No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 01.27.2003Exhibits for Johnson Variance Public Hearing held on January 27, 2003 Please Note: Bring all of the Application materials you received for the December 9th hearing which was cancelled for this hearing. 4 57;(*41) /3N1- tI Zv�D3. o L v - 17-z- /3oA- ?"--)e'h 0 1) ..M . .. t,,5 , k P V V s _ ,y1� .}'m, 'a , A Building Permit Application dated 5/19/82 B Building Permit Issued on June 9, 1982 C Letter from BLM to Ms. Tester dated October 22, 2002 D Staff Memorandum E Mail Receipts & Proof of Publication (Submitted at hearing) F Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 G Original Application submitted by Applicant H Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978 as amended I Letter from George & Mary Kirkham dated 12/28/02 J Letter from James Pitts dated 12/9/02 K Letter from Larry and Barbara Fluer dated 12/5/02 L Letter from Joan Kavanaugh dated 12/8/02 M Letter from Ms. Tester to the Board of Adjustment dated 12/5/02 4 57;(*41) /3N1- tI Zv�D3. o L v - 17-z- /3oA- ?"--)e'h 0 1) ItILDING PERMIT APPLICATION GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 945-8241 / 625-3321 Owner: Contractor or Builder 016«s Location: Q / Ori` 1/ ,ret Purpose for which building is to be used • Size of Lot • Distance of building from property line at Front: 930 i Rear: Distance from nearest building: 1_00`.— Source 70`. - Source of water supply r� i C 'LL - EXHIBIT A Garfield County, Colorado, .71 9 ,19&2 - Type of sewage disposal:" P LC Width of building:_ 7zL4. it L4:@P` ox-iO('�.-•A'i�� Length of building: __ -D" Height of walls: 11 Floor space in squa a feet • 4m O Lt — Estimated value 11 Left Side: g00 --4n}( Right Side• .01) AAFRDX Number of stories: aSPL IT G L Number of rooms• Type of foundation: Material in outside walls: 2 X 15 .-'1) fik - t ', `� Exterior finish- + �1 � ', I�i�' Type of roof: I i3CaAQ to - J -- Date construction will begin: S.- 7-4 Date of completion Permit charge: $ 2- 677 d Plan check fee: $ 3 ` ,J -CD TOTAL: $ / 47 0 And I/We hereby agree to build strictly to the terms of the above description, and also to clear the grounds and adjacent street or streets of all rubbish and debris caused by the construction of said building. Respectfully;- C�- s The County Commissioners hereby grant the above permit as per terms therein stated. This day of BUILDING OFFICIAL N! CC2622 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 31601 (303) 945.8241 / (303) 525-3321 Job Address 0475 COunty Road 112 Nature of Work Building Permit Use of Building Residential - Addition Owner E.A. Schumacher Contractor owner Amount of Permit: $ 190.50 Date• Jsne 9' 1982 Ellen L. Ricks, Clark iN REPLY REFER TO. 9230 CO -140 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Area 50629 Highway 6 and 24 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 October 22, 2002 Ms. Cynthia Tester BEATTIE & CHADWICK 710 Cooper .Avenue, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ms. Tester: EXHIBIT RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING As l of a: you and and thefield d 1�}Q a result our discussions with your client recent 1. L1C14 visit, the Bureau of Land Management(ELM) has no objection with the setback variance application for Mr. Arvid Johnson. Since this situation deals with an existing structure and will actually provide the opportunity to correct an encroachment associated with the retaining wall, we support the variance as the most logical solution and least costly to all parties involved. Other alternatives we discussed would be time consuming and costly to both the ELM and Mr. Johnson. They may also not be supported through our public process and could be controversial. We hope the County looks favorably on your application and if we can be of further assistance with that request please let us know. Si.cerely, cc: Andy Schwaller, Garfield County cs-(16-1..4.-47tN7-- Steve G. Bennett Acting Field Manager PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: APPLICANT: PROPERTY LOCATION: Variance from Rear Yard Setback The H. Arvid Johnson Revocable Trust (hereinafter "Trust") A portion of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 23, Township 7 South, Range 88West of the Sixth P. M., County of Garfield, State of Colorado PRACTICAL LOCATION: 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The property consists of approximately 12 acres in size and is located northeast of Carbondale in the Missouri Heights area off of County Road 112. It is surrounded mostly by Bureau of Land ') Management (BLM) forest land. The property is characterized as containing old juniper and pinyon 1 pines, sage brush, and scrub oak. The property contains a single-family residence and a hexagon shaped shop building. It is the single-family dwelling that is the subject of this variance_ II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The Applicant is currently in the process of remodeling the existing single-family dwelling on the property. As part of this remodel, the Applicant would like to expand a rear portion of the dwelling to remedy foundation problems and design issues from its current design_ Because the existing dwelling is considered a legal non -conforming structure, the Applicant would be able to remodel any portion of the structure within its current footprint, but would not be allowed to increase the existing non -conformity by further expanding into the rear setback. Therefore, the Applicant has requested the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to consider a variance request which would allow the Applicant to expand the non -conforming structure into the 25 foot rear yard setback by approximately 7 feet. III. PROPERTY HISTORY The subject lot was created from Parcel B of the Bearwald Exemption Plat. The Pabst Family built the original single-family dwelling in 1978. Staff was unable to locate any approved building permits for this structure. The Pabst Family sold the property to the Schumacher Family in May of 1982. The Schumacher Family added an addition to the residence in 1982. (The approved Building Permit Application and Permit are included as Exhibits A and B.) The Schumacher Family sold the property to the Trust in April of 2002. The Trust is the current owner of the property requesting the variance described above. IV. STAFF COMMENTS It is important to consider the events which took place regarding the construction of the dwelling and the rear lot line to fully understand the issues surrounding the requested variance. Staff has provided a succinct outline and brief discussion of these events below for the BOA's consideration. 1) The original house constructed by the Pabst Family in 1978 was based on the understanding that the rear lot line was a good distance from the house. Again, Staff was unable to locate any approved building permits for this original structure; and 2) The Schumacher Family purchased the house in 1982; and 3) The Schumacher Family constructed an addition to the house in 1982 which included a living room, breakfast nook, and greenhouse which was permitted by Garfield County Building & Planning Department. The building permit approved the addition which specifically indicated the addition would be located 13 feet and 4.5 inches from the rear property line. (See Exhibits A and B.) 4) The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the adjacent property owner to the rear of the property, resurveyed all their properties in 1986 which revealed the single-family dwelling on the subject property was approximately 12.5 feet from their property line and that a set of exterior stairs and wood retaining walls were located on BLM property. Ultimately, the BLM resurvey proved the lot line is actually located approximately 1 foot closer to the residence than previously determined in 1982 as part of the building permit process for the construction of the addition; and 5) The Schumacher Family sold the property to the Trust in 1982 who had Scarrow & Walker, Inc conduct an Improvement Survey on 3/25/02 (included in the application) which confirmed the BLM's resurveyed lines showing the single-family dwelling on the subject property was approximately 12.5 feet from their property line and that a set of exterior stairs and wood retaining walls are located on BLM property; and 6) Lastly, the Trust purchased the property from the Schumacher Family and wishes to expand the non -conforming use. Photo A This photo shows the rear wall of the original dwelling which is located 12.5 feet from the rear lot line (to the left). The left half of the stairs in the photo is on BLM land. Addition to House It is clear; the construction of the addition completed in 1982 by the Schumacher Family was based on a rear lot line established by a surveyor/ engineer at the time showing the rear lot line to be 13 feet and 4.5 inches from the newly constructed addition. This is specifically indicated on the building permit issued by the Building and Planning Department on June 8th, 1982 (see ExhibitA). The County's zoning regulations were in place at the time requiring residential rear yard setbacks to be a minimum of 25 feet. Therefore it remains unclear as to how the addition was approved within the 25 foot setback. Nonetheless, as a result, the County approved the addition; however, by such action, the structure was then established as a legal non -conforming structure because it approved as being located in the rear yard setback (13 feet and 4.5 inches from the rear lot line to be exact). BLM Survey in 1986 The BLM (the property to the rear of the subject property) resurveyed their property lines which resulted in a new lot line location. It showed the rear lot line to be 12.5 feet behind the subject residence rather the 13 feet and 4.5 inches once thought based on the 1982 building permit approved by Garfield County. Therefore the BLM survey showed a variation of approximately 1 foot closer to the house. It also determined a portion of the steps and retaining walls associated with the subject dwelling are located on BLM property. It should be noted; the Applicant attempted a land swap with the BLM in order to avoid a variance request to the County. In effect, a land swap would place the rear lot line at least 25 feet from the residence so that a variance request would not be needed to accomplish the expansion. However, the BLM believed this land swap for such a small piece of property (0.51 acres) would be too costly and was not realized. The BLM did submit a letter to this effect and indicated support for the variance request (See Exhibit C). Conclusion. Ultimately, Staff believes the events and discussion mentioned above accomplish two things. First, it is clear, at the time the addition was approved in 1982, it was based on a lot line that was 13 feet and 4.5 inches from the structure (with the addition) as indicated on the building peiinit. Second, it demonstrates that due to the building permit approval granted by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department in 1982 for the addition, the structure became a legal non -conforming structure given the current zoning in effect at the time which has remained unchanged today. More importantly, Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution discusses what constitutes the granting of a variance in Garfield County. Specifically, the granting of a variance should be mainly due to the following: 1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape ofthe specific piece ofproperty at the time of enactment of this Resolution; or 2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. 3 Upon a site visit to the Applicant's property, Staff finds the property is not exceptionally narrow, shallow or configured in a peculiar shape. As indicated by the survey, the property is relatively rectangular in shape and contains approximately 12 acres. Of the entire 12 acres, the residence is located on the very southerly property line. Further, upon review of the area immediately surrounding the residence, there are no exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the property to force the Applicant to expand further into the rear setback. The site contains mildly undulating topography except for the area directly behind the house which falls off to the south into BLM land and a ditch. As a result, Staff does not believe that a hardship is evident based on site constraints. V. STAFF COMMENTS & REVIEW STANDARDS Review Standards: In order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, they must find the Applicant has satisfied the four main criteria or standards provided in Section 9.05 of the Zoning Resolution. 1. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; Staff Finding Because the existing structure is a legal non -conforming structure already, Staff finds that the Applicant may remodel all of the structure as long as the portions of the structure that are located within the 25 foot setback are not expanded. The Applicant believes the zigzag wall cannot be reconstructed safely. Staff does not agree. There are many options outlined above that could all be accomplished with a properly designed foundation_ Specifically, 1) The Applicant may reconstruct the zigzag foundation and wall exactly in the same footprint as it was originally located prior to its demolition thereby not expanding the non -conforming structure and no need for a variance. 2) The Applicant could build a flat wall rather than a "zigzag" wall that is in the general location of the "zigzag" wall but doesn't increase the non -conformity thereby not expanding the non- conforming structure and no need for a variance. 3) The Applicant could simply eliminate the "zigzag" portion of the house altogether and fill in the walls of the house as it sits today with the "zigzag" portion demolished thereby not expanding the non -conforming structure and no need for a variance. 4 4) The Applicant could expand outward on virtually all other side of the house without expanding the non -conforming structure and therefore eliminate the need for a variance. All of these options could presumably be defined as alleviations to practical difficulties as mentioned in the standard without the need to expand further into the rear yard setback. A poor foundation and poor design do not merit the provision of a variance to allow an expansion of a non- conformity given the aforementioned. Staff finds this standard has not been met. 2. That such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or this Resolution; Staff Finding Staff finds the requested variance represents a detriment to the public good and impairs the intent and purpose of this Resolution. The Applicant is creating their need for a variance. The Applicant purchased the property and knew the location of the dwelling in relation to the rear lot line based on the survey prepared by Scarrow & Walker Inc. The dwelling (including the addition) has existed for the last 20 years without the need for a variance to expand. Staff believes an expansion is not the answer to fix a poor foundation which has already been demolished at this point. This request, if granted, would set a poor precedent for subsequent similar requests because how can the BOA determine if small expansions are better than larger expansions and by how much? Where does the BOA draw the line as to how much of an expansion is acceptable? This variance request, if approved, will erode the authority of the BOA as well as the zoning regulations that serve to guide development in the county for the benefit of the public good. Staff remains unconvinced a denial of this variance will cause undue hardship to the Applicant if they cannot construct their addition in a "better" design. Staff finds this standard is not met. 3. That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected; Staff Finding Staff finds that the "hardship" and need for this variance is created entirely by the Applicant. As pointed out in the application binder (Section H(1) Background), during the negotiations to purchase the property, the Trust had a survey prepared by Scarrow & Walker Inc. (dated 3/25/02) which showed the legal non -conforming status of the residence. Nevertheless, the Trust purchased the property shortly thereafter. As mentioned earlier, the dwelling has existed in its current location for the last 20 years, albeit as a legal non -conforming structure, and has not required the provision of a variance to continue its location. There are a variety of options available to the Applicant to remedy a "poor and unsafe foundation" and poor aesthetic design that do not require a variance. While these issues are may be important to the Applicant in a preferred house design, they are not issues related to the discussion of what determines a hardship. Staff finds the Applicant can rebuild the existing footprint of the 5 "zigzagged" wall to its original footprint with a solid foundation. As to the preferred design and its aesthetic appeal, architectural preferences do not constitute hardship. Simply because the Applicant prefers a different design for functional or aesthetic reasons, they are not reasons by which cases for hardship are measured or determined. Ultimately, Staff finds this hardship is created solely by the Applicant's request to expand the structure further into the setback. Staff finds the Applicant has caused the need for the hardship and therefore this standard is not met. 4. That the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the appellant Staff Finding As stated in the criterion listed above, in order for the Board to approve the variance request, there needs to be at least 4 concurring voting members. This shall be determined at the public hearing. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of Adjustment. 2. That the meeting before the Board of Adjustment 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 setback variance has been det-imined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY the variance request. 