Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHOFFMAN SKYLINE MOBILE HOME PARK - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-08-26ENGINEERING DEPT. NOTE: THIS REPRESENTS THE BEST QUALITY IMAGE POSSIBLE TAKEN FROM VERY POOR QUALITY _ORIGINALS A"r;l 2q, 1`1f,7 I� . lrli�l rti�;t "ra �-ixrt L'c^.r M1rc. Ilir�'r�: I �,'ri'ci.it�� ynnr r� crr.:,Iing tp:, c�.�Trmrt ca�str�lctfnn prnicct on yraT rrn,,,,. l,r';t.,,l tin h rh I'.''-.r ll nP 5<•rt.+n•1 1r;_7-(,y 1,icgt:'.d Y)r 1riv-J .oron I:•�renil: �1'o i•1r-_.,..i ;qr ut^ 1. ;: t'..ri ilq li y�.,,,q it rti ini>iz^. 'I'r,ct,nic,lll�, �mi a;•^ in vio!atinn of flit !hiil I,r, 1: ), hr•:_:u1so ynn br.ve co !�Ijijdlw, Permit. You leave Lean quoted by some Of your nieglhl101_5 as saying; tact you iuvvc Ilooll ;wsurrl I,y rro or it:,[ Cl.--, Plannin, cr-eaynu will nvcntur:Lly I-,c 1.,,:.u,,;t a ,r:rit fur n ,i�bilr. Morn, Cr..rt. I r:is'� tO nd- visc -"ou tl::lt c., nave no s (tl _��.uraocr ? r .rt h,or ni'.' !n ,loiut runt to yuu t',:rt trlren you �1 ur�se tLc 1,0 :i!:ilit,' of ;�cj With soli, oc t1w coin, i,t cori._�d(h mo, that I adv;,-00 yo,• ')f)t to ,'�n so, not nnl" Cron a pu�llic rclntinns standpoint, but should Lh� Pinnlliut: :end Zoning Poard tend tlrc City Cowicil turn down your rozonio}t apiilicaLion, yow inv<>st•,icnt would bn n total loss to you. licsllccL('trl.l� oy:rs, � ;'tom, Coffey City Manager 'IC/v1 cc: Gordon Clydc Celle Al1ell 7 T&MO RAN D01 DATE: July 2, 1976 TO: Robert L. Brunton, City ?Manager FROM: Rov A. Kingman, Engineering Services Director RE: Hoffman Letter The letter which the Hoffman's presented to the Council at the last meeting relates to two separate issues: first, the construction of a house at 2211 West Mulberry near the entrance to the Mobile Home Park, and second, to the construction of a garage at the south end of the mobile home park. As `Tr. Waldo's attached memo indicates, the home is on land not previously subdivided in the City. Under City ordinances building permits may he issued only for land which is part of an approved sub- division, unless it is a single lot, for a single building, and: a. all normal subdivision improvements are constructed. h. all rights -of -way and easements are provided. C. normal design standards have been met. Although the site did not meet the requirements as stated, since the required street right-of-way was not dedicated, and th(e improvements not constructed, the Hoffman's were not requested to go through the subdivision process (which would requiro one to two months) but rather to provide the necessary street dedication by deed, and to put up a bond or escrow account to cover the :installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street paving. The building permit was issued on December 20, 1974, after plans were submitted on December 3, 1974. The escrow account was set up for the street construction and a utility plan was submitted and approved, indicating the curb and Butter on the opnosite side of the street to establish the street cross .section, and the grades a short distance east and west on Mulberry in order to establish the curb and gutter grades. The house was completed in May of 1975. The Engineering Office delaved the release of the certificate of occupancy on the anticipation that the street improvements were to be constructed. After s„veral months of waiting, the C.O. was released at the request of the Hoffman's and a refund paid on the coevnercial electric rate, since the work was covered by the escrow account (in the name of the Hoffman's, so that they recieve the interest on the. account). page 2 July 2, 1976 It should be explained that the Engineering Office does not act as project managers for subdividers, developers or homeowners. Inspections are made of construction to ensure that it meets City standares. YUh a large workload we have therefore not monitored the (omplction of thestreet improvements, since there was no longer a certificate of occupancy pending. There is some question as to whether the .street improvements should he required for individual properties such as this, where only a portion of the street construction will he installed. The City Attorney has suggested that it is always possible to have the street constructed under an improvement. district. Div feeling is that the establishment of an improvement district is a lengthly, involved process at best. ]t is conceivable that future districts could be delayed for vears on the basis of the unanimous vote requirement to override a large pretest. I would therefore recommend that the procedure we follow be the following: 1. that street improvements such as in this case be installed if the construction will match other improvements without difficulty, or not cause hardship to the property owner. 