Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 12.01.2003Exhibits on 12/01 /03 B c D E F G H Proof of Publication A lication Staff Memorandum Letter from the Garfield County Code Enforcement Officer dated 8 /13 /03 to the A licant Letter from Brad & Cheri Brock to the Building & Planning Department dated 9130103 Letter from Donald and Vondell Purd to the BOA received on 10/31/03 F.lCHIBIT I - ------~OA 12/01/03 FJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION LOT SIZE EXISTING ZONING Variance from side yard setback Joanna Domalik Lot 12, Block 5 of the Mountain Shadows Subdivision (New Castle area) Approximately 7,500 sq. ft. Residential Mobile Home/ General I Urban Density (RMH/G/UD) I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIAN CE The subject property, Lot 12, is located in the Mountain Shadows Subdivision in the New Castle area south of the Colorado River. The property is zoned Residential Mobile Home/ General I Urban Density (RMH/G/UD) which provides for a minimum lot si ze of 7,500 sq. ft. and the minimum side yard setback is 10 feet while the front and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet. The Applicant recently purchased a ma nufactured home a nd placed it on the lot which exceeds the side yard setbacks as r equired in the Zoning Resolution. As a re sult, the Applicant requests the Board o£Adjustment (hereinafter "BOA") grant a variance from thi s s id e yard setb ack so that the manufactured home may remain on the lo t. More specifically, the Applicant requests the BOA grant zonin g relie(from the side yard setback standard from 10 feet to 6. 73 feet on the west side yard and 6.61 feet on the east side yard in order to a ll ow the home to remain on the lot. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY I HISTORY The Applicant has lived on the subject prope1iy for some time in a single-wide mobile home which was located within all the required setbacks except the west s id e yard where the unit was approximately 5 feet from the western lot line. (This can be seen on the "site plan survey".) The Applicant, in an effo1i to upgrade to a newer s ingle-wide manufactured home, looked into purchas ing a n ew s ingle-wide (l ,600 sq. ft.) mobile home from «4 Seasons Home Sales" but was told by Rocky Mountain Mortgage that she could not get financing unless the home was at least 2,000 sq. ft. Based on this, the Appli cant received financing for thi s larger unit and had it placed on the lot in order to be appraised to secure the loan.-'fhe unit has remained on th e lot since this time. It should also be noted, the county iss ued a letter to the Applicant in Augus t 2003 which stated that the foundat ion poured for the unit was done without building permits and a lso extended into the side yard setbacks (See Exhibit F). A "stop work order" was issued on Augus t 14 , 2003. Shortly following this , the County Code Enforcement Officer happened to be in the area when the manufactured home was being delivered to the site to be placed on the foundation. The County Code Enforcement Officer then explained to the contractor at the s ite th at this was illegal and he could not place the unit due t o zo ning and building code violations . So, it was clear at thi s point the contractor never intended to comply with the firs t code enforcement letter dated 8/13/03 or the stop work order issu ed on 8114 /03 and was going to place the unit on the illegal foundation anyway. The contractor explained that the unit needed to be placed on the foundation in order for the Applicant (prope1iy owner) to get an appraisal so that the financing woul d occur. If this didn 't happen, the Applicant would lose her financing for the unit. At this p o int, the contractor said he would remove the unit immedia te ly following the appraisal to come into compliance with the coun ty. In an effort to be sympathetic to the property owner so that she would not lose her financing, the County Code E nforcement Officer a ll owed the unit to be placed on the foundation on the condition that it be removed immediately following the appraisal to which the contractor agreed. The unit was never removed from the illegal foundation and remains in violation of the setback regulations. III. STAFF COMMENTS Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning R esolution provides that the BOA may approve a variance request if the strict application of any regulation enacted under this Resolution (i . e. minimum setback) would re sult in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship on the prope1iy 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 ena.ctment of this Resolution, or 2) By rea so n of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional s ituation or condition of s uch piece of property. IV. REVIE\.V STANDARDS 2 In order for the BOA to grant a variance, they are required to find the Applicant has satisfied each of the four main crite1ia provided in Section 9.05 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff has presented these criteria followed by a staff I. That the