HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report 09.21.1992REQUEST:
E`14% -- C -MT. o f bSr i ,,
• E'.ti—c.T.Of- t4Mutit,�
f, C — rt FF PoR-r
E. X t — 'Zf AP Pu (*Tor.)
E - 9-18-q Z LEn6 .
Feats 1 ,uC KWsMIR•E
BOCC 9/21/92
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
An Appeal of the Conditions of
approval for an Exemption from the
definition of Subdivision
APPLICANT: Delaney/Balcomb Partnership
LOCATION: A tract of land located in Section 27,
T6S, R89W of the 6th P.M.; located
on C.R. 163 adjacent to the
Glenwood Springs Airport.
SITE DATA: 8.09 Acres
WATER: Individual Wells (Proposed)
SEWER: Proposed I.S.D.S. systems
ACCESS: C.R. 163
EXISTING AND ADJACENT ZONING: C/G (Commercial/General); Adjacent
zoning is A/R/RD.
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District A - Glenwood Springs Urban Area of
Influence as designated on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property, commonly referred to as "the coke ovens
at Cardiff' is located on the north side of CR 163 west of the Glenwood Springs
Airport and the Rodeo Grounds. The property includes the coke ovens that
extend along the southwest property line (approximately 2,700 feet).The site is
currently undeveloped, with native vegetation. The site trends towards CR 163,
and rises steeply at the rear of the property (a vicinity map is shown on page
/- ).
B. Project Description: The applicants are requesting an exemption to allow the
8.09 acre parcel to be split into four (4) parcels ranging from 1.6 to 2.4 acres in
size. The applicants intend on using the lots for commercial uses, specifically
proposing storage, vehicle parking and maintenance uses on the site.
1
• •
The applicants intend on leveling the site, including the existing coke ovens on
Lots 1, 3, and 4. The applicants are proposing to preserve the coke ovens
located on Lot 2. Lot 2, approximately 1.6 acres in size, is proposed to be given
to The Historical Society. A copy of a June 17, 1992 letter from the Historical
Society is shown on page ?- . The remaining coke ovens on Lot 2 would be
retained for historical purposes. Correspondence from the applicant (Petition
for Exemption, date August 31, 1992, on pages 3-,5') includes a reference to
the intention of the applicants to "...install the necessary facilities to operate
commercially"... the historic site. The specific commercial facilities proposed by
the applicant have not been specifically identified.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Section 8:10 (Applicability - Exemptions) states that the Board has discretionary
authority to except a division of land from the definition of subdivision. Following a
review of the facts of each application, the Board may approve conditionally or deny
an exemption request. The Board may not grant an exemption unless the applicant can
demonstrate compliance with zoning, legal access to a public right-of-way, adequate
water and sewer, state environmental health standards, necessary road and drainage
improvements, fire protection, adequate easements and school impact fees (if
applicable). The conformance to these requirements are summarized below:
1. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan. The proposed split conforms to the
requirements of Section 8:10 with regard to the four (4) lot limitation. A deed
submitted with the application indicates that the parent parcel was created in
May of 1962. If approved, the proposed exemption would create the forth parcel
of record from that parcel in existence on January 1, 1973. This regulation
would prohibit any further division of the parcels through the exemption
process.
The Comprehensive Plan designation on the subject property, Glenwood Springs
Urban Area of Influence, indicates the site's proximity to the City of Glenwood
Springs. The single goal related to Urban Areas of Influence in the
Comprehensive Plan is as follows:
'Ensure that development occurring in the County which will affect a
municipality is compatible with the future urbanization plans ofthe appropriate
jurisdiction."
The most applicable objective related to the proposed Subdivision Exemption
is Objective 2:
'Ensure that development in an Urban Area of Influence is compatible with the
technical services available."
The policy designed to implement this objective requires that "all new
development in these areas should either connect to municipal systems if a cost
effective connection can be made, or design the subdivision such that a
municipal system can be connected at a future time to the development."
