Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application, Staff Report & CorrespondenceGARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Maria E. Maniscalchi 5157 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Maria: November 30, 1998 This letter is to confirm that you were approved for the Variance as you requested by the Board of Adjustment on Monday, November 23, 1998. The Variance requested was from Section 5.05.03 (8) for placement of a structure 4'4" feet in excess of the maximum height required by the Supplementary Setback Regulations. If you have any questions pertaining to this letter, then please feel free to call. Si cerely, 1 il Cathi Edinger Planning Tech. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 pip,,, 14 146/4 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: S X16 P ik.f G. Sge-0.- 04/0 Per04J4Pt APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: I. DESCRIPTI•N OF THE PROPOSAL BOA 11/23/98 Variance from Section 5.05.03 (8)- Placement of a structure 4'4" feet in excess of the maximum height required by the Supplementary Setback Regulations Maria E. Maniscalchi A tract of land located within a portion of Government Lots 9 and 10, Section 1, T7S, R89W, located at 5154 C R 154, 1/2 mile north of the CMC/Hwy 82 intersection. CR 154 51$3. (5'4. A/R/R1I A. Site Description: The subject property is located on the west side of Hwy. 82, approximately 1/4 mile northwest of the CMC turnoff. Improvements on tjie site include an existing residential dwelling. A site map is attached on page �/ B. Request: The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum height requirement for an accessory structure in the front yard setback area. The proposed variance would allow the placement of a fence which, due to grade and placement will vary from 4 feet to 6'4" in the front yard setback area adjacent to CR 154. The applicant has stated that the proposed height is necessary due to the existing dwellings proximity to surroundinz commercial uses and commercial traffic on the county road.. (See application pgs. ) II. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: Section 5.05.03 (8), normally requires that an accessory structure in a front yard be a maximum of 3 feet in height. 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 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 1 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 Plan 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 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 seeking relief from a regulation intended to reduce visual blight, and to maintain a reasonable standard height which does not create either a nuisance or physical hazard for the property owner, owners of adjoining property and the general public. The applicant is seeking relief from conditions, traffic noise pollution and steep terrain, which the applicant did not create, and are conditions found generally throughout the zone district. The proposal appears to be a reasonable mitigation solution for these conditions. 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. That the variance approved is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulties and not be to the detriment of the public. 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. V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL of a variance, but to the minimum necessary and subject to the new construction being completed in compliance with a building permit issued by the Garfield County Building Department, and that all development shall conform with the site plan and application as submitted. 5(41" (41/ 6 floT b 0 3 .:::,i.. -:.:V . LuWly 1.Y.'ROAD #154 ,Parkin: '`Nr•'"-, i $ 56',30;.36'-e----- 63036" -----7- ----- _ 0 rea __,----- New Fencing 554'23'4 0D Driveway and " '• Parking Area and Set - f p00 \ 'r :765 .N \rid\ 6h3 - S 46, S pyp 0� ys ea 3 O'-\ ma\ .0 N cl 4 9\1 Sates Gf oz \ \ \ \ \ \ty \NN `11 VARIANCE APPLICATION GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN Pursuant to Section 9.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution 1 Lb SEp Resolution Maria E. Maniscalchi Section fence height zone district. (applicant/owners name) 5.05.03(8) 4 1998 cothyry , request(s) a variance to of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution concerning front yard to permit fencing up to 6'4" in the R/L/SD SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Sketch map: showing all improvements on the site, building sizes, locations, setbacks and access points. B. Vicinity map: showing general geographic location. C. Legal description of site - Copy of Deed of Ownership. D. Practical description of site - including address. E. Names and addresses of property owners adjacent to or within 200 ft. of the site (available at the Assessor's office). F. Where applicable: descriptions of domestic water source, sewage disposal and other utility facilities. G. Plans and specifications for the proposal. H. Narrative explaining why the variance is being requested. I. It should be demonstrated by the above information and statements that, "...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 ofexception opographic condition of such piece of property, the strict application of any regulation enacted under this resolution would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property". (Section 9.05.03) J. Subject to the above findings, the Board of Adjustment may authorize a variance provided: 9.05.03 (1): That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or undue hardships upon the owner of said property; 9.05,03 42): 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; 9.05.03 (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. K. A $250 fee must be submitted with the application. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Submit applications to the Garfield County Planning Department no later than the last Friday of the month in order to be included on the following month's agenda. Regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment scheduled on the fourth Monday of each month at 7:00 p.tn.. 2. You will receive, from the Planning Department, a "Public Notice Form" indicating the time and date of your hearing. 3. Notice by publication (of the public notice form) shall be given once in a newspaper of general circulation in that portion of the county in which the subject property is located, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing, and proof of publication shall be presented at the hearing by the applicant. (section 9.05.04 (1). 4. Notice by mailing (of the public notice form) shall be sent by certified return -receipt mail to all owners ofall property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property at least five (5) days prior to the hearing, and the return receipts showing receipt of notice shall be presented at the hearing by the applicant, unless the applicant is able to otherwise show evidence of adequate notice to such owners. (Section 9.04.04 (2)) The above and attached information is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. APPLICANT: Maria E. Maniscalchi MAILING ADDRESS: (signator 5157 County Road 154, of applicant/owner) NE: 945-0894 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 OWNER Maria E. Maniscalchi 5157 County Road 154 MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE: 945-0894 , Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VARIANCE APPLICATION Applicant/Owner: Maria E. Maniscalchi ("Owner") Property Address: 5157 County Road 154, Glenwood Springs, CO Variance Requested: A variance of up to 3'4" to permit a fence up to 6'4" in height within the 50 foot front yard set -back esta- blished in the R/L/SD Zone District Introduction In this Application for Variance, the Owner requests approval of the Board of Adjustment for a height variance to permit a fence up to 6'4" in height within her front yard set -back. The property is located on County Road 154, which as discussed below has become an exceptionally busy thoroughfare. The purpose of the fencing is to provide shielding to the property against vehicular noise and lights. On both the easterly and northerly sides, the property abuts commercially zoned property. A portion of the fence has already been installed. Owner constructed approximately 200 feet of fencing across the front of her property in July and August of 1998. The fencing was installed in the same location as a prior fence existed which was approximately 4 feet to 4i feet in height. Prior to commencing construction, Owner contacted the Building and Planning Department to inquire as to whether or not a building permit was required for a fence. She was advised that no such permit was required. However, she