HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Addendum 10.01.1996ADDENDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Planning Department
RE: Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision
DATE: October 1, 1996
Since the Planning Commission (PC) decision on the proposed Rapids on the Colorado Subdivision,
the applicant has submitted additional information, some of it requested, and it was more appropriate
to attach the new information as an addendum instead of including it in the staff report. This decision
is based on the fact that the PC did not have the benefit of reviewing the additional information and
its decision was rendered without reviewing this information. Staff suggests that the applicant state
whether or not he is proposing to amend the Preliminary Plan application, if this is the intent, then
the listed issues are of concern. Additionally, there is the possibility that this amended information
may be construed to significantly change the project from what the PC considered and could be the
basis for legal action brought by an outside entity.
1] The applicant is proposing to amend the open space portion of the proposal, essentially
deducting the land area south of County Road 335 from the land proposed for subdivision,
through a boundary line adjustment. This proposal would remove 9.79 acres of open space
from the total in the amended application and would also alter the legal description of the
property proposed for subdivision.
Staff Analysis: At some time throughout the subdivision process, it is likely that a boundary
line adjustment would be required, so that no "illegal subdivision" would occur, i.e., the
creation of a parcel of land less than 35 acres in size. The map attached on page 3
shows land that is proposed to be included in this subdivision, as well as adjacent land owned
by the applicant. Apparently, the retention of the 9.79 acres south of CR 335 that is currently
part of the subdivision would create a parcel in excess of 35 acres, without the use of a
boundary line adjustment to merge properties. See letter, page . This would appear
to be an effective way to address this situation; however, it would reduce the amount of
proposed open space land, land that the PC likely considered in its approval recommendation.
Without review and comment from the PC, it is impossible to know how this proposal would
have affected its recommendation. Staff notes that, at the sketch plan phase of the proposal,
the PC requested, among other things, that the applicant designate additional open space,
likewise, when the Preliminary Plan was submitted without additional open space, the PC
continued the hearing to allow time for the applicant to address its concerns, one of these
being the request for additional open space.
Additionally, in legal terms, the deduction of this property would alter the published and
noticed legal description of the tract proposed for subdivison, which may violate public
notification requirements.
2] The two (2) open space lots now being proposed, one with the pond, the other shown as the
equestrian area, were submitted without any accompanying information stating method or
degree of development, amount of irrigation water to be used, protective covenants, etc.
Staff Analysis: This portion of the proposal would certainly provide numerous active and
passive recreational opportunities for the residents of the subdivision; however, staff has some
concern that, due to the lack of information that has been submitted for staff review, it is
difficult to adequately assess the merits of the proposal. It seems appropriate to have specific
information available for review, including specific language in the protective covenants and
Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
3] The reduction in the proposed number of residential lots, from 40 to 33, could likely allow
for more irrigation water and water for future development.
Staff Analysis: The Preliminary Plan contains specific amounts of water and infrastructure
that would be provided for the originally proposed 40 lots. This information may need to be
adjusted to reflect the current proposal, enabling the Commissioners and staff to determine
and enforce the provisions of a Subdivision Improvements Agreement, as well as determine
the legal and physical water supply to be transferred to the Homeowner's Association.
Staff recommends these issues and perhaps others be examined in detail, prior to the Board
rendering its decision on the Preliminary Plan application.
2
�L 00-4ZL-6L LZ
Z9Z-00-17ZL 6LLZ
����llilt
8F£ -00 -1£L -6L LZ
ENARTECH Inc. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
September 27, 1996
Mr. Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: The Rapids on The Colorado
Dear Eric:
ik7)7.1(7.15:7977-7?1;;;1'10)
ii
(.,
Enclosed is a drawing showing the design of the proposed improvements for the Open Space
parcels within The Rapids on The Colorado Subdivision. Regarding the Open Space parcel on
the south side of County Road 335, we would like the planning staff to consider
recommending to the Board of County Commissioners that this Open Space be removed from
the subdivision. This would eliminate the requirements for a boundary line adjustment for the
remainder of the property south of County Road 335. In my opinion, the two proposed open
space parcels within the subdivision should more than offset the need for the open space south
of the County Road.
Please forward this information to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration.
Sincerely,
ENARTECH. INC.
Peter Belau, P.E.
PB/jlw
Enclosure
cc: Gene Hilton
Scott Balcomb
P423-01 (P423 05C)96
302 Erghth Sheet Suite 325 P 0 Drawer 160 (3ier�..-,voradc 31633 X970) :.9.J -_'235