6 RECEIVED JAN 0 6 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING GEORGE D. KIRKHAM 0483 COUNTY ROAD 112, P. 0. Box 235 CAREONDALE,COLORADO 81623 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 Eighth Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 December 28, 2002 Re: 0475 County Road 112 Public Notice for Variance in Set Back Requirements Ladies and Gentlemen: As neighbors of Arvid and Janet Johnson, we urge you to grant this very reasonable request for a variance. Set back requirements make sense in urban and suburban areas. They make very little sense in most rural areas involving large parcels of land. In this particular case the house in question cannot be seen by any neighbor. The variance is needed to keep the cost of remodeling reasonable, and the re- modeling will only improve a once-delapidated house. Please, let's not Aspenize Garfield County. Sincerely, AL/„., --- George D. Kirkham Mary T. Kirkham December 9, 2002 RECEIVED fEc 1 1 2002 GARFlELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: 475 County Road 112 Public Notice / Variance from setback To whom it may concern: I reside at 485 County Road 112 and have reviewed the remodel improvements proposed by Mr. Arvid Johnson at the above referenced address. understand that Mr. Johnson is proposing to remodel within the 25 -foot minimum rear setback located on the south side of his building envelope. After conversation with Mr. Johnson about design and size of the structure in the setback, 1 have no concerns. Mr. Johnson has taken great steps towards improvements to this property and thus enhances not only the said property but also the neighborhood as a whole. support Mr. Johnson's proposal. Respectfully, . . James R. Pitts 485 County Road 112 _Carbondale, CO 81623 Cc: Mr. Arvid Johnson Larry & Barbara Fluer 2550 Niderer Road Paso Robles, CA 93446 805 237 2392 December 5, 2002 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th St. Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED DEC 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BOLDING & PLANNING Re: 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, CO; Public Notice re variance from setback To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in response to the receipt of a public notice announcing a hearing on an application for variance by the property owner of the above referenced parcel. The hearing is scheduled on December 9, 2002. We are adjacent property owners of property located at 0477 County Road 112, Carbondale, CO. We are familiar with the property at 0475 County Road 112, having lived on adjacent property for a number of years. It is our understanding from the public notice, and from conversation with the applicant, Mr. Arvid Johnson that a remodel of a portion of the existing primary residence located on 0475 County Road 112 has been proposed. The remodel will involve construction within the 25 -foot minimum rear yard setback on the south side of the building. The area of the property where the improvements will occur has no negative impact on our property of which we are aware, and the area where the construction will occur is in closest proximity to public land being managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The improvements described by Mr. Johnson will serve to protect the investment of neighboring property owners as a long-standing existing structure is being maintained thereby contributing to the overall welfare of the community and the public good. We encourage the board to affirm the application for variance so that the needed improvements can be constructed as proposed. Thank you for the notification and solicitation for public comment. Larry Fluer Cc: Mr. Arvid Johnson Barbara Fluer c J v Joan Kavanaugh 482 Mesa Verde Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 963-1542 Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th Street Suite 20 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 December 8, 2002 Dear Chairman and Members of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, Please ignore the consent letter 1 drafted on behalf of Kimiko Powers dated December 6th_ Due to a misunderstanding, and without appropriate authority, i stated no objections to the yard setback of Arvid Johnson. However, 1 had no information and inadvertently faxed a sample letter. My fault. Sorry for the inconvenience. The original letter, therefore, has no official effect. Sincerely, Joan Kavanaugh STEVEN M. BEATTIE GLENN D. CHADWICK CYNTHIA C. TESTER MITCHELL S. RANDALL Peter M. Cabrinha 4350 County Road 115 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Leo Jammaron 4915 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Brad Jordan P.O. Box 1031 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Steven J. Boat P.O. Box 1989 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Tom Morton 14878 County Road 117 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Mark Bean Building and Planning Director 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 HAND DELIVERED BEATTIE & CHADWICK ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 932 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 December 5, 2002 3 EXHIBIT TELEPHONE (970) 945-8659 FAX (970) 945-8671 Andy Schwaller Building and Planning Chief Building Official 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 HAND DELIVERED Fred Jarman Building and Planning Senior Planner 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 HAND DELIVERED Don DeFord Garfield County Attorney 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 HAND DELIVERED Re: The H. Arvid Johnson Revocable Trust, H. Arvid Johnson Trustee, UTA 21590; Rear Yard Setback Variance application, to Garfield County Code Sections 3.02.06(2) and 9.05. Dear Chairman of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Members of the Board, First, please accept my apologies for sending you this memorandum under separate cover from that of the Board of Zoning Adjustment packet. There was a miscommunication as to the packet deadline for submittals to the Board of Adjustment for the upcoming December 9, 2002 hearing. Due to the miscommunication, I discovered that the packets had already been prepared and sealed, ready to be sent to you all before I could include this document in the packet as well. I needed to get this letter to you. Thus, I am sending it under separate cover with the explicit understanding that it has also been previously hand delivered to Don DeFord, Mark Bean, Fred Jarman, and Andy Schwaller before it was put in the mail to you. As you may have gathered, I represent Mr. Arvid Johnson on behalf of the trust referenced above. This Ietter is a supplement to the Johnson trust variance application. The Applicant seeks a variance from the County's 25' rear yard setback requirements by (7) feet. The Applicant and I have reviewed the Staff memorandum concerning this variance application and would like to offer the following points, first from a general, common sense standpoint, and second, looking at the variance standards and the Code. Johnson December 5, 2002 Page 2 of 7 I. Factual and General Common Sense Issues • The only party that would be in any way affected by this variance is the BLM, as this parcel of land is located out in the woods, adjacent to BLM forest. The BLM has given its express written affirmation to the Board that it is in favor of granting the variance. • Generally speaking, the purpose of the rear yard setback is to provide for light and air access, access for adjoining landowners, emergency personnel, and possibly utility operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement. None of these purposes are relevant to the subject site or the variance request. This is not a planned unit development or subdivision where consistent enforcement of rear yard setback issues would be relevant. It is important, to remember what the very purposes for setbacks are — to provide a buffer from structures relative to other structures. That is not the situation here. • The Applicant had no intention to add an addition to the home until they were confronted with the reality that the "zigzag" configuration and the foundation problems associated with this configuration were absolutely beyond repair. The Applicant soon discovered that to replicate its seven (7) corners to solve the foundation problems was ridiculous and not feasible. Instead, the Applicant was advised by construction personnel that a rectangular shape would be simpler to build and would be inherently stronger. The aesthetics of the "zigzag" are arguably unique and creative and not in any way aesthetically inferior to Applicant's proposed rectangle. The Applicant was never concerned about the back of the house, where the proposed addition will always be overshadowed by the dominant living room and which is not visible to the general public. • The Applicant is not a land developer seeking to negate the rules applicable to all. The Applicant is simply trying to remedy a problem in a practical, non -intrusive way. In fact, the Applicant could have chosen a different approach through seeking to extend the line from the existing living room all the way across to the edge of the house as it stands today, not just to "square up" the zigzag. Such an application would have nearly tripled the proposed variance request up to at least 1200 square feet, creating a much larger addition. The Applicant did not seek to do so, however. This comports with one of the variance requirements that the Applicant must attempt to do that which is as minimally impactive as possible. • The existing zigzag addition itself did not encroach at all into the 25' rear yard setback. The addition beyond that (which is a small breakfast nook) was approximately 18' feet from the now known boundary line. The proposed addition, by running straight from the furthermost corner of the zigzag to square up the space would still be only 18' from the rear yard lot line — a mere variance of seven (7) feet from the lot line. There would be no further encroachment into the setback, only a rectangle continuing along the same Iine. • When the Applicant's bought the house, they did not know the extent of the problems with the zigzag, and had fully expected to repair and not replace. Johnson December 5, 2002 Page 3 of 7 • Before the property was purchased by the Applicant, the Applicant retained a building inspector to inspect the building. The inspector pointed out a line of cracked tile in the breakfast area. This area had been constructed with a "zigzag" design to create a breakfast nook and interior greenhouse by the former owner in the early 1980's. The inspector suggested a "fix", essentially to remove the tile and float a new surface on the floor to even out the sub -surface and then re-lay tile, or alternatively, lay a wood floor. But, he warned that the foundation of the zigzag addition might be compromised by poor construction or poor soils conditions. • When the purchase was completed, the Applicant knew that the zigzag in the rear of the house needed to be repaired. There was no intention to do anything more than repair the existing construction. However, after consultation with the architect, contractor, and his soil and structural engineer, it was made clear to the Applicant that improper compaction, substandard soil and, just as importantly, the basic zigzag design, all contributed to a failure of the area. The various corners of the roof had leaked, the floor slab had a major fault line, and related cracks, doors, and windows were difficult to operate because the walls were out of plumb. The problems were much more severe than anticipated, and to merely "patch and repair" could not eliminate the inherent flaw in the design and execution of the zigzag construction. • The Applicant fully expected to repair the zigzag addition, not tear it down. The Applicant had not budgeted for a completely new addition. The only solution was to begin over. That meant tearing off the addition, bringing in adequate soil for purpose of compaction and adding appropriate footers and a foundation. As a result of the various discussions of the problems, the idea was advanced to reconstruct the breakfast addition in a simple rectangle shape, tying it in to the living room at the same point and simply extending the line to make a rectangle. This design would eliminate the 7 corners involved in the original zigzag construction, and would result in superior structural integrity. • Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The addition is in the back of the house. A truly beautiful, architectural award winning design would be overshadowed by the dominant living room and by the natural beauty of Mt. Sopris and the surrounding woods. The Staff's suggestion is factually inaccurate, gratuitous and does not make any sense. H. Garfield County Code and Variance Standard Issues The Applicant and myself take issue with many of the assumptions and statements made by Staff concerning this application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we would like the opportunity to give you the rest of the story. My client and I were somewhat amazed at Staffs comments and personal philosophical, rhetorical questions. This is not a 300 unit development whereby a developer is asking for some large variance that would greatly impact the public and the citizenry of the County. To say that Staff is "making a mountain out of a molehill" is an understatement. Johnson December 5, 2002 Page 4 of 7 Staff takes the position that the only reason that the Applicant truly wants to apply for this variance, is so that the Applicant can create a more visually aesthetic and "pretty" home. That is absolutely untrue. There is certainly a component related to the "Construction Design Remedy" as is referenced in the submittal, but that issue is the "tail that wags the dog" when it comes to the remediation of the construction defects. At the time the Applicant purchased the property this past year, the thought never crossed the Applicant's mind that they were going to buy the property, then march in before the Board of Adjustment and demand an expansion of a nonconforming use, as Staff repeatedly implies. In fact the opposite is true in that the Applicant and the builder met with Andy SchwalIer, of the Building Department, prior to submitting this variance application. The purpose of this meeting with Andy was to discuss how this problem could be solved absent any formal administrative action. It seemed at the time that this area could actually be viewed as the side yard and not the rear yard, in which case, there should be no problem. It was then that Andy advised the Applicant that there was no way around a variance procedure as the County did indeed view this area as the rear yard. Then Andy told the Applicant that a variance procedure was the way to go and provided the Applicant with the necessary forms. Andy stated that he was aware of the property and seemed very receptive and supportive of this application. In fact, Andy even advised the Applicant that of all of the variance applications "that come through the door," that this application seemed to have the most merit and had the most equity of any he had seen. Prior to the meeting with Andy, the Applicant spent thousands of dollars and several months working with the BLM (who wholly supports this variance request) to try to obtain a land swap. The proposal with the BLM was that the BLM would trade .51 acres of its land located directly in front of the subject property in exchange for the Johnson's deeding the BLM .51 acres of their land. Unfortunately, all parties soon came to understand that this would not be a cost beneficial approach for the BLM or the Applicants, in that it would take possibly years to effectuate. The BLM has engaged in land swaps, but more in the range of thousands of acres being exchanged, rather than .51 acres. Thus, instead, the BLM recommended that given the circumstances (especially given the fact that when the home was originally constructed in 1978 and the addition was constructed in 1982, the BLM boundaries were not in any way adequately defined), that a variance request would be the best way to go. It was not until 1986 that the BLM then came in and resurveyed the entire area. In 1986 the BLM, through its resurveying efforts, discovered that its lot line was far closer to the Applicant's property than was previously thought to be the case. These were all assumptions that the Applicant, the BLM, and Andy Schwaller were operating under when this variance request was initially processed. Just recently, for the first time, did Staff produce a document (despite requests for copies of the file well in advance of any variance request), and now make a point that the rear lot line behind the subject residence was 12.5 feet. Staff also acknowledges that at the time that the initial addition was approved in 1982, it was an act based upon an assumption that the rear lot line was 13 feet 4.5 inches from the structure (with the addition). Staff further acknowledges that the County zoning regulations in 1982 required residential rear yard setbacks to be a minimum of 25 feet. Yet the owner at that time did not apply for a variance for the 1982 addition. They simply submitted an application and a Building Perrnit was issued for that addition. All the Applicant seeks to do today is to "square up" that faulty constructed addition by getting rid of the exterior "zigzag" configuration to allow for a more stable foundation. Johnson December 5, 2002 Page 5 of 7 With respect to the review standards, the Applicant offers the following: 1. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property. Staff focuses on its belief that somehow the Applicant created the "undue hardship". Staff wholly ignores that a variance may be granted as far as is minimally necessary to alleviate practical difficulties as well. I have described the practical difficulties at length above as well as in the submittal. A poor foundation and poor design not created by the Applicant, in fact, do result in an undue hardship today as well as definite practical difficulties. The remodel as proposed and as is the subject of the variance request cannot be accomplished in the "zigzag" configuration, as Staff would have the board believe. The Applicant will just end up with the same type of problems it is now facing today, just a few years down the road. 2. That such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the general plan or this resolution. With all due respect to Staff, the slippery slope arguments as to how approval of this miniscule variance application will somehow cause substantial detriment to the public good and would substantially impair the intent and purpose of the general plan or this resolution are wholly without merit. Variances should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis taking specific facts and circumstances into consideration as presented to the Board. Staff would argue that if this variance is approved, that somehow the entirety of Garfield County and all of its residents would be greatly harmed and suffer immeasurably. In fact the opposite is true. This is an extremely unique situation. We have issues concerning questionable BLM boundary lines, building permits that were issued back in 1982 for additions that ostensibly were already encroaching into the 25 foot rear yard setback, and most importantly, this variance request is only for 7 -feet from the rear yard setback presently in existence to "square up" the "zigzag" configuration. In other words, a few yards over from the "zigzag" configuration is the exterior portion of the home, which is the living room. All the Applicant seeks to do is create an exterior portion of the home that would match up with the exterior alignment of the living room just a few yards away. Further, Staff argues that the Applicant created this hardship by purchasing this property knowing of the problems with the foundation. Staff also argues that the dwelling has existed in its current location without repair for the last 20 years. This is true except that the Applicant was not aware of the extent of the problems with the foundation. The Johnson's predecessor in interest, Mr. Edelhard Schumacher, was an elderly man who had a stroke and was not able to keep up with maintaining the home, nor did Mr. Schumacher have the funds to do so. Had he had the funds and the ability to maintain the home, as told to me by his family, he would have made the improvements to the home. Since he did not, the Applicant purchased the subject property knowing that would have to make some repairs that Mr. Schumacher could not make. Johnson December 5, 2002 Page 6 of 7 3. That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the Applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the District, and cannot be practically corrected. The Applicant did not create this hardship contrary to Staff's opinion. As noted above, there were many anomalies involving this property going back to 1978. The practical correction is that which is contained in the variance application. The variance is not based upon any general conditions in the District either. The Applicant does, however, agree with Staff that preferred design and aesthetic appeal should not come into play when it comes to applying for a variance based upon the Garfield County Code. While the end result may provide the Applicant with a tangential added benefit of an additional approximate 400 square feet of space that may be more "attractive" or "pretty" than the "zigzag" design presently in place, that is not the focus of this submittal. In fact the "zigzag" design is rather unique and exemplifies creative architecture. It is a pity that the design needs to changed for safety reasons, but that is what the Applicant is told needs to be done from a health, safety, and welfare standpoint. As to the philosophical arguments, if an Applicant wishes to improve property to make it safer and fall within the variance standards, should the application be denied because Staff does not find that the "safety" reasons are strong or sufficient enough to support a variance? Who decides the measure of health, safety, and welfare when this question must be based upon an obvious subjective analysis of what it is that may need to be done to a structure to improve its overall lifetime function for any homeowner? This application is not about who is deciding the measure of beauty or "prettiness" of a structure. Also, Staff's analogy concerning a developer who might want to build a building that is taller than what is allowed is completely misplaced. We are not talking about remodeling a structure to exceed height limitations to improve, aesthetic, beauty, or the exterior "prettiness" of this structure. We are also not talking about trying to get anything in through the back door that we could not get in through the front. In other words, Staff is suggesting that this variance request is solely based upon the desire by the Applicant who allegedly deceitfully has created a hardship and then turns around and applies for a variance to remediate that hardship — specifically focusing on aesthetic concerns. This argument completely ignores the primary reason behind this variance request — to improve the structural foundation of the existing single-family dwelling unit; to remediate the structural and engineering problems that were inherent in the design and construction of the addition in 1982; and to provide for a safer and more durable home that will not need to be continually repaired due to foundation problems. Please note that the Applicant did everything within their power, spending thousands of dollars and hours of time in working with the BLM in trying to solve this problem prior to approaching the Board of Adjustments. The BLM supports this variance application completely as is evidenced by the letter from Steve Bennett from the BLM. Approval of this variance application will not in any way impair or impact the public good, impair the intent and purpose of the general plan or the variance resolution, and is submitted solely with an eye towards the minimum necessary variance request to allow for a mere 7 foot variance from the rear yard setback to allow for a 400 square foot remodel job that will "square up" the exterior of the home and improve the safety of all concerned. Granting this variance request will also alleviate the obvious practical difficulties the Applicant is facing through the most simplistic of measures. Johnson December 5, 2002 Page 7 of 7 Finally, as is stated above, approval of this variance request will simply allow the Applicant to bring the exterior wall in question flush with the exterior wall already in place a few yards away. This is not a big deal. At the board meeting we shall bring several photographs depicting the property as it presently exists so that you can see for yourself how minimal this application and this request really is. On a final note, the Applicant and myself do respect the time and effort that Staff has put into this request and do not by any means intend to diminish or degrade the work performed. Obviously a lot of thought and effort went into this report. instead, it appears that Staff has been just a bit overzealous and perhaps a bit misguided in interpreting the Code provisions as applied to the facts of this specific variance request. We hope this clarifies the submittal before you today. Thank you. Very truly yours, Cynthia C. Tester Cc: Arvid Johnson BEATTIE & CHADWICK ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 932 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Co 81 601 STEVEN M. BEAITIE GLENN D. CHADWICK CYNTHIA C. TESTER MITCHELL 5. RANDALL January 22, 2003 Garfield County Board of Adjustments 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 HAND DELIVERED a EXHIBIT TELEPHONE (970) 945-8659 FAX (970) 945-8671 RECyd`IVSD JAN 2 2 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: The H. Arvid Johnson Revocable Trust, H Arvid Johnson Trustee, UTA 21590; Rear Yard Setback Variance application, to Garfield County Code Sections 3.02.06(2) and 9.05. Dear Chairman of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Members of the Board, Before you tonight is a variance request, that if approved, would allow the applicant to remodel an approximately 20 year old single family residence. Any such approval thus would permit the encroachment approximately 7 feet into the 25 foot minimum rear yard setback. The reasons for this request are explained in detail in the applicant's submittal tendered to you as well as in the supplemental application provided to you after Staff gave you the initial report. First, attached as Exhibit A to this letter is the proof of publication in both the Glenwood Post Independent on December 10, 2002 and in the Citizen Telegram on December 6, 2002. Second, attached as Exhibit B are the return receipt for the public notices sent to the adjacent landowners and any other referral agencies. Third, attached, as Exhibit C is a letter from Mr. Art Ackerman who writes in support of the application. Attached, as Exhibit D is a letter from Mr. James R. Pitts, who writes in support of this application. Attached, as Exhibit E is a letter from Mr. Steve Bennett of the BLM, who writes in support of this application. Attached, as Exhibit F is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. McElnea, who write in support of this application. Attached, as Exhibit G is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Austin Marquis who write in support of this application. Attached, as Exhibit H is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Larry Fluer, who write in support of this application. Attached, as Exhibit 1. is a letter from Mr. A.R. Koeneke, who writes in support of this application. Attached, as Exhibit J is a letter from Mr. John B. Stephenson, who writes in support of this application. Attached, as Exhibit K is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. George Kirkham, who write in support of this application. And finally, attached, as Exhibit L is a letter from The Double J Ranch, who write m support of this application. Fourth, as you know, this matter was previously scheduled for a hearing on December 9, 2002. Due to some confiision over publication Staff and myself decided it best to reschedule this matter for January 27, 2003. In fact, the entire publication was performed accurately for the hearing on December 9, 2003, yet our office simply did not receive the proof of publication back from the requisite newspapers by the time of the hearing. I wanted to explain this to you so that you would understand why it is that we are approaching you on January 27, 2003, rather than in December. In a way, however, the delay has proved helpful. 1 have had a chance to review a few BOA decisions concerning variances granted and denied over the past few years, and each appears to be approached as they should be on a case-by-case basis. Of course, a variance application is a very fact specific land use application as we all know. Jaivary 22, 2003 Page 2 of 2 I do not believe that it is necessary or productive for me to repeat all of the arguments previously so stated as to why this variance should be approved. The bottom line, however, is that this variance complies with the criteria set forth in Code section 9.05.03 in that (a) the applicant is applying for is the minimum necessary to alleviate practical difficulties or undue hardship; (b) that the relief granted would be granted without any substantial detriment (or any detriment of any kind whatsoever for that matter) to the public good and would not substantially or in any way impair the intent and purpose of the general plan or this resolution; (c) that the circumstances the Board might find that would constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant and are not due to the result of the general conditions in the District and cannot otherwise be practically corrected. This Board faced a similar issue on September 23, 2002 with applicants Damon and Amanda Wells. Staff had recommended denial of the variance application which was for a variance from the minimum front yard setback of 3.1 feet. The Board reviewed the application in detail, Iooked at policy considerations, addressed concerns of precedence, and spoke in detail about the "human element". As Dr. Tom Morton noted at that meeting, "Government has a human face." The Board made a motion to approve the variance unanimously in light of the specific facts and circumstances at issue in that particular variance. See, Exhibit M, BOA meeting minutes from September 23, 2002. Similarly, on October 25, 1999, applicants Kass T. Burwell and Douglas J. Wight sought a variance to allow for a single family home to encroach 15 feet into the rear yard setback and 5 feet into the side yard setback. Again, due to the particular conditions of the lot, including the fact that a ditch bordered the rear of the property (as we have present in this case), the variance was granted. Staff recommended approval of this variance subject to certain conditions, to which the applicant agreed to comply. See, Exhibit N, BOA project information and Staff comments dated October 25, 1999. Next, on July 30, 2001, Ed Rosenberg submitted a variance request to build a garage attached to his house which would leave a 3 foot distance between the garage and the property line. The variance request sought relief from the side yard setback requirement of 10 feet. The steepness of the back yard made building the garage in a different area impractical. Large trees on the other side of the house protected the riverbanks from erosion, so removing to build the garage would also be impractical. The applicant made several contacts to adjacent neighbors and KN Energy and no one had any concerns with the proposal and in fact supported this proposal. See, Exhibit 0, BOA meeting July 30, 2001, minutes. The same issues are present in this case (as to the Rosenberg application) in that topographically, the area adjacent to where to Johnsons need to remodel the exterior of the home sloughs down towards the adjacent ditch, which is then bordered by a cliff that drops off dramatically. onto BLM land. (BLM supports this application, as do all of the adjacent property owners and neighbors in the Johason's area). As such for safety, functional utility, and sound construction principles, the Johnsons applied for this variance. Another similar circumstance occurred through the variance submitted by Phil Ambrose and review held .on May 18, 1998. This proposed variance would place the west wall of an addition approximately 4 feet from the rear property line. The applicant's engineer stated that the encroachments were necessary to effectively repair a plumbing problem created by a broken pipe in the existing bathroom. In the Ambrose variance application, Staff found that the lot was an irregular shape and that the house was placed in the present location prior to the time certain zoning regulations were in place. As such the home was a nonconforming use. Staff noted that given the existing location of the house in relation to the property lines, it did not appear that any remodel of the house could be accomplished without an additional encroachment into the setback in question. Given the engineer's statement, it appeared that any repair of the bathroom would 2 January 22, 2003 Page 3 of 3 require an additional encroachment into the setback. Staff felt that the proposed variance was the minimum necessary to allow for the repair, that there was no reasonable alternative to the construction either. See, Exhibit P, Ambrose variance application. In this case, as you are well aware, the applicant seeks to "square up" a 400 square foot portion of what used to be the kitchen/pantry area that had started to slide and crack due to improper soil compaction and construction measures used by the former owner in 1982. Staff also recognizes that the building permit in 1982 was issued for the addition then constructed in its exterior "zigzag" configuration. There seems to be some confusion as to why the County issued a building permit in 1982 for this addition as Staff notes that the County was allegedly apparently aware that there was some sort of encroachment into the rear yard setback at this tune. What we know is that it was not until 1986 that the BLM did a resurvey of its boundary lines where it became evident to all that the BLM boundary line adjacent to this particular home was far closer than that which the BLM itself previously though. Of course there are many other variance requests in which staff recommended denial and the Board concurred. The main thrust of this correspondence is to provide you with similar circumstances in which the Board approved a variance even over Staff recommendations to the contrary. Staff obviously has done a very thorough job in reviewing this application and Mr. Jarman's efforts are to be commended. We understand that Mr. Jarman is simply doing his job and is trying to apply the "letter of the law" to this application. As Dr. Morton has stated in the past, however, the letter of law needs to blend with "government that has a human face". 1 would ask you on behalf of the applicant to take these considerations into account as you review this variance submittal. Thank you. cc: Arvid Johnson 3 Very truly yours, Cynthia C. Tester Yt, e C 41 A'; folins6n has ypolr8d TAKE i3L17} t $ the�Saard bf J+:djusirelerll G }etd [:aunty tlro Galorad6 to req�lrt 1o0BsAgj utatf Ras sz re�sretba�ii �gq onestdct Orn ide{r!!al! f4Jsal-en�y�l.�2 �4 * l:u�ied n t t Ww-dl� a.G d lAte GOia ° r'/ .";n 54Pf .gf".1 a NwniMw the.,r k fI4 dSOGt9t4 23r"7rN sh10aTiSouttiki'fan0 W r -p 6,..1,00.1:4( 64 thg aiSil7 p Gayantyi 4(,."rllitdr5talgfof Cotorefib43-.?# ":3 i af�bve a d y� k scent tore i �h varrfanpa wougiq-011.0K1gtt?