The City of Glenwood Springs has reviewed the proposed project, and the City's
July 27, 1992 comments are attached on pages 6 ' 7 . As indicated in the
2
• •
City's letter, The Glenwood Springs City Council approved Resolution No. 89-5
stating the "Any new development south of Glenwood Park shall not occur until
traffic problems are solved and required public facilities are provided, including
a fire station and a two-lane Four -Mile Road connection."
The City Engineer suggests that a traffic study be conducted for this project
prior to approval.
The City's Engineering Department also has serious concerns regarding the
ability to provide adequate water services without significantly upgrading
existing infrastructure. The City Engineer recommends that no new additional
water customers be added to the existing system in the area until the necessary
infrastructure improvements are in place.
The proposed project fronts on the City's proposed alternate route corridor.
The expected right-of-way needs if the alternative route is constructed is
estimated at an additional 60 feet (see City of Glenwood Springs letter, dated
July 27, 1992, on pages 7). For this reason, City planning staff are
recommending that front building setbacks from an arterial street (50') be used
as opposed to a local street setback (25') in anticipation of future road corridor
development and possible expansion.
2. Legal Access. Access to the new parcels could be obtained directly from the
County road. Individual driveways would require a driveway permit from the
Garfield County Road and Bridge Department.
3. Water. The applicants are proposing to use City of Glenwood Springs water to
serve the lots. No documentation has been received by the applicant addressing
the City of Glenwood's concern regarding the extension of central water facilities
to serve the proposed lots. Secondly, although referenced by the applicant, no
documentation has been submitted regarding well permits or augmentation
plans.
The applicants assert that the use proposed for the site will require "no water or
sewage disposal is necessary" (see Exhibit 2, pages 6-8). In effect, Exemption
Approval would create four (4) separate parcels of land within the
Commercial/General (C/G) zone district, which is the most permissive
commercial zoning available in the County. The uses permitted in this zone
district range in potential water consumption from low (salvage yard,
contractors yard) to high (plant for fabrication of goods, processing natural
resources into foods and beverages). Although the applicants are proposing uses
in the lower consumption category, the requirement to provide proof legal
adequate water and sewer services to any property within the County is required
by Section 8:42(E) of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. It is
necessary to recognize that the land can be sold and virtually all uses allowed
will require some level of water and sewer.
Sewer. The applicants are proposing individual I.S.D.S. systems to serve each
lot. No percolation tests have been conducted on any of the parcels to date to
contradict the need for engineered I.S.D.S.. Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
3
• •
Survey maps submitted by the applicants indicate that there are two primary soil
map units on the property, #2 - Arle and #8 - Atencio. A copy of the SCS map
and the proposed exemption location is shown on page e- .
The Arle soil map unit is moderately deep and well drained. Surface runoff is
considered medium, and the erosion hazard is severe. Use of this soil unit for
community development or as a source of construction material is limited mainly
by the depth to rock, steep slopes and large stones. Special design can overcome
these limitations. This soil unit presents severe constraints for sanitary facilities,
due to the depth to rock and slope constraints, based on SCS compatibility
methodology.
The Atencio soil map unit is deep and well drained. Surface runoff is slow, and
the erosion hazard is considered slight. Use of this soil for community
development is limited by large stones. Special design is needed for septic tank
absorption fields because of seepage and the possibility of polluting
groundwater.2
It is important to note that SCS maps are only a general planning tool, and are
appropriate for the identification of potential constraints. These constraints can
only be verified by field inspection or additional testing (i.e. per tests, etc..).
In 1975, Garfield County contracted with Lincoln-Devore Testing Laboratories
to determine natural hazards within the County. This effort include the
identification of High Groundwater and Septic Limitations based on 1:24,000
71/2 minute U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. The proposed site is located in an area
of evaporite minerals, which can be a significant constraint to the use of
conventional septic systems and leach fields. In essence, the evaporite minerals
are prone to dissolve, and the effluent does not percolate and can reach
groundwater in an untreated form. The location of the proposed exemption in
relationship to the Hazard Area identified by Lincoln-Devore is shown on page
-9- .
