Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 02.23.2004r I REQUEST: PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOA 02/23/04 FJ Variance from the 25 foot Rear Yard Setback APPLICANT: Michael & Barbara Gerber f~ bf LJ V'p rlvi '' I r ,, ,.;, '!')-{,./°. -PROPERTY LOCATION: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: 0085 Stagecoach Circle, Lot 14 Ranch at Roaring Fork IV , Filing 1, Carbondale, CO 0.35 acres or 15,246 sq. ft.+/- bJ:-PD (Accommodations I Resort Planned Development District) of 1970 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE The Applicant would like to construct a 309 square foot single-story addition to their existin g si ngle-fami ly dwelling which would extend approximately 10 feet into the rear setback. The subject property, located in the Ranch at the Roaring Fork, is zoned PD (Accommodations I Resort Planned Development District) which provides that the minimum rear setback is 25 feet. Therefore, the Applicant requests the Board of Adjustment grant them zoning relief from this setback standard from 25 feet to 15 feet in order to construct their addition in their rear yard. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The property is a corner lot (located on the corner of Stagecoach Circle and Rainbow Court), is flat, and contains approximately 15,246 square feet. The lot is improved by a one-story wood frame single-family dwelling. The majority of the rear of the lot is bound by an enhanced ditch (Blue Creek) and pond. The lot was approved as part of the Phase 4 in Filing No. 1 in the 1970s by the Board of County Commissioners. The unit has remained in its current configuration within its setbacks since its original construction in 1979. Applicable Zoning Regulations (1970 Land Use Code) The required setbacks on this property are as follows: )> Front: 25 feet J> Rear: 25 feet )> Side: 5 feet )> In addition, because the lot is bordered on two contiguous sides by streets, the required front setback shall be observed along both streets; however, the owner may elect which street frontage shall be the front lot line. (In this case, it appears the original dwelling elected to front onto Stagecoach Circle which is also where the driveway is located.) III. STAFF COMMENTS County Jurisdiction Regarding County setback regulations, any development on the property is required to respect those setbacks set out above. In addition to the county setbacks, the property is also required to adhere to covenant restrictions and a utility I drainage easement. To be clear, the county only has jurisdiction over its setbacks as established by the zoning; the additional covenants and utility I drainage easements discussed by the applicant were created by the development and are not governed by the county. This review shall only address the subject of the county setbacks. Apparent Nonconfonnity In reviewing the "sketch plan", it appears that two portions of the dwelling unit actually fall outside of the county setbacks on the Rainbow Court side and the rear on the stream side of the lot. Staff was unable to located any records regarding any possible variance approval that would have allowed this to occur and can only assume that the residence is a non-conforming structure regarding those areas as it was originally constructed in 1979. Interestingly enough, if the entire footprint of the house were shifted to the east, it would fit perfectly within the county setbacks. Ranch at Roaring Fork Architectural Committee The Ranch at the Roaring Fork governs its own set of protective covenants and restrictions which requires the rear setback for the Applicant's property to be 30 feet (which is 5 feet more restrictive than county zoning). However, the Applicant received approval for the addition from the Architectural Committee so long as it does not encroach into the 15 foot utility I drainage setback from the property line. Their letter of approval is in the application. Setback from Live Stream The property is bordered by an enhanced ditch lateral referred to as Blue Creek on the north side of the property adjacent to the rear yard. Because the proposed addition is new development, it is 2 governed by the present zoning code which includes the regulation that governs setbacks from "live streams" as set out in Section 5.05.02 of the Zoning resolution on 1978, as amended. However, this stream is not a naturally occurring stream and is actually an improved lateral irrigation ditch or