was unaware that Garfield County Zoning Regulation § 5.05.03 (8) limits front yard fences to 3 feet without a variance. Her construction of the fence without first obtaining a variance was unintentional. The new fence varies in height from approximately 4 feet to 6'4". The maximum height of the fence panels is 6 feet. However, because of changes in grade, the main portion of the fencing running across the front of the property varies from 5'6" to slightly over 6 feet. The tops of the fence posts are slightly higher than 6 feet as they have not been cut to the top of the fence panels. In this Application, Owner seeks a variance approving the new fencing as constructed and permitting the completion of approx- imately 220 linear feet of additional fencing. Unique Conditions and Situation of Owner's Property Owner's property is located approximately } mile from the intersection of County Road 154 and Colorado State Highway 82. Owner's property is comprised of approximately 2.4 acres of land. The portion of the property fronting on County Road 154 is approximately 378 feet in length. To the north of Owner's property, across County Road 154, the property is zoned commercial limited. This property con- stitutes a long strip of land bounded by County Road 154 and the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way. There are several commercial buildings on this property, one of which is diagonally across the street from Owner's property. These buildings house Modern Cabinet Center, Modern Kitchen Center and a variety of office and other uses. Semi -tractor trailer rigs regularly service these commercial businesses. A portion of the commercial property across County Road 154 is comprised of a narrow strip of land without any structures or significant vegetation. Across this strip of land lies the railroad right-of-way and Highway 82. To the east of Owner's property is located Webb Crane, also in the commercial limited zone district. Webb Crane utilizes numerous pieces of extremely heavy equipment including crane rigs, semi -tractor trailers, front-end loaders and the like. Webb Crane operates from approximately 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or later on a regular basis, frequently including weekends. Their vehicles utilize County Road 154 in both directions. Owner's home was placed on her property in 1974. Approx- imately 15 feet of the entire length of the front of the home is within the front yard set -back. The property was and is partially surrounded by a fence of up to approximately 4i feet in height, which was installed by prior owners of the property. The house sits at the same grade level as County Road 154 and approximately 30 feet below the grade level of Highway 82. Because of the home's proximity to County Road 154 on the same grade as that road, its unobstructed exposure to traffic on Highway 82, the commercial uses on two sides and the extensive use of County Road 154 by commercial vehicles (Mountain Mobile Ready Mix and Gould Construction both maintain operations accessed by County Road 154), noise and headlight impacts from extremely heavy traffic have created a significant hardship which can only be alleviated by the granting this request for variance. During the two years that Owner has resided in the home, traffic has increased significantly. When Owner purchased the residence, the site occupied by Webb Crane was a vacant field. Construction traffic servicing development on County Road 109 has increased dramatically. The approval of 292 homes on Rose Ranch, accessed off of County Road 109 via County Road 154 will further increase noise and traffic. 1 Exceptional and Undue Hardships The traffic, the noise and the vehicular lights discussed above constitute an exceptional and undue hardship to Owner. Owner's house was constructed prior to the adoption of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in 1978. As noted, the house sits within the front yard set -back immediately adjacent to County Road 154. The commercial uses on surrounding properties were all commenced subsequent to the construction of the home. These commercial uses increasingly result in greater numbers of heavy trucks and other vehicles using the County Road as well as Highway 82. Owner's situation is unique on County Road 154. There are no other homes abutted on two sides by commercial uses. There are no other homes which are directly adjacent to the County Road at the same grade level. And, there are no other homes which are exposed to an unobstructed view of and impact from traffic on State Highway 82. All the other residences on Owner's side of County Road 154 are located well below the level of the road, protected by significant embankments which block and divert traffic noise and headlights. The impacts on Owner's residence are thus unique. The photographs included in this application as Appen- dices "E" and "F" reveal the proximity of the house to road traffic and noise as well as the adjacent commercial uses. The previously existing fence, a split -rail fence, did not serve to protect Owner's residence from noise and lights. Only by constructing the solid cedar fence along the front yard property line, can these adverse impacts be mitigated. The Requested Variance May Be Granted In Compliance with the Zoning Resolution The Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 permits the granting of a variance where: by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and excep- tional situation or condition of such prop- erty, the strict application of any regulation enacted under this Resolution would result in ... exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property Owner's property is the only residential parcel on County Road 154 subjected to both adjoining commercial uses and direct exposure to traffic impacts on Highway 82. Owner's property is the only residence constructed within the front yard set -back, placing it immediately adjacent to County Road 154. The impacts from traffic are extraordinary and excep- tional with respect to Owner's property. The zoning resolution requires a determination of the followings 1. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. The fence as currently constructed is the minimum necessary to create a screen from the traffic and noise impacts. A lower fence or a split -rail fence simply does not provide the screening effect. 2. The relief requested may be granted without substan- tial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or this Resolution. Owner constructed the new fence in the same location as the previously existing fence. The new fence is approximately 2 to 2} feet higher than the old fence. Owner seeks to construct additional fencing to replace existing fencing. The new fencing is set back at least 12 feet from the edge of the County Road to insure good visibility. The pictures appended hereto reveal the unobstructed gravel shoulder along the County Road. Two adjoining owners, Richard Moolick and William Slat- tery, have submitted letters appended hereto in support of this application. Both note that approval of this variance will not be detrimental to the public good. There are no provisions regarding intent or purpose of any general plan or the Zoning Resolution which would be offended by the granting of this variance. This property is a transitional parcel with respect to zoning. To the south and west are residen- tial uses. To the north and east are commercial uses. The installation of the traffic signal at Highway 82 and County Road 154 in 1996 has resulted in tremendous noise from vehicles accelerating and decelerating. Lights from as far away as that intersection are visible from Owner's property. The purpose of the fencing is to mitigate the adverse impacts suffered by this unique, transitional parcel. 3. 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. 4 Owner's residence was constructed before the imposition of Zone District Regulations at a time when traffic impacts were considerably less and adjoining commercial uses had not been approved. As noted above, although the hardships suffered by Owner are a result of traffic and noise, the surrounding properties in the zone district are not exposed to the same conditions. Only Owner's property is subject to exposure to the commercial activities, traffic and noise in the area. All the other residential properties are protected by topographic features from the negative impacts. No other parcel has the same unobstructed impact from Highway 82. And, no other parcel has commercial uses on two sides. There is no practical solution to the hardships suffered by Owner. The only solution is the construction of fencing for screening purposes. Conclusion Owner believes that her unique circumstances fall squarely within the authority of the Board of Adjustment to grant the requested variance. Neighbors do not oppose this request. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public good. Owner respectfully requests that this Board grant a variance allowing her fencing to be up to 6'4" as depicted in the Appendices to this Application. APPENDIX "A" Sketch Map "Parkin ")rea • • `'"`�'� ► Y• ROAD #154 S=6 ;QE - S5•47-3/41,,!, i NP�n�in�`--�= •••••••,•••.. • •y Driveway and and Set- �� —., . 'r'.'.; -Parking Area . \' .---ia"6-v.", , �,. . 0, .----tee /' ; r� f •: IA �• . - 7. N. \ cf._ \ \ \ „ (1. ' in mss- ~`" ..., �,_ _ �`\ \ p-- 1 / c I ,........-..• ....._•.:.....„,.. ...,,_ ce ho - 3 NN r ate: 0•* "-•••••.' ' �' . - • DD • s On>. \z/,014-sc 96-37' _iooL NO 6h0 c3 \ N9' c \ • tip. • . / .\. ,,N, .... :....,>..• \,~„. %`` - �•�� S.--..... ,moi it' \ ,i \ \ 1. \ . \ 5. .....dO 4.1,y r • '''',......:NN, , \ \ N �\ '. \ • . N:\ • �� APPENDIX "B" Vicinity Map ALE '0 200 i. VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=2000' z 0 w 0 z c'4,,, \ c ss._ rt) oo aG N 1114 \ #82 o o \ o � pyO J SUBJECT�\,,, PROPERT } \9� �� 2 7 1 \?3 '0 200 i. VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=2000' z 0 w 0 z APPENDIX "C" Legal Description • RETURN TO: — LINDA WYLIE & ASSOCIATES--,� P.O..BOX 1187 / CARBONDALE, CO 81623 '-i coo as$ a a GENERAL WARRANTY DEED DOC FEE: 31. 01/916,6 ,ovd as ALFRED JOHN NEMOFF and ELIZABE HOOD NEMOFF, whose 5 address is R /kat/d_6 Gr_f.�'xi�v06n dP,�ix5 ( , for Ten Dollars 11 ($10.00) and other good and valuable con6ideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to MARIA E. MANISCALCHI, whose address is P.O. Box 6215, Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615, the following real property in the County of Garfield and State of Colorado, to -wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorpo- rated herein by this reference, Together with 5 shares in the Glenwood Ditch. with a street address of: 5157 County Road 154, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, with all its appurtenances and WARRANTS the title to the same, SUBJECT TO: taxes not yet due and payable for the year of closing; any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district; the effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area; right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 17, 1897 in Book 12 at Page 460 as Reception No. 20105; right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 17, 1897 in Book 12 at Page 460 as Reception No. 20105; undivided one-half interest in all oil, gas and other mineral rights, as reserved by Josephine Coryell in the Deed to Jack C. Fitch and Mary E. Fitch, recorded December 2, 1965 in Book 371 at Page 415 as Reception No. 232562, and any and all assignments thereof, or interests therein; undivided one-half interest in all oil, gas and other mineral rights, as reserved by Josephine Coryell in the Deed recorded September 2, 1965 in Book 369 at Page 256 as Reception No. 231453 and any and all' assignments thereof, or interests therein; restrictions, as set forth in Deed from Olive M. Heuschkel to Norman Histand and Grace A. Histand, dated July 1, 1974, recorded July 24, 1974 in Book 462 at Page 299 as Reception No. 264041; right of way for the uninterrupted flow of the Roaring Fork River; terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations of Resolution No. 95-031 recorded April 11, 1995 in Book 937 at Page 120 as Reception No. 476558 and Resolution No. 95-030 recorded April 11, 1995 in Book 937 at Page 123 as Reception No. 476559; and terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations of Lot Line Adjustment recorded March 20, 1996 in Book 970 at Page 995 as Reception No. 490484. SIGNED this (3 day of November, 1996. Z -p7-12? AL ED J.HN NEMOFF STATE OF COLORADO' ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) ELT0gABETH HOOD NEMOFF The Foregoing Geera3 Warranty Deed was acknowledged and signed before me this 1544 day of November, 1996, by ALFRED JOHN NEMOFF and ELIZABETH HOOD NEMOFF. WITNESS my hand and official My commission expires: hereby certify this copy to be a true & exacj)cop e original. Stowart vary seal. OGS N • 7 Order Number.• 96025822 EXIIIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land situate .in a portion of Government Lots 9 and 10, Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Lot 9, whence the Northwest Corner of said Lot 9 bears N. 00m 38'00" W. a distance of 222.35 feet; thence along the Southerly right of way of County Road No. 154 the following two (2) courses: S. 56m 30'30" E. a distance of 308.36 feet; thence S. 540 23'47" E. a distance of 69.23 feet; thence S. 180 35'20" W.' a distance of 227.35 feet; thence along an existing fence line or the extension thereof the eight (8) courses; s. 410 30'45" W. a distance of 18.73 feet; S. N. N. N. S. S. S. S. thence thence thence thence thence thence thence thence 64m 220 460 86m 63m 24m 06m 710 03'41" W. 29'39" W. 01'12" W. 13'41" W. 44'55" W. 55'30" W. 19'34" E. 31'07" W. a a a a a a a a approximate centerline of the Roaring Fork River, thence N. 17m 45'31" W. a distance of 83.11 feet; thence N. 480 56'30" E. a distance of 239.20 feet government Lot 9; thence along said Westerly line N. 000 38'00" W. a distance of the Point of Beginning. distance distance distance distance distance distance distance distance of of of of of 19.98 feet; of 181.43 feet; of 8.39 feet; of 165.59 feet to 19.36 feet; 59.50 feet; 96.31 feet; 20.06 feet; following a point at the along said centerline to the Westerly line said COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO 323.22 feet to APPENDIX "D" Names and Addresses of Property Owners Adjacent to or within 200 Feet of Property PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET Richard T. Moolick 5109 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 William Slattery 5134 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority P. 0. Box 1270 Carbondale, CO 81623 Steven Fotion 5173 County Road 154 P. 0. Box 3431 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Marlin and Patricia Brown 95 Coryell Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 C&C Properties 5304 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Roaring Fork Investments, LLC 19555 East Main Street, Suite 200 Parker, CO 80136 APPENDIX "E" Pictures of Existing Fencing and Fencing Previously in Place --a r- APPENDIX "F" Pictures of New Fencing and Property and Road Conditions MANISCALCHI VARIANCE APPLICATION VIEW OF FENCE LOOKING NORTHWEST ALONG COUNTY ROAD 154 VIEW OF FENCE LOOKING SOUTHEAST ALONG COUNTY ROAD 154 MANISCALCHI VARIANCE APPLICATION TYPICAL TRUCK TRAFFIC ON COUNTY ROAD 154 MANISCALCHI VARIANCE APPLICATION STATE HIGHWAY 82 TRAFFIC VIEWED FROM PROPERTY LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL PROPOSED FENCING APPENDIX "G" Neighbors' Letters WILLIAM SLATTERY Modern Cabinet Shop 5134 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-5359 September 21, 1998 Board of Adjustment Garfield County 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Spring, CO 81601 Re: Request for Variance -- Maria E. Maniscalchi Dear Board Members: I have been made aware that Maria E. Maniscalchi is requesting a variance for her front -yard fence at 5157 County Road 154, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, I own the property across the street from Maria's to the north. I have no objection to her fence and urge you to grant the requested variance so that the fence can remain in place at its existing height. Because of the location of Maria's house at the same elevation as County Road 154 and because of her home's exposure to Highway 82, the fence serves to reduce impacts from noise and vehicle lights. Over the past years, the amount of traffic, including heavy truck traffic, has increased dramatically on County Road 154. I do not believe that granting Maria's requested variance will be detrimental to the public good. If I can provide further comment, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, William Slattery RICHARD T. MOOLICK 5109 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • (970) 945-5391 September 21, 1998 Board of Adjustment Garfield County 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Spring, CO 81601 Re: Request for Variance - Maria E. Maniscalchi Dear Board Members: I have been made aware that Maria E. Maniscalchi is requesting a variance for her front -yard fence at 5157 County Road 154, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. I own the property next door to Maria's to the west. I have no objection to her fence and urge you to grant the requested variance so that the fence can