Re: SMA-6420 Chaves Parcel Lot 2

Transcription

1 Public Comment

2 April 24, 2017 Eagle County Commissioners PO Box 179 Eagle, CO Re: SMA-6420 Chaves Parcel Lot 2 Dear Commissioners, My name is Roger Friesen and my wife and I own 318 Eagle St. #B in Gypsum and we are adjacent property owners to the above mentioned parcel. We are writing you today to request you deny the variance request dated February 2, 2017 requesting in the existing driveway to reduce the requirement for a 40 right-of-way and to utilize the existing 25 easement. The reason for the denial would be for the following: 1. Per Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section Roadway Standards: Driveways Shall Not Serve more Than Three Units. Any residence having an accessory dwelling unit shall be considered as one (1) unit. There are six (6) dwelling units that utilize the road shown on Lahman s proposed Lot 2B as our only access to our properties. With the Chaves Parcel Lot 2 being subdivided into three parcels, there will now be a total of 8 properties using this road creating a minimum of 16 vehicles coming and going on this road. 2. The Lahmen s are currently in violation of Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 4-620(I)(8) Sight Distance/Clear Vision Areas: A clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all properties at all roadway intersections, including railroad crossings, so that intersection sight distances as specified in Table J., Summary Of Environmental, Geometric And Design Standards, are provided. a. Prohibited Structures. A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, sign, utility appurtenance, structure or other obstruction, temporary or permanent, exceeding thirty (30) inches in height, as measured from the top of the curb, or in the absence of curb and gutter, from the finished grade of the centerline of the street. Traffic control devices required by, and installed in accordance with, the MUTCD, or Colorado Supplement thereto, are exempt from this provision. b. Applicant is Responsible. It shall be the applicant's responsibility, through his engineer, to ensure that the necessary clear vision area is provided in the layout and design of the development and is carried through during construction. The Lahmen s have planted three (3) Blue Spruces and one (1) pine tree. Each of these trees exceed the 30 height requirement making it impossible to see on coming traffic from the road shown on Lot2B; especially if you drive a smaller vehicle. Additionally, the Lahmen s have installed signs that exceed the 30 height requirement. We would request all trees are removed and leave the signs or remove all obstructions from the vision area. 3. There are no easements allowing access to any of the current six (6) homes to cross proposed Lot 2B; the Friesen s parcel (adjacent property) or to cross the proposed Lot 2C. My daughter and us have tried to work with the Lahmen s in the past to provide easements for everyone including themselves. We have

3 even offered to pay for the easements to be written with approved language from both the Lahmen s and us, but we get no response from the Marissa or Merrill Lahmen. We would like to ask the Commissioners to do a site visit so that you may see what our concerns are before you make a ruling on the subdivision. The concerns I have are for the safety for both person and property. We question if there was an emergency, such as a fire, if the properties could be accessed by emergency vehicles because of not only the above, but also because of the rocks the Lahmen s have placed to outline the road. My wife and I are currently in South Dakota and are not planning on returning to our home in Gypsum until the middle of May so we are unable to attend the May 2nd meeting or my daughter, Tammy Nagel (also a property owner in the area -318 Eagle St #A) can attend on our behalf if you would require someone to be present. Should you have any questions or if you would require us to have someone present at the meeting, please contact me at (970) or you can contact my daughter at (970) tnagel@vailgov.com. Very truly yours, Roger and Nancy Friesen 318 Eagle St. Gypsum, CO

4

5 4/25/2017 Eagle County Government Mail SMA 6420 Chaves Parcels questions Kris Valdez SMA 6420 Chaves Parcels questions Dave & Colleen Wirth To: Cc: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:51 AM Dave Wirth and myself, owners of Fields parcel Lot 1, received notice of the Lahman s request to resubdivide Chaves parcels Lots 2A, 2B, 2C. We have offered to meet with the Lahman s to discuss their development needs and hope to hear a response in advance of the public meeting on May 2, In the interim, we have a few questions of Eagle County staff: 1. Is Chaves Lot 2B (320 Eagle St) currently zoned RR rural residential? If zoned RR, are all uses shown as use by right in Table Residential and Agricultural Zone Districts Use Schedule permissible? Are any building restrictions proposed either by the applicant or staff for the building envelope shown? 2. With regard to future allowed uses on Chaves Lots 2A and 2B. Are there any uses allowed by Limited Review or Special Use Permit (from the current published Table 3 300) staff would interpret as infeasible due to current driveway and access conditions? By example, would a "home business" through future special use permit approval process cause reconstruction of the residential access crossing north of Fields parcel Lot 1? 3. Will approval of the current SMA 6420 minor A subdivision cause or necessitate subsequent application for a driveway standards variance or road variance from improvements standards by owner(s) of Chaves Lot 1, Lots 2A 2B 2C and the Fields Parcel Lot 1? 4. Will approval of file SMA 6420 cause or require a subsequent application for grading permit and demolition/ reconstruction of the existing driveway leading to Fields Parcel Lot 1? If so, and if required to re construct the driveway access design in the northwest corner of the Fields parcel Lot 1, we are concerned with driveway steepness at hairpin (switchback) turn and ability to comply with Eagle County s residential driveway grade standards. As owners of Fields Parcel Lot 1, we are not financially capable to install nor maintain a snowmelt system on our residential lot or the dedicated parking easement (nor pro rata expenses for snowmelt system serving a shared driveway to Fields Parcel Lot 1 and Chaves parcels Lot 2B). 5. Will approval of file SMA 6420 cause or mandate demolition of any portion of the existing landscape boulder wall contained on the Fields Parcel Lot 1 and dedicated parking easement depicted on Chaves Lot 2B? 6. Request to confirm a shared address marker for improving site identification is encouraged and acceptable to Eagle County and to the owner(s) of Lot 2C (open space) and such address placement would not be a violation of intended functions of said open space? Lastly, for the comfort of the applicant, general public and staff, I wish to disclose that I, Colleen Wirth, am currently employed at Eagle County as a building plans examiner in the Building Department. I have not professionally participated in county staff meetings with the applicant nor been party to internal discussions on this matter. Prior building permit plan reviews and field inspections on the Reynolds, Chaves and Fields parcels have been officially administered by the Building Official and other building staff. While I ve extended Builder On Duty services and general process information to those adjoining residences, whenever staffing levels allow, I hope to refrain from official actions impacting the Lahman s future building applications. Respectfully submitted, Colleen and Dave Wirth Owners Fields parcel Lot 1 (314 Eagle Street) PO Box 147 Gypsum CO /1