HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.11.1983• a
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
ite , 7/ vig,3
PROJECT NAME: George Demos Subdivision
APPLICATION:
Sketch Plan and request from
further subdivision review
OWNER: George Demos
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
A parcel located in the SW 1/4
Section 5, Township 6 South, Range
89 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian. Located north of State
Highway 6 & 24, behind K -Bob's
Restaurant
It is proposed to split a 1.24 acre
parcel into two parcels of 1.01
acres and 0.23 acre.
WATER: Mitchell -Cooper Ditch and Pipeline
Company
SEWER: West Glenwood Sanitation District
ACCESS: Off Highway 6 & 24
ZONING: C/L
ADJACENT ZONING: North: R/L/UD
South: Bound by Highway 6 & 24
East: C/L
West: C/L
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The site falls within district lb of the Comprehensive Plan/Central Water
and Central Sewer with Moderate Environmental Constraints.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The site is a long narrow strip of land adjacent to
the northt side of State Highway 6 & 24. The K -Bob's Restaurant sits to
the front of the property.
B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 2 acre
parcel into 3 parcels of approximately .75 acre (where the K -Bob's
Restaurant sits); .23 acre and 1.01 acres. The two back lots would
receive access from a 27 feet access easement on the east side of the
property. The K -Bob's Restaurant is currently served by the
Mitchell -Cooper Ditch and Pipeline Company and by the West Glenwood
Sanitation District for sewage. The primary purpose is to provide an
overflow parking area for the restaurant on the .23 acre parcel.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
A. Review Agency Comments:
1. The City of Glenwood Springs City Planner stated that if the
proposal was within the city limits, each lot would be required
to front onto a public road.
B. Staff Comments:
1. The proposed lot sizes meet the C/L zone district requirements.
2. The applicant has notified two adjacent land owners of his intent
to divide the property.
3. The proposed access easement width is not wide enough for further
subdivision of the property.
4. The proposed utility easements should be noted on the plat.
5. The Planning Commission reviewed the application on June 1, 1983
and expressed concerns about the following:
a. That access may not be adequate for another two commercial
lots off of State Highway 6 & 24.
-1-
• •
b. That by creating two more commercial lots, the County would
be creating an additional commercial lot on which there are
no specific uses identified.
c. The Planning Commission expressed the opinion that the
applicant could make other arrangements with K -Bob's for
over -flow parking.
IV. FINDINGS:
1. The sketch plan does not conform to Section 4.01, Sketch Plan
requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The sketch plan does not conform to the requirements of the zone
district in which the development is located.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
On June 1, 1983, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Sketch
Plan due to the uncertainty of the future uses and the potential impact
those uses would have.
-2-