Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application Cover LetterKarp_Neu_HAanlYon Michael J. Sawyer mjs(0,mountainlawfirm.com September 10, 2015 Sander N. Karp* James S. Neu Karl J. Hanlon Michael J. Sawyer James F. Fosnaught Jeffrey J. Conklin Andrew A. Mueller * Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers Hand Delivery Garfield County Community Development Board of Adjustments 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Matthew L. Trinidad Patrick L. Barker Jon T. Hoistad Of Counsel Richard I. Zuber** Anna S. Itenberg Greg S. Russi Hollie L. Wieland ** Fellow of the American Academy ofMatrinwnial Lawyers Glenwood Springs Once 201 14th Street, Suite 200 P. O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Aspen Office*** 323 W. Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 www.mountainlawfirm.com """All correspondence should be sent to the Glenwood Springs office Re: Statement of Request: Variance Permit Application for Dean A. Bramlet Dear Staff: Dean A. Bramlet has retained Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. to submit and pursue a variance for his property in Garfield County at 57 Corral Dr., Carbondale, CO 81623 (Parcel No. 2391-312-17- 025). The property is located in the Aspen Equestrian Estates, Preshana Farm PUD, just southwest of the intersection of SH 82 and CR 100. A pre -application conference was held on September 1, 2015 with Senior Planner Kathy Eastley attending on behalf of Garfield County. This letter and enclosures constitute an Application for a Variance Permit from the setback requirements in the PUD. Factual Background In 1999 Garfield County approved Permit No. 7912 for a single family dwelling as submitted by the building contractor Sun King. In error, the Permit listed side yard setbacks of 10 feet rather than the 15 feet required within the R10 -Single Family Residential District, which was applied to the property underlying the building through a modification to the PUD prior to the Permit's approval. The PUD plat is recorded with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder at reception number 564578 and made no mention of the setback distance. As a result of this error, the home was mistakenly built with the northern corner encroaching 11 inches into the building setback. The construction of the home was completed in 2001. Mr. Bramlet purchased the home thereafter. At the time of Mr. Bramlet's purchase, he was completely unaware of the building's encroachment into the setback. Mr. Bramlet's home meets all other applicable zoning requirements. A variance is requested for this very minor deviation in the dimensional requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (the "Code") due to the special circumstances herein described. Literal enforcement of the Code would lead to an undue hardship and exceptional Karp_ Neu_HAanlonF Bramlet Variance Application Page 2 practical difficulties for Mr. Bramlet to achieve compliance at this time (in essence, a portion of the house would need to be torn down). Due to the extent of this application, there will be no effect on the Standards contained in Article 7 of the Code. Aside from the aforementioned 11 inch encroachment, Mr. Bramlet's property is in, and shall remain, in full compliance with Code Standards. Application Materials The following documents are included as a part of this application. • Exhibit A — Completed Application Form. • Exhibit B — Statement of Authority. • Exhibit C — Agreement to Pay. • Exhibit D — Approved Building Permit No. 7912. • Exhibit E — Title Commitment. • Exhibit F — Vesting Deed. • Exhibit G — List of Adjacent Property Owners. • Exhibit H — Assessors Map. • Exhibit I — Letter regarding Mineral Owners. • Exhibit J — Pre -Application Form. • Exhibit K — Site Plan (ILC). Justification for Variance 1. Special Circumstances Exist. As described above, an extraordinary and exceptional situation exists regarding Mr. Bramlet's home. Mr. Bramlet purchased his home without prior knowledge that it had been built with the corner of the home encroaching into the side yard setback. Because the recorded plat did not identify the setbacks, this 11 inch encroachment was overlooked even by the County in approving Sun King's building permit. The mistaken approval of the building permit, notwithstanding the difficulty of determining the correct setback distances, constitutes a special circumstance for which a variance should be reasonably granted to bring Mr. Bramlet's home into compliance. 2. Not a Result of the Applicant's Actions. Mr. Bramlet purchased his home after its completion and without any knowledge of its encroachment into the side yard setback. The mistaken approval of the building permit cannot be attributed to Mr. Bramlet, but stems from confusion between Sun King and the County regarding the appropriate setbacks. 3. Strict Application Consequences. If the 15 foot setback is strictly enforced and a variance is not granted, Mr. Bramlet will be required to undergo major construction efforts at significant cost to bring the property into compliance. Such strict application of the Code would require nothing less than tearing down a corner of Mr. Bramlet's home to abate the 11 inch encroachment, impacting the integrity of the structure. Karp.Neu_HAanloORNEYS n: W Bramlet Variance Application Page 3 4. Necessary for Relief. The granting of a variance will correct the encroachment. Without such a variance, Mr. Bramlet will be forced to alter the physical structure of his home. 5. Not Detrimental to the Public Good. The public will not be impacted by granting a variance in this case. Indeed, the encroachment of Mr. Bramlet's home is so minimal as to go unnoticed by the public and the County for 14 years. Furthermore, the purpose of the variance provision of the County's Code is representative of good planning practices and a specific recognition that topographical considerations and inadvertent, harmless mistakes should not prevent otherwise sound land use development. 6. Variance Will Not Impair the County's Zoning. A variance for Mr. Bramlet's home will not impair the County's zoning, but will constitute a sound discretionary application of the Code in a PUD, R10 -Single Family Residential District. A variance will not change the general appearance or impact of Mr. Bramlet's home, which is representative of the other homes in the Aspen Equestrian Estates, Preshana Farm PUD. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, this Application for Variance Permit should be granted to allow the Mr. Bramlet to achieve legal conformity with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code for his home. Very truly yours, KARP NEU HANLON P.C. 7//, Michael J. Sawyer MJS Enclosures cc: Client