remain in place at its existing height. Because of the location of Maria's house at the same elevation as County Road 154 and because of her home's exposure to Highway 82, the fence serves to reduce impacts from noise and vehicle lights. I have resided on County Road 154 for a dozen years. During that period of time, the amount of traffic, including heavy truck traffic, has increased dramatically. T do not believe that granting Maria's requested variance will be detrimental to the public good. If I can provide further comment, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Richard T. Moolick Richard T. Moolick 5109 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Te1-970-945-5391--Fax 970-945-9477 November 23, 1998 Planning Department, Garfield County Re: Maria E. Maniscalchi's request for a variance to the Garfield County Zoning Board of Adjustment, Garfield County County Zoning Resolution of 1978. I have been a neighbor of 5157 County Road 154 since early 1985. I live adjacent to Maria, and immediately north of her. Incidently, unlike Maria, I live down on the Roaring Fork River, and well below County Road 154. Maria lives at road level to County Road 154. In the 13 years I have lived here3 County Road 154 has gone from a quiet little country road to a very noisy commercial road, crowded with giant semi's hauling aggregate/large dump trucks also hauling aggregate and paving materials, large cement trucks, and miscellaneous freight vehicles, as well as many construction pickups and cars, most of whom greatly exceed the 30 mile per hour speed limit in the area. If I lived at 5157 County Road 154 I would also opt to construct a tall fence to partially block the excruciating noise of the traffic. (The only other alternative would be to move from this delightful, scenic area. something anyone who lives here would be reluctant to do.) In short, either all the construction vehicles should be diverted to U.S. 82, or Maria and others living at the level of the County Road 154 should be allowed to build any kind of sound barriers that might be effective. Five days/week the road noises will match those of a busy freeway. In conclusion,I would like to state that Maria's fence is extremely attractive ----I LIKE IT! Sincerely, Richard T. Moolick Z 266 33/ 746 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mall (See reverse) Sent to Richard T. Moolick SUael d, Number 5109 County Road 154 Post Office, State, & ZIP Code Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Postage $ 0.32 Certified Fee 1 .3 5 Spedal Detivery Fee Fiestrided Delivery Fee Return Receipt �, , Whom WFgm3Da.�.7„. 1.10 Return .:. r . .. Date, d , . • . s Addre , TOTA - ge • 4' .. 2 . 7 7 Postma' :.1 pj P 464 901 294 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mali No insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for international Mali (See reverse Sent to William Slattery Street d Number 5134 County Road 154 Post Office, State, & ZIP Code Glenwood Srpings, CO 81601 Postage $ 0.32 Certified Fee 1 . 35 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt ii ,I I . to Whom &Da. ;o 1 . 10 Reim Roc '. Date, & , ess s Addres, Q TOTAL ' gee OD 2 . 7 7 Postma .---":71\:.;4C° ��+ P 464 901 293 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mall (See reverse Sentto {toaring Fork Railroad Holding autthority Street & Number P. O. Box 1270 Post Office, State, & ZIP Code Carbondale, CO 81623 Postage $ 0.32 Certified Fee 1.35 Speaal Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to Whom & Date Delhi. 6 . 1 . l o Return Receipt.. Date, & Address. .rr , :, Ili' TOTAL Pos.!ge . Fees p f 2, 7 7 Postmark or 6 .ta lgyo w Z 266 334 r47 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. for International Mall (See reverse - - Sent to C&C Properties Street & Number 0036 South Meadowview Cour Post Office, State, & ZiP Code Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Postage $ 0.32 Certified Fee 1.35 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Retum Receipt venom a nate • .;� O 1.10 PS Form-3SUU, Aprfl Crs TOTAL P,.:, &Feed $ 2� 2.77 Postmark . at 194 %Ps P 464 901 289 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse N `i; •- Senuo Roaring Fork Investments, LLC Street & Number 19555 East Main St., Suite Post Office, Stale, & ZIP Code Parker, CO 80136 Postage $ 0.32 Certified Fee 1.35 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to Whom & Date Delivered 1.10 .q Retten Receipt Showing to Whom Date,b TO .. r -P $ 2.77 LL tm or Dat O ��/ 000 1 P 464 901 292 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse Sent to Steven Potion Street & Number517 ggounty Road 15 P. O. Box 34.51 Post Office, Stele, & ZIP Code Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Postage $ 0.32 Certified Fee 1.35 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Re*. . r4,�;11' Whom B'= : 1 .10 Return ::. ito Date, 6 , ; : • =f 0 TOTAL gees 2.77 Postmark ,o z e \:".0 P 464 901 291 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse Sentto Marlin and Patricia Brown Street & Number 95 Coryell Road Post Office, State, & ZIP Code Glenwood Springs, CO 8160) Postage $ 0.32 Certified Fee 1 15 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing 10 Whom &Date a:'. -'t;, 1 , 10 Relvm •::, . 1,.., Date, a Addy',''" . TOTAL P ste i : & Fe D " $ rrp 2 . i i Postmark r D= a 2.9 0SAS NI PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Maria E. Maniscalchi 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 Practical Description; 5157 County Road 154, Apx. 1 mile south of Glenwood Springs, on the west side of County Road 154. Said variance is to allow a 6'4" fence in the front yard setback, a variance of 3'4" in excess of the standard height of 3' and to allow a variance of 2' in excess of the 8' standard height allowed in the sideyard setback for a section of fencing approximately 50' in length. 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 Zoning Board of Adjustment will give consider- ation to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for 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 23rd of November 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 41114 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land situate in a portion of Government Lots 9 and 10, Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Lot 9, whence the Northwest Corner of said Lot 9 bears N. 000 38'00" W. a distance of 222.35 feet; thence along the Southerly right of way of County Road No. 154 the following two (2) courses: S. 56m 30'30" E. a distance of 308.36 feet; thence S. 54m 23'47" E. a distance of 69.23 feet; thence S. 180 35'20" W. a distance of 227.35 feet; thence along an existing fence line or the extension thereof the following eight (8) courses; S. 41m 30'45" W. a distance of 18.73 feet; thence S. 640 03'41" W. a distance of 19.36 feet; thence N. 22o 29'39" W. a distance of 59.50 feet; thence N. 46m 01'12" W. a distance of 96.31 feet; thence N. 86m 13'41" W. a distance of 20.06 feet; thence S. 63m 44'55" W. a distance of 19.98 feet; thence S. 242, 55'30" W. a distance of 181.43 feet; thence S. 06o 19'34" E. a distance of 8.39 feet; thence S. 71m 31'07" W. a distance of 165.59 feet to a point at the approximate centerline of the Roaring Fork River, thence along said centerline N. 17m 45'31" W. a distance of 83.11 feet; thence N. 48425 56'30" E. a distance of 239.20 feet to the Westerly line said government Lot 9; thence along said Westerly line N. 00m 38'00" W. a distance of 323.22 feet to the Point of Beginning. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO NEILEY & ALDER 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. (970) 925-9393 Eugene M. Alder Fax (970) 925-9396 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL TO: Glenwood Post; Attn: Classified Ads FAX #: (970) 945-8518 RE: Publication of Public Notice and Proof of Publication FROM: Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. DATE: October 27, 1998 TIME: 9:56 am NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet): / COMMENTS OR INSTRUCTIONS: Please publish the attached Public Notice once at your earliest convenience. When this is accomplished, we will need your "Proof of Publication" form as well. Per our conversation with your office, you will bill us for the publication and the Proof of Publication and then send the Proof of Publication to us once payment is received. You may fax your invoice to the above number or mail it. Thank you for your assistance. Please call if you have any questions.