lateral from the Jacobson Extension of the Paterson Ditch which is part of the overall water course system that provides irrigation water throughout the Ranch at the Roaring Fork and is controlled by a head gate. In fact, homeowners on the ditch have the ability to pump out of the ditch to irrigate their lawns. These ditches may be widened I relocated without requiring permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. Staff finds that due to the fact that the water course is actually a ditch, this regulation does not apply. (See Exhibit H) Hardship as a result of Zoning Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution provides that the Board may approve a variance request if the strict application of any regulation enacted under this Resolution would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional and undue hardship on the property owner if the following findings can be made: 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. In response to these two points, Staff finds that 1) the shape of the subject property is not exceptionally narrow or shallow so that the required setbacks have prohibited the reasonable use of the property for the placement of a residential structure; and 2) the property does not contain exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situations or conditions. The property is flat and has been improved by a single-family dwelling since 1979 without a need for a variance. Staff is aware that the lot is somewhat different than other lots in its immediate vicinity because it is a corner lot. This means the lot has 2 front yards as they front both Stagecoach Circle and Rainbow Court. The rear yard is determined to be opposite the front yard that provides the vehicular entrance to the property. In this case the driveway comes off of Stagecoach Circle and as a result, the rear yard is directly opposite that frontage. Because the lot has two front yards does not mean it has two back yards the yard opposite the Rainbow Court frontage is the side yard. Staff does not believe the configuration of this lot as a comer lot, having two front yards, is cause for hardship. A corner lot is a common I typical lot configuration in subdivisions. There are other comer lots within the subdivision that do not require variances to construct single-family dwellings that have been constructed. Further, the lot was originally platted and approved with protective covenants that are even more restrictive than the county setback regulations. In this way, Staff can only assume the lot was purchased and improved with the understanding that these regulations were in place. 3 IV. REVIEW STANDARDS In order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, they must find the Applicant has satisfied all of the four criteria provided in Section 9 .05 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff has provided the criteria in italicized bold text followed by a response in normal text. 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 The residence has existed on the lot in its present location for the last 25 years without the need for a variance. Further, the rear of the residence where the addition is proposed appears to have already encroached into the rear yard setback at some point rendering it nonconforming. In this way, the addition represents an expansion of a nonconforming structure. Staff does not find that there are any practical difficulties or undue hardships that presently exist or that have existed in the past so as to preclude the development of a residence on the lot. Because setbacks preclude the desire to simply enlarge an existing residential dwelling, a variance to those setbacks is not warranted as a way to "alleviate a practical difficulty" or "undue hardship." Put simply, setbacks do not represent a practical difficulty or undue hardship for an enlargement of a residence. Therefore, Staff finds that no practical difficulties exist on the lot which the variance requested would alleviate. 