❑ member NOT tapped Into system N member NOT tapped into system, no house --- 8" or 6" water main one 3/4" tap for 1 house and 1 ADU. T C O T 'Town supply to meter from meter Moore T Community School N Cedar 5t. i Perry Moore Moore n N N N ! �0 ✓1t`''''' Wilkinson IPowers n Palmer 5chelrbaum I C El u a Schelrtoum ' 5. Cedar 5t. P1 Pine St. ❑N Cyr \-....Z . 6laninettl N N N Portman 6 NewcomU Mitch bOlaninettl ..r saacs-- T T 6 inch existing line (SWA), this to be extended to serve house and ADU per owner Smith T Westerlind �. Hendricks 5 m Pine 5t. N Ig 2 N Williams Ii U Ferguson Mattorano Merritt Roberts IT Hanseirnan T Vego 8 T N T T 5. Pine St. IEKisker Legg ❑ ❑ ll meter / 8 a E a� H.H.4 B. Hendricks County Road 106 Ramirez T Hunter T County Road 105 T T n Wadley Wadley Singer Derry T Meeker T Forbes County Road 105 Satank Water ,Association - Top Map not to scale May, 2008 so April 19, 2016 Garfield Coun Kathy Eastley Garfield County Community Development Department RE: Maiolo ADU GAPA-03016-8431 Vegetation Management Dear Kathy, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit. After reviewing the application it appears any disturbance will be minimal, I have no comments on this application. Please let me know if you have any questions. Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 Kathy A. Eastley From: Nancy Smith <nancyva@sopris.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:07 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: Re: Maiolo ADU Hi Kathy, EXHIBIT Thanks for all the above -and -beyond -the -call -of -duty help you've been giving Brent and Cara Maiolo with their land use application. I am their architect as well as the manager of the Satank Water Association, so they've kept me informed about how helpful you have been. Regarding their water supply, Mark O'Meara has it wrong when he says the 3/4" tap will serve the ADU and the house. THE HOUSE WILL CONTINUE TO BE SERVED BY THE WELL, AND ONLY THE ADU WOULD BE CONNECTED TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY. Also, Brent told me a couple days ago that he had confirmed the possibility of buying augmentation water from Ruedi, via Basalt Water Conservancy, which he says should make it possible to serve the ADU from the well also. He says he talked to Andy about it, and I thought he had also talked to you about changing their ADU application to show that water would come from the well. Connecting to public water is just too expensive, mainly because of the Town's water tap fee, which is either $10,125 or $12,280, depending on who you talk to. I think that's kind of ridiculous when it is in-house use only for a one -bedroom ADU. Thanks, Nancy Original Message From: Kathy A. Eastley To: Mark O'Meara ; John Leybourne Cc: 'Nancy Smith' Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12:11 PM Subject: RE: ADU Thank you for the information. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keast l ey@ gar f i e l d -co unty. co m From: Mark O'Meara [mailto:momeara@carbondaleco.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:55 AM To: John Leybourne <ileybourne@carbondaleco.net>; Kathy A. Eastley <keastley@garfield-county.com> Cc: 'Nancy Smith' <nancyva@sopris.net> Subject: RE: ADU John & Kathy, The water supply will be through the Satank Water Association (SWA). The SWA purchases water from the Town's municipal system. The SWA Colorado Public Water System ID# is CO0123726. The SWA Operator in Charge is Alberts Water & Wastewater Specialists, Inc., Marie Taylor is the contact I have for Alberts: 1 Marie Taylor Water Compliance Manager Alberts Water & Wastewater Specialists, Inc. 425 John Deere Dr Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-549-8876 970-456-7946 Cell mariePawws.org Nancy Smith is probably the best contact for the SWA directly, she has been involved with the conversations we have had. I have copied her on this correspondence. There is provision for supply on record for this house and ADU as 1 tap for each lot. I understand that there will be one 3/4 " tap which will serve both the house and ADU. Let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks, Mark O'Meara Utility Director Town of Carbondale 970-963-3140 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7539 / Virus Database: 4556/12063 - Release Date: 04/19/16 2 Kathy A. Eastley From: Mitch/Denise Gianinetti <gianinetti22@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 9:34 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: Gianinetti, Mitch&Denise Subject: Mailo proposed Accessory Unit Ms.Eastley We (my husband Mitch Gianinetti & I ) are writing this letter opposing said proposed accessory unit that Mr & Mrs Maiolo have applied for a permit for. I do apologize for the late response. We do not get certified mail delivered to our door and getting to the post office often times proves difficult. First let me point out that when I spoke to Mr Maiolo about what he had sent us "certified" he simply stated that it was "no big deal,all they were doing is building a garage." I am sorry but an Accessory unit is NOT simply a garage. In any case we do have the following issues: shared well septic tank neighborhood impact private lane/traffic impact #1 -The implications of a possible 1500 ft apt/rental will greatly impact our private ,quiet neighborhood & private lane that already sees to much traffic which is already becoming an issue to the small children that live here. #2- We have a shared well that is of great concern as it already has 4 residances pulling water from it. 3 residances are on our 5 Tots that are ajoining the Mailos and have been there and in existance and using the well since the 1960's when my grandmother put them in.Long before the Maiolos residance or proposed accessory unit. As of this time we pay for 100% of the electrical cost to run the well. There are agreements in placed, filed with the county pertaining to the well & its use. We feel strongly the addition of a rental will adversly affect us and our property. #3 -Also to be considered is the fact that we have a 15' wide easement from the existing well house across the property to our 5 lots which when looking at the site plan could possible be blocked with potential rental vehicles etc as the plan indicates that the "parking area" is partially in the easement which typically is not an issue however with tenants ,guests etc that always brings in more issues then one sees at first glance. The site plan indicates the possibility of a MUCH INCREASED rate of traffic down our lane which as it stands is mostly maintained at our cost. My husband does all plowing of the lane, grating, filling of pot holes etc. due to the already increasing traffic as it is without any compensation from neighboring residents. THE COUNTY DOES NOT MAINTAIN OUR PRIVATE LANE and we are fast getting over crowded by new homeowners and this constant effort to "share expenses" by building something then "adding on" a rental. Obviously the traffic is already an ongoing issue which will only be made that much more apparent if this should be approved. 