2. if there are construction difficulties or some other hardship, that the construction be delaved, but that an agreement he executed providing for completion at some future date, or as part of an improvement district without Protest. In this case, based upon our last conversation with Mr. Hoffman, he wanted to go ahead with the paving in order to improve the appearance of the mobile home park entrance. His attornev insists to Art March that they do not want to go ahead with the paving. There is no pressing need for this Paving at this time. However, if they do not proceed with it I recommend that an agreement be concluded as outlined above. The second Portion of the Hoffman letter relates to a garage to be constructed at the south end of the mobile Home park. The land was originally zoned EL, without street access. The lanl was rezoned to p4, to permit construction of the garage as an accessory use to the mobile home park. Mr. Hoffman applied for a building permit and in normal checks for utility adequacy both the engineering office and the fire department felt there was inadequate fire protection for not only the proposed garage, but most of the south end of the mobile home nark. I believe the fire prevention bureau has been aware of this problem for some time and has been previously in contact with Mr. Hoffman about it. page 3 7/1/76 Tn connection with the garage permit it was requested that Mr. Hoffman attempt to install a hydrant in the south part of the park. He did attempt to obtain an easement from Taft Hill to install the Hydrant, but the cost woull have been prohibitive. We agreed to forego the hvdrant if he would agree to install when practicable. I indicated that I would have an agreement prepared to con U rn this. I also said that l would not hold up the building permit for the agreement, since it might take a while to complete it because of workload. The impasse at this point, as Mr. Wal.do's memo indicates, is over engineering certification of the metal building and foundation for wind loads, which is a standard requirement for all buildings of this type. 1'r. Hoffman proceeded without a permit to construct the buildInt' foundation. Mr. Waldo issued a summons, n,hich was not upheld by the municipal judge on the basis that a concrete slab (rather than a foundation) does not require a building permit. The judge did warn Mr. Hoffman that it was not to be used for building constrction without a permit. Mr. Hoffman was quoted as having said to Mr. Waldo after the court appearance, words to the effect,I hat you had better keep vour eve on me., because when that building comes in I'm going to put it up." Throuthout these two episodes, we have at times not been as re.sponsivi, as we would like to be, or should have been. A good portion of the confusion has been a result of communication difficulties with tho Hoffman's. -22- P. O. Box 580 300 West LoPo,te Avenue Fort Collln,, Col o,a do Telephone 303 484-4220 60521 September 11, 1968 Mr_, Charles Hoffman 2201 West Mulberry St. Ft. Collins, Colo. 80521 Dear Chuck, It has come to the attention of this office that you have connecred to the sewage collection system of Ft. Collins, two homes on west Mulberry St. In checking my records I do not find any sewer tapping permit for either of these residences, This may only be an oversight on your part, or perhaps you didn't know that it was necessary to obtain a permit before you connected them. Would you please come into my office so that we may dis- cuss this matter, so that a solution may be resolved? Very truly yours, Ed Hilgenberg Water and Sewer Supt. EJH/jj ccl Gordon Clyde - Building, Inspector Charlie Cain - Director of Finance Charles Liquin - Director of Public Works :1HO TO: Stan Case, Director of Utilities Don Parsons, City Enginoe r Ted Rodenbeck, Planning Director FROM: Gordon F. Clyde, Chief Building Inspector DATE: December 4, 1974 SUBJECT: Clearance to issue a buildinq nermit under the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance Charles Hofw3n has requested an exception to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance to permit issuance of a building permit for a one family residence without first filinq a sub- division plat. The tract involved is described and shown on the enclosed plot elan. It is requested that each addressee advise the Buildinq Insoection Department by Decewhe r 11, 1974 if the requirements of Section 99-3B (3) have been mot. J _ Gordon F. Clyde GFI7ca ' I I_ M 0 R A I; 1) U' 1 111110 10: Roy Kingman, Director of Engineering Services I JOK: Pill Wald", Chief Ruilding Insphctor 07`" DATE: Spptember F, im SURJFCT: ConpIainl. Iron Mrs. Charles Ilofl'man In ch(,, iorl with the Plans Examiners I found that. Mr. R, K. Yorinr, ConLicctur fur the lump hulll. !or Fir. Charles Ilnilmon at P?11 PA Nulhm y, suWAI'd the plans Pcr,rcrber A, 1471. ine Ilan, were' revi000dl and in the hold tile, necause the plan; did not have >ullicirnt dptails. In Addition, the proposed Ili IWI site "as not in ,l recorded st,bdivision. the plans and one —lot Wdivision were finally approved and the buiIdinq percl,t was issued on gmei PH, 1974, Our, division did not Fold up the plans any longer than = n-cessary. In checking the inspectors notes on the control card I did not I lnd ally "HII-pIC1;IIP1" hens listed. However, 4pvprdl codo V1U1dt_1nHq Were C1Nd. AMU Were COrrWed ill a 70HPle pf days and the htn„r lvn; ! inaI(r! fill Pliy lb, 1975. A Curti inn to of ilr.cul"ncy i; heIIle h''lr; up) JPIolinu a r'cIPaSe li'om the 1_nyinrcr 1nj Division ca MEMOIKANDUN TO: Robert L. Brunton, City Managler TIIRII: Ins Kaplan, Planning Director FROM: Paul A. WWI, Senior Planner DALE: 29 September 1975 RC: Planning and Zoning Board Reports #76-75 Roffman - West Mulberry Street, Rezoning Petition %5 cription: 112 acre located At. the roar of Skyline Mobile Home Park at, 2211 W. Mulberry Street, from R-M-P, Medium Donsily Planned Resident . ial to M.L, low Itonsity Mobile home. Potitioner: C. W. Hoffman, 2211. W. Mulberry Street, Dort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Discuss ien: This proposal would rezone a ;mall. area (112 acre) contiguous to Lhe south and of Lhe Skyline ?labile Hoax, Park for use As a parking; g,Araqu and camping trailer sloragw arch. The siLo of the rezoning is owned by Mr. Roffman who owns the uu,hito home park, but in zoned R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Rosideal -ial. The roznning, is being rerineSlyd hrc:Ain; au accessory une most be zoned the Same as the principal uric to which it horLAins. The area of Iho rezoning, wah formerly the long; bark yard of a house Irontinn on S. Taft Hill Road until purchased by Mr. Roffman. ,iho Sluff does not forsee that approval of I_he conning; would Paean any problems for Lhe public at large or preclude planning oprioAS for the surrounding; undeveloped area. We would thus recommend approval of the rezoning. Theoretically, since zoning is a public MN Ltar Adoplyd by a legislative body, any rezoning must h,, ,lira ified in terms of its ❑AvantApes to the community at large rather Ih:ni h— ause of its advnnLagns to the. nwncr-pet i.L inner in particular. As a pracl_iuNI maLtrr, however, we Icol that the system pro- bahly should he I li xihlc anourh 1.0 allow small scale "tai IorWpm" of er.isLival zoner, to arcomndnto Spucific si Luationn As long as Lhpv do not pose Any immedinta or long: range potential prohIamc. for We surrounding area or the public nL large. Plannin(; and1 F_91I 'uI. lio,ard I o tome.; n d aLi on: _l Le 2 for i,pprnwiI The Board considorad this roznning at its Sept •mhPr R meeting. The Board was divided in its opinion on this peliliou. Rohcrt Burnham and Bonnie Tilley voted against the rezaninp hccniS;c they did not see it as signifirnnlly different from the I'"Vpl lv request which the Board had 'lust denied. Chuck Mabry, Duane Wolin& and Tom Sutherland voted in favor of thy. rezoning because Lheydid Hit feel there were any strong arguments against it. C I T Y 0 1; 17 0 R T C 0 I, L 1 N S i11iMORANDUDI TO: William. Waldo, Chief Building Inspector FROM: Lloyd McLaughlin, Civil Lngincor IIRU: Donald M. Parsons, City hngineer�!ii -✓ DATE: November 24, 197--, RH: Building Permit Request In reply to your memo dated November 20, 1975 rvquPsting a building hermit release under Section 99-3, B(3) of the City Code Car a dANched garage at 2211 W. Mulberry Street. Our Findings reveal that a structure located at the site proposed would lack adequate fire protection. 1'his problem has been discussed with Iron Ilisam OF the Fire Prevention hurcau and he is in agreement that a building permit should not be issued until a fire hydrant located so as to provide the necessary protection is installed. It will he necessary For the owner to submit a utility plan showing the proposed location of the hydrant, and the w,iter main rcguircd to feed the hydrant. once this plan is approved by the City hnglncer ❑nd titc Dire Apartment, the hydrant may be installed and thence a building permit rclenscd. A: cs cc: Don Ilisam, Fire Prevention Bureau I11 t CM OI I ORI COLLINS BUILDING INSPECTION P.O. BOX 580,, E0.8_T_CO LLI. NS, COLORAPO Wl� ,27. PI I (3C Li 4220. MI'MO TO: Mr. Brunton, City Manager '111RH: Roy Bingman, Director of Engineering Servic$s PROM: Rill Waldo, Chief Building Inspector LI..f.