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 The purpose of a variance is to provide relief from the zoning code for a hardship caused by zoning. For example, if the setbacks were so restrictive that reasonable use of the property was precluded (i.e. the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot whose setbacks left virtually no building envelope), a variance could be granted. In this case, there is no hardship. The setbacks, in fact, are not so restrictive because a single-family residence has been constructed and lived in for 25 years on the property without the need for a variance. This request, if granted, would set a poor precedent for other variance requests. The Board cannot be expected to determine whether small expansions are better than larger expansions. Where does the Board draw the line as to how much of an expansion is acceptable? This variance request, if approved, will erode the authority of the Board 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 an addition. Staff finds the requested variance represents a detriment to the public good and impairs the intent and purpose of this Resolution. Staff finds this standard is not met. 4 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 The reason for the variance request is caused entirely by the applicant's desire to construct an addition to the rear of their existing structure that would extend into the rear yard setback. To be clear, an addition could be constructed on the rear of the house without a need for a variance. This request before the Board represents a design preference that could be amended to comply with the setback standard. No variance has been needed since the structure was originally constructed in 1979. In other words, no variance has been needed to this point in time and no changes have occurred to the lot size, depth, shape, or topography to constitute an undue hardship due to the strict application of zoning provisions that have been in place since 1970. Staff finds an addition protruding into the rear yard setback would constitute a hardship caused by the applicant; 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 This shall be determined at the hearing before the Board. V. 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. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY the variance request. 5 BOA 03/22/04 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: APPLICANT: PROPERTY LOCATION: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: I. BACKGROUND Variance from the 25 foot Rear Yard Setback Michael & Barbara Gerber 0085 Stagecoach Circle, Lot 14 Ranch at Roaring Fork IV, Filing 1, Carbondale, CO 0.35 acres or 15,246 sq. ft. +/- AR /PD (Accommodations I Resort Planned Development District) of 1970 ~~=~iiliii As you recall, on February 23'', the Board opened and continued the variance request to March 22"' so the Applicant and Staff could further contemplate alternate scenarios based on the discussion with the Board regarding 1) changing the vehicular access to Rainbow Court, and 2) a "U" shaped access that would effectively connect Stagecoach Drive and Rainbow Court. Staff has discussed these two scenarios and found that I) changing the vehicular access to Rainbow Court is possible; however this presents a problem for the new rear of the house being located outside the new rear yard setback, and 2) a "U" shape drive effectively creates two "true" front yards and then two rear yards resulting in rendering the rear of the house as a non-conforming structure. The Applicant and. Staff contemplated these scenarios and the Applicant intends to continue to request a variance for the original addition as presently proposed. [Staff has included this original memo for your review. Please bring all other original application materials to the meeting.] II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUESTED VARIANCE The Applicant would like to construct a 309 square foot single-story addition to their existing single-family dwelling which would extend approximately 10 feet into the rear setback. The subject property, located in the Ranch at the Roaring Fork, is zoned PD (Accommodations I Resort Planned Development District) which provides that the minimum rear setback is 25 feet. Therefore, the Applicant requests the Board of Adjustment grant them zoning relief from this setback standard from 25 feet to 15 feet in order to construct their addition in their rear yard. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The property is a comer lot (located on the comer of Stagecoach Circle and Rainbow Court), is flat, and contains approximately 15,246 square feet. The lot is improved by a one-story wood frame single-family dwelling. The majority of the rear of the lot is bound by an enhanced ditch (Blue Creek) and pond. The lot was approved as part of the Phase 4 in Filing No. 1 in the 1970s by the Board of County Commissioners. The unit has remained in its current configuration within its setbacks since its original construction in 1979. Applicable Zoning Regulations (1970 Land Use Code) The required setbacks on this property are as follows: ~ Front: 25 feet ~ Rear: 25 feet ~ Side: 5 feet ~ In addition, because the lot is bordered on two contiguous sides by streets, the required front setback shall be observed along both streets; however, the owner may elect which street frontage shall be the front lot line. (In this case, it appears the original dwelling elected to front onto Stagecoach Circle which is also where the driveway is located.) IV. STAFF COMMENTS County Jurisdiction Regarding County setback regulations, any development on the property is required to respect those setbacks set out above. In addition to the county setbacks, the property is also required to adhere to covenant restrictions and a utility I drainage easement. To be clear, the county only has jurisdiction over its setbacks as established by the zoning; the additional covenants and utility I drainage easements discussed by the applicant were created by the development and are not governed by the county. This review shall only address the subject of the county setbacks. Apparent Nonconformity In reviewing the "sketch plan", it appears that two portions of the dwelling unit actually fall outside of the county setbacks on the Rainbow Court side and the rear on the stream side of the lot. Staff was unable to located any records regarding any possible variance approval that would have allowed this to occur and can only assume that the residence is a non-conforming structure regarding those areas as it was originally constructed in 1979. Interestingly enough, if the entire 2 ) footprint of the h ouse wer e s hifted to the east, it wou ld fit perfectly w ithin the county setbacks. Ranch at Roaring Fork Architectural Committee The R anch at the Roaring Fork governs it s own set of protectiv e covenants and restrictions which requires the rear setback for the App licant's property to b e 3 0 feet (which is 5 feet m ore restri c ti ve than county zo ning ). However, the Applicant received a pproval for the add itio n from the Architectural Committee so long as it does not encroach into the 15 foot utility I drainage s etback from the property line. T h ei r l e tt er of approval is in the a pplicatio n . Setb a ck from Live Stream The p rop e rty is bo rd e red by an enhanced ditch lateral referred to as B lu e Creek on the north s ide o f the property adjacent to the rear yard. Because the proposed addition is n ew development, it is governed by the present z o ning code w hi ch includes the regulation that governs setbacks from "li ve streams" as s et out in Section 5.05.02 of the Zoning resolution on 1978, as amended. However, this stream is not a n aturally occurring stream and is actually an improved la t era l j( irrigation ditch or lateral from the Jacobson Extension of the Paterson Ditch which is p art of!_Ve overall water course s s tem that prov ides in-i gati o n wat er throu ut the Ra nch at the Roaring Fork and i s controlled by a hea gatr In fact, homeown ers on the ditch have the ability to pump out of th e ditch to 1mgate thei r l awns. These d itc h es may b e w idened I re located without requiring pe1mits from the Army Corps of Engineers. S taff finds that due to the fact tha t the water course is actually a ditch, thi s regulation does not apply. (See Exhibit H) ~------ Hardship as a result of Zoning ~·. Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution prov id es th at the Board may approve a vari ance request ~{) if the stri ct appli cation of any r egulati on enacted under this Resolution wou ld r esult in peculiar and ~\ v-.fi ~ excepti onal practical difficulties to or excepti onal and undue hardship on the property owner if the ~I' following findings can be made: <.~~,J 1) By reaso n of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of th e sp ecific piece of property ~ J at the time of enactment of this Resolution, or By reaso n of exceptional topographic co nditions or other extraordinmy and exceptional situation or condition of s uch piece of property. In response to these t wo points, Staff finds that 1) the sh a pe of the s ubj ect property is not exceptiona ll y nan-ow or shallow so that the required setb acks have prohibited the reasonable u se of the prope1iy fo r the placement of a r es identia l s tructure; and 2) the property does not contain excepti o na l topographic conditions or oth er extrao rd inary situations o r conditions. The property is fl a t a nd has been improved by a s ing le -fa mily d well ing sin ce 1 979 without a n eed for a variance. 