4. Environmental Health Standards. No permits or approvals required at this
time. When individual lots are sold and Building Permits are initiated, ISDS
permits will be necessary.
5. Necessary Road and Drainage Improvements. Access from CR 163 appears to
provide sufficient access to each of the lots. An issue worthy of consideration
is the future impacts of multiple driveways when the alternative route corridor
is constructed. Multiple traffic movements in and out of the site may present
difficulties if the traffic volumes on CR 163 increase significantly.
No debris flows or significant erosion problems were identified during fieldwork,
although the steep mountainside immediately west of the lots may present some
erosion concerns during major spring and summer storms.
'Soil Survey of Rifle Area, Colorado, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, May, 1985, Page 10 and Table 8 - Sanitary Facilities, page 108.
2ibid. Page 12 and Table 8 - Sanitary Facilities, page 108.
4
• •
6. Fire Protection. The applicants have not submitted any documentation from the
Fire District regarding fire protection needs for the proposed lots. Due to the
water constraints on the site, this is an important issue that has not been
resolved. A copy of a September 1, 1992 letter from Jim Mason, Director of
Emergency Services for the City is shown on page /d: This letter indicates the
water issues are still unresolved.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. The proposal is in general compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan and the Garfield County Zoning Regulations, specifically regarding Urban
Area of Influence designation, water availability to the lots and fire protection.
2. The proposed land use would be consistent and compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses.
3. If the noted concerns regarding water supply, City of Glenwood Springs issues
and fire protection can be adequately addressed, the proposal is in best interest
of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The applicants are appealing the Conditions of Approval that the Board of County
Commissioners approved on August 3, 1992. In the applicants appeal submittal, they contend
that the conditions placed on the project where unacceptable, and in the case of the setback
requirements, represent a taking. These conditions are summarized below, and include a
description of the practical and legal reasoning behind each one. Staff contends that each of
these conditions are valid, and supported by both Colorado Law as well as the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations. Staff recommends that all conditions remain in place, with the
acceptation of the setback requirement by increased to 50' consistent with the setback
requirements contained in Section 3.08.06 of the 1984 Garfield County Zoning Resolution, as
amended. FoRP V W- L St 1 S
Condition #1
All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless
otherwise stated by the applicant.
Rational: Self-explanatory
Condition #2
The applicant shall have 120 days to complete the required conditions of approval.
Extensions of 120 days may be granted by the Board for a period of up to one (1) year.
Rational: Self-explanatory
Condition #3
The following notes shall be included on the exemption plat:
5
a. All lots may be subject to the requirement of engineered
wastewater systems_ of wtt4, r3e 12. 4)Ir &'t a cEg.Yu p C44-t2Av0
I`' Ann ii. f gr Bobo ti . tebIa ut TOE'
of B.uc-oiwt Pt�
b. All lots will be required to observe a 75' front setback from the
centerline of County Road 163.
G. l.o'i 2. 15 APPRovEl Fog. 44wiciR ►(. PeESE1MakIto4 NigtiseS
yoz.st _ i w g.►'i Veto RaPRESet-tivotAS .
Rational: Engineered Wastewater System. No central sewage disposal system is available
for the proposed exemption site. Therefore, I.S.D.S. systems will be required.
The primary source for determining the feasibility of a particular site for septic
systems includes data regarding soil types and geologic conditions on the site.
Examples of criteria to determine the feasibility of I.S.D.S. include the depth to
the groundwater table, slow percolation rates, or the presence of solution of
evaporite minerals. Data from both SCS and Lincoln-Devore laboratories
indicate that significant constraints are possible on the site, and therefore the
plat note is appropriate.
Setbacks. The existing right-of-way for CR 163 is 100 feet. Therefore, the
lotline setback, as proposed, is 25 feet. Staff had originally requested a 50'
setback for each lot, but the Board felt that a 25' setback was appropriate. The
50' setback was suggested by City of Glenwood Springs Planning Staff due to
the anticipation of the City's future alternative route corridor, and future right-
of-way acquisition needs.