1 #4 -We are concerned that our well may not be allocated for another unit to pull enough water so as not to affect the existing units already pulling from it. As well as the the setbacks from ditches, lot lines and the Maiolos own septic. The unit appears to be very close on all sides. All in all I have to say that my family has owned property here, this property on mesa ave since 1848. We have watched, sadly as our small,quiet family community has turned into a "bedroom" rental, community. We have watched as people have moved here with the oohs and awws that "its so wonderful" and they want to keep it "just as it is" then the next thing you see is an ADU being put in here, an accessory unit being put in there. Its over the garage, its behind the house its "whatever, wherever." This is being done being done so that they can rent out the property to pay for a mortgage that they likely couldnt afford and all at the expense of our community, our neighborhood. If you drive through Sutank this is all that you'll find; people arent trying to build a place to make a home, they are building a place then turning around and "adding" on or converting a garage into a rental with an Accessory unit. Forget how it affects the surrounding neighbors and long time residents that have lived their entire lives here, nevermind the impact it will ultimately have on their lives. We are asking the Dept of community developement to decline this permit at this time as we feel it will negatively impact our existing well, our easement,our existing residences,the private lane & the surrounding neighborhood and add that much more of a negative impact on our community with the increase in traffic since there is no way of knowing or limiting how much additional traffic this could potentially create. thank you for your consideration on this matter, Denise & Mitch Gianinetti 2 Kathy A. Eastley From: Michael Prehm Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:29 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Mesa Avenue Hi Kathy, Mesa Avenue is a non maintained country road, we do not do any maintenance in there. Mike Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: "Kathy A. Eastley" <keastley@garfield-county.com> Date: 04/21/2016 12:43 PM (GMT -07:00) To: Michael Prehm <mprehm@garfield-county.com> Subject: Mesa Avenue Hi Mike, EXHIBIT I You had responded to an ADU request in Satank — file number GAPA-03-16-8431. The site is located on Mesa Avenue and owned by Brent and Cara Maiolo. We have had questions related to the maintenance of Mesa Avenue — does the county maintain this road? Thanks for your time. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county.com 1 April 21, 2016 D EXHIBIT Garfield County Brent and Cara Maiolo 70 Mesa Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 maioloconstruction@gmail.com Reference: Maiolo ADU Garfield County File Number GAPA-03-16-8431 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Maiolo; This letter is being provided to you in regard to a General Administrative Review Application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit on your property. The proposed use is at 70 Mesa Avenue, located approximately in the Cooperton Townsite, adjacent to the Town of Carbondale. The site is also known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2393- 283-03-012. The Director's Determination on the Application is based on the following findings and subject to the Applicant's submittal documents and representations as well as conditions of approval. 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Administrative Review Land Use Change Permit. 2. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 3. That with the adoption of conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. A Director's Decision is hereby issued approving the Application with the following conditions. 1. All representation of the Applicant contained in the application shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall submit 1 a revised site plan removing allowance for parking from the 15' wide Well and Waterline Easement. No parking shall be permitted within the easement area. 3. The Applicant shall comply with Additional Standards for Residential Uses contained in Section 7-701, Accessory Dwelling Units, of the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. 4. The ADU shall be provided water through the Satank Water Association, with water provision from the Town of Carbondale. 5. Floor Area for the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. 6. The ADU shall be limited to one bedroom due to septic constraints. Should an expanded or new OWTS be permitted and constructed to serve the site the number of bedrooms may be increased. 7. The ADU shall be subject to all Garfield County Building Code Requirements. The property owner shall obtain any necessary Garfield County Building Permits for the proposed ADU structure. 8. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded and comply with Section 7-304, Lighting Standards, of the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. 9. An ADU is restricted to leasehold interest in the dwelling unit and is for residential or Home Office/Business use only, as described in the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. This Determination will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for a period of 10 days so that they may determine whether or not to call up the application for further review. According to the Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-112(A), "a call-up may be initiated by the BOCC, the Director, the Applicant, or any affected Adjacent Property Owner." Should this time period pass with no request for review or public hearing, the decision shall be final. Please contact this department if you have any questions. Sincerely, Imo, 1 Tamra Allen, AICP Acting Director of Community Development Department CC: Board of County Commissioners file 2