The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.0 CorrespondencePhil Vaughan From: Phil Vaughan <phil@pvcmi.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:35 PM To: Fred Jarman (fredjarman@garfield-county.com) Subject: FW: Battlement Mesa PUD- Email 2of 2 Attachments: Resolution No 82-121 Part 2.pdf Fred, Email 2of 2 Sincerely, Phil Vaughan Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc. 1038 County Road 323 Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-5350 From: Phil Vaughan [mailto:phil@pvcmi.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 7:11 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson (morkild-larson@garfield-county.com); Carey Gagnon (cgagnon@garfield-county.com) Subject: Battlement Mesa PUD- Email 2of 2 Molly and Carey, Thanks for taking time to meet yesterday. As discussed, I had a question regarding the Battlement Mesa PUD and the installation of a 40' or 60' tall communications tower, with accessory equipment building approximately 100 sq. ft. in size. I have attached a scanned copy of Garfield County Board of County Commissioners resolution 82-121 dated 5/24/1982. I have reviewed the materials from Molly's file in regards to the Battlement Mesa PUD. I have not seen any revisions to Section 9.0- Public, Semipublic, and Recreation. The question that I posed yesterday is in regards to Section 9.1 Uses, by right: ..."public and private utility facilities and buildings/' and if this applies to the proposed communications tower and accessory building. My reading and understanding of the PUD is that the communications tower and accessory building would be allowed as a use by right within the PSR zone district. This action would not require a Garfield County Land Planning Permit but may require a Garfield County Building Permit. I have not confirmed the building permit issue with Andy Schwaller. Additionally, I was not able to find a definition for "public and private utility facilities and buildings within the materials that Molly gave me. I did review Section 2.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 this morning. Section 2.02.155 "Communications Facility: A noninhabitable structure supporting antennas and microwave dishes that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals, including television and data impulses through space by means of electromagnetic waves. Communication facilities include structures or towers, and accessory building, not including individual/personal direct -to -home satellite services." 1 I believe that the Communications Facility definition in the 1978 code and Section 9.1 of Resolution 82-121 allow for the construction of a communications tower and accessory equipment building as a use -by -right in the PSR zone district, without additional land use permits from Garfield County,. Please let me know of your thoughts on this issue as well. Please contact me with questions. Sincerely, Phil Vaughan Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc. 1038 County Road 323 Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-5350 Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc. 1038 County Road 323 Rifle, CO 81650 Ph. 970-625-5350 Fax 970-625-4522 Email: phil(a vvcmi.com November 4, 2011 Mr. Fred Jarman Director- Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Parachute, CO 81635 Dear Fred, Thank you for taking time to meet yesterday regarding the Williams Field Services Company, LLC- Battlement Mesa Communications Facility. Please consider this letter a request for interpretation in regards to this proposed use within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development. We are proposing the installation of a 40' tall nionopine communications tower and an accessory equipment building approximately 100 sq. ft. in size. Williams Field Services Company, LLC will be leasing property from Battlement Mesa Land Investments Parcel 3, LLC for this installation. Please find attached Garfield County Assessor's map 2407-172 noting the location of the 36'x25' lease area located within Garfield County Assessor's parcel number 2407-083- 00-185. This lease area is located within the Battlement Mesa PUD and the Public, Semipublic, and Recreation (PSR) zone district. I have reviewed the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners resolution 82-121 dated 5/24/1982. Section 9.1 notes Uses, by right within the PSR zone district " and other public and private utility facilities and buildings," I was not able to find a definition for "public and private utility facilities and buildings" within the Battlement Mesa PUD documents. However, the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 notes the following definition in Section 2.02.155 "Communications Facility: A noninhabitable structure supporting antennas and microwave dishes that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals, including television and data impulses through space by means of electromagnetic waves. Communication facilities include structures or towers, and accessory building, not including individual/personal direct -to -home satellite services." In conclusion, my interpretation is that the communications tower and accessory building would be allowed as a use by right within the PSR zone district and would not require a Garfield County Land Use Permit. Garfield County building permits would be required. Additionally, we have reviewed the minimum setbacks for the PSR zone district as noted in the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners resolution 82-121 dated 5/24/1982. Taking into account