��4++1A�. sitlence -[ '„ grrfla ctoch- fpetln tV1 23:ini itiarrfireat Yard4 kencb k t 1. In +! •set 6iick`i rnbtmai{y ,r;require� lti 0g¢clloPs .` 3.02 0$ 2} 01: a Gatjisid County `?on tll f 5O „ 40on ,, A ° 8u i r ob . pers .. 90te9tha p(op6 A V 1, na6.- lnvfledjo ap¢eat iondi$g1`efo lhate vlaws prateel' !ay, stipc5or1 11 yynu gar{FY1ktappetar peeSSRally Eft5,uchl' hpaFlli9 YtihaR.i ak ure_urped to State:" Sur vlowA h "letletjias t<ha=8oar,i of`.Add 04tri nt,'hf1 91v0 �ansl F. 3rauon io thl &nt$ otsurigunirrl+arproperty.t ray narAta }`fittlers ppjectod if tiecidlrtg whethet ta=i '9 f t brd pY: the ( Jo t tars a yartapce The ep pycat}oq rnep b®)6vtewgd at tttq trf1 ata of the Plan hfn pe�artment§tocai@dtai 1b8"dth t{eai $JI 12oM arfioltkcc uniyyyi'1Q d Saluting?oIenw6od. g{rn d Cypi?{l do etp/een pia hot rsio) B 3Q m: nd 1) ivIcri 9 r h F tlay + xs y t ` 1ic aon had t1, n puplip(hearJn !cn tj} �� @_ � sa edutsd !off ih 270114 of a s 6 s h rT kb t .mt`'n the Conn Pta In k lez r3.0 !n"' PBAtk, ,tiers C,drfreltt C yr}!3'z 9= Strut Gl�ha A!f"&oiraz'u: "t+ .� kL lr arn714 DeVeK17*.nt ' g �GgrlleSdCounty' t • 'ft3. ioceht...t euntnmpGy02 M T I�di ,5,,,,;.s.~, c B r RECEIVE DEC 1 6 2002 PROOF OF rubLat,rk- _ _ GLENWOOD SPRINGS POST INDEPEN DLA A STATE OF COLORADO, 33778COUNTY OF GARFIELD. } ss ' 1, :14e s r nes'-ere do solemnly swear that I am›6 1.Y�G .. 0 -Pr- of the GLENWOOD SPRINGS POST INDEPENDENT; that the same is a newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the mean- ing of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the reg- ular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for the period of consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated...'. . ICI ... A.D., 20 c ^ , and the 1 nubfication f said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated.......... 1 - I c) A.D., 20... .1 In with s hereof I have hereunto s t y hand this day of A,1?"6 General Manager l Publish//i'r Subscribed and sworn to before me, a nota u is in and for the County of G fief State o Colorado. this day of � A.D., 20 Crar 4oA • otary ' u ic MY COMMON EXPIRES 07'1272005 enwood Springs, CO. 81601 6t1%.'a46JWwn16 .1AKt NVTIGE that Arvid Johnson. has *plied to .,the Board:of Adjustment, GeriieSd.Cdunty State-ofh Colorado, to requost,a variance from the.mlhtrrium 'Fear year setback:=reqiremept of;the`. AgnculturatlResidenliallRural Densil '(NRIY.RD}, ions distrlct';in ponneclion with lhe; OSlov�irg de . scribed property actuated in (he 14V, !y. qi Ga eid' $ tato fCatotad4 la -wit_ ;.� r_ v _ 1 - al Dedoiibtlon A p4ijtion of the NWii14 0! (hq ci r¢epuonEzs' wrr'sehliq-8,"driltl-001ti9 E8' W.06 Gglora o lz M oLnty o al_kdastaBi¢f j • PROOF OF PUBLICATION GLENWOOD SPRINGS POST INDEPENDENT STATE OF COLORADO, r� 7 ss COUNTY OF GARFIELD. I . 00010 swear that i am t t s c.F do solemnly of the GLENWOOD SPRINGS POST INDEPENDENT; that the same is a newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the mean- ing of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the reg- ular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for the period of consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated. N.? V A.D., 20 D , and the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated — A.D., 20..E In witne s whereof 1 have hereunto s my hand this \::' day of''"'' A.D., 20... Subscribed and sworn to before me, of Garfieejd,_State of C lorado. this of ! VAC•+' 3— . General Manager / Publisher a notary public in and for the County day .A.D., 20. l flyyy M. BOUGHTER NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO 410tSornmtss on xpi es u 3112604 2014 Grand Ave., Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 1'Yl Notary Public ' -1 The Voice of Western Garfield County 132 East Third Street • Rifle, Colorado 81650 Phone: 970/625/3245 Fax: 970/625/3628 December 9, 2002 Dear GSPI Legal Notice Customer: As some of you may know, Dawn Boughter, the legars and classified secretary at the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (GSPI) has recently left our company to pursue other options. Until they find a suitable person to replace her, I will be handling all of the Iegals for both the Glenwood Springs Post Independent, and for The Citizen Telegram (Rifle). We appreciate your patience until that time. My name is Jessica Stott, and 1 have been the office manager and legals and classified secretary here at The Citizen Telegram for nearly two years. Prior to that, I was the office manager and classified secretary at another one of our sister newspapers, The Bargain Hunter. I believe that my experience in the legal notice department and my knowledge of the area and our newspapers will help me provide you with accurate, informative and prompt customer service. I would like you to know that I am available for any questions or concerns you may have at any time. You can contact me at (970)625-3245 ext. 100 Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM, fax me at (970)625-3628 or via e-mail at istott@citizentelegram.com. You can also stop by my office at 132 E. 3rd Street, Rifle, CO 81650 (this is also our mailing address). I can accept legal notices that are faxed, snail -mailed or e-mailed to me at the above information. if you prefer to e-mail your legal notice, then please put it in Microsoft Word format or cut and paste it into the body of your email. Also, please remember to include your name, your company name and contact information on ALL correspondence. If the legal notice needs to be billed to someone outside of your company, please include this information as well. As a reminder, the GSPI legal notices are published Monday through Friday. The deadlines are as follows: First Publication: Deadline: Monday 10:00 AM Thursday Tuesday 10:00 AM Friday Wednesday 10:00 AM Monday Thursday 10:00 AM Tuesday Friday 10:00 AM Wednesday Also, Proofs of Publication must be signed by a manager at the GSPI office in Glenwood Springs. Since 1 live and work in Rifle, 1 will only be able to make it to Glenwood once or twice a week to get these signed. If you need your Proof of Publication to be sent out as soon as your legal has expired, please make a special note on your cover sheet or in your e-mail telling me so! Otherwise, it may take a few days before [can send these out. I truly hope that this has not caused arty inconveniences for you. If you have any further questions, or need any assistance, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you again for your patience and understanding. Happy Holidays from our family to yours! Sincerely, essica Stott Office Manager Citizen Telegram jstott@citizentelegram.com PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Arvid Johnson has applied to the Board of Adjustment, GarAel.d County, State of Colorado, to request a variance from the minimum rear year setback requirement of the Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density (AJR/RD) zone district, in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: A portion of the NW 1/4 ofthe SW 1/4, Section. 23, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth P. M., County of Garfield, State of Colorado Practical Description: 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado. The variance would allow the Applicant to rewodel an existing single-family residence to encroach 7 feet into the 25' minimum rear yard set -back normally required in Section 3.02.06(2) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state yourviews by letter, as the Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to get or deny the request for the variance. The application may be reviewed at the office ofthe PIanning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Garfield County Plana. Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public heating on the application has been scheduled for the?7t1day of January 2003, at 7:00 p.m., in the County Commissioners Chambers, Garfield County Plaza Bui ldin 8,108 8th. Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County SENDER: COMPLETE: THIS SECTION COMPLETETNIS SECTION DN DELIVERY • • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Als complete item 4 if Restricted De s desired. ▪ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. d Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Larry and Barabara Finer 2550 Niderer Road Paso Robles, CA 93446 A. Si natrue 4 eceive�..by (Pri fed Name) —LIAR -i. - ❑ Agent • Addressee 121 Date of Belivery D. is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type Q$Certified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail O Express Mail O Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number r{� (Transfer from service laber7 -7 cot�rj (--)r .el / 7 '(nom ,7 i 7, PS Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Retum Receipt 102595 -Q1 -M-2509: SENDER: 'COMPLETETHIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restrict elivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ▪ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or.on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Bureau of Land Management c/o/ Steve Bennett 50629 Highway 6 &24 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED DEC 2 4 2M2 COMPLETE ENIS SECTION ONfDEL+IVERY A. Received by,(Please Print Clearly) B. Date.of Deliv Ve, tr. ❑ Agent 0 Addressee D. Is delivery address•clifferent from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type 0 Certified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery'? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Copy from service labeQ 7�i:`.3'WO 0of-?, PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Retum Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 SENDER COMPLETE THIS.SECT,LO'N..'' ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 "'heli ed Delivery is desired. m Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: The Estate of John Powers Attn: Kimiko Powers 13114 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623-9508 RECEIVED DEC 1 9 2002 COMPLETE7HISSECfTIO N DN,D ELI:VER.Y. . A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) C. Signet B. Dat- of • - 0 Agent �4& . 0 Addressee D. s deliveryaddre-. different from it 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No Ivery 3. Service Type ❑ Certified Mail ❑ Registered 0 Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article�Number (Coy from service label° /idle,?vLS0. COCl. —7.0 ER,.. OMPTE. ThtS SECTfO�t. Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete ifent4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. le Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. In Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. CORTLETrETFJfSiSECTON NbEI.VERY ed by {Please "y' hJt� • } 1. Article Addressed to: H. Arvid Johnson Trust 4107 Newton Ave. #2 Dallas, TX 70219 RECEIVED DEC 1 2002 2. A Ps F •DDelivery OIL LuJ Agent 0 Addressee D. is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter derivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type ciCertified Mail 0 Registered 0 Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 G.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 102595.99-M-1789 12/09/2002 11:26 970-963-7290 ACKERMAN REAL ESTATE PACE 02 ART ACKERMAN 0352 Golden Stone Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81801 Re: Variance Request of Arvid Johnson from the Rear Yard Setback at 0476 County Road 112 Dear Board Members, lam writing in support of granting a variance in the rear set -back requirements with respect to the property st 0475 County Road 112. 1 have known the previous owner of the property, Ed Schumacher, and have been in the home many times in the past 17 years and am familiar with the adjoining properties in the arra. The improvements to be made to the property ars long overdue and will create a sate and appropriate correction to the saw -tooth design of the original addition. It will, in no way, impinge on any other owners' rights in the area. it is my understanding that the adjacent land owner, U.S.Bureau of Land Management, has no objection to the variance being granted and fully endorses the design proposed by Mr. Johnson, the present owner. The Improvements being made will bet an enhancement to the immediate area and will contribute to the over-all welfare of the community. Res slyY 21 Lir .Ackerman 12/09/2002 10:33 19709630306 December 9, 2002 LANDSCAPE WORKSHOP Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PAGE 02 Re: 475 County Road 112 Public Notice / Variance from setback To whom it may concern: I reside at 485 County Road 112 and have reviewed the remodel improvements proposed by Mr. Arvid Johnson at the above referenced address_ I understand that Mr. Johnson is proposing to remodel within the 25 -foot minimum rear setback located on the south side of his building envelope. After conversation with Mr. Johnson about design and size of the structure in the setback, I have no concerns_ Mr. Johnson has taken great steps towards improvements to this property and thus enhances not only the said property but also the neighborhood as a whole. I support Mr. Johnson's proposal_ Respectful) Ja - s R. Pitts 485 i aunty Road 112 •* ondale, CO 81623 Co: Mr. Arvid Johnson EXHIBIT IN REPLY REFER TO: 9230 CO -140 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Area 50629 Highway 6 and 24 P.O. Box 1009 GIenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 October 22, 2002 Ms. Cynthia Tester BEATTIE & CHADWICK 710 Cooper Avenue, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ms. Tester: As a result of our discussions with you and your client and the recent field visit, the Bureau of Land Management(BLM) has no objection with the setback variance application for Mr. Arvid Johnson. Since this situation deals with an existing structure and will actually provide the opportunity to correct an encroachment associated with the retaining wall, we support the variance as the most logical solution and least costly to all parties involved. Other alternatives'we discussed would be time consuming and costly to both the BLM and Mr. Johnson. They may also not be supported through our public process and could be controversial. We hope the County looks favorably on your application and if we can be of further assistance with that request please let us know. Sincerely, cc: Andy schwaller, Garfield County Steve G. Bennett Acting Field Manager bIumbus Na 5119 EXHIBIT E RECEIVED OCT 2 3 an OM :McElnea January 11, 2002 FRX NO. : !9111. WW1 Ni r s. VV III RSM lviumn i1t1:[t 8059 County Road #100 Carbondale, Colorado 81823 Jan. 11 2003 12:43PM P1 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th Street, Suite 201 ' Glehwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Variance Request of Arvid Johnson from the Rear Yard Setback at 0475 County Road #112 Dear Board Members: We support the granting of a seven foot variance from the rear set back requirements with respect to the property at 0475 County Road 0112. The Improvements being made by Mr. Johnson wilt enhance the immediate area and will contribute in a positive way to the overall welfare of the community. By eliminating a safety hazard and correcting a faulty design, the improvements will 'sarve the public good. • This house is located In a heavily wooded area, and the variance would have no impact on the surrounding area. We encourage the Board to act favorably on this request for a variance. Respectfully subitted. cc: Mr. Arvid Johnson Mr. and Mrs. Austin Marquis 0956 County Road #112 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 January 4, 2002 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Variance Request of Arvid Johnson from the Rear Yard Setback at 0475 County Road #112 Dear Board Members: We are writing in support of granting a variance in the rear set back requirements with respect to the property at 0475 County Road #112. We have been long time neighbors of the previous owner of the property, Ed Schumacher, and have been in the home many times in the past. We are familiar with the adjoining properties in the area. The improvements to be made to the property are long overdue and will create a safe and appropriate correction to the saw tooth design of the original addition. The house is not located in a subdivision or a planned development and in fact is not visible from any roads in the area, being surrounded by trees. To strictly enforce a set back requirement given the facts of this case would cause an undue hardship to Mr. Johnson and his attempt to correct the original faulty design and construction.. The improvements being made by Mr. Johnson will enhance the immediate area and will contribute in a positive way to the overall welfare of the community, will eliminate a safety hazard and will serve the public good. Respectfully sub red. C7i"AuL, EXHIBIT [27 Larry & Barbara FIuer 2550 Niderer Road Paso Robles, CA 93445 805 237 2392 December 5, 2002 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th St. Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, CO; Public Notice re variance from setback To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in response to the receipt of a public notice announcing a hearing on an application for variance by the property owner of the above referenced parcel. The hearing is scheduled on December 9, 2002. We are adjacent property owners of property located at 0477 County Road 112, Carbondale, CO. We are familiar with the property at 0475 County Road 112, having lived on adjacent property for a number of years. It is our understanding from the public notice, and from conversation with the applicant, Mr. Arvid Johnson that a remodel of a portion of the existing primary residence located on 0475 County Road 112 has been proposed. The remodelwill involve construction within the 25 -foot minimum rear yard setback on the south side of the building. The area of the property where the improvements will occur has no negative impact on our property of which we are aware, and the area where the construction will occur is in closest proximity to public land being managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The improvements described by Mr. Johnson will serve to protect the investment of neighboring property owners as a long-standing existing structure is being maintained thereby contributing to the overall welfare of the community and the public good, We encourage the board to affirm the application for variance so that the needed improvements can be constructed as proposed. Thank you for the notification and - solicitation for public comment. Larry Fluer Cc: Mr. Arvid Johnson Barbara FIuer FROM :TJ CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC. FAX NO. :9709631197 Nov. 24 2001 11:55AM P2 December 9, 2002 Cynthia C, Tester Attorney at Law Attn: Garfield County Zoning and Adjustment Board 108 8th Street #201 Glenwood Springs, CO 811601 Re: Variance for dwelling located at: 1045 County Road 112, Garfield County, Colorado Gentleman, I wish to address the proposed changes in the property formerly owned by Ed Schumacher, located at 1045 County Road 112. The breakfast area, which is the subject in question, was very poorly designed and the construction could only be considered shoddy. I have spent considerable time in the subject property and am familiar with the construction. 1 feel that by granting the proposed building variance would not only enhance the subject property, but would also enhance the entire area. Thanking you in advance for your consideration of this matter_ Sincerely yours, A.R. Koeneke EXHIBIT .FROM : STEPHENSON PHONE NO. : 970 963 9166 Dec. 09 2002 02:18PM P1 0328 Surrey Street Ranch at Roaring Fork Carbondale, Colorado 81823 Vox & Fax 970-963-8168 rincon@sopris.net December 2002 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th St. Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601 Re: 475 CR 112, Carbondale To Whom It May Concern: I find that I am unexpectedly unable to attend the public hearing regarding the application for a setback variance for the subject property. I do, however, wish that my comments be heard and entered into the record. As you are aware, the proposed construction would not increase the existing seven foot encroachment, but rather add some 70 square feet of living area within the setback area. The net result would be to bring a rather unsightly building elevation up to the architectural standard of the neighborhood. The variance process is designed to deal with zoning situations which cannot fit into the general "one size fits all" zoning regulations; in addition, variances allow, even encourage buildings which will complement the community. Such is the case with this variance application. All neighbors including the federal government have supported this application for the simple reason that the plan results in a distinct benefit to the community. Logic and common sense clearly dictate approval of the variance. I ask that you approve the variance application. Yours frilly, /13 n B. Stephenson 12/29/2002 08:25 9707041987 KIRKHAM GEORGE D. KIRKHAM 04199 COUNTY ROAD 112, P. 0. Box 235 CARBONDALE,COLORADO 61623 December 28, 2002 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 Eighth Street Suite '201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: 0475 County Road 112 Public Notice for Variance in Set Back Requirements Ladies and Gentlemen: As neighbors of Arvid and Janet Johnson, we urge you to grant this very reasonable request for a variance. Set back requirements make sense in urban and suburban ardas. They make very little sense in most rural areas involving large parcels of land. In this particular case the house in question cannot be seen by any neighbor. The variance is needed to keep the cost of remodeling reasonable, and the re- modeling will only improve a once-delapidated house. Please, let's not Aspenize Garfield County. Sincerely, CJ � George Kirkham Mary T. Kirkham PAGE 02 12/08/2002 22:57 19709635512 ARVIDJANETJOHNSO PAGE 02 THE DOUBLE J RANCH 0471 COUNTY ROAD #112 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623-9607 970-963-8244 fax 970-963-5512 December 7, 2002 Garfield County Board of Zoning Adjustment 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Variance application for the premises at 0475 County Road #112 To the Board of Zoning Adjustment: For the record and in response to the certified notice of a public hearing on the application for a variance to the rear yard set back requirements for the property at 0475 County Road #112, we urge the Board to provide for a variance for ail the reasons stated in the initial application. Janet hnson { BOA Meeting Minutes from September 23, 2002 Members Present Staff Present Leo Jammaron Steve Boat Brad Jordan Tom Morton Mark Bean, B&P Director Carolyn Dahlgren, Assist. Cty. Atty. Catalina Cruz, Assist. Cty. Atty. Roll call was taken and Pete Cabrinha is absent tonight. The item of discussion tonight is a public hearing request for a variance to the front yard setback, Section 3.7(1)(A) of the Battlement Mesa PUD for a single-family dwelling. The property is located at 33 Lupine Lane within the Battlement Mesa Subdivision. The applicants are Damon and Amanda Wells who are both present for this hearing. Carolyn Dahlgren questioned Amanda Wells about noticing requirements. Mrs. Wells used the County Assessors records to identify all property owners within 200 feet of their property. To the best of her knowledge there are no lessees of minerals. Did certified mailing to each individual within time period of not more than 60 days and not Iess than 30 days. All certified return receipts were provided to Carolyn for the record. Proof of publication in the Post Independent was also provided. Mrs. Well's father posted the site and is still there on the public right-of-way. Submitted pictures. All appears to be in order. Okay to proceed. Brad made a motion and Steve seconded to open the public portion of meeting. All approved. Leo swore in all people who wanted to speak this evening. Mark Bean handed out a letter that was received today from Dan Niedbalski dated September 23, 2002 in favor of the variance request. Mark entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A: Proof of publication Exhibit B: Return receipts Exhibit C: Application Exhibit D: Project Information & Staff Comments Exhibit E: Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended Exhibit F: Letter from Dan Niedbalski in favor of applicants request Bfumbera Na Mil) EXHIBIT Exhibits A -- F are accepted into the record. All members approved these exhibits being accepted into the record. Mark Bean covered the staff report. The Well's are requesting a variance from the front yard setback. The property is approximately 10,000 square feet in size and is located at 33 Lupine Lane, Lot 9, Block 11 of the Monument Creek Village of Battlement Mesa PUD, Parachute, CO. The site appears to be relatively flat. The applicants are currently constructing a single-family dwelling on the subject property. Upon inspection by Garfield County Building Department, the garage portion of the house was found to be in violation of the Garfield County Land Use Code as well as the PUD zoning for the property regarding building in the front yard setback. The PUD zoning for the property requires all structures to respect a 25 -foot front yard setback. The garage portion of the residence extends 3.1 feet into the front yard setback and is therefore in violation of the zoning regulations. The house is framed and windows and doors have been installed. The project currently has a "stop work order" and cannot receive a Certificate of Occupancy until the zoning violation is resolved. The Applicant submitted a letter from the Battlement Mesa Architectural Committee which states they would not contest any action taken by Garfield County in approving the variance request. The Committee states this is an isolated incident and will not set any precedent for future actions by the Architectural Committee. The Applicant contends the reason the house has been built into the setback is most likely due to the movement of the stakes that delineate the front yard setback from the property during the course of the construction of the dwelling. The applicant submits the error might have occurred in one of the following ways: • The error was caused by a miscalculation on the part of a subcontractor; or • During the rerouting of the waterline, the setback stake was inadvertently removed and replaced in the wrong location. As such, a variance granted by the BOA would allow the structure to remain in place. If the variance is not granted, the Applicant will be forced to demolish the portion of the garage in the setback and redesign the structure to comply with the regulations. Mark reviewed the Statutes set by the State: • That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property. • That such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or this Resolution • That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected. 2 Y -• r ',.-1' ,.,...7.-,••.2.:f_37 ve,yw�-- .L.,,.. • That the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the appellant. Staff recommends the BOA Deny this application for a variance from the minimum front yard setback of 3.1 feet. Leo asked in a planned community, does the County or Battlement Mesa set the setbacks? Mark responded that the PUD develops their own zoning. Steve asked if the developer said this is okay? Mark said yes that Battlement Mesa has given their approval. Steve brought up zoning change within PUD. HOA is not interested in that. Brad said he can understand a precedence setting but he doesn't see this that way. Damon Wells thanked the BOA for their time. He spoke about the human element. He referred to his letter of narrative. A quarter of the garage is at 17 feet. Various reasons as to why this happened. They don't want to point blame at anyone because they do not know.who is at fault. No precedence will be set per Battlement Mesa HOA. This causes undue hardship on them. The public has a forum to voice these issues. This is 37 inches that we are talking about. Have letters stating no problem with requested variance. Steve asked how was this caught? Mark said during inspection the setback was questioned. Leo asked about flags in picture and referred to survey location. Leo visited the site yesterday and he said there seems to be a lot of room in the front. Damon Wells did not breach setback intentionally. Moved to public for comments. Jim Landrum of 11 Lupine Lane spoke first. He feels concern for these two young people. Talked to contractor about size of garage. Would ask BOA to grant variance in leu of cutting of 3'1" on garage. No other public comments so Brad made a motion to close that portion of hearing and all approved. Brad asked about report and who wrote. Mark said someone else wrote it. Brad referred to page 3 of staff report. Tom asked about any plans to check these out in the field. Steve asked when was contractor going to admit this problem. Mark said when house was sold an improvement survey would be done and then it would be discovered. 3 rA- Brad asked if decision is written by the book. Mark said it is self imposed and written by the book. Brad made a motion to approve requested variance as stated and Steve seconded the motion. Tom Morton said Government has a human face. Ali approved motion unanimously. Brad made a motion to adjourn and Steve seconded. All approved. 4 GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE PLAZA, ROOM 100 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 1) Call Meeting to Order Roll Call 3) Public Hearing: Request is for a Variance to Section 3.7(1)(A) of The Battlement Mesa PUD for a single family dwelling related to the Front Yard Setback. The property is located at 33 Lupine Lane in Battlement Mesa. Applicant: Damon & Amanda Wells 4) Other Business 5) Meeting Adjournment BOA 9123/02 FAJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REOUEST: APPLICANT: PROPERTY LOCATION: PRACTICAL LOCATION: WATER / SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Variance from Front Yard Setback Damon and Amanda Wells Lot 9, Block 11, Monument Creek Village, Section One, Garfield County, Colorado . - =, located in Monument Creek Village of the Battlement Mesa PUD, Parachute, Colorado Battlement Mesa Consolidated Metro District Lupine Lane PUD Denial L DESCRIPTION OF IRE PR The property is approximat- 10,000 sq. $. in sic..!;id located at 33 Lupine Lane in Monument Creek Village of the Battlement Mesa -PUD, Parachute o1 rado. The site a be relatively el go appears to tiv y flat. IL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Applicant is currently constructing a single-family dwelling on the subject property. Upon inspection by Garfield County, the ara e portion of the house was found to be in violation o e arfield County Land -Ds.S.o.des the PUD zoninfor the property regarding building in the front yard setbiZE More specifically, the PUD zonin_ for the prop r,. tures all structures to respect a 25-footont yar setback. The garage portion of the residence under construction extens feet fo he ons yard setback and is therefore in violation of the zoning regulations. The Applicant has applied to the Board of Adjustment to request a variance from the front yard setback requirements of 25 feet. The house is framed and windows and doors have been installed. The project currently maintains a "stop work" order and cannot receive a Certificate -of Occupancy until the zoning violation is resolved. It should be noted, the Applicant submitted a letter from the Battlement Mesa Service Association Architectural Committee jhereinafter "Committee") which states that they would "not contest any action -ta en by Garfield County" in approving the variance request. In a.. -tion the omni i. s is an isolated incident and will not set any precedent to -flit -tire actions by the Architectural Committee." (See III. STAFF COMMENTS & REVIEW STANDARDS Staff reviewed the variance application which, if granted by the Board of Adjustment, would allow the Applicant to construct the garage portion of the single-family dwelling 3.1 feet into the front yard setback. The Applicant contends the reason the house has been built into the setback is most likely due to the movement of the stakes that delineate the front yard setback for the property during the course of the construction of the dwelling. More specifically, the Applicant submits the error might have occurred in one of the following ways: The error was caused by a miscalculation on the part of a subcontractor; or During the rerouting of the waterline, the setback stake was inadvertently removed and replaced in the wrong location. In. any event, the dwelling is currently under considerable construction. As such, a variance granted by the Board would allow the structure to remain in place. Conversely, if a variance in not granted, the Applicant will be forced to demolish the portion of the garage in the setback and redesign the structure to comply with the regulations. or er for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, they must find the Applicant has satisfied the three main criteria or- standards provided in Section 9.05 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff has included the regulatory language from Section 9.05 followed by Staff's findings to the required criteria / standards set forth below. Specifically, Section 9.05.03 of the zoning regulations states, After the proper forwarding of an application for variance to the Board and where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece ofproperty at the time of enactment of this Resolution, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, the strict application of any regulation enacted under this Resolution would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property, the Board may authorize, upon the application relating to said property, a variance from such strict application so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship, provided, however: hat the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; Staff Finding As mentioned above, the front 3.1 feet of the garage extends into the front yard setback. It appears that the reasons for this violation may be one of the following: a) The error was caused by a miscalculation on the part of a subcontractor; or b) During the rerouting of the waterline, the setback stake was inadvertently removed and replaced in the wrong location. A variance of 3.1 feet would alleviate a practical difficulty of having to demolish that portion of the garage. However, the variance would not alleviate an undue hardship upon the owner. The lot is flat and contains considerable square footage for the placement of the single-family dwelling. The underlying zoning regulations can be easily met on the property and do not cause an undue hardship. Moreover, the regulations state that hardship could be achieved if: 1) by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property at the time of enactment of this Resolution, or 2) by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. 