'S!:J.... i Staffis aware th at the l ot is somewh at different than other lo ts in its immedi ate vicinity b ecau se it \:l ~ is a corner lot. This m eans the lo t h as 2 front yard s as they front both Stagecoach C ircle and \J " Ra inbow Couti. The rear yard is dete1mined to be opposite the front yard tha t provides the ~y ~ vehicul ar e ntrance to the prope1iy. In this case the dri veway comes off of Stagecoach Circle a nd as ~~ ~ ~ f\ a result, the rear yard i s directly opposite tha t frontage. Because the lo t h as two front yards does ~ J }h ' 3 ~ ~-~<.: \ ~ not mean it has two back yards the yard opposite the Rainbow Court frontage is the side yard. Staff does not believe the configuration of thi s lot as a corner lot, having two front y ards , i s cause for hardship. A corner lot is a common I typical lot configuration in subdivisions. There are other corner lots within the subdiv is ion that do not require va riances to construct s in g le-family dwellings that have been constructed. Fmther, the lot was originally platted and approved with protective covenants that are even more restiictive than the county setback regulations. In this way, Staff can only assume th e lot was purchased and improved with the understanding that these r egulations were in place. V. REVIEW ST AND ARDS In order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, they must find the Applicant has satisfied all of the four criteria prov ided in Section 9.05 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff has provided the criteria in italicized bold text followed by a response in nonnal text. 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 The residence has existed on the lot in its present location for the last 25 years without the need for a variance. Fmther, the rear of the residence where th e addition is proposed appears to h ave already encroached into the rear yard setback at some point rendering it nonconfo1ming. In this way, the addition represent s an expansion of a nonconforming structure. Staff does not find that there are an practical difficulties or undue hardships that pres entl exist or that ave ex past so as to preclude th-e..de¥elop.meA.t..o;:_a residence on the lot. Because setbacks preclude the d es ire to sim ly enlarge an existing residential dwelling, a variance to those set acks i s nQLwaITanted-a-s-a-way to ''all eviate a practical difficulty" or "undue hardshi ~ Put simply, setbacks do not r epresent a practical ddhculty or undue hardship for an enlargement of a residence. Therefore, Staff finds that no practical difficulties exist on the lot which the variance requested would alleviate. 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 The purpose of a variance is to provi de relief from the zoning code for a hard ship caused by zoning. For example, if the setbacks were so restrictive that reasonable use of the prope1ty was precluded (i.e. the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot whose setbacks left virtually no building envelope), a variance could be granted. In this case, there is no hardship. The setbacks, in fact, are not so restricti ve because a s ingle-family residence has been constructed and lived in for 25 years on the property without the need for a variance. This request, if granted, would set a poor precedent for other variance requests. The Board cannot be expected to det ermine whether small expansions are better than larger expansions. Where does the Board draw the line as to how much of an expansion is acceptable? This variance request, if 4 approved , w ill erode the auth o rity of the Board as we ll as th e zoning regulations that serve to guide development in the county for the b enefit of the publi c goo d. Staff remains unconvinced a denial of this variance will cause undue h a rd ship to the App li can t if they cannot construct an add iti on. Staff finds the requested variance r epresent s a detriment to the public good and impairs the intent and purpose of thi s Resolution. Staff finds thi s standard is not met. 3. That the circumstances found to constitute " hardship were n ot ca used by th e applica nt, (lre not du e to or the result of general condition s in the district, am/ cannot be practically corrected; Staff Finding The reaso n for the