Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 04.03.1989BOCC 4/3/89 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a guest house APPLICANT: Roger & Amelia Eshelman LOCATION: A parcel located in a portion of Section 18, T7S, R87W; more practically described as a parcel located approximately three (3) miles north of the Catherine's Store/Highway 82 intersection, off of C.R. 100. SITE DATA: A 3.26 acre parcel WATER: Individual well SEWER: Individual sewage disposal system ACCESS: C.R. 100 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parcel is located in District C, Rural Areas, Minor Environmental Constraints. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site slopes from the east to the west, with slope ranging from approximately 5% to 20%. The predominant vegetation is big sagebrush and western wheatgrass. B. Project Description: It is proposed to place a manufactured home on the property initially and then construct a primary residence within two (2) years. The manufactured home would then become a guest house. Both units would be served by a single well and will meet the I.S.D.S. requirements of the County. There is an illegal mobile home on the property presently. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: The A/R/RD zone district allows a guest house as a Special Use, with the following stipulations: 1. The gross floor area used for residential occupancy shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. 2. The minimum lot size shall be 50% larger than the minimum required for the zone district. 3. The length of stay of a guest shall be limited to 30 days, unless said guests are grandparents, parents, siblings or children of the residents of the primary residence. Page Two 1. The proposed manufactured home/guest house measures 24" x 37" (888 sq. ft.). The 3.26 acre lot is 50% larger than the 2.0 acre minimum lot size in the A/R/RD zone district. The length of stay issue should be a condition of approval, expanded to say that the guest house shall not be used as a rental unit. The manufactured home proposed to be used, meets the basic criteria for placement of a manufactured home contained the Zoning Resolution with one exception. The manufactured home presently has a metal roof that is not "painted a non -reflective color and permanently affixed to the metal by a manufacturer". It is proposed to take the existing roof off and replace it with a metal roofing material pre -painted by the manufacturer a non -reflective color. This is a modification of the structure that cannot be inspected by a HUD certified inspector since they do not inspect outside the factory. Additionally, the letter from David T. Whidden indicates that the entire roof structure has been modified, (See letter page /O ) which results in a question of interpretation of the criteria for placement of a manufactured home. It has been the Planning and Building Department's understanding that the manufactured home must meet the criteria contained in Section 5.03.01(2) when they come out of the factory. (See Sec.5.03.01(2) page // ). Otherwise the Building Department is put in the position of having to approve single wide (12' to 14' wide) unit expansion proposals to meet the previously noted criteria. This is a policy and intent interpretation needed from the Board. 2. The proposed well would service the manufactured home until the primary residence is built. At that time, the well would serve the primary residence and the manufactured home would be served by a storage tank. The applicant's well permit is a "household use only" permit, that allows the use of the groundwater for "fire protection, ordinary household purposes in a single family dwelling and the watering of the user's non-commercial domestic animals". it further states the "groundwater shall not be used for irrigation, or other purposes". According to the Division of Water Resources, this would be considered two dwelling units and is not a legitimate use of the groundwater. 3. It is proposed to place the manufactured home on a foundation that was previously inspected by the County Building Inspector, but it was for a standard stick built home. It will require modification of the existing foundation to place an manufactured home on it, according to the Building Inspector. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law 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 hearing. 3. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County, provided all conditions of approval are met. IF APPROPRIATE: That the proposed manufactured home is consistent with the intent of Section 5.03.01(2) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. Page Three V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL of the guest house Special Use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. S•44-1 ernstate-6271 OV )ft.400- 2. --_ . R. ...- ng ,pp/� - .• = Y11 pegrmit n 153200 is lega o w.c 6r!'� �+d 7�i� ewe .� u� ftp � r� 3. Tnat once the guest house use is established, the west house will not be used as a rental unit. 4. That any manufactured home placed on the foundation existing at the time of this application is subject to additional permit review and approval by the Building Inspector. 'd' N k. N O \ \! tCO `- l V J G Z .Q v < • t4 o kJ a0i c;,,› k N. c7 �s a N: �� _ V k ' .• Z. � x L 1. G1 °-44 z Ihj • kt F O J ‹.1 ; 1^ Ci Ct. 1, V•COI Z..4.4 L 0 s.- N v y, CO44 N `r LJ vS kh• t , 1/4( x • - a • ,Ai ` n t 000 N ` ,$ L V r.4.