variance granted is the minimum necessarv to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property; Staff Finding Staff finds there are no practical difficulties or undue hardship on the owner of the subject property due to the fact that the lot is of a size that can contain a new unit that is located within the required setbacks. The Applicant purchased a unit that does not fit within the setbacks which have been in place since the subdivision was approved and platted. The lot has not shrunk in size nor have the setbacks been enlarged since that approval. Further, there are other units available on the market that will fit within those setbacks. This criterion is not 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 In general, setback distances for residential structures are intended to buffer structures regarding health & safety concerns as well as create and define a certain streetscape identity which results in overall neighborhood character. The present request, if granted, would allow the rear (northwest and northeast) comers of the new unit to be approximately6.5 feet from the east and west property lines. While there is no structure on the east side I property line, there is a fence on the west property line and a unit on the other side of the fence on the adjoining lot. Under normal circumstances, this would allow for a 20' building setback between structures. The request would allow for a 16.6' separation (6.6 feet to the fence and presumably 10 feet to the neighboring unit ifthat unit respects the required setbacks as well.) Generally, the closer structures are allowed to be placed to each other the higher the risk of fire spreading from one structure to the other. This, of course, depends on construction materials that make up the shells of the structures. Also, based on the fact that other manufactured homes can very easily be placed on the lot without needing to go into setbacks, granting a variance tarnishes the intent of Zoning Resolution especially since no hardship has been created by zoning. Staff finds the requested variance represents a detriment to the public good and impairs the intent and purpose of this Resolution. This criterion 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 The company from which the unit was purchased ("4 Seasons Home Sales, Inc") sells all types and shapes of manufactured homes. In fact, they sell units that are less than 70 linear feet in length which would fit on the subject lot without the need for a variance to reduce the setbacks. Therefore, the 3 action taken by the property owner to allow a unit to be placed on the property that is too large does not constitute the grounds for hardship. The lot is not configured in such a shape nor has setbacks such that preclude the placement of a new manufactured home from 4 Seasons Home Sales, Inc. The lot is not dissimilar to other legally approved lots within the subdivision. Lastly, no recent zoning act has increased the setback distances on those lots within the RMH/G/UD zone district which have reduced the "buildable area" to such a small area that reasonably precludes the construction of or placement of a manufactured home on the lot. The issue can practically be corrected by selecting a different sized unit that does fit on the lot. While it appears the actions that created the hardship were a result of misrepresentations of 4 Seasons Home Sales, Inc., the Applicant is ultimately responsible because she is the property owner. This criterion 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 CONCLUSION While it appears the Applicant was led by 4 Seasons Home Sales, Inc. to believe that purchasing the subject manufactured home did not conflict with Garfield County regulations and that a building permit was not necessary, at the end of the day, the Applicant is the owner of the lot. As a result, the Applicant has purchased and placed a manufactured home on a lot that does not fit, although she was led to believe that it did fit on the lot. Unfortunately, there are no decision criteria that address economic hardship. The ultimate decision by the BOA in order to find hardship is one that is required to be based on the following tests: 1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property at the time of enactment of this Resolution, or Staff Finding The property is not exceptionally narrow or shallow nor does it have a peculiar shape as a result of the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which it is located. It is a lot similar to many of the lots approved within the subdivision and the hardship was not created by zoning. This test is not met. 2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. Staff Finding The property is flat and has no topographic change nor does the property have any other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition associated with it to constitute a hardship. This 4 test is not met. In Summary 1) The County Code Enforcement Officer cited the Applicant on 8/13/03 stating the foundation was constructed in the setbacks and without a building permit. A "stop work order" was issued on 8/14/03 which was violated because the contractor continued the work and the installation of the unit on the foundation. 