variance reguest is caused entirely by the aQPlicant's desire to ons truct-fil1. a~i ti on to the rear of their existin g structure that woul d extend · nto the ~ai:_,y ard etback._J:g.Jle clear, an a ddition could be constru cted o n the rear of the house without a need for a variance. This request before the Board represents a design preference that could be amended to com_ply wi t th e setoack stanoar . ______. No variance has been needed s ince th e structure was orig ina lly constructed in 1979. In other words, no variance h as been n eeded to this point in time and no changes have occun-ed to the lot s ize, depth, sha p e, or topography to con stitute an undue h ardship due to th e strict a pplication of zoning provisions th at have b een in place s in ce 1970. Staff find s an a dd iti o n protruding into th e rear yard setback would constitute a hard ship caused by the app licant; therefore, thi s standard is not met. 4. That th e concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be n ecesscuy to decide in favor of th e appellant. Staff Finding This sh all be de termined a t the h earing before the Board. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting an d public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the B oard of Adjustment. 2. That the meeting before the Board of Adjustment was extens ive an d complete, that all pertinent facts, matte rs and issu es were submitted and that all interested parties were h eard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated an d other reason s, the proposed setback variance h as been de termin ed not t o be in the best inte rest of the health, safet y, morals, convenience, o rder, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment D ENY the vari ance reques t. 5 ) ) .ift . l ~ 1 ~ ~-m I ~~~~ ~ ·\'\ -~ ~~ -v&t f~ t\ft f i~ ~\it . ~~ ~1lt.J$,~ . 'ti -\ fi~;i!ll j_S tabbla° J l J .:t -{ ""i ~ \Jl ~ ... i I ~i~~j i~ I ~ I : ' I % t I \ -I l I m I ~+"'C3 '1 ' I ' ~ '-._· c d w~c P:01 P00c 9 c ·q a~ CPP6 LG 6 0l6 : "ON 3NOHd H '.)<!:l ~/Cl 3W ....-rte. G£;r-.e:r;,~ ~e::7. t~Vt7 1 N, IXl!)otJ 717--6-1!': co,e..c..H C-1 Jl.V~ Ltrruo!+ fq-t\C.i;fa:l~f.ll.lf.lf-~l:.;t:l '+!LFI e.~P Wlihf-f"f I WLP~-00 ,i. 'l. l WARREN !.. PAJ,MER ARCHITECT BOX 767 9701927·9442 !IA.SALT COLO. 81621 ) \ i ··. I I I.;· .. I . \ ..• ,. ,._ :j !; , I I' II I i 'i I ib I! • t .. ~ l! ~ I ·1 i I. I ~!U ·r· . ~ i~n ~ ~~ ::!! c z G) z p 0 z ITI FROM Tom Neel · ~~· i ~ LUll ~ i: ~~·\· PHONE NO. : 9709533933 , ~1\J i"'. ""' r ~:r ':>. 18 2004 0 Iv J~·, 1 • I I I CAI.OlA:, HOUPT & HA..\ilLTON, P .C .. ATTORNEYS l\T v.w ~H~R\' .\.('ALOI>. 1-I_ 6 ~12C(} rcu~-----1/1 ;:Ct < .3ft/-31/7() 120. Gll\ND A VENUil QLJUIWOOO SPll.INOS, COl...ORADO SI GOi Y,A FACSIMILE (970) 963-9243 Chris Ehl~s, Man11&er .R;m.ch at Roaring Fork 14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Jl>F.PJ?.RS<>N v. imun .l.iAR){ S. Ui\MIL1'UN ~\I ELIZAllJlTH GEIGliR CYNTHIA F FJ,~ll:-:G September 4, 2003 Re: W~tQr Rights for the .Ranch at Roaring Fork. Community Dear Chris: t'EL~PHONlii {97Q) 9~5 .6 067 f l\.CS!Mll.e (,970) 9-t 5 ·'-292. S.,.,!...r 's <ff1'111: J6t1~4@1o/14·MI . ·: · ; ~''.tr . ·is ~D?.Y \ln~erstan~"ibat"oiie ·of ih~ ·s u6divi~'ioiik chlled · tfie;:~ch Creek has beei1 recentl Y.~ apiov!!d an-4: 1s .. ~ '1P-~. pr~.~ess ':.Of :being . deVdoee:d .. 'A:~ i 1d0ndi~n . of . apProvSl,: :the Ran eh at Raaring .. Foil< re.qU!red ' that "all" Irrigation be" ddoti lfio1n "a· 'rii";. ,;.a:ier. iffi gAtien :~ysrefu: from its ditch sysu:m. When accomplishing this goal, the contractor had quc3tioned whether it can'ihstall a diversion device in the ditch which is called Blue Creek or Sopris Creek by Ranch Creek. . It is my Wlderstanding that th,e Anny Corps of Engineers has been consulted about th is and has given the opinioJ;\ ~hat as · long as there is a corresponding wat~r right which has beon decreed cy the water court allowing for this use at this location then the installati on can occur. I am assuming that the Anl1y Corps was advised that this w113 a creok or stream . The water rights for the Ranch at Roaring Fork were developed Bi;: a system of ditches and ponds on the prope~ to res emble narurally occ wring features. Since tlle Ranch at Roazing Fork is a fishing and recreatioMl oommunity, the ponds and ditches were developed to resemble natural streams and lakes and have been maintained as such. The designation of one of these features as Sopris Creek or Blue Creek hos occurred by the residents over time . In actuality the structlUe that is called Blue Cll'!ek is a lateral ditcb extending from 1he Jacobson Extension of the Patcr~on Dir.ch. 1 enclose a .copy of the decree for the Jacobson Extension of the Paterson Ditch ~~~~: . -.