the location of this lease parcel, the descriptions noted within the minimum setbacks section do not apply to this lease parcel. In conclusion, my interpretation is that the communications tower and accessory building would be allowed to be installed with a zero foot setback from property line. We have been in consultation with Eric Schmela with the Battlement Mesa Company and he agrees with this interpretation. Please reply back regarding your interpretation of these two issues prior to November 16, 2011 as I have a meeting with Williams Field Services on November 17, 2011 to discuss this issue. Thanks again for your assistance and please contact me with questions. Sincerely, Philip B. Vaughan President Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc. co. 1.11133 / .M .01113 Of' ff6 MOO gal ia QUI 4 a a V 0 a ate; 2407-1610001:541aLt.nw eaa Land In eWM,anO. LLC .11n MD- won*, x.. *woo rc As Tract 1 Lot I •T, Pant. 24010630 -165 Oa.,tra LLn Lauf Wntn.t Pat. 3.LLC•.frn PDO Pala! l407.172000Ot West Come natan Rx .wtyn IPDO paazl C.'f'al pup Erol Yatlq MPP. sHlea ONkt Soo Tract 1 Lot 2 .133 sem E N T 0 PARKWAY MO Is 0 3333 0 aera PoO33, 361.3,33 o SIPPR£LL£ DRIVE TOWN CENTER 14L. 5 04 ZPISOOW of nv Tract 2 At. Aro 16V Stone Quarry Comm ons son room O wl t4 aes x.0 MOM, VMD so Nr IMMO, =no CD WS 33 Loa Tract 4 14 160 MCA .13302/ 311401 u. 4a• ROAD Tract 5 17 2407-172 M.-RS5W SEC. 17 R.1L1/4 Fred Jarman From: Fred Jarman Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 7:09 PM To: PhD Vaughan Subject: RE: Documents mailed to phil Vaughn Hi Phil, Let me look further at this in the M and get back to you. Thanks, Fred Phil Vaughan <phi1 pvcmi.com> wrote: Fred, Thank you so much for the extremely quick turn -around on this. I appreciate this a great deal. Thanks for your interpretation regarding the use and setback. I did have a question regarding the building height. I have advised my client that the 40 foot tall monopine communications tower is allowed in this zone district. My review and advisement stemmed from the fact that the communications tower is not a building. The Battlement Mesa PUD Resolution 82-121 does not define the term "Building". However, the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979 in Section 2.02.07 defines a building as: "Any structure used for shelter or enclosure of persons, animal or property; any building used for permanent shelter or enclosure of persons shall be one (1) of the following: (1) Building -conventional and manufactured: a building constructed or erected on the lot or building site or a factory and build to meet the "Uniform Building Code" or "National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974", has a minimum dimension of twenty (20) feet wide and twenty feet long and meets the local building code requirements for wind speed of 80 mph and/or 15 Ib. wind load; anchoring requirements in accordance with installation standards based on the minimum basis wind speed in miles per hour specified in the Uniform Building Code; and meets or exceeds the snowload requirements adopted by Garfield County. (A. 97-91) (2) Building- mobile home: a building manufactured partially or entirely in a factory and at a minimum, meeting the "National Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974", 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq, as amended and has a dimension of less than twenty (20) feet wide and/or twenty feet long. (A. 95-043)" Via this definition the proposed communications tower is not a building, but is in fact a "Communications Facility" as defined by the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979, Section 2.02.155. In conclusion, it is my assertion that the 36' maximum building height applies only to buildings and not to "Communications Facilities", thus a 40' tall Communications Tower is allowed within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development. Thanks for your assistance and please let me know of your thoughts regarding this item. Sincerely, Phil Vaughan Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc. 1038 County Road 323 Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-5350 Original Message From: Fred Jarmanjmailto:fiarmanfgarfield-county.coml Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 4:24 PM To: Phil Vaughan Subject: FW: Documents mailed to phil Vaughn Importance: High Phil, Hard copy in the mail. Good to see you today. Best regards, Fred Original Message From: Vola Mercer Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 3:32 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Documents mailed to phil Vaughn Importance: High Hi Fred, Attached is your letter that was sent to Phil Vaughn. Thanks, Vola Mercer Administrative Assistant Building & Planning Department 108 8th. St. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 vmercerkarfield-county.com (970)945-8212 2 November 7, 2011 Phil Vaughan, President Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc. 1038 County Road 323 Rifle, CO 81650 RE: Requested Zoning Interpretation for Location of a Communications Facility in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (BMPUD) Dear Phil, I am in receipt of your letter dated November 4, 2011 where you requested a formal zoning interpretation regarding the request to locate a 40 -foot tall mono -pine communication tower within the Public, Semi-public, and Recreation Zone District of the Battement Mesa Planned Unit Development (BMPUD). The Public, Semi-public, and Recreation Zone District is defined in Resolution 82-121 and lists "...other public and private utility facilities and buildings" as a use -by -right. The proposed 40 -foot tall mono -pine communication tower is considered a Communications Facility which is not specifically defined in the BMPUD; however, it is defined in the Zoning Resolution of January 2, 1979 (the 1979 Code). This is important as it was the code in effect at the time the PUD was approved. Specifically, Section 10.0 Supplementary Regulations of the BMPUD specifically states the following: Division of the subject lands into land use areas and their related development standards will be as shown on the PUD map and as outlined by the preceding development standards. To further avoid problems of interpretation, the following listed supplementary regulations are included as part of the PUD. Where the preceding general standards or the following supplemental regulations do not adequately describe what is permitted or required, reference shall be made to the officially adopted Garfield County Zoning Resolution of lanuary 2, 1979 (the 1979 Code), includinq amendment adopted October 15, 1979. (Emphasis added) Section 2.02.155 of the 1979 Code did define Communication Facility as A non -inhabitable structure supporting antennas and microwave dishes that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals, including television and date impulses through space by means of electromagnetic waves. Communication facilities include structures or towers, and accessory building, not including individual/personal direct -to -home satellite services. Additionally, Section 10.2 of the MBPUD states that ...any other use which is similar to those enumerated (in the zone district) and not more obnoxious or detrimental to the area in which it is located shall be permitted. Based on these two provisions, the intent of the Public, Semi-public, and Recreation Zone District was constructed to allow "...private utility facilities and buildings" as a use -by -right which could include water and wastewater facilities, electrical infrastructure facilities, etc. A communications tower, such as the one proposed by Williams Field Services Company, Inc, is consistent with the uses contemplated in that zone district which could commonly include a communications facility. Lastly, while not specifically enumerated in the Public, Semi-public, and Recreation Zone District, Section 10.2 of the BMPUD provides the flexibility to accommodate this similar proposed utility infrastructure as a use -by -right. Regarding building height, your client proposes a 40 -foot tall mono -pine communication tower; however, the maximum height in the Public, Semi-public, and Recreation Zone District is 36 feet. Section 10.5 of the BMPUD does provide how maximum building height is measured. Regarding setbacks, the BMPUD does not appear to have setbacks for "lease" areas of a single parcel. So, you may place the tower in any area within the legally described area of the lease so long as it does not encroach into the setbacks of the actual parcel as recognized by the County Assessor and by deed recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder's Office. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the event you have comments, questions, or concerns. Very truly yours, -•ii. Fred A. Jarman, AICP Director, Building & Planning Department 970.945.8212 Attachment(s) Letter from Phil Vaughan dated 11/04/11 Cc Assistant Garfield County Attorney, Carey Gagnon Phil Vaughan From: Fred Jarman <fjarman@garfield-county.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:02 AM To: Phil Vaughan Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: Setbacks Good morning, Phil. I was able to take the setback question to our staff meeting yesterday afternoon. The net result was that staff has read the PUD language and taken the following position: 1) The lot in question where your client wishes to establish a leased area is a corner lot fronted on two sides by East Battement Parkway and Spencer Parkway. As a result, has two front yards. (While this setback language in the PUD recognizes residential uses, absence of any other uses (commercial / industrial, etc.) does not mean there is no setback at all such as a zero lot line for other uses; the intent of this concept is the same for other uses.) (See Provision 10.4 of the PUD regarding corner lots.) 2) Because we know where the front yard is located, it renders the lot line separating the subject parcel from the apartments (the the west) to be a rear yard setback. As such, the PUD specifically requires this to be a 25 foot setback as it is adjacent to residential uses (the apartments). (See Provision 9.7(2)) of the PUD regarding Rear Yard. 3) The lot line to the north of the US West Communications building is a side yard which requires a 25 foot setback because the lot is a corner lot (provision 9.7(3)) of the PUD. This is a lot to say we believe the mono -pine communications facility / building (and not the boundaries of the lease area) need to be located at least 25 feet from both lot lines (from the apartments to the west and from the US Communications building to the south. I consider this to be a director's determination. In this way, if you wanted to appeal it, we can convene the Board of Adjustment (BOA) and have them decide using a different set of criteria than that of a variance like you and I discussed on the phone yesterday. Or, hopefully the land owner might grant you a little space to accommodate the County's reading of an unique setback situation. As always, please call with any questions. Thanks - Fred 2