Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.09.2004Exhibits for Special Use Permit for an ADU (BOCC) 2/9/04 .................. Exhibit Late A Proof of Mail Recei .ts and Postin B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978 D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Application Materials F Staff Memorandum G Memo from County Road and Bridge Department dated 1/20/04 Letter to BOCC from "concerned and watchfultax payers" u li Ll It )b`V'1 60\t0 / / J v - k 215/7 Afm 2-4 1-74/d 2. Wift dry). ut 46,05f 0w h A-011. 7 6 w, BOCC 02/09/04 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Applicant requests SUP to convert an existing dwelling unit on the property to an ADU APPLICANT(S) Robert and Stella Ramus LOCATION EXISTING ZONING ADJACENT ZONING The subject property is addressed as 5647 County Road 306, Parachute. A/R/RD (Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density) A/R/RD ACCESS County Road 306 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Development Proposal The Applicant requests approval to designate an existing dwelling unit on the subject property as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) so that it may be accessory to a new modular dwelling unit to be placed on the property as the primary dwelling unit. B. Site and Project Description The subject property consists of approximately 41 acres. The subject property is improved with an existing modular residence, 3 shed buildings, and a trailer. II. REFERRAL COMMENTS The application was referred to the following entities for comment: > County Road and Bridge Department: Exhibit > Town of Parachute: No comments received. A. Zoning The subject property is zoned A/R/RD (Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density). The zoning adjacent to the subject property is also A/R/RD. The A/R/RD zone district allows for a minimum 1 lot area of 2 acres. Accessory Dwelling Units are uses identified as Special Uses in the A / R / RD zone district and require a public hearing process. B. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan The subject property is located in Study Area 3 of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The property is not located within any 2 -mile sphere of influence of any surrounding towns, i.e. Parachute or Rifle. The proposed land use designation on the subject property is "Outlying Residential". Outlying Residential assumes the underlying zoning or a minimum of 2 acres per dwelling unit in theA/R/RD. C. Applicability Pursuant to Section 9.03 of the Zoning Resolution, an application for a Special Use Permit ("SUP") shall be approved or denied by the Board of County Commissioners after holding a public hearing thereon in conformance with all provisions of the Zoning Resolution. II. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS The application was referred to the following agencies, for comments. Comments that were received have been integrated throughout this memorandum where applicable. 1. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Exhibit G III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT A. Section 5:03 Pursuant to Section 5.03, special uses shall conform to all requirements listed thereunder and elsewhere in the Zoning Resolution, plus the following standards: 1. Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff Response Regarding wastewater, the existing modular to be designated as the ADU is presently served by an ISDS. The Applicant proposes to serve the new modular with a new ISDS. The property has been historically served by a well permitted by the state that has officially run dry. At present, the Applicant's haul water to the property. Initially, the Applicant proposed to only construct two 1,750 gallon cisterns to serve as the property's water supply. The County does not allow this scenario to be adequate as a long term water supply. In order to obtain an appropriate water source, the Applicants obtained a new well permit (#254145) and drilled a new well to serve the two residences. The well will water into two cisterns then pumped to each house with booster pumps. Regarding adequate physical supply, a pump test has been completed on the new well by Samuelson Pump Co. indicating that the well produces 1.3 gallons a minute or 1872 gallons a day which will be adequate to serve the two residences. The calculation the county commonly uses to determine physical adequacy is 100 gallons per person / per day and that each household contains 2 3.5 persons; therefore, two residences combined require a minimum of 700 gallons a day which is far less than what is produced. 2. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff Response There is an existing access driveway off of County Road 306 which provides access to the existing residential unit and outbuildings. The County Road and Bridge Department has issued a new access permit for a new 12 foot driveway. The existing 12 foot driveway will be removed and not used after the new driveway is approved. Road and Bridge has no other issues other than overweight / oversize permits may be needed to move the new home on County roads. This is the responsibility of the seller of the home or the transporter. Comments were received from Jake Mall, Road and Bridge Department (see Exhibit G). 3. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. Staff Response The modular unit to be converted to an ADU is a single -story dwelling located approximately 450 feet from the front property line and County Road 306 on a 41 acre property. The new dwelling to be located on the property is approximately 331 feet from the front property line and County Road 306. The subject property as well as the surrounding properties are all zoned for residential use and consist of large lots at least 40 acres in size. Any new exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the lot, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. No signs are proposed as part of this request. IV. CRITERIA FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (SECTION 5.03.21) Pursuant to section 5.03.21 of the Zoning Regulations, use of a structure as an accessory dwelling unit approved by Special Use shall meet the following standards, as well as all other standards applicable to residential use: 1. The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site with slopes less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size. Staff Response The subject property contains approximately 41 acres. The existing improvements avoid slopes in excess of 40%. This standard is met. 2. The gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft. 3 Staff Response The residence proposed for the ADU contains approximately 924 square feet, which does not exceed the maximum floor area allowed. This standard is met. 3. Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by covenant if applicable. Staff Response The property is not located within a subdivision. No covenants are applicable to this property. This standard is met. 4. Proof of a legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit. Staff Response The Applicant has obtained a well permit and drilled a well on the property to serve the ADU as well as the existing residence to be designated as the ADU. The Applicant proposes to use 1,700 gallon cisterns to serve as holding tanks for the two residential units on the property. This standard is met. 5. Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations or proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatment facility. Staff Response The existing unit to be converted to an ADU presently uses an existing ISDS and the new unit to be moved on the property will also be required to obtain a septic permit from Garfield County. This standard is met. 6. Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units are allowed. Staff Response The Applicant will comply with this requirement. The ADU will not have a separate ownership interest. 7. That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code requirements. Staff Response Staff understands that the County only regulates the foundation a modular house sits on, as well as the decks, steps, and landings. The State Division of Housing regulates how modular homes are built and manufactured. The Applicant shall be aware that since this structure is pre-existing and non- conforming, additions and / or modifications to the structure are not allowed. Pursuant to section 7:05 of the Zoning Resolution, the structure may be replaced provided it meets the requirements of the Building Code Resolution of the County and not exceed 1,500 square feet in size. The Building Plans for the new residence are currently on hold in the Building and Planning Department until approval for the ADU is granted by the County. 4 V. STAFF FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and 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 proposed Special Use Permit has been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has met the requirements of Special Use (Sections 5:03 and 9:03) in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978. 5. That the applicant has met the requirements of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (Section 5.03.21) in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board APPROVE the Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit for Robert and Stella Ramus subject to the following conditions: 1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. Only leasehold interests in the ADU shall be allowed. The unit may not be sold separately. 3. The existing (52.5' x 11.4') "trailer" shown on the site plan shall not be used in any form as a dwelling unit on the property. -11„ 'Zeal( ti 4. Additions and / or modifications to the structure are not allowed. Pursuant to section 7:05 of the Zoning Resolution, the structure may be replaced provided it meets the requirements of the Building Code Resolution of the County and not exceed 1,500 square feet in size. VII. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve the Special Use Permit request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit for a property located at 5647 County Road 306." 5 @1/26/2004 19:53 6258627 ROAD AND BRIDGE GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent. 1/20/04 Comments Due: 2/3/04 Name of application Ramus SUP Sent to: Garfl& County Rid andDridtDept. PAGE .", EXHIBIT r b ....,w., --- - Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff contact: Fred Jarman 109 821k Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970484-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General comments: I have already issuod a nw.cess Rgrmit for a navy drivex+�lt T existing driveway will be 1 mov :. d u i the , d 'v a h ov R ed to has ve the n . sib- .• ,• • 144 the home or the transporter. is th r - s . ons* ' ilit o he se Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge D By: a B. : 1 Date 1/27/04 Revised 3/30/00 EXHIBIT January 31, 2004 0 > 2r�' -"HELD c 'G&P.. ;sJG Garfield County Planning Dept. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 We have received a notice from your department regarding a Robert and Stella Ramos of 5647 County Road 306, Parachute, CO. stating that they have applied for a special use permit to have an accessory dwelling on their property. This goes against all of the county's regulations regarding forty acre parcels zoned agriculture, and goes against county regulations regarding more than one family dwelling per forty acres. The Ramos currently have three other mobile homes on this property. At any given time there are upwards of five families living on this property. Not only is this against county regulations, but there is no septic, sewer or water well on this property for any of these dwellings. Therefore we feel that if you are going to grant them "special privileges because they are Hispanics from California, everyone will want to do this in the county. And of you grant them this permit, then we feel that they should have to remove all other units on their property. We also do not feel they should have agriculture status, as they have no water rights, and raise no crops considered agriculture. We most assuredly oppose this action By them and you to allow them another unit on this parcel. Sincerely, Concerned, and watchful taxpayers C: John Martin February 5, 2004 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8 Street #213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Larry McCown This letter is in response to the notice we received regarding a special use permit applied for by a Robert and Stella Ramos of 5647 County Road 306, Parachute, CO. They are asking for special consideration to move in another house or in this case a large factory built home, the problem is, they already have three other mobile home units on their forty acres. This was done after Garfield County made it a zoning law that only one family unit per forty acres. And several people had been allowed to put other dwellings on their property during the boom. We are saying that we do not want any more dwellings on these forty acres. There is currently no water or sewer in place, and they have been living on this property for years without water and sewer. However if they have recently drilled a water well, they still have no adequate sewer. If they are granted special permission to put yet another house on this forty acres, everyone else will want to put more up more dwellings. We feel, therefore that they must remove all other mobile homes before they are allowed to put any more houses on this property. We have been told in the past by Garfield County; that the zoning regulations specify one family dwelling per forty acres, not four. Sincerely, John arid Doroth auroth Parachute, CO February 9, 2004 Board of County Commissioners 108 8th St Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Protest of Application for Special Use Permit for ADU by Stella & Robert Ramos at 5647 CR 306, Parachute, CO. Dear Commissioners Martin, McCowen & Houpt: Please give careful consideration to the following concerns: 1) Over the past years that the Ramos have owned the property, there appears to have been an inordinate amount of traffic going in and out of the property, suggesting that many more than one or two families lived there. But there has not been a functioning well as the `staff response notes' confirm in the `Project Information and Staff Comments' section of the application file. Yet, the Ramos's had not remedied this situation to be in compliance with the County, but rather their letter of application suggests they planned to continue this practice, with the County's blessing. As a property owner and taxpayer for over 50 years, I am well aware of the history of dry wells in this area if water is not used conservatively; for example, their neighbor Walling, experienced a dry well. It appears that the new well on the subject property shows similar data as the first well in terms of g.p.m. and depth of water, etc., so how long will it be before the second well runs dry with the current conditions and proposed increased use? 2) This brings up the matter of sanitation. A septic system is only as viable as the water source. If the County is going to allow these exemptions, are you also committing to follow-up in the future and monitor these sanitation systems with proper inspection in the event of dry wells? It is one thing to grant approval based upon current conditions, but are you willing to look ahead to the outcomes and proactively address this through the review process? 3) Regarding the ADU, not surprisingly, your `staff response notes' show that it is non -conforming, and that other mobile homes have been converted into "storage units." As this turnover or conversion process continues and these structures deteriorate, the County is faced with disposal of aging mobile homes 10,20,30 years down the road. In the meantime, these so-called "storage units" can be and, we believe, are used as dwelling units, further taxing the water and sanitation. Incidentally, when people contact the modular housing company, they are told, "There is no zoning, don't worry about zoning." I believe that perception speaks for itself r, 9 2004 1 4) A letter in the file from the Sexton Survey Company stated that the applicant felt there would be little impact on traffic with an average of three vehicles per day. Past experience has shown the traffic to be much more than this, and that the drivers do not seem to understand or be willing to drive on the right side of the road, and that if a driver meets an oncoming car, it is the responsibility of both parties to move over. As a result, there have been conflicts because of the driving practices and increased traffic that the use of this property has brought to the area. Finally, I want to make it clear that my family and I do not oppose Mr. & Mrs. Ramos improving their living conditions or the resale value of the property, and that it is commendable that they want to care for their ailing mother/grandmother. However, I do urge you to carefully review this application, because past observations and experience have raised serious questions about compliance with the laws. We believe the water and sanitation will not be adequate to serve the needs of this property. Therefore, we believe this application is not in the best interests of the health, safety or prosperity of Garfield County. Respectfully, - S Muriel Dutton, Owner of parcel 35 & 44 (Letter to be read by Linda Dixon) 2