·-. · B~_e*»·; ~ We.t~~~c·~ .idj~~ated the J~9 bgo1!.~x~nsx<:in or~e 'Paters~i1 f?.(ie11 : i i1. t96~ for 155 ·cf$. This ditch diver~ 65 ·cfs from " the Roaring·'Fbrk Ri~r:a.t 11: head gate : Tile water is then divertea into ·s~verafoilches and pontii o!l· tne p1·'Q·perty M the Rari~h at ·'Roirlirlg Fork ix{ord~itti FROM Tom Neel PHONE NO. : 9709533933 • I I• V" \ I 11\J : 1~· 'I CALOIA, HOcJ'T & liAMILtol", P.C. Chris Ehlers. Ma.."la.ger September 4, 2003 Pa~2 b. 18 2004 03:08PM P2 ·i'JDb.Jll ~· 2 crea1e this stream-like community. The location of 1he RAncll Creek s11bdivision and the proposed pump or diversion device is on~ lateral of the Paterson I Jacob•on Ditch itself. II is not a naturally occurring stream and as such, .uo Atmy Corps of Engineer permit is necessary. I have consulted with the !Ginch's water engineer, Paul Bussone of Resource Engineoring, to review this situation. He con~w:s that the series of ditches and ponds on the Ranch at Rouing Fork property ore entirely manmade and should not invoke the jurisdiction of the Anny Corps of Engineers. I am bcpeful that you ca'1 use this letter to the. Anny Co1ps of lou~ineers !O t•l>tain their agreement that they do not have jurfsdfotion in this panicular area. Should this not be the case, please give me a call a.ud we can have a meeting to furcller review the information. SAC:!! cc: Paul Bussone RANCK@ RF"Bhl"'~" J FNll CALOIA, HOUPT & HAMILTON, P.C. February 4, 2004 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO Re: Variance Request for Lot 14, Ranch at Roaring Fork-IV-Filing No.I Garfield County, 0085 Stagecoach Circle, Co. 81623 Dear Commissioners, Due to the fact the I feel the applicant's request would affect all homeowners at The Ranch at Roaring Fork in a negative manner, I must state some concerns. The Ranch covenants Article VIII Sec 8.3 states the set backs for single family homes. I believe that to say that this covenant only refers to lakes and not to streams in order that a variance would be allowed is a misinterpretation or a stretch of the original intention to say the least. We as homeowners at the Ranch have always tried to protect the integrity of our waterways from intrusions onto the setbacks. Allowing homeowners a broad interpretation of our covenants resulting in personal benefit will set a bad precedent. What will happen in the future if other homeowners come before you for variances? The covenants do allow a variance for unusual situations. However, I do not feel this falls under that category. Regarding this request, there would be plenty of room for an addition if it was designed in a different manner that would not affect the waterways. It is truly unfortunate that our Board of Directors, Waterway and Fishing committees Jack the foresight to see the ramifications which may result from their lack of firm action in this matter. Because of this, the burden now falls to the county commissioners. Hopefully, you will recognize that this is a precedent that should not be set. When involving our waterways, an encroachment onto our setbacks has never been allowed. I urge you not to alter that history. Your consideration to this is appreciated. Sincerely, ~~~ Michael Romanus 125 Stagecoach Circle 109 Stagecoach Circle Carbondale, CO 81623 RECEIVED FEB 2~ 2004 February 4, 2004 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO Re: Variance Request for Lot 14, Ranch at Roaring Fork-IV-Filing No.I Garfield County, 0085 Stagecoach Circle, Co. 81623 Dear Commissioners, Due to the fact the I feel the applicant's request would affect all homeowners at The Ranch at Roaring Fork in a negative manner, I must state some concerns. The Ranch covenants Article VIII Sec 8.3 states the set backs for single family homes. I believe that to say that this covenant only refers to lakes and not to streams in order that a variance would be allowed is a misinterpretation or a stretch of the original intention to say the least. We as homeowners at the Ranch have always tried to protect the integrity of our waterways from intrusions onto the setbacks. Allowing homeowners a broad interpretation of our covenants resulting in personal benefit will set a bad precedent. What will happen in the future if other homeowners