- ((A2 ORIGINALS TRANSMITTED BY: n/a NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION I8 ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT OF THIS TRANSMISSION, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERY OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION I8 STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE RETURN THE TRANSMISSION TO THE SENDER BY UNITED STATES MAIL AT THE ADDRESS SET FORTH ABOVE. IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT ANN AT (970) 925-9393 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 1 0 iii First -Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 • Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box • Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. Neiley & Alder 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, CO 81611 CSENDER: • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. to a Complete items 3. 4e, and 4b. • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you a Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. • Write -Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. ■ The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered, C I also wish to re6eive the . following services (for an extra fee): 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. O 3. Article Addressed to: Richard T. iiuolick 5109 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 4w Article Number Z 266 334 746 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered O Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise © Certified ❑ Insured ❑ COD 5. Received By: (Print Name) 6. Signal 40ce •e or Agent) o X pP PS f=orm 3811, December 1994 7. Dale of /D1eliverry 8. Addressee's Addfess y it requested and fee is paid) 102595-98-B-0229 Domestic Return Receipt 1 SENDER: • r Complete Items 1 and/or 2 tor additional services, 0 • Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you ✓ Attach this Iorm to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. ■ Write "Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number, • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. o 3. Article Addressed to: D. 1 I also wish to rebeive the . following services (for an extra fee): 1. ❑ Addressee's Address 2. 0 Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. William Slattery 5134 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 4a. Article Number P 464 901 294 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise in Certified O Insured O COD 7. Date of live 5. Received By: (Print Name) of 6. Signatur/(Addressee or Af-nt) a. X PS F" m 3811 'ec 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 99 / 102595-9843-0229 Domestic Return Receipt 1 SENDER: ▪ ■ Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. V) ■ Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. • Attach this term to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. • Write 'Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. 2 • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date • delivered. E 3. Article Addressed to: Z. Roaring Fork Railroad 1 Holding Authority P. O. Box 1270 Carbondale, CO 81623 z GO5. Received_ -By`: (PrintttName) ,1" f'R KJ E: 3 ,. 6. Signature: A :. :e orA 94 C' t- i fL /�Vf r op PS • Forfn 38 1, De ember 1994^ �y I also wish to rebeive the . following services (for an extra fee): 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2. 0 Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. E. 4a. Article Number P 464 901 293 s 4b. Service Type O Registered ® Certified fs O Express Mail 0 Insured c ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 COD a 7. Date of Delivery Y CO 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 102595 -9e -e-0223 Domestic Return Receipt cSENDER: • Complete Items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. m a Complete Items 3, 4a, and 4b. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. ■ Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back it space does not permit. a Write 'Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 8 3. Article Addressed to: a a 0 se I also wish to rebeive the . following services (for an extra fee): 1, 0 Addressee's Address 2. 0 Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. C&C Properties 0036 South Meadowview Court Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 5. Received By: (Print N 6. Sign S Fo 6f 1, December 1994 4a. Article Number Z 266 334 747 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ® Certified O Insured O COD 7. Date of Delivery 0 1998 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 1o25s5-ne-e-022g Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: ■ Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. ■ Complete nems 3, 4a, and 4b. • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. ■ Attach this forrn to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. • Write 'Pefum Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. • The Return Receipt will show 10 whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. I also wish to receive the . following services (for an extra fee): 1- ❑ Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: Roaring Fork Investments, LLC 19555 East Main St., Suite 200 Parker, CO 80136 4a. Article Number P 464 901 289 4b. Service Type 0 Registered ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ® Certified 0 Insured ❑ COD 7. Date of Delivery )C) 5. Received By: (Print Name) in��� 6. Signature. (Addressee r Agent) g. X 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 2 PS Form 38t 1j. Decem er 1994 ta2595-9e a -o229 Domestic Return Receipt E. E cc rn . 0 mc c r SENDER: • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. rn ■ Complete Hems 3, 4a, and 4b. r Print your name and address on the reverse of this form 5o that we can return this card to you • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back d space does not permit. is Write 'Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number_ • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered, gd 3. Article Addressed to: 1 1 a also wish to redeive the . following services (for an extra fee): 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2. 0 Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. Steven Fotiur1 5173 County Road 154 P. O. Box 3431 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 5. Received By: (Print Name) 4a. Article Number P 464 901 292 W 6. Sig II,.tura: (Addressee or gen i li r` a• ST it PS f=o . 811, Decemb= 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Recei 8. Address and fee ® Certified ❑ Insured ❑ COD uested 102595-98-13-0229 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: N.i Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. •+ • Complete items 3. 4a, and 4b. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. • i Attach this form to the front of the mallplece, or on the back it space does not • permit. ■Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. . The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. g 3. Article Addressed to: also wish to reeeive the following services (for an extra fee): 1- ❑ Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. Marlin and Patricia Brown • 95 Coryell Road $ Glenwood Springs, c0 81601 4a. Article Number P 464 901 291 4b. Service Type O Registered O Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ® Certified 0 Insured ❑ COD 7. Date of Delivery iOY ` $1998 5. Received By: (Print Name) 6. Sign e: (Addressee or Agent) PS Perm 3811 ber 1994 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 102595-98-13-0225 Domestic Return Receipt Thank you for using Retu NOTES RECEIPT 0,0119- Z41 - NO. 4350 RECEIVED FROM Vf 4 a 9'r) 1 Co 10 FOR ACCOUNT NT. OF T ACCOUN A AMT. � .111 PAID �./���J ��� BALANCEMONEY DUE -■ ORDER HOW PAID CASH CHECK Wilt —■ (tea -lion O h ttp2 O' BY 1 jl a1.►�I► 01997 ® $L9111 REQUEST: BOA 11/23/98 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Variance from Section 5.05.03 (8)- Placement of a structure 4'4" feet in excess of the maximum height required by the Supplementary Setback Regulations APPLICANT: Maria E. Maniscalchi LOCATION: A tract of land located within a portion of Government Lots 9 and 10, Section 1, T7S, R89W, located at 5154 C R 154, 1/2 mile north of the CMC/Hwy 82 intersection. ACCESS: C R 154 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD L DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The subject property is located on the west side of Hwy. 82, approximately 1/4 mile northwest of the CMC turnoff. Improvements on the site include an existing residential dwelling. A site map is attached on page B. Request: The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum height requirement for an accessory structure in the front yard setback area. The proposed variance would allow the placement of a fence which, due to grade and placement will vary from 4 feet to 6'4" in the front yard setback area adjacent to CR 154. The applicant has stated that the proposed height is necessary due to the existing dwellings proximity to surrounding commercial uses and commercial traffic on the county road.. (See application pgs. ) II. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: Section 5.05.03 (8), normally requires that an accessory structure in a front yard be a maximum of 3 feet in height. 13. 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 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 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 Plan 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 seeking relief from a regulation intended to reduce visual blight, and to maintain a reasonable standard height which does not create either a nuisance or physical hazard for the property owner, owners of adjoining property and the general public. The applicant is seeking relief from conditions, traffic noise pollution and steep terrain, which the applicant did not create, and are conditions found generally throughout the zone district. The proposal appears to be a reasonable mitigation solution for these conditions. 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 and not be to the detriment of the public. 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. _ V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL of a variance, but to the minimum necessary and subject to the new construction being completed in compliance with a building permit issued by the Garfield County Building Department, and that all development shall conform with the site plan and application as submitted. nerb' vL GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA NOVEMBER 23, 1998 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ROOM 301 DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1998 1) Call meeting to order 2) Roll Call 3) Approval of Minutes from BOA Meetings of October 26, 1998 and November 9, 1998. 4) Public Hearing for a Variance from Section 5.05.03 (8) -Placement of a structure 4'4" feet in excess of the maximum height required by the Supplementary Setback Regulations. Property is located at 5154 CR 154, 1/2 mile north of the CMC/Hwy. 82 intersection. Applicant: Maria E. Maniscalchi 5) Other Business 6) Adjournment ATTN BOA MEMBERS: Please call the office at 945-8212 and verify whether or not you will be able to attend the meeting 0" BOA Members Present Harold Raymond Clarence Mullen Brad Jordan Tom Morton Peter Cabrinha Leo Jammaron Garfield County Board of Adjustments Minutes for October 26, 1998 Meeting Staff Present Mark Bean, Director John Barbee, Senior Planner Roll call was taken and the following members were absent: Dan Weitzenkom and Steve Boat. Minutes from September 28, 1998 Board of Adjustments meeting were reviewed. Brad Jordan made a motion to approve these minutes and Tom Morton seconded. Minutes were accepted unanimously into the record. The first item on the agenda was a continued public hearing for a Variance from Section 5.05.03 (8) - placement of a structure 2 feet in excess of the maximum height required by the Supplementary Setback Regulations. Applicant is The William & Judith Slattery Trust. Tom Morton was reappointed as a regular voting member. Only the members present at the last hearing can vote. Brad Jordan clarified that variance is in fact for 6 feet above height allowance. Harold Raymond made a motion to reopen public meeting and Brad Jordan seconded. John Barbee entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit D: Letter of Support from Rick Neiley Exhibit E: Letter from Howard McGregor, Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado --Sound Expert All exhibits were accepted into the record. John Barbee summarized the issues again and noted that Mr. McGregor had submitted letter as expert on sound engineering. At this time, staff is recommending approval. Bill Slattery noted that he a got a letter from Mr. McGregor as requested by the Board of Adjustments at previous meeting. Bill also noted that it will be beneficial to Mr. Langston too. Clarence Mullen asked about a berm --wondered why no berm. Mr. Slattery noted that a berm would have to be very wide and wouldn't provide much better of a sound barrier. He noted that they are asking for fence on both sides. Brad Jordan asked what is magical about a 10' fence. Mr. Slattery said it was in the sight plane of the road. It's backed with trees on both sides. This is not the ultimate answer, but would provide some additional help. J.W. Weaver stated he never built a sound fence. Sound would go off at an angle based on his research. Mr. Slattery feels that this is just the beginning for requests. Brad Jordan asked if there were any graphs of distance. Leonard Langston said there were no reference maps and that fence would be acute with his house on highway 82. Letter says sound will travel east and he's east. Leonard still feels a smaller berm with vegetation would be more preferable. He still doesn't feel this is acceptable. Leonard wants sound tested at his residence to show that increase in traffic noise has occurred. He feels that an EIS is going to have to be done. Feels sound is a problem and something needs to be done. Pete Cabrinha asked about reasons he was sure it cause sound. Exhibit F: Map drawn by Brad Jordan (accepted into the record) A number of people looked at the map drawn by Brad. Bill Slattery noted that Mr. McGregor was in the area doing work at the Glenwood Springs Airport. Leonard Langston noted that the notice was incorrect in terms of the description. That Don DeFord had noted it was an error. Mark Bean asked Leonard if he was going to object to this notice. Mr. Langston said he was not going to object and he was just noting the error. Mr. Bean explained that it would result in renoticing and starting all over. Mr. Langston said he wouldn't object. Brad Jordan made a motion to close public hearing and Harold Raymond seconded. A unanimous vote was made to close this section of the hearing. Discussions were conducted by the BOA members. Leo Jammaron stated that any bounce of the sound should go higher given the angle of the sound. Brad Jordan had question on which sounds would be heard 3/4 miles down road could be even and deflection would be flat. Source of sound will define where increase of noise occurs. Harold Raymond notes that any sound hitting fence will be an acute angle and could reflect back to the Langston's home. Clarence Mullen noted that the applicant went back and got a professional engineer to review. He (the Sound Engineer) states that no additional sound will occur. Clarence noted that Garfield County does not have any equipment to measure sound and he suggests that the applicant be responsible for providing before and after decibel measurements off wall. Brad Jordan noted that there may be a 10' fence all along highway corridor. No comments on aesthetics there --may have been comments at last hearing. Brad wanted to know if this is the minimum necessary to grant variance. There was no answer. Pete Cabrinha says we have letter stating it will work. Harold Raymond suggested that if approved with conditions of readings that recommendation will have to be done of there is an increase. Brad feels that letter from Sound Engineer should have more data. Brad Jordan and Harold Raymond feel variance should be denied as requested. Additional discussion with BOA members: Tom Morton stated that maybe we need to put off making a decision on this matter for a week to allow for better data. Clarence reminded members that Sound Engineer's letter stated 10' fence would work. Clarence Mullen made a motion to approve a variance for the applicant to allow two (2) 10' fences to mitigate sound from highway 82. This approval is dependent upon comparable sound level readings being taken both before and after the fence is installed. The sound levels will be measured on both the applicants property and all adjacent properties. If the decibel readings after the fence is installed are higher than before, the applicant must mitigate the increase in sound which may require removal of the fence. Harold Raymond seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed with conditions (4 Y to 1 N) No other business to discuss. Meeting adjourned. to - BOA Members Present Leo Jammaron Dan Weitzenkom Clarence Mullen Steve Boat Tom Morton Garfield County Board of Adjustments Minutes for November 9, 1998 Meeting Staff Present Mark Bean, B& P Director Don DeFord, County Atty. Roll call was taken and the following members were present: Harold Raymond, Brad Jordan and Peter Cabrinha, Request is for an appeal of a staff interpretation of Section 4.08.05(7)(e)(ii), pursuant to the appeal process contained in Section 9.