Section 3.08.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution requires the following
setback in the C/G (Commercial/General ) zone district:
Minimum Setback
1.) Front Yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five feet from street centerline or fifty
(50) from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from
street centerline ortwenty-five (25) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater.
The County only recognizes the following roadways as arterial streets: State
Highway 82 and State Highway 133. Therefore the applicable setback on CR
163 would be based on a local street designation.
The applicants have claimed that the setback proposed, which is consistent with
the code, constitutes a taking. As a prerequisite to a takings challenge, the
landowner must show that a final authoritative determination regarding the type
and intensity of allowable development has been reached by the governing
body.' This means that a landowner must apply for and be denied available
variances, before resorting to the Courts.4
The Garfield County Board of Adjustment is the administrative body given authority
to grant variances to regulations in the Zoning Resolution. If the applicants feel the
setbacks represent a hardship, then the Board of Adjustment has the authority to grant
a variance. In staffs opinion, ample room exists for placement of a structure on each
'Williams County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.
Ct. 3108 (1985).
4ibid.
6
• •
lot in conformance with the required setbacks. The only physical constraint is on Lot
#1, and the proposed setbacks only restrict building placement on a portion of lot 1.
The Colorado Supreme Court has emphasized that so long as a landowner is left with
some reasonable use of his property, a land use regulation will not amount to a taking.5
4. All existing easements shall be depicted on the exemption plat.
Rational: Self-explanatory
5. Approval of the proposed water supply plan either from the City of
Glenwood or the Division of Water Resources, will be submitted prior to
the recording of a final Exemption Plat.
Section 8.42 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution requires the following
information pertaining to water for a proposed exemption:
D. Proof of legal and adequate source of domestic water for each lot
created...
Rational: The applicant has failed to fully address this requirement. The
applicant has contended that the proposed use (vehicle storage,
repair, etc..) does not require water. First, staff disagrees with the
assertion that vehicular repair would require no water. Secondly,
the project review process must include an analysis that stretches
beyond simply short-term land use objectives. The
Commercial/General zoning designation includes a wide variety
of uses which require varying demands of water usage. Staff feels
that until the applicants satisfy this condition, a Final Exemption
Plat should not be approved.
6. Ale ' er addre'
distric 1 be s
Rational:
SMadis v. Higginson,
Commissioners, 505 P.2d
(Colo. 1971); MacLeod v.
County of Honolulu, 841
mg fire rotection f
%mitted or to the
m the appro nate fire protection
rebprding of a f 1 Exemption Plat.
Section 8.52 (G.) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
requires that Fire Protection has been approved by the
appropriate fire district. In addition, pursuant to Uniform Fire
Code (1982), section 10.301 c., adequate water supply is required
for all structures hereafter constructed.
The applicants contend that this issue can be addressed at the
building permit stage. Planning Staff disagrees, and feels that the
issue is linked directly with the need to provide adequate evidence
regarding water supply. Until the water issue is resolved, fire
protection will remain an issue. A copy of a September 1, 1992
letter from Jim Mason, Director of Emergency Services for the
City of Glenwood Springs Department of Emergency Services
addressing this issue is attached on page -7C - .
434 P.2d. (705) Colo. 1967); Famularo v. Adams County
958 (Colo. 1973); Bird v. City of Colorado Springs, 489 P.2d 324
Santa Clara County, 749 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1984); Lai v. City and
F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1988).
7
• •
7. Driveway access will be consolidated in the following manner: Lots 1 and
2 will be allowed a single access, with lots 3 and 4 to have a shared access.
Rational: Due to potential traffic volumes that could be associated with the
City's alternate route, minimizing driveways will reduce
conflicting movements between through, entering and exiting
vehicles. Staff feels the condition is reasonable and does not
represent an undue hardship on the applicants.
Pere lation tes will be r aired, prior to the recor ng of a Final
Exem 'on Plat to etermine a feasibilit of I.S_D_S. on ach lot_
Rational: \ See Condition #3.
• Co t'10{
cDe_c_eNArs 7)
•
8