come before you for variances? The covenants do allow a variance for unusual situations. However, I do not feel this falls under that category. Regarding this request, there would be plenty of room for an addition if it was designed in a different manner that would not affect the waterways. It is truly unfortunate that our Board of Directors, Waterway and Fishing committees lack the foresight to see the ramifications which may result from their lack of firm action in this matter. Because of this, the burden now falls to the county commissioners. Hopefully, you will recognize that this is a precedent that should not be set. When involving our waterways, an encroachment onto our setbacks has never been allowed. I urge you not to alter that history. Your consideration to this is appreciated. Sincerely, ~~~ Michael Romanus 125 Stagecoach Circle 109 Stagecoach Circle Carbondale, CO 81623 RECEIVED ~ER 2,3 200 4 BAH. 1b . .1 ~O UNTY OUl l DING & Pl.ANN ING ·---\' --- PUBLIC KOT!CE TAKE NOTICE that Michael and Barbara C'rerber have applied to the Board of Adjustmcm .. Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a variance. in connection with the follo,•ing described property simated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; ta-wit: Le11al Description: Lat J.4, Ranch at the R<>aring f<)rk -JV -Filing No. 1, Garfield County, Colorado Ppctical Qescriptian: 0085 Stagecoach Circle, Carbondale. CO 81623 The variance would aliQw the applicant to nduce the requirod rear yard setback of25' from tile property line to 15' (a reduction of JO') in c1rdcr to construct a J-11to11• addition to an e"isting $inll)e-family residence. All persons affected hy the proposed variance are invited ta appc:ar and state their vic-ws, protests or support. If you ~an not appear personally at ,uch hearing, then you are urged to state your ~icws by letter, as the Board of Adjustment wiH give consideration to the comments of sutTowding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether ta grant or deny the request for the variance. The application mny be reviewed al the office of the .Planning Depa.""t!Tlent located at 108 Rth Street, Suite 201, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Spriiigs. Colorado between the hours af8:30 a.m. and S:OO p.m., Monday thnmgn Friday. A public hea.ring on the application has been scheduled for the 23rn day <1f February, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., in the County Co!UJ\1i&sio11ers Meeting Room, Glll'field County Plaza Building, 108 81h Street, GlcDwoad SpringH, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County ~: . .- .. icme~~ l ' I s -r=r. . "7 f Y£: '(',D, f I l..NCE41t?C l imrD~ ~~-----~ COUNT'( _....----'\ ~!;MZ-l'~ ~-'~~~-s?=~~:=:-~~~=-====r-'=~----.. _/ CO(A~ COCZ.NEIZ LO'r ~IZOMT"'t'~ &E.~&E:.lC-~~. ~. \\ '7K~ p~ II r•~u•-1 11 M-~~·t1+ C~NT't ~~t:J k,c,Et:..n LOU-11"~ e7T'l-9'L,~E$ t=rzoNr'( 11/.fJ + ~~ -'(~ ~re:· uolll-l1i ~A~ M .~-r r=~~i!E) I GI U.~~ ~~-~-~--1-: I I a....L.~ 1 • CJNte~ l -------, j ... Pl<tJ Pl tt.~ ·-=• ~~..;;=;e•) I I j ; ~ RAL NOTES OR COVENANTS: ( COMMISSIONER'S CERTIFICATE BOARO OF COU NTY COMMISSIONERS OF .GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO ___ ,A.D., 1976, FOR FILING WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER R CO NV EY ANC E TO THE CO UNTY OF THE PUBLIC DEDICATIONS SHOWN OVISION THAT APP ROVAL IN HO WAY OBLIGATE S GARFIEtD COUNTY FOR OF IMPROVEMENT S OF LANDS, STREETS OR EASEMENTS DEDICATED TO I F ICALLY AGREED TO ·BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY CO MMISSIONE RS AND FURT HER I N NO W'A.Y OBLIGATE GARFIELD COUNTY FOR MA IHTENAH CE Of STR EET S NT I L CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS THERE ON SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED E BO~RD Or COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. . CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD. ATT EST:-------- COUNTY CLE RK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IN STRUME NT WAS FILED IN MY OF.FICE AT O'CLOCK_.M., ~.D.,1976, AND IS DULY RECORDED IN PL.AT BOOK __ , PAGE_, RECEPTION NO,---,.---- DEPUTY Y .SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE FEES: __ FORM ONLY AND NOT THE ACCURA CY OF SURVEYS, CALCULATIONS OR .R.S. 1963, 13 6 -2-2 AS AMENDED. DATE: ------ 'OR I ACREAGE= 17 LOTS (S.F.) = COMMON AREA= STREETS= TOTAL= I ,, ;-; ~ 0 I ~ , 5.20 AC. 0 .08 AC. 1.22 AC . 6.50 ACRES ; I ~I) ~/:,~ vtJ' LO.CATION MAP : SCALE: I"= 2000'