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. Josh Marks, an Attorney out of Denver, CO. was hired by the County to represent them in this matter. Josh reviewed mailing notification with applicant. The Appellant's representative, Tim Thulson, brought in a list of adjacent property owners within 200' that Doug Pratt, with The Land Studio, had mailed public notification too. Public notice was mailed out on 10/28/98 under certified return receipt requested. Notice was also published in the Glenwood Post on 10/23/98. Appellant has Public Notice and Land Title Search. Josh Marks reviewed all applicable information and concluded that all notification appeared to be sufficient. No objection was given by County as to notification verification. Leo Jammaron swore in Mark Bean at this time and then Mark proceeded with the Staff comments and project information. Mark entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A: Proof of Publication Exhibit B: Return Receipts Exhibit C: Appeal Letter with Attachments Exhibit D: Letter to Land Studio --from Mark Bean dated 8/17/98 Exhibit E: Letter to Land Studio --from Mark Bean dated 10/1/98 Exhibit F: Letter with attachments --Mid Valley Metro District dated 7/21/98 Exhibit G: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan --July 1994 Exhibit H: Section 4:00, entire section --Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 Exhibit I: Section 4:00, entire section --Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, with amendments through 12/9/97. Exhibit J: Resolution No. 97-109, dated 12/1/97, Amending Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. Exhibit K: Memorandum from Bob Szrot dated 11/6/98 --with attachments Exhibit L: Letter from Lee Leavenworth dated 3/11/94 Exhibit M: Letter with "Position Statement" from Tim Thulson dated 11/9/98 No objections to these exhibits by appellant. A motion was made to accept the exhibits into the record by Dan Weitzenkorn and seconded by Steve Boat. Motion carried and Exhibits A -M were accepted into the record. The appellant, Mumbert Cerise Family Co., Limited Partnership, Wintergreen Homes LLC, submitted an application for the Cerise Ranch Planned Unit Development last August. Staff reviewed application for completeness as pursuant to Section 4.08.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. On two separate occasions letters were sent to the appellant concerning various deficiencies. The last letter restated the same issues listed in the first letter with more emphasis on Section 4.08.057(7)(e)(ii). That section states the following: "The proposed method of sewage treatment legally and physically adequate to service the PUD. If the PUD application proposed to utilize existing, central facilities, the application shall contain a letter from the district or provider that adequate excess capacity currently exists and will be devoted to accommodating the development, or that the capacity will be expanded to adequately accommodate the development." It is staffs opinion that the above statement requires that there be an unequivocal statement from the Mid Valley Metropolitan District that it can and will be able to serve the proposed development. There is no facility presently available. Stafffeels that there is no guarantee because numerous other government entities need to review and approve the water and wastewater expansion. Such approvals shall include, but not be limited to, approval of 1041 Permit by Eagle County, approval of an expanded District plan by Eagle County, approval of an expanded District service plan by Garfield County, approval of a 201 Plan, if required, and approval of a treatment plant site application by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Staff feels letters submitted merely show a proposed effort. There is no proposed high densities in this area of the Comp. Plan. Staff still feels this is an important issue and is ultimately involved with the approval or disapproval which has to be made through numerous governmental agencies. Mid Valley can simply send in application to the State, they do not have final authority to okay. Board of Adjustment members directed questions to Mark Bean. Steve Boat asked Mark if there was any time frame for expansion to happen? Mark responded, no formal discussion or application being proposed for expansion at this time. Steve also stated that he feels the Department of Health agenda has changed and he wanted to know if they had been contacted on this matter. At this time, the Dept. of Health has not approved any expansion for the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Possibly a regional facility rather than more smaller facilities. Nothing decided yet. 2 r Dan Weitzenkorn asked if Mid Valley Metro District comes into Garfield County at all? It does come into the Dakota Subdivision. County has no witnesses at this time but Don DeFord does want an opportunity for rebuttal if necessary. Leo Jammaron swore in all people to speak on applicants behalf The applicants presentation came next. Tim Thulson is the Attorney representing Wintergreen Homes LLC. Mr. Art Kleinstein of Wintergreen LLC is the Developer and Attorney David Leavenworth represents the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Tim Thulson stated that the sole purpose here tonight was to get application ready to be presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission as well as the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Staffs interpretation of Section 4.08.05 in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution is holding up the process. Art Kleinstein explained what the Cerise PUD is all about. They want to provide homes for the local community which include affordable housing, entry level housing, and attainable housing. Property is located west of the Dakota Subdivision and is approximately 300 acres in size. The Cerise Family owns this property. Art feels they have spent the last seventeen (17) moths to get letter saying Mid Valley Metro District will provide them service. Art states they have a contract with Mid Valley. Art says they have presented a proposal and they don't know what else to do. Tim Thulson referred to section 4.08.057(7)(e)(ii). The two (2) letters from the Mid Valley Metro District, attachments B&C from staff packet, he feels more than satisfy what this section is asking for. Tim Thulson entered the following exhibit into the record: Exhibit N: Subdivision Regulations Section 4:60 --withdrawn due to wrong section was copied Exhibit 1: Section 4:92 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, sub. paragraph "C". Exhibit 1 was accepted into the record. This impedes Mid Valley Metro District from going forth on their plans. Believes staff has the cart before the horse. David Leavenworth spoke next to explain circumstances of the Cerise Ranch and the Mid Valley Metro District sewer negotiations, such as how it would service this property if taken into the district and possible site expansion facilities. Don DeFord questioned Mr. Leavenworth concerning a letter dated 7/23/98 from the Mid Valley Metro District if he had been involved in the drafting of that letter. Did you talk to anyone about this s letter? Mr. Leavenworth responded only to you Don. David L. didn't recall an "unequivocal" letter. In regards to letter of 10/6/98 David stated it was written after second objection of Mark Bean's letter. Tim Thulson reviewed in summary the regards to the Mid Valley Metro District letter --that the County wants all governmental permits before coming in with land application and Metro. District wants County to approve this application before they will expand. Applicant feels that they are in a bind and that there is nothing in the statement that says "unequivocal", feel this is grossly unfair and they are asking for interpretation from staff to be reversed. Art Kleinstein doesn't see how any growth can happen based on Planning Staffs interpretation. Why is staff asking for this information at such an early stage? If Cerise doesn't get approval here then they cannot even go before P&Z nor BOCC. BOA members addressed questions to the applicant: Clarence Mullen asked Art if they had a rough idea on the sewage investment for Mid Valley? Art is estimating about 2 million for the first phase of the plant. Dan Weitzenkom asked how big is the proposed service area? From Dakota Subdivision to Ranch at Roaring Fork (approx. 