The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.0 Resolution 84-211STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD SS. Atof County Courthouse let. tY5 . there IrJere County, . Jtopdqv. a ....4egrlAt: Commissioners in Glenwood....day ofpresent: for Garfield Springs on ..QqtpFpr..... meeting of the Board Colorador held at the thei' ' ' 'i;' '81+' aaaaaaaoaoaaa|l A.D., 19..o1...., Larrv Vel-asouez....1 .........,Flaven J. Ceriseaa.aaaaaa,EuAene ttJimrr Drinkhouse..-.. .a.a..a.......1Earl Rhodes ....,Mildred Alsdorf ..a.aaaa., Commissioner Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney Clerk of the Board when the following proceedings,to-wit:among others vrere had and done, REsoLUrroN NO. 84-?:L_+4- RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE DENIAL OF APPROVAL E'OR THE I"IOUNTAIN I'{EADOWS SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION WHEREAS, this matter came on for public hearing on theapplication of Anneliese AIlen for the approval of the preliminaryplan f or the Mountain l"leadow Subdivision, on September I0, 1984,pursuant to Section 4 of the Subdivision Regulations of GarfieldCounty, Colorado of 1984. The required public notice of the hearinghaving been given by publication, notice to adjacent and surroundinglandowners, and posting in accordance with the requirements of theGarfield County Subdivision Regulations i and WHEREAS, the parcel of property for which the applicantssubmitted a preliminary plan application is located in theunincorporated _^area of Garfield County and in portions of the SW l/4of Section 11 H,the Nw L/4 of Section -ta, townihip 8 South, Range88 west in firthe 6th Principal Meridianr dnd more practicaliydescribed as being approximatety two miles southeast of the Town ofCarbondale and County Road 11I; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to split a 17.68 acre parcelinto eight (8) single family lots to be served by a central watersystem and individual septic systems with access to be via County Road Lll. This parcel is a total of approximately 28.L6 acres insize with approximately 10.48 acres oi the parcll being located inPitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density Zone District. The proposed ]ots are inexcess of Lhe two acre minimum lot size required in that zonedistr ict; and WHEREAS, the sketch plan proposal for the parcel wasconditionally approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April23, 1984 subject to certain conditions being met. The conditionsattached to the approval of the sketch plan for the Mountain MeadowSubdivision included the applicant entering into a contract with theBasalt water conservacy District or the filing of a wateraugmentation plan as might be required for the provision of a}ega11y and physically adequate and dependable water supply to theproposed subdivision; the creation of a lega1Iy appropriate entityto control and manage the proposed central water system, withspecific provisions for enforcement of any annuaL assessmentsreguired by any contract with the Basalt Water Conservacy District;that provision be made, by means of protective covenants or otherappropriate legal mechanisms, for the management and operation ofthe existing underground pressurized irrigation system and thatadequate safeguards be put into effect to protect existing wells onadjacent property; and ) ) ) WHEREAS, the Office of the State Engineer, Colorado Division of Water Resources, in a letter dated July I, 1984r found that the applicant's water supply plans for the proposed subdivisio.n were not sufficiently developed for thaL agency to recommend approval of the proposed water supply for the subdivision. The reasons for the State Engineer's office reconmending denial of the preliminary plan included: concern over the lack of a specific mechanism for the ownership, control and maintenance of the proposed central water system and the existing underground pressurized irrigation system as well as the administration of any contract with the Basalt Water Conservacy District, as well as the lack of adequate information to accurately predict the yields of the wells proposed to supply the central water system for the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Garfield County Planning Commission, following the public hearing on the applicantrs proposed preliminary pIan, held pursuant to Section 4.20 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984 on August 8, 1984, reconmended that the proposedpreliminary plan be denied on the basis that the proposed residential subdivision would be incompatible with the existing landuses and the surrounding neighborhood, which are predominantly agricultural within approximately one (1) mile of the proposal given its proposed density and that the' applicant had failed to demonstrate that provisions had been made for an adequate domestic water supply for the proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, there has been extensive testimony before the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing held on this application in which substantial, competent evidence was presented regarding the compatibility of the proposed subdivision with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed access to the subdivision, County Road 111, is a relatively narrow, winding farm to market type road which could prove to be inadequate to meet the traffic usage generated by the proposed subdivision. The ability to use County Road 111 for farm to market purposes would deteriorate as vehicle usage increased because of the greater residential density resultingfrom the proposed subdivision.The proposed subdivision is