2) The county attempted to be sympathetic in allowing the unit to be placed on the foundation so that the Applicant could have it appraised so as to not jeopardize her financing on the condition it would be removed after the appraisal. As is obvious, not only was the Applicant misled, but the county was also misled by 4 Seasons Home Sales, Inc. It should be noted, the county is also aware of a similar situation in the same subdivision which also involves 4 Seasons Home Sales, Inc. 3) While it appears the actions that created the hardship were a result of misrepresentations of 4 Seasons Home Sales, Inc., the Applicant is ultimately responsible because she is the property owner. It is clear; the Applicant was misled by 4 Seasons Home Sales, Inc. which has placed her in non-compliance with the county zoning and building code regulations. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS I. 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. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment DENY the variance request. 5 August 13, 2003 Joanna Domalik 0058 Peach Court New Castle, CO 81647 Dear Ms. Domalik, EXHIBIT '~ BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTJl!fENT Code Compliance Office shackett@garfield-county.com It has been brought to the attention of this office that a concrete foundation has been poured without a building permit on property owned by you at the above address. Further, a review of the plans that were submitted for a building permit application reveals that the building position on the lot is in violation of county set-back regulations . The setbacks at Mountain ·shadows subdivision are 25 feet front and rear and 10 feet on the sides. Any construction that has taken place out side of these setbacks must be removed. It is a violation of Colorado Revised Statutes 30-28-124 & 124.5, zoning regulations, to build outside of property line setbacks. It is a violation of Colorado Revised Statues 30-28-205 & 210, Uniform Building Code, to begin construction and pour concrete without a permit. You are hereby given notice, pursuant to the above statutes, that you must completely correct the violations within thirty (30) days of the date this notice is received. Please be advised that violation of the above statutes is a misdemeanor crime punishable by a fine of not more than $100. 00 or imprisonment for not more than ten days, or both, and that each day that the violation continues is deemed to be a separate offense. If you have any questions regarding what actions are required to achieve compliance, or you wish to report compliance action taken, please contact this office in writing at the address below, or by e-mail at the address above . Sincerely, Steve Hackett Compliance Officer CC : Four Seasons Home Sales 5985 County Road 335 New Castle, CO 8164 7 108 8t h S treet, Su ite 2 01 , Gl enwood Springs, Co lor ado 81 601 (97 0) 945 -82 12 (97 0 ) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 . GARFIELD COUNTY EXHIBIT RECEIVED o~, o 2 2~~NN1No DEPARTMENT I 108 8TH STREET #201 & To Whom It May Concern: GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO ~fnber 30, 2003 ._ _____ _, We are writing in response to the attached copy, (Public Notice), sent to us by Joanna Domalik. We have been against the placement of that particular manufactured home s ince the beginning, as it is much too l arge for the required side yard setbacks . We have voiced our complaints to the Building Inspector office, a·nd we were told that there was no building permit issued, that they were in violation, and that there would be no Variance permit issued for this property. This trailer is only 5 feet from our fence, and with the eave overhang, it is cut back to about 3-4 feet. The placement of the gas meter is just as close. When we now look out o f our side windows, all we see is the inside of the new house, and massive sidewalls. We canno t see the street any longer and if they have a barbeque on the little deck that is right next to our fence, we would be choked with s moke. Heaven forbid a fire starts, as it woulcl jump to our cedar fence first. This notice state s that, "Said Variance application i s to allow for the pl acement of manufactured home within the required side yard setbacks of 10 feet." This is definitely not within the required set backs. It is our understanding that these setbacks were established for "health and safety issues". Joanna was advised all through this process that this trailer would not be approved for set-down, as the setbacks could not be met , but she allowed it to be d one anyway. It i s not _on a permanent foundation; it is set up on jack stands. There is no room fo r emergency-related-access. Joanna h as been our neighbor for a long time, and we were very happy that she was getting a new trailer. It would improve the neighborhood, along with the one being put up across the street. But thi