HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Correspondence 11.04.1996jutris q'
.ter
6ILVaf o
(d/1-1- /4'&t t\7
1% N/�/ )H' w_S 'e=4/4 (_
Rader/Exxon SB -35 11/4/96
The main reason this exemption petition was continued was to allow the applicant time to determine
the feasibility of annexing the parcel to the Town of Parachute. At the last meeting, the Board
thought it may be more appropriate for the town of Parachute to consider the subdivision action, and
not the County.
Representations made by the applicant suggested that a feasibility study produced in 1990 concluded
that completion of the improvements to the Parachute Park PUD would likely cost $1.25 million.
It appears that, of this total, completion of the water system was then likely to cost over $27,000 and
completion of the sewer system on the order of nearly $3600. It appears completion of the street
system and drainage improvements would account for the remaining funds. The report also
contemplated that perhaps 20% of the water lines would require replacement.
Concerning the extension of Parachute Park boulevard, the feasibility study directs the town to secure
the right-of-way across the Exxon property before Exxon sells the tract. Apparently, this suggestion
is the reason for the attempts to designate the ROW across the tract. The town of parachute had
previously requested Mr. Rader deed an easement across what would be his tract to the town, which
apparently caused some concern by the Board that this subdivision action be carried out under the
auspices of the town. The Town has since changed its requirement from a deeded ROW to a
dedicated easement to be shown on an exemption plat.
In my analysis, I still have some concerns that have not been adequately addressed. First, the water
supply proposal is to use a cistern and fill it with water obtained from the town. This is a concern
because given the physical state of parachute park PUD, annexation of the subject tract does not
appear to be imminent and the Town will not issue a contract for the water supply. Apparently, the
town will supply the water but cannot guarantee what staff would call a long-term supply. For this
reason, it is staffs opinion that wells would be a more appropriate supply.
Turning back to parachute park boulevard, since it has never been completed and exists only as an
easement shown on a final plat, staff has some concern for access to the exemption parcels.
Ordinarily, with exemptions, it is not a requirement of the applicant to actually build the access road;
however, staff would like some additional assurance that access to the exemption parcels be
guaranteed. Apparently, the roads shown on the parachute park PUD would allow for access to the
parcels, but staff wonders if some additional easement may be required to guarantee this access.
As an aside, staff has discussed this exemption petition with the administrator of the town of
parachute, who indicates the town has no objection to the exemption request.
In furtherance of the cistern issue, if the board accepts this as the water supply, staff believes it is
appropriate to provide all the related infrastructure, before the authorization of an exemption plat.
As far as the access issue is concerned, perhaps it would be appropriate to develop additional access
easements that show a tie between access through the parachute park PUD to the exemption parcels.
If the Board determines that the proposed, cistern water supply meets the intent of the subdivision
regulations, then staff recommends approval of the petition, pursu tnt to the listed conditions.
/17/6 IA) /`4' ! o'
, , 2:6;
//:r