�` DATE: June 25, 1976 RE: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hoffman On or about September 4, 1975, Mr. Bingman told me that you had received a letter of complaint from Mrs. Roffman in regard to problems they had encountered with the City, related to the new home they built at 2211 4Yest Mulberry. I have not read the letter, but Mr. Bingman said she complained about the delay in getting the permit and further that the Building Inspectors who inspected the house were "nit -pi _eking." Prior to the above date Mr. Roblin, the inspector who'finaled the house, told me that when he made the inspections lie tried his best to conduct himself in a professional manner, but that this attitude and manner was met with open hostility displayed by Mrs. Iloffman. in fact, his words to me were, "Mrs. Hoffman was really nasty." I researched all the information available and sent a memo to mr. Bingman on September 5, 1975, (copy enclosed) explaining the facts to the best of my knowledge. Events that have occurred in regard to the lloffinaus since the above -listed are as follows: Early in September, 1975, Mr. Hoffman came in to take out a permit to construct a frame garage on a parcel of land adjacent to the south end of the Mobile Home Park. The parcel of land was in an isolated section of an R-L zone without street access. We suggested that Mr. Hoffman meet with the Planning Department to see about rezoning the parcel, which he did. Subsequently the parcel was rezoned as an accessory use to the Mobile home Park. After the parcel was rezoned, it was treated ns a one -lot sub- division and i sent memos to all applicable City departments and divisions for clearance. I received a memo fron the Engineering Division stating that the site proposal would lack adequate fire protection. Shortly thereafter a meeting was held in Mr. 13ingman's office, attended by Mr. Bingman, Don Ilisam, Lynn Greenwood, and myself. I believe Don Parsons was 1000.. Recycled Bond MEMO '1'0: Mr. Brunton, City Manager FROM: Bill Waldo, Chief Building Inspector DATE: .June 25, 1976 PAGE 2 also at the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the inadequate fire protection. At that time Mr. Roffman said that he planned to erect a pre -fabricated building. He was told that he would need engineering for the building including the footings and founda- tion. In addition, he was told that since this would he an accessory commercial building, he would need a licensed general contractor. From the very beginning, when he first contacted us in September, he said the purpose of the building was to have a place where he could store his truck and equipment, and a place where people in the park could do minor repair work on their vehicles. Sometime after an agreement was reached in regard to the fire protection for the area and Engineering had released the site, Mr. Roffman came into the plan checking office and asked Tom Garton to issue him a permit for the building. Tom advised him that a licensed general contractor would have to take out the permit and that we would need engineering on the structure. Mr. Hoffman requested that "Tom show him where the ordi- nance stated the above requirements. Mr. Hoffman came hack the next day and went through the same procedure with Tom and later in the day he called me, at which time 1 gave him the same information that Tom had given. He advised me that I had better issue him a permit by Monday, May 24, 1976, or else put in writing why I would not issue the permit and he would pick up the letter the following day. I suggested to Mr. Roffman that rather than sending a letter to him, that he come in at 1:30 p.m. Monday, May 24, 1976, and we would discuss the situation, which he agreed to do. On Monday morning, May 24, 1976, 1 learned from Mr. DiTullio that Mr. Roffman requested meeting with Mike at 1:00 p.m, the same day. The meeting between Mike and Mr. Roffman was not held at 1:00 p.m., but instead Mr. Roffman came in to my office at about 1:30 and 1 asked Mr. DiTullio and Mr. Bingman to sit in on the meeting along with both Plans Naminers. This meeting covered everything that had occurred since Mr. Hoffman firstapplied for a permit to build his home. Again, he asked that he he able to take out the permit to build the garage and, again, i told him that the ordinances would not permit me to issue him the permit. He requested that I write him a letter citing the ordinances that were pertinent, which I slid. Mrs. Hoff- man picked up the letter on 'Tuesday, May 25, 1976. I did not hear from Mr. Roffman and on June 11, 1976, I sent Mr. Michaud out to 2211 West Mulberry to see if nny work had been started. Mr. .Michaud reported that a large slab had been poured MEMO '1'0: Mr. Brunton, City Manager FROM: Bill Waldo, Chief Building Inspector BATE: June 2S, 1976 PAGE 3 at the site with anchor bolts protruding from the slab, whereupon I sent Mr. Michaud and Maria LeValley back to the site for the purpose of taking pictures of the slab. 1 called the City Attorney and briefed him on what occurred and Mr. ?larch suggested that I issue Mr. Hoffman a summons, which I did issue on June 11, 1976. The trial is scheduled to he heard before the Municipal Judge at 8:45 a.m. on June 30, 1976. Enclosed are copies of all the available Lnformation I have in regard to the Hoffmans. llw