2 The property is flat and contains approximately 10,000 sq. ft. which can easily accommodate a single-family dwelling as proposed and constructed. Staff finds that the lot is 1) not exceptionally narrow or shallow in shape, 2) nor contains exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. The Applicant has not satisfied this criterion. CThat such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or this Resolution; Staff Finding Staff finds that by granting this variance, which appears to be caused by the property owner, the Board may be setting a dangerous precedent which jeopardizes its ability to make future decisions on variance requests. As a result, Staff finds that a granting of this variance would cause substantial detriment to the public good and would impair the intent and purpose of the General plan and this Resolution. More specifically, by granting this variance simply because construction has begun on the structure even though the violation was caused by the Applicant, it would send a mixed message to the general public of Garfield County. In other words, future builders, contractors, and property owners might more likely violate setback requirements (or other zoning regulations) knowing that the Board will most likely approve a variance because they would be bound by their past decision making record. Staff acknowledges this decision is not an easy one due to the fact that the residence is already under substantial construction. In many variance requests before the Board, Applicants are still in a design phase rather than actually dealing with issues surrounding a residence under construction. Nevertheless, Staff cannot recommend the Board approve this variance request because it is caused by the Applicant and would set a very difficult precedent to overcome. Not only would this action place the Board in a difficult position by weakening their ability to make variance decisions based on hardship, but it would also begin to erode the importance of the zoning regulations themselves adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. In this light, a Staff finds that granting this variance would cause detriment to the public good and substantially impair the intent and purpose of the General plan and this Resolution. As a result, Staff finds the Applicant has not met this criterion. hat the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected; Staff Finding As the criterion states, the hardship for which a variance is requested may not be one the property owner inflicted on himself (e.g., been due to the owner's violation of the regulation) or could have avoided. Staff finds the present request for the setback variance is caused entirelybythe Applicant. In this case, the Applicant (also the property owner) is ultimately responsible for what occurs on their property either directly or indirectly. For example, even though a sub -contractor, surveyor, or another third party may have moved the stakes in the ground used to delineate the proper boundaries, they are building the house on behalf of the owner. The actions taken by others done on behalf of the property" owner ultimately become the responsibility of the property owner. Recourse available to the property owner to remedy the violation not only includes requesting a variance from the Board, but also having the person(s) responsible for the constructing the house in its current location fix their apparent mistake. While this violation may not have been caused by the Applicant directly, it is the result of someone constructing the dwelling on the Applicant's behalf. As a result of the aforementioned, the 3 hardship for which a variance is requested has been caused by the property owner and could have been avoided. Staff finds the Applicant has not met this criterion. That the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the appellant Staff Finding As stated in the criterion listed above, in order for the Board to approve the variance request, there needs to be at least 4 concurring voting members. This shall be determined at the public hearing. W. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of Adjustment. 2. That the meeting before the Board of Adjustment 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 setback variance has been determined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY this application for a variance from the minim= front yard setback of 3.1 feet. 4 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Damon and Amanda Wells have applied to the Bbard of Adjustment, Garfield County,_State of Colorado, to request a variance, in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: • Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 11, Monument Creek Village, Section One, Garfield County,, Colorado Practical Description: 33 Lupine Lane, located in Monument Creek Village of the Battlement Mesa PUD, Parachute, Colorado The variance would allow the applicant to encroach 3 feet 1 inches into the25' front yard set- back normally required in Section 3.7(1)(A) of the Battlement Mesa PUD for a single -fancily dwelling currently under construction. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests cx support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the variance. The application may be reviewed at the office ofthe Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 23rd day of September, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., in the County Commissioners Chambers, Garfield County PIP 7a Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department ' . Garfield County REQUEST: APPLICANT: i )it RID Pa1LAiC_�c- BOA 10/25/99 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Variance from Section 3.02.06 (2) & (3) of the Zoning regulations concerning the minimum rear and side yard setbacks. Kass T. Burwell & Douglas J. Wight LOCATION: 0232 Comanchero Trail, Lot 4 Block 5 Elk Creek Subdivision, northwest of New Castle $ITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Approximately 'A acre New Castle wells individual sewage disposal system (ISDS) Comanchero Trail RMH/G/UD--Residential-Mobile Home/General/Urban Density A. Request: The applicant is requesting a variance from,the required twenty-five (25) foot 'rear yard setback and from the required ten (10') foot side yard setback: The proposed variance would allow the placement of single family-An/Me home ten (10) feet from the rear property line and five (5) feet from the west propertyci 5Q - line. The applicant maintains that the topography, trees, and the location of the ISDS on the site present constraints and hardship. There is an existing mobile home on the site that currently encroaches into both side yard setbacks. However, the new unit will encroach into the rear yard setback causing the home to be placed quite-elese-to an existing ditch,•,which is known to leak. IL MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: A setback is the minimum dimension of a required yard (section 2.02.48). A yard is the open space on a lot unobstructed from the ground upward (section Page 1 of 4 Blumberg Ha 5119 EXHIBIT 2,02.54). A front lot line is the boundary of a lot dividing it from the adjacent street (section 2.02.34-1). A rear lot line is defined as the boundary of a lot opposite the front lot line. A side lot line is any boundary other than a front or rear lot line. Section 3.11.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, states what the minimum setbacks are in the R-MH/GIUD zone: Minimum Setback: Front yard (a) arterial streets; seventy five (75) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local street: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twcrlty five (25)feet from lot line, whielwer {s greater; (2) Rear yard: Twenty five (25)feet from rear lot line; (3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line or one-half (1/2) the height of the prrinoipal building, whichever is greater. (A. 79-132) B. Variance Criteria: Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution sets forth the criteria ,;,' upon which a variance may be granted: It states: rfr tA.a 071-10 Action by the Board ofAdjustment; After the proper forwarding of an application for variance to the Board and where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the speck piece of property at the time of enactment of this Resolution or by reason of exceptional topographic . conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, the strict application ofany regulation enacted under this lesolution would result rtu 'wtirpeculiar and exceptional practical difficulties444ceptional and undue hardshippon,••the owner of such property, the Board may authorize, upon the applicatio relating to said properly, a variance from such strict application so as to reli such difficulties or •rdshrp, provi ever:i (45DIA.124 C. (1) That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner ofsaidproperty; 1 Lek(.c.c [ c. -f — rfc t :Uc 1.t . c t k t c C <'r46 (2) That such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public C1' good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or this Resolution; . 2 t rnAkali 1/1-4Z-1- kaA4+ . -# (-;mi• (3) That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected; amt,. L&p:4d c.k*..p cp..v t -L -€)t- ' .. 4 That the concurringvote offour(4)members oft e Board shall be necessa (� .�f f rY to decide in favor of the appellant. This subdivision was created prior to enactment of the zoning and subdivision regulations. This particular lot is narrow, varies from 1O% slope to fairly level, and Page 2 of 4 appears constrained due to the septic and drywell locations. However, the applicant proposes to replace a single wide mobile home with a double wide manufactured home, which will likely require installation of a new, adequately sized ISDS (individual sewage disposal system). Thus, the septic location is not considered to be a constraint to the development of the lot unless the applicant can provide proof that the existing ISDS will be adequate for the new unit: In the event the existing ISDS must be replaced, it appears possible to place the new dwelling unit and ISDS on the lot without the need for a variance. There is a ditch that borders the rear property line that has reportedly leaked in the pasta It must be clearly understood that under no circumstances may the new unit encroach on any easements, nor can any support for the ditch be removed/altered. The applicant should provide an engineer's statement assuring the County that no negative effect will occur to the ditch as a result of the variance and placement of the new unit. Furthermore, no below -grade living areas (such as a finished basement) will be permitted. Previous geotechnical studies of the area indicate substantial soiligeology constraints the applicant should be aware of. As a result, an engineered foundation will be necessary. The variance requested appears to be the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulties and no detriment to the public is expected to occur as long as the recommendations made above are followed and it can be proved that the existing ISDS is adequately sized and thus does not need replacing. Otherwise, the existing lot can accommodate the proposed development and thus the variance is not authorized under County regulations. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the application for Variance was found to be consistent with the requirements and standards of Section 9.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 2. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required for the public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 3. That the variance approved is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulties, that the hardship is not self-created, and that it can be practically corrected. 4. That the public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment was extensive and complete, that all facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the meeting. Y. RECOMMENDATION Page 3 of 4 Based on the comments contained herein, and on the findings listed above, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the variance request, with the following conditions: J con -c52.-- 1. nn -c52.--1. To ensure that the proposed spectabinctirls in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County: That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the hearing before the Board of Adjustment, shall be considered conditions of approval. 41 -AP - ick v -N r,-� . 3, viciori`w ‘S\ Page 4 of 4 Pursuant to section 9.05.03 (1) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, which states that the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship won the owner of said property: That the applicant prove that the existing ISDS is adequately sized for the new unit and is thus is valid support of the variance. If a new ISDS is needed, it shall be placed in such a way that encroaching into the setbacks is unnecessary. and thus no variance shall be granted. MO. ,.v t'lr�. .';-' ='� , To ensure that the proposed spesepe er -isin the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County: Under no circumstances shall the new unit encroach on any easements, nor can any support for the ditch be removed/altered, The applicant shall provide an engineer's statement assuring the County that no negative effect wi[1 occur to the ditch as a result of the variance and placement of the new unit. Furthermore, no below -Fade living areas (such as a finished basement) will be permitted. An engineered foundation shall be required. f • • GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department October 26, 1999 Mr. Kass Burwell & Mr. Doug Wight 0232 Comanchero Trail New Castle, CO 81647 Re: Burwell/Wight Variance Application Dear Mr. Burwell & Mr. Wight: As you are aware, yesterday, at a noticed public hearing, the Board of Adjustment moved to conditionally approve your request for a variance from Section 3.02.06 (2) and (3) — the rear and side yard setbacks -- concerning 0232 Comanchero Trail (Lot 4, Block 5, Elk Creek Subdivision). The conditions are as follows: 1. That all representations oldie applicant, either within the application or stated at the hearing before the Board of Adjustment, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. Under no circumstances shall the new unit encroach on any easements, nor can any support for the ditch be removed/altered. The applicant shall provide an engineer's statement assuring the County that no negative effect will occur to the ditch as a result of the variance and placement of the new unit. Furthermore, no below -grade living areas (such as a finished basement) will be permitted. An engineered foundation shall be required. The variance process will not be complete until the engineer's statement in item 2 has been provided. Once it has been provided, you may continue to proceed through the building permit process. Please contact me in the event you have any questions. Sincerely, Kit Lyo Senior Planner cc: Steve Hackett, Codes Enforcement Page 1 of 1 TAKE NOTICE that ICa s; .`Y =Biiiivell''and Douglas J. Wight have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Garfield County, State of Colorado, for a variance to encroach in the required front and side yard setbacks in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 5, Unit 1 of the Elk Creek Development Practical Description: 0232 Comanchero Trail, New Castle, Colorado, 81647 Said variance will allow a single family home to encroach fifteen (15) feet into the rear yard setback and five (5) feet into the side yard setback. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, endorsements or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your iews by letter, as the Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the comments of surround' g property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for a variance. This variance application may be reviewed at the office of the PIanning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p. m., Monday through Friday. The public hearing on the application for the above variance request has been set for the 25th day of October, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., at the office of the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301,109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING JULY 30, 2001, MINUTES BOA MEMBERS PRESENT Leo Jammaron Harold Raymond Steve Boat Pete Cabrinha STAFF PRESENT Mark Bean, B&P Director Jim Leuthauser, Assist. Cty. Atty. Roll call was taken and the following members were absent: Brad Jordan, Tom Morton and Dan Weitzenkorn. The first item on the agenda is a public hearing request for a variance froze, the standard ten -foot side yard setback in the R/L/SD zoning. The property is located between the Roaring Fork River and County Road 156. (near the Cardiff Bridge) The applicant is Ed Rosenberg. Mark Bean entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Proof of Publication Return Receipts Application Project information & Staff Comments Plans for Building Mark presented the staff report. The subject property is limited in its building envelope by the steep decline to the River and large trees on the property. The applicant is requesting permission to expand their house by building on an attached garage. To do this they will need to build the garage inside the ten -foot side yard setback. If this variance is granted there will still be three -feet of distance between the garage and property line. Staff is recommending approval of this requested variance to the side yard setback. Ed Rosenberg presented his comments and noted an old log building at the end of the driveway, which is also encroaching on setback. Pete Cabrinha asked, did fire district actually go out there? Ed didn't know. He also questioned the "bump out" on the side of house. Pete is curious about roofline and asked to see drawing of house. Pete also had a question on water to garage. Steve Boat asked about drainage away from the house, needing one foot in ten. Ed says everything drains to the river now and will continue to do so. A motion was made to close public hearing. Steve made motion and Harold seconded. All approved unanimously. Pete Cabrinha made a motion to approve variance as requested and Steve Boat seconded. A vote was taken and all approved unanimously. Board of Adjustment July 30t1, 2001 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Variance from the ten -foot side yard setback APPLICANT: Ed Rosenberg LOCATION: 0176 CR 156, GIenwood Springs, CO ACCESS: Direct access off CR 156 n EXISTING ZONING: �—' L- I (5 4) L DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The subject property is located between the Roaring Fork River and CR 156 and near the Cardiff Bridge. The subject property is limited in its building envelop by the steep decline to the River and large trees on the property. B. Request: The applicant is requesting permission to expand their house by building on an attached garage. To do this they will need to -build -the garage inside the ten -foot side yard set back. C. Subdivision: This proposal is located in the Midland Grade Subdivision approved in 1975. . 