s p articular trailer is just too large. If she is given permission to keep that trailer there, it says to the rest of us that we can excavate without a permit, we can pour a foundation without a permit, we can set a house down without a permit. The man who sold her thi s trailer is the biggest violator of all. He knowingly has lied to Joanna. He has told all the neighbors that it is legal. He could have been right and told her that it was too big for th e l ot. He should not be allowed to sell in Garfield County if thi s is the underhanded way he does business. He constantly ignored the orders to stop building. He is obviously above anything you set down as rule. We respectfully request that this Variance application be denied. Sincerely, Brad Brock d~-L-- ) j To Board of Adjustment ,Planning Dept. 108 8th Street,Suite 201,Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs, Co Board of Adjustment re Variance application For Lot 12 ,Block 5 ,Mountain Shadows Subdivision southwest of New Castle, Co As owners of property near this location, we have no objection to the placement of a manufactured home on this lot.Therefore we think this variance should be granted .. Donald H. Purdy Vondell D Purdy cc Joanna Domalik REC .EIVED UC I 3 1 2003 GARFIELD CO UNTY BUILDI NG & PLANN ING EXHIBIT # ......... ' ) GARFIELD COUNTY · Building & Planning Department 108 81h Street, Suite 201 -~Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970 .945.8212 Facsimile: 970.945.3470 www.garfield -county.com VARIANCE APPLICATION GENERAL INFORMATION (To be completed by the applicant.) ECEIV ED SEP 1 2 2003 EXHIBIT I J) ~ Legal Description: Ll=t \ a ~\ OCJ~ --~S~----­ CJ o u AJTC\. l ;u ~hw,c~S ~~~c1\\J·l~<:.00N };:-Existing Use of Property: ? \" \ ... r<\.°'-'r ~ t' e..$1 de, N ce., };:-Descriptio~ of Proposal: Q f= l ~(,ocs,. I be.,.,-t ba..~l<.s. c.> N h..~ o r.' d' NO..) hj 5 ~-'\ o "-1 C..°'-<Uk ~ \ ~ t" ef? \ad IS . \"-'\.. e.., \ ~ o ~ '("'J ),..e. ~ \,V iT b. i\J e..w !:>d bo..~.1Ks. :=ta ~ e.. N o \e.s.s ~ lo =\=T Uu'L. \e N~\~~~<Jt~ ~G"M~ dl.FU-'r OV\. ~1 Propc...-~L\ .... ?~1~ };:-Name of Property Owner (Applicant): -:S-o°'-~ ~ \00 ~\ L.'1-.. ~Address: OD 58 <i?e,,o,,e.,ik_ C..,r.-~ Telephone: (o \ & '] ~~$ ~City : /\J ~ ~ct\L. State: ~ Zip Code: ~\l.QY)FAX: ___ _ ~ Name of Representative (if other than owner): };:-Address: _____________ Telephone: ______ _ ~ City: ________ State : ___ Zip Code: ___ FAX: ___ _ STAFF USE ONLY ~ Doc. No.: Date Submitted: TC Date : --------------- ~ Planner: Hearing Date: ________ _ ~ Zone District: ------- Last Revised:O 1124103 Garfield County Code Enforcement Variance filed on behalf of Joanna Domalik 0058 Peach Ct. New Castle, CO 81647 Lot 5, Block 12 9-10-03 The previous and existing home on this lot has set backs of 4 ft. on the west side and I !ft. on the east side. I would like to propose new set backs of 5ft. on both west and east sides due to the replacement of the existing home with a new residence of the same length. ~i~&~ Joanna Domalik _<-.,. ·~~~ ·~o~..,,,.~ ~~~;.~~~ "'~'!:>,~ ~ ~s ( ~~e;~ C ovr-t' --\A-·\ \_,,,,~-, \\. ~ ,~r I\ , ,; . \I >,. 'o· C;r"iv, <( 0 :-Y;~ ... ti 0 I Sc- i "'~011-0 I . ,, \\ I '~\ ffl ~\\ 1\\-,~~-,-,~~~~~~~~~~~7E75~.4~'~~~~~~~.-~..--~--.-~~~J ··1 ~I<> I 'I 6' I 5 o· ·>,)· I 7 . ~ r e ""''"° 9'~rnM< "OOOCAA ~~. \ I I 1 \ I I \ ~~---------------------------/~ ->'c, ''o . .. 74.20' ---~ ()"!"' "155'53 40 ~ --f ""o. C..;,o --=x== -X ->'c-}'''O ~ -x <!-"'-1.? • x ~ ~ ~6',. .. , ' ... 'f 'I .. ' -.,. h•'o I :.·) . ~.~' }t ,. ' I I •: . ' . ' . y~~l . , '•. : ' 'u· ~.--~ ... ~ ' i .\ ' . ."\.· .. NOTICE TAKE NOTICE That -Joo.!'\!'\"-LJ oM ~(lK, has applied to thef UL '!Soa.al I> 44ju')+M,tf-C- Garfield, County pursuant to ~«;t1'0& 'f .o5 ft~L ~c.IJ Cowt47 Z«Ui11.. erol..ki' It\ J \" "( .a.s t11Je-J. d to allow: A VM~ tWI'-~ ~ S u;.-f,'oti ~ . ll . o <, (s) 5 (de , IM"d s .. +"-u... of •0 f+. , on this pro~erty .• A public QM"•/\ ' will be hel~ in the ~ouc T •ir•u-, ·---} , .... ., s ft~vr . f.,.-- 1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado on ~ / 'r >.... L tc em'~ .... , Z.Oo3 (time) Date Notice Was Posted=----------By: _________________ _ For additional information, contact the ,P/u,,,,;,i, ..t>etv/111&11-I 7) at f 'If'' 1212-or S . " -I -----n • ~ 09-Sth St. u1te <-Uf llJT , Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Joanna Domalik has applied to the Board 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 12, Block 5, Mountain Shadows Subdivision which is practically located southwest of New Castle, Colorado, south of the Colorado River. Said Variance application is to allow for the placement of a manufactured home within the required side yard setbacks of 10 feet. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or 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 of the 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 Monday, December 1, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., in the County Commissioners Chambers, Garfield County Plaza Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County