surrounded by a predominantly large parcels in both Garfield andPitkin Counties, which have not been subdivided. These parcels have been traditionally used for agricultural purposes and continue to be so used today. An increase in residential density in the area would have a negative effect on the current agricultural usage of the surrounding parcels because of the activities commonly associated with residential development of the density proposed, including increased vehicle traffic, the negative effect of the keeping of domestic pets, and other residential activities; and WHEREAS, the applicant v/as advised at the time of sketch plan approval for the proposed subdivision that such approval did not, in any wdy, commit the Board of County Commissioners to approve anypreliminary plan submitted for the property; and WHEREAS, the applicant has failed to provide for protective covenants or other appropriate legal mechanisms for the control and management of the existing underground pressurized irrigation systemas well as a IegaIly appropriate mechanism for the ownership,control and management of the proposed central water system; and WHEREAS, Section 4.33 of the Garfield County SubdivisionRegulations of 1984 require that the Board of County Commissionersconsider the following factors in making its decision regardingpreliminary plan approvals: the recommendation of the CountyPlanning Commissionr ds weII as the proposal I s conformity or -2- compatibility with the Garfield County Sub!ivision. Regulations, the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, the Garfield County Comprehensive piun r GarfieiA Corinty Road Standards and Policies, applicable Municipal Comprehensive plans, and the existing land uses in the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AS fOllOWS: I. Adequate proof has been provided that the appropriate notices of puniic heaiing, held to consider the aPplicant's proposed preliminary plan for [f,e Mountain Meadow Subdivision, on September io, 1984, -havE been made in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984. 2, Substantial competent evidence was presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing, which hearing was extensive and complete, with alI interested parties present, including the applicant, being heard. 3. Substantial competent evidence was submitted that the applicantts proposed preliminary plan fails to meet all the c6naitions pfacea on the approvat of the sketch plan, for the Mountain tteidows Subdivision, including but not limited to: the failure to provide for the creation of a }egally appropriate entity to control and manage the proposed central water system with adequate powers to enfoice the piovisions of any contract with the easilt witer Conservacy District; the failure to provide for an appropriate lega1 mechinism to manage the existing underground piE""rrized iriigation systemr Ers well as adequate safeguards to protect existing weIls on surrounding p.arcels. 4. Substantial .competent evidence was presented that the neighborhood surrounding tha subject property in an approximately one (1) mile radius, i" predominantly agricultural in character with residential housing being of significantly lesser density than that proposed by the applicant. 5. Substantial competent evidence was presented that the proposed access to the subdivision, County Road 111, is a narrow, wipaing, farm to market type road, which could be inadequate to meet the demands placed upon- it by the proposed subdivision, given its present condition. 6. Substantial competent evidence was presented that the proposed subdivision, given its density and other physical ihaiacteristics, as set forth in the preliminary plan submittal, would be incompatible with existing land uses and the surrounding neighborhood which are predominantly agricultural. 7 . The applicant's proposed preliminary plan f o_t the Mountain l,teadow Subdivision faits to demonstrate compliance with all of the requirements of Section 4.33 of the Garfield County Subdivision negulations, which is a pre-requisite for its approval, for the reaions set forth above. The land proposed for the development of the Mountain l"leadow Subdivision is premature - for development within the meaning of Section 1.22 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for the reasons set forth above. The devel6pment of t.he proposed l,lountain lrleadow Subdivision, in accordlnce with the proposed preliminary p1an, is contrary to the public health, slfeLy, morals, welfare and prosperity of the iesidents of Garfield County, Colorado. Accordingly, the preliminary plan application oi Anneliese Allen for the proposed I'lountain Meadow Subdivision is hereby denied. DATED this Ist day of October, 1984. i ATTEST: 2Ltu-'tt l*0/*fu4I,lildred Alsdor f ltClerk and Recorder THE OF By_ BOARD OF COUNTY LD COUNTY, COI'IMISSIONERS COLORADO -3- hair :t UPon was adopted STATE OF' COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution by the following vote: .. leqry. Yglap.qUee. ................Aye . . Flqvpp..l-..cpriqq... o. ...... . .. . .Aye . . FUge.ng.'j.lrpl'. Pt:fpFheqsp. . . . . . . . . . .Aye Commissioners ) ) ss, ) Tt ...........o..o.o...., County CLerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid clo hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Order is truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my off ice. IN WITNESS WHEREO!', I have hereunto set my hand and affixed :::.:::1.::.::ll.lllliY; i:,:'i;::::.sprinss' this' "' " " " dav or County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners oa aa aaaaaaaa a aa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa a a