1Z MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS: A. Zoning: This property is zoned RIG/LTD. Minimum side yard set back for this zone district is ten feet or one half the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. The applicant is requesting permission to build a 17 by 25 foot garage on their house. Currently the applicant has twenty feet of side yard to the property line, if this variance is allowed there will still be three feet of distance between the garage and property line. B. Section Number 9.05.03 After the proper forwarding of an application for variance to the board and -where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the. specific piece of property at the time of enactment of this Resolution, or by reason of exceptional topographical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or condition of such piece of property, the strict application of any regulation enacted under - this -Resolution would .result in peculiar and exceptional. and practicaldifficulties .tor or - exceptionai and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property, the Board may authorize, upon the application relating to said property , a variance from the strict application so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship, provided, however: 1. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property, 2. That such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Master Plan or this Resolution; The public good is more likely to be served by granting this variance then denying this variance. Should the variance be denied and the applicant forced to develop the garage on the opposite of the house those large frees would have to be removed. Large trees close to the river bank act as an "anchor. Remove those trees and the possibility of erosion increases dramatically. 3. That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant, are not due to, or the result of, general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected; The applicant is requesting only to build a garage on their property this is would not be out of step with the character of the neighborhood or the limitations of the zone district. The only reason place to build the garage is in the side yard set back The triangular shape of the lot, the desire to protect mature trees and the steep slopes in the backyard are the primary reasons for this variance request. - 4. That the concurring vote of four members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the appellant. --The-proposed variance-request.i-s-seeking-relief-from-the.side yard set -back requirement of ten feet. The steepness of the back yard makes building the garage there impractical. The large trees on the other side of the house protect the riverbanks from erosion so removing them to build the garage is impractical if not down injurious to the natural environment. The applicant has made several contacts concerning this proposal, their neighbors and KN Energy. Their neighbors have stated in writing that they have no concerns with this proposal. According to the applicant, KN Energy will be replacing the old gas line and that they had no objection to locating the new gas line and meter off the garage. GIenwood Springs & Rural Fire Protection District has Stafhas sent this request to the Glenwood Springs and Rural Fire Protection District for their concerns and comments. At this time the Fire District responded only to say there were no objections. Attached garages are not generally heated but they do have an electrical or power source for lighting; therefore there is some fire danger involved. Staff felt that the fire district should have the opportunity to comment on this proposal. DI RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment approve this Variance. REQUESTED VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ATTACHED GARAGE I have only one place to build a garage on my property and that is attached to my house on the existing paved driveway. This falls in the setback, which is why I .am asking for a variance due to the hardship which exists. I live by the Roaring Fork River and the lay of the land slopes N.E. to the riven On the north side of the house the land slopes drastically down towards the river. Just before the slope exists a Pine tree, in excess of 60 feet tall. Twenty five feet towards the middle of the front yard lives a Maple tree in excess of 40 feet tall. Behind the area, of the proposed attached garage, exists an old log shed (10'x 24'), which sits on a concrete pad. This is a workshop and is not wide enough to accommodate a vehicle. Even if I wanted to knock this down ,which I do not, and build a garage in ifs place I would still need a variance to build it big enough to accommodate a vehicle and I would encounter slope related problems. My neighbors to the immediate south (the only property directly effected by the proposed garage) are Tim and Jenny Lang -Burns. They have seen these plans and approve of the project. (please refer to attached letter). The contractor, Character Builders (Steve Ms +io) is ready to begin the project as soon as I complete the variance process. Buddy, at the Water Dept., sent Bn77 over (at my request) to look at the project on 5/08/01. Bn77 said there are "no problems" in regards to the sewer line with the proposed project. Jeff Shreeve and Ryan Wesseling, of KN Energy, came by on 5/11/01 and notified me that regardless of the project the old natural gas line, still attached to my neighbors house to the south, must be replaced with a new line directly to CR 156. They have seen the proposed garage plans and approve of a new meter and gas line going from the outside of the proposed garage directly to the road. Thankyou for your time considering this project. Hopefully it meets with your aproval. Since Ed Rosenberg 176 CR 156 �-- Glenwood Springs, Co. 945-1054-h/ 945-6544-w e • GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA May 18, 1988 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ROOM 301 DATE: May 18, 1998 1) Call meeting to order 2) Roll Call 3) Fublic Hearing for a Variance from Section 3.01.06(2) - Minimum rear yard setback, located at the East Rifle 1-70 intersection. Applicant ,Pa il, Anib?ose-i 4) Other Business - Next meeting date 5) Adjournment Please call the office at 945-8212 and verify whether or not you will be able to attend the meeting EXHl81T BOA 5/18198 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS $I QIjF .1: Variance from Section 3.01.06 (2) - Munimum rear yard setback - APPLICANT: Phil Ambrose LOCATION: A tract of land located within a portion of Section 16, T6S, R93W, located approximately East Rifle 1-70 intersection. SITE DATA: 0.30 acres 'WATER/SEWER: unknown ACCESS: CR 320 FXISTING ZONING: A/1 i. DEKR1I7 O0F THE PROFOSAELL A. Site Description: The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of the East Rifle 170 intersection.. Improvements on the site include an existing single- faly home and certain accessory structures. A vicinity map is attached on page B. Request The applicant is requesting a variance from the required twenty-five (25) foot setback from the rear property line, to allow for an addition to the existing dwelling unit. The proposed variance would the place the west wall of the proposed addition approximately four (4) feet from the rear property line. The applicant's engineer has stated that the encroachments were necessary to effectively repair a plumbing problem created b a y •ken pipe in the existing bathroom. (See site plan and application pgs. -1- MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Toning: Section 3.01.06 (2), requires that a rear yard setback of 25 ft. be observed for any house located in the A/I zone district. The existing house is already nonconforming, in that the northwest comer of the structure is within the 25 ft. set back. The property line in question is considered the rear property line, since it the line opposite the front lot line. B. Section 9.05.03 states that "by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property at the time of this resolution or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property," the Board may authorize a variance. In addition, the Board must also find that: 1. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; and 2. That such relief may be granted. without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General PIan or this Resolution; and 3. That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship was not caused by the applicant, are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically corrected; and 4. That the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the applicant. C. The proposed variance is from a regulation that was enacted in 1973 to deal with new construction. The lot is an irregular shape and the house was placed in the present location prior to that time. As such, it is a nonconforming use. Given the existing location of the house in relation to the property lines, it does not appear that any remodel of the house could be accomplished without additional encroachment into the setback in question. Given the engineers statement, it appears that any repair of the bathroom would require an additional encroachment into the setback. Staff feels that the proposed variance is the minimum necessary to allow for the repair. That there is no reasonable alternative to the construction, short of demolition of the entire house and rebuilding in another location on the lot. -2- PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Phillip Ambrose has applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a variance to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: See attached description Practical Description: Located on the southwest side of the East Rifle 1-70 Interchange, near the Rifle Rest stop. Said variance is to allow a variance to the rear yard setback of 25 ft. to six (6) ft. for an addition to a single family dwelling on the above-described property. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Zoning Board of Adjustment will give consideration to the comments or surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the variance. This variance application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. That a scheduled public hearing on the application has been set for the 18th day ofMay, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the office of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301,109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado Planning Department Garfield County HARTERT & WILSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 TENTH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE (970) 928-S665 FACSIMILE (970) 928-9680 January 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Arvid Johnson Application to the Garfield County Board of Adjustment 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado Members of the Board of Adjustment: GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING GERALD D. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON I represent the Estate of John G. Powers and Kimiko Powers as the Personal Representative of the Estate. I have been authorized by Ms. Powers to clarify previous positions on the referenced application which were communicated to you. Ms. Powers has directed me to inform you that she has no objection to the application and in fact supports the same. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Gerald D. Hartert GDH:bjw RE HARTERT & WILSON JAN 2 4 0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 TENTH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE (970) 928-9665 FACSIMILE (970) 926-9680 January 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8ft' Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Arvid Johnson Application to the Garfield County Board of Adjustment 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado Members of the Board of Adjustment: GARFiELD =COUNTY BOLDING & PLANNING GERALD D. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON I represent the Estate of John G. Powers and Kimiko Powers as the Personal Representative of the Estate. I have been authorized by Ms. Powers to clarify previous positions on the referenced application which were communicated to you_ Ms. Powers has directed me to inform you that she has no objection to the application and in fact supports the same. Thank you very much for your consideration, GDH:bjw Very truly yours, Gerald D. Hartert RE HIBIT HARTERT & WILSON MN 2 U3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 TENTH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE (970) 928-9665 FACSIMILE (970) 928-9680 January 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 eh Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Arvid Johnson Application to the Garfield County Board of Adjustment 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado Members of the Board of Adjustment: GARFELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING GERALD D. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON I represent the Estate of John G. Powers and Kimiko Powers as the Personal Representative of the Estate. I have been authorized by Ms. Powers to clarify previous positions on the referenced application which were communicated to you_ Ms. Powers has directed me to inform you that she has no objection to the application and in fact supports the same. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, GDH:bjw Gerald D. Hartert RE HARTERT & WILSON JAN 2 4 u IIBIT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 TENTH STREET GLENWOOD SPR/NGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE (970) 928-9665 FACSIMILE (970) 928-9680 January 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Arvid Johnson Application to the Garfield County Board of Adjustment 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado Members of the Board of Adjustment: GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING GERALD D. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON 1 represent the Estate of John G. Powers and Kimiko Powers as the Personal Representative of the Estate. 1 have been authorized by Ms. Powers to clarify previous positions on the referenced application which were communicated to you_ Ms. Powers has directed me to inform you that she has no objection to the application and in fact supports the same. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Gerald D. Hartert GDH:bjw RE HIBIT HARTERT & WILSON JAN 2 A ATTORNEYS AT LAW 219 TENTH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 61601 TELEPHONE {970) 928-9666 FACSIMILE (970) 926-9680 January 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8t' Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Arvid Johnson Application to the Garfield County Board of Adjustment 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado Members of the Board of Adjustment: UO3 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING GERALD O. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON represent the Estate of John G. Powers and Kimiko Powers as the Personal Representative of the Estate. I have been authorized by Ms. Powers to clarify previous positions on the referenced application which were communicated to you. Ms. Powers has directed me to inform you that she has no objection to the application and in fact supports the same. Thank you very much for your consideration. GDH:bjw Very truly yours, Gerald D. Hartert HARTERT & WILSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 TENTH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE (970) 928-9665 FACSIMILE (970) 928-9680 January 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Arvid Johnson Application to the Garfield County Board of Adjustment 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado Members of the Board of Adjustment: GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING GERALD D. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON I represent the Estate of John G. Powers and Kimiko Powers as the Personal Representative of the Estate. I have been authorized by Ms. Powers to clarify previous positions on the referenced application which were communicated to you. Ms. Powers has directed me to inform you that she has no objection to the application and in fact supports the same. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Gerald D. Hartert GDH:bjw f HARTERT & WILSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 TENTH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE (970) 928-9665 FACSIMILE (970) 928-9680 January 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8' Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Arvid Johnson Application to the Garfield County Board of Adjustment 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado Members of the Board of Adjustment: RE JAN PA u3 GARFIELD COUNTY 8UfLDING & PLANNING GERALD D. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON I represent the Estate of John G. Powers and Kimiko Powers as the Personal Representative of the Estate. I have been authorized by Ms. Powers to clarify previous positions on the referenced application which were communicated to you. Ms. Powers has directed me to inform you that she has no objection to the application and in fact supports the same. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Gerald D. Hartert GDH:bjw RE 'kIBIT HARTERT & WILSON JAN 2 A ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 TENTH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81801 TELEPHONE (970) 828-9665 FACSIMILE (970) 928-9680 January 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Arvid Johnson Application to the Garfield County Board of Adjustment 475 County Road 112, Carbondale, Colorado Members of the Board of Adjustment: GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING GERALD D. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON I represent the Estate of John G. Powers and Kimiko Powers as the Personal Representative of the Estate. I have been authorized by Ms. Powers to clarify previous positions on the referenced application which were communicated to you. Ms. Powers has directed me to inform you that she has no objection to the application and in fact supports the same. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Gerald D. Hartert GDH:bjw 30-28-118 Government - County 510 fact, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, allof which shall be immediately filed in the office of the board and shall be a public record. (5) The governing body of a county that has entered into an intergovernmental agree- ment with a municipality located or partially located within that county for the purposes of joint participation in use planning, subdivision procedures, and zoning pursuant to the authority .granted in section 31-23-227 (2), C.R.S., may enter into an intergovernmental .agreement with that municipality for the purpose of establishing a joint zoning board of adjustment for a specific area designated in the intergovernmental agreement. Source: L. 39: p. 301, § 16. CSA: C. 45A, § 16. CRS 53: § 106-2-16. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2- 16. L. 79: (3) amended, p. 1161, § 6, effective May 25. L. 98: (5) added, p. 689, § 1, effec- tive May 18. Am. Jur.2d. See 83 Am. Jur:2d, Zoning and Planning, § § 721-734. C.J.S. See 101A C.J.S., Zoning & Land Plan- ning, § 180. Law reviews. For article, "Recent Develop- ments in Zoning Law in Colorado", see 39 Dicta 211 (1962). ' Rules of procedure and evidence not strictly followed. A hearing before a board of adjust- ment should be conducted in an orderly manner but need not strictly conform to the rules of pro- cedure and evidence necessary in a judicial pro- ceeding. Monte Vista Professional Bldg., Inc. v. City of Monte Vista, 35 Colo. App. 235, 531 P.2d 400 (1975). County commissioners had authority to appoint themselves to a board of adjustment; "such offices are not incompatible and statutory Iimitation applies only to the number of mem- bers of planning commission on such .board.. • Fedder v. McCurdy, 768 P.2d 711 (Colo. App. 1989). • 30-28-118. Appeals to board of adjustment. (1) (a) Appeals to the board of adjust- ment may be taken by any person aggrieved by his inability to obtain a building permit or by the decision of any administrative officer or agency based upon or made in the course of the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the zoning resolution. Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the county affected by the grant or refusal of a building permit or by other decision of an administrative officer or agency based on or made in the course of the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the zoning resolution. The time within which such appeal shall be made, and the form or other procedure relating thereto, shall be as specified in the general rules provided by the board of county commissioners to govern the procedure of such board of adjustment or in the supplemental rules of procedure adopted by such board. . (b) • No such appeal to the board of adjustment shall be allowed for building use viola- tions that may be prosecuted pursuant to section 30-28-124 (1) (b). (2) . Upon appeals the board of adjustment has the following powers: (a) To hear and decide appeals, -Where it is alleged by the appellant that there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or refusal made by an a. ministrative official or agency based on or made in the enforcement of the zoning resolution; (b) To hear and decide, in accordance with the provisions of any such resolution, requests for special exceptions or for interpretation of the map or for decisions upon other special questions apon which such board is authorized by any such resolution to pass; (c) Where, by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or. shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the enactment of ,the regulation or by reason of exception- al topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, the strict application of any regulation enacted under this part 1 would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hatdship upon, the owner of such property, to authorize, upon an appeal relating to said property, a variance from such strict application so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship if such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning resolutions. In determining Whether difficulties to, or hardship upon, the owner of such property exist, as used in this paragraph (c), the adequacy of access to sunlight for solar energy devices installed on or after January 1,'1980, may properly be considered. Regulations and restric- tions of the height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, and the height and location of trees and other vegetation shall not apply to exisi?ing buildings, structures, trees, or vegetation except for new growth on such vegetation. 511 County Planning and Building Codes 30-28-119 (3) The concurring vote of fourmembers of the board in the case of a five -member board and of three members in the case of a three-member board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or determination of any such administrative offi- cial or agency or to decide in favor of the appellant. Source: L. 39: p. 303, § 17. CSA: C. 45A, § 17. CRS 53:-§ 106=2-17. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2- 17. L. 77: (1) amended, p. 1458, § 2, effective June 9. L. 79: (2)(c) amended, p. 1161, § 7, effective May 25. Am. Jur.2d. See 83 Am. Jur.2d, Zoning and Planning, § § 735-744, 756-761, 765, 768, 803- 828. C.J.S. See 101A C.]'.S., Zoning & Land Plan- ning, § 185. The board of adjustment has the powers enu- merated in this section. Board of County Com- m'rs of La Plata County v. Moga, 947 Ptd 1385 (Colo. 1997). Requirement of hardship relates to variances, .not to special exceptions or special use .permits. Guildner, Way Inc. v. Board of Adjustment, 35 Colo. App. 70, 529 P.2d.332 (1974).,, • Proof required. In order to obtain rezoning to permit a use which an applicant seeks, he must prove that it is not possible to use and develop the property for any other use enumerated in the existing zoning; similarly, if one seeks a lower classification of zoning than the zone presently existing, be must prove that it is not possible to use and develop the land for any uses permitted in zones which are in between the zone sought and the presently existing zone. Garrett v. City of Littleton, 177 Colo. 167, 493 P.2d 370.(1972): ' Applicant had the burden of proving that variance would avoid unnecessary hardship or was reasonably necessary for the convenience or' welfare of the public. Monte Vista Professional Bldg., Inc. v. City of Monte Vista, 35 Colo. App. 235, 531 P.2d 400 (1975). Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the board or disturb an exercise of the board's discretion in zoning matters unless such discretion is clearly abused. Monte Vista Profes- sional Bldg., Inc. v. City of Monte Vista, 35 Colo. App. 235, 531 P.2d 400 (1975). • A stop work order issued by a county building inspector for lack of compliance with a zoning variance is an administrative order made in enforcement of a .zoning regulation and the board of adjustment has original jurisdiction to hear any 'Challenge to such order. Board of County Comm'rs of La Plata. County v. Moga, '.947 Ptd 1585 (Colo: ;1917). A person challenging a stop work order must exhaust administrative remedies by seeking relief from the board of. adjustment before requesting judicial intervention. Board of Coun- ty Comm'rs of La Plata County v. Moga, 947 P.2d 1385 (Colo. 1997). An injunction could not be obtained to pre- vent construction of buildings approved. by board of adjustment, although lot was slightly smaller than zoning requirement, since remedy is review by court -only to see if board has abused its discretion. Bacon v. Steigman, 123 Colo. 62, 225 P.2d 1046 (1950)..• Applied in, Johnson v. Board of County Com- m'rs, 158 Colo. 311, 406 P.2d 338 (1.965); Murray v. Board of Adjustments, 42.Colo. App. 113, 594 P.2d 596 (1979); Gramiger v. Crowley, 638 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1981); Giamiger v. Crowley, 660 P.2d 1279 (Colo. 1983). 30-28-119. District planning commissions. (1) Whether or not a county planning commission has been created, the board of county commissioners of any county which is unzoned, on petition, from time to time, may appoint district planning commissions for the purpose of preparing plans for zoning certain portions of the unincorporated territory with- in such county. Such petition shall: (a) Be signed by more than fifty percent of the ,qualifiedelectors who are residents in the proposed district and more than fifty percent of the residents and nonresidents who own more' than fifty percent of the area of real property situated within the boundaries of the district described in the petition; (b) Request the appointment of a planning commission for such district; (c) Contain all of the following:.. . • (1) A list of the parcels of land as shown in the records of the county assessor to be included within the proposed district; (Il) • A list of proposed planning commissioners; and (III) A map that shows the boundaries of the proposed district and the total number of acres within the proposed district and that meets the minimum standards for land surveys and plats provided in article 51 of title 38, C.R.S.; (d) Be submitted.to the county clerk and recorder. (1.3) The county clerk and recorder shall review the petition and prepare a report for the board of county commissioners. The board of county commissioners may adopt rules Arvid Johnson Trust Rear Yard Setback Variance Request Garfield County Board of Adjustment January 27, 2003 Nature of Variance Request . Applicant wishes to expand the rear portion of a single-family residence into the rear yard setback by 7 feet. Zone: A/R/RD Minimum Setback of 25 feet Structure is currently a legal non -conforming structure located within the setback Plan View of Current Residence Scarrow & Walker Survey dated 3/25/02 1 Staff Findings Property is not unique in OX510Dr?y or configured in a peculiar shape so as to rnent a variance request based on the characteristics of the property; and Staff research discovered the 1982 Building Permit (a public record) for the addition which approved the addition to be located 13 feet 4 and a half inches from the rear lot line establishing the house as a legal non- conforming structure; and The Application did not include the 1982 building permit and implied that due to a lack of information on the exact rear property line, the BLM resurvey completed in 1986 made the stricture non -conforming which would have been reason for granting a variance; and The Applicant purchased the property knowing of the non -conforming structure based on the Scarrow & walker survey prepared prior to purchase in 2002; and You cannot increase a non -conformity (Case 1 Common Law); and Applicant's Points Failing foundation in the breakfast nook with zigzag wail due to: Ground was poorly prepared (tamping / rocks) Improperly poured foundation (Lack of appropriate rebar) . Would like a more "contemporary kitchen design" which gives "more space" and adds to better "flow" and a better "view" BLM land swap didn't work but says its OK with them Implied that the BLM resurvey created the legal non- conformity in 1986 when the lot line was resurveyed placing it 12.5 feet from the house Staff Findings - Variety of other available alternatives that do not require a variance; and The foundation of the "Zigzag" wall has been removed and a new properly constructed foundation on prepared ground can occur not requiring a variance at all; and - The circumstances found to constitute a hardship are caused by the Applicant; and - Staff recommends the Board deny the variance request. Proposed Potential Alternatives available to the Applicant � that do not require a variance :a Plans which were not _ iIM 1oill 8 25 iz-V. / '- I illi,..litiiiiiiiiiiiiiims Applicant's Points Failing foundation in the breakfast nook with zigzag wail due to: Ground was poorly prepared (tamping / rocks) Improperly poured foundation (Lack of appropriate rebar) . Would like a more "contemporary kitchen design" which gives "more space" and adds to better "flow" and a better "view" BLM land swap didn't work but says its OK with them Implied that the BLM resurvey created the legal non- conformity in 1986 when the lot line was resurveyed placing it 12.5 feet from the house Staff Findings - Variety of other available alternatives that do not require a variance; and The foundation of the "Zigzag" wall has been removed and a new properly constructed foundation on prepared ground can occur not requiring a variance at all; and - The circumstances found to constitute a hardship are caused by the Applicant; and - Staff recommends the Board deny the variance request. Proposed A Plans which were not 1 iIM E.�€ -- approved due to M' wieT 1 setback issue...II •.� i Dim NG •AI j Ii41F f.lE I ! 1 A..�. rr----1 k' 1 • ____1. ' 's' 0 . l , V25 feet Setback _ Ir _ _- ■■ 5. 2 Thank You In Summary 1. Many other alternatives to Applicant (approved) 2. You cannot increase a non -conformity (22 year windfall) 3. Property is 12 acres and is not exceptionally narrow or shallow in shape nor encumbered by exceptional topography that would preclude development under today's development regulations. 4. Request does not satisfy standards in Section 9.05.03(1 — 3) of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended 5. Hardship caused by Applicant wanting to encroach further into setback 3 H. ARVID JOHNSON REVOCABLE TRUST u/a/d 02/15/90 0471 COUNTY ROAD #112 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623-9607 February 20, 2003 Garfield County Planning and Zoning 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attn: Fred Jarman, Senior Planner Re: Rear Yard Setback Variance Application 0475 County Road #112 Dear Sir: This letter will serve to withdraw the variance application filed on October 20, 2002 for the property located at 0475 County Road #1 12, and filed on behalf of the owner of the property, The H. Arvid Johnson Revocable Trust. The withdraw of the variance application from the county's 25' rear yard set back requirements is predicated on the reconfiguration of the access road to the property, as set forth in the Access Easement Map of the Johnson Property prepared by Sopris Engineering LLC, Civil Consultants, Carbondale, Colorado dated 02/18/03, a copy of which is hereby attached and made a part of this letter. The new road easement will be quit claimed to a third party as requested by the Planning and Zoning Staff. Based on this road relocation, as shown, the front entrance and front yard will be facing West, with the principal or front door located on this side of the house. The West (front) and East (rear) sides of the house will be subject to the front and rear yard set back requirements of 25' from the property line. The North and South sides of the house will be subject to the side yard set back requirements of 10' from the property line. Sincerely, H. Arvid Trustee . - = H. Arvid Johnson Revocable Trust u/a/d 2/15/90 N 00°15'39" E EXHIBIT MAP OF. 15.0' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW1/4SE1/4 OF SECTIONS 23 TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 2 OF 2 LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 67.88' 3 11°56'56" E L2 163.52' 3 23°12'14" W L3 36.44' N 15°45'00" W I4 128.42' N 39°20'38" E CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C1 184.00' 299.91' 95.00' 181.13' .5' 05°37' 38" W 35°09'09" C2 115.34' 169.65' 60.00' 113.13' 3 03'43'37" W 38°57'11" C3 73.21' 75.49' 39.77' 70.37' 3 43°32'02" E 55°33'53" C4 44.88' 75.49' 23.13' 44.22' S 88°20'57" E 34"03'51" C5 116.18' 188.71' 60.00' 114.36' N 56°58'54" E 35"16'32" 06 15.07' 75.49' 7.56' 15.04' S 65°35'52" E 1726'15" N 89°49'42" E 714.61' BOOK 923 PASE II RECEPTION No. 471155 POINT OF - BEGINNING • • • fh N 89°21'04" TY 60.0' RIGHT OF WAY & EASEMENT RECEPTION No. 241103 ACCESS EASEMENT f5O01C 1345 PASE 823 RECEPTION No. 6012-42- N 01242 N 89°21'04" T!'" Co 01 co ris 0/4S�IUN 23 53510' 736.74' SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704--0311 s SCALE 1" = 200' 23019.01 02/18/03 23019-EXI-t1BIT.DWG EXHIBIT MAP OF. 15.0' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW1/4SE1/4 OF SECTIONS 23 TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 1_ OF 2 AN ACCESS EASEMENT SITUATED IN THE NW1/4SE1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. SAID EASEMENT ALSO BEING LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY RECORDED AS RECEPTION No. 471155 IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE; SAID EASEMENT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY AS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID RECEPTION No. 471155 THENCE S 20°00'00" W ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PROPERTY 50.00 FEET THENCE LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY N 70°00'00" W 15.00 FEET THENCE N 20°00'00" E 51.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PROPERTY THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY 15.07 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 75.49 FEET WHICH CHORD BEARS S 65°35'52" E 15.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING SAID ACCESS EASEMENT CONTAINING 755 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO. SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 23019.01 02/18/03 23019-EXH1BIT.DWG