1000 acres). How many units are allowed in that area of Comp. Pian? Present zoning is A/R/RD which is a minimum of two (2) acres. Can Mid Valley apply to BOCC for expansion facility? Art responded, Mid Valley would bare the cost. Wintergreen Homes LLC, would bare the cost of the Mid Valley expansion if they got the County's approval. Cerise Ranch would pay for most of the expansion. Tim Thulson stated that this is not a County staff problem and he feels County is impeding services. Mid Valley Metro District could in fact go to the BOCC to get a change in the service area. Dan asked David Leavenworth about letter dated March 11, 1994, about not expanding beyond Dakota. In 1994 Mid Valley Metro District came into Garfield County. Art says there is a proposal to the Ranch at Roaring Fork for site expansion of sewage plant. Steve Boat referred to section 4.08.05(7XeXii)--asked have we seen letter of service plan amendment and Mark responded that it is part of the packet. Tom Morton also asked about statement letter. Public questions and comments were asked for next and none were made. Clarence Mullen made a motion to close public comments section of meeting and Dan Weitzenkorn seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Don DeFord made a brief summary statement. There are a couple of points that applicant and staff agree on: 1. should be interpreted as written 2. BOCC 1997 made regulations --proposed sewage to be required 3. Mr. Bean interpreted regs. as far as completeness of application and it should be reviewed as so. 4. Language does say capacity "will be" (no qualifiers) 5. Mr. Bean's reading of regulations was correct. (see conditions precedent to inclusion) 6. BOCC changed regs. because they wanted more authenticity --that is not an issue tonight. Tim Thulson stated that it is not implied in the County Regs. that you have to "unconditionally" have a sewer system. Tim feels information they have provided is more than adequate. Dan Weitzenkom made a motion to go into close hearing and to go into executive session and Tom Morton seconded. Motion carried with a unanimous vote. Leo Jammaron reconvened meeting. Clarence Mullen believes information provided for new sewer system is adequate and reasonable. Steve and Tom also agree that information provided is adequate at this time. Dan stated to applicant that they probably think the County is making them jump through hoops. He feels there are other areas and avenues that Mid Valley could pursue. A PUD that requires a sewer system should be within a district. Steve Boat feels that Mid Valley has stated a commitment and Cerise people have done all they can do at this point. Clarence Mullen made a motion to reverse the staffs position concerning sewage plant and Steve Boat seconded. A vote was taken and motion passed with a 4(Y) to 1 (N) vote. Applicant will provide Council with a draft Resolution within next three days from decision. No other business to discuss. Dan Weitzenkom made a motion to close meeting and Tom Morton seconded. Meeting was adjourned. GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department September 28, 1998 Maria E. Maniscalchi 5157 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Variance - Accessory structure within the side yard setback area - Section 5.05.03(8) Dear Trustee: This letter is to inform you that you request for a variance of the requirements contained in Section 5.05.03(8) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, has been received by our office. The Zoning Board of adjustment will consider your request at 7:00 p.m., on October 26, 1998, in the Commissioners Hearing Room, Suite 301, 109 8th St. , Glenwood Springs. Enclosed with this letter is a public notice form that must be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing. The same notice is required to be sent by certified return receipt mail to all property owners within two hundred (200) ft. of the property in question, at least Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. This includes public lands. We suggest sending the notice earlier than the required Fifteen (15) days, to insure the return of the green return -receipt. It is your responsibility to ensure that all notices are mailed in a timely manner. The day of the hearing may not be considered as one of the fifteen required days. You are also required to provide the proof of publication form from the newspaper and the return receipts from the mailing to this office at, or before the hearing or your application can not be heard by the Board due to lack of proper noticing. If you have any questions about the public notice process, please contact this office. Sincerely, John Barbee, Senior Planner Building & Planning Department Phone: 945-8212 / Fax: 285-7972 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Maria E. Maniscalchi 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 Practical Description: 5157 Hwy. 82, Apx. 1 mile south of Glenwood Springs, on the east side of Hwy. 82. Said variance is to allow a 6'4" foot fence in the front yard setback, a variance of 3'2" in excess of the standard height of 3 feet. 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 of 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 26th day of October 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 MARIA E. MANISCALCHI 5157 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81801 September 23, 1998 Board of Adjustment Garfield County 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed herewith you will find six copies of my variance application for an increase in permitted fence height in my front yard set -back. Also enclosed is my check for the application fee in the amount of $250.00. I understand that the Board of Adjustment meets monthly on the fourth Monday of each month. Both my representative and I will be out of town on October 26, 1998. I would therefore appreciate it if you would schedule the public hearing on my application for November 23, 1998. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. I can be reached at 945-0894 or 948-6029. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Enclosures cc: Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., Esquire Li SEP 2 4 1998 4 GA -;4= i -:LC) C jri ri dIIIPPTB FRI 04:20 Phi Nei ley & Alder FAX NO. 970+925+9398 P. 01 NEILEY & ALDER 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. (970) 926-9393 Eugene M. Alder Fax (970) 925-9396 FACSIMILE T1IIANSMITTAL TO: John Barbee, Senior Planner FAX 0: (970) 945-7785 FROM: Richard Neiley DATE: October 2, 1998 TIME: 4:17 pm NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet): 2 COMMENTS OR INSTRUCTIONS: ORIGINALS TRANSMYTTED BY: n/a NOTICE OP CONFIDENTIALITY THE INroRNATIOtI CONTAINED MXTRIN TBIa PAC8rNILE TRANBMISSION TS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INPORNATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WBICE IT IS ADDRiSSJ;D. IF YOU ARE NOT T9' DESIGNATED RECIPIENT OF TUI® TRANSMISSION, OR TUE EMPLOYEE OR ANENT R66p0NSIBLE TOR DELIVERY OF THI8 INFoRNATION TO TEE XNTENDYD RECIPIENT, You ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DIRBENINATION, DIB'TRIBUTION OR COPYING OF TRIG C fUNICAT/oN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IP YOu HAvi RECEIVED THIS COmmuNICAiTION IN ERROR, PLEASE RETURN TUE TRANSMISSION TO TRF BENDER BY UNITED STATEN HAIL AT THE ADDRESS SET FOPTE ABOVE. IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT ANN AT (970) 925-9393 L4111,8 FRI 04:20 PM Neiley & Alder FAX NO. 970+925+9396 P. 02 NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 'Richard Y. Neiley. Jr., P.C. Eugene M, Alder, P.C. (970) 925-9393 October 2, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (970) 945-7785 John Barbee, Senior Planner Building & Planning Department Garfield County 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Maria E. Manisoalohi 5157 County Road 154 Variance Application Dear Johns FAX Numlcr (970) 925.9396 I represent Maria E. Maniscalchi. Today, Maria received your letter of September 28, 1998 regarding the Board of Adjustment hearing on her variance application which is currently scheduled for October 26, 1998. Neither Maria nor I can be available on that day because of prior commitments. When Maria submitted the application, she noted in her cover letter that October 26 was not an available date on her calendar. We would like to reschedule the hearing before the Board of Adjustment to November 23, 1998, the regularly scheduled meeting for November. Hopefully this will not be a problem. Please give me a call to confirm the hearing date. Thank you for your attention to this matter. V: truly yours, EY & ALDER RYN/agk ichard Y. Neiley, Jr. • CO 09 Lfl Cr- C\J s 0 td 0 1 • a 114 144W t LAI 41.11 li.gog,81 tgRocf) n,t147-21 .20_ 0.0aav 4„371Ago4L4- w 01,§200h cm 1184i11:4 E.64"k-pliP0.1h m...4.1....) 144Pgit k 0.1 k • 11 .3..° Ct 7,3"- ...9 CI - LA lalglgAl gi .t4 HI & 49 474 . .4 T h..„. . 1 i;.° t:itslitki. - okk.-41§th 44: 8111!9`ii-Fl a - 8 1 j r4