Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Correspondence01/07/n1 • .., u MAR 0 s 2 ;1 Greg Butler, Senior Planner Garfield County Department of Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF EDWARD E. SMITH PETITION FOR EXEMPTION TO SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. Butter: Thank you for your second letter dated February 20, 2001. Mr. Smith agrees the conditions of approval stated in that letter accurately reflect the substance of the hearing before the County Commissions on February 20, 2001. We would, however, like to be sure there is no confusion regarding section 5 of that letter: Prior to approval of an exemption plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a building envelope meeting the criteria identified in Section 5.04 of the zoning resolution. The building envelope shall be determined by a surveyor and certified by the surveyor [underline added]. It is our understanding that the underlined requirement applies only to the 2.48 acre parcel. Pursuant to § 5.04.01 of the zoning resolution: For lots of two (2) or more acres in size and tracts 0-' land proposed for other methods of development wherein creation of individual lots within said tract is not anticipated, the determination of lot slope shall he made utilizing available topographic maps [emphasis added]. Mr. Smith agreed at the hearing that the 2.48 acre lot will require the services of a professional engineer to meet the requirements of § 5.04.02 (2) because the site is steep; but Mr. Smith indicated the other sites easily meet the one acre minimum building envelope with less than a 40% slope. It should therefore be unnecessary for Mr. Smith to incur the expense of having a surveyor determine and certify the building envelope for the five acre parcels and topo maps should suffice to meet the requirements. Since your letter does not specify which building envelope must be determined and certified by a surveyor, we want to verify that the Commissioners made no ruling requiring a procedure different than that set forth in the zoning resolutions and Mr. Smith may submit topo maps for the five acre parcels and engage a professional engineer to establish a building envelope for the 2.48 acre parcel. Please let us know your perspective on this matter at your earliest convenience. Robert W. Ramsey P.O. Box 430 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 379-5733 • • 02/12/01 11:35:33 AM Greg Butler, Senior Planner Garfield County Department of Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 'WED FEB 1 2 2001 RE: EDWARD E. SMITH PETITION FOR EXEMPTION TO SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. Butler: We received your letter dated February 8, 2001. It appears there is some confusion regarding the application. While we understand that we must obtain a survey and a plat map showing the new parcels, we do not think they are application requirements; it is our understanding these must be obtained after conditional approval. Obviously, obtaining a survey and plat map would be expensive and without prior conditional approval of the requested exemption it could be a waste of time and money if the petition is denied for another reason. Mr. Smith should be allowed to determine if he can meet all the required conditions before engaging in a survey of his property. We submitted the required properly scaled drawings [one inch equals 200 feet] on the paper provided by Copy Copy [the retail photocopy shop in Glenwood] for reproducing blueprints and for your convenience we also submitted more detailed and easily handled small drawings [please see our application package pp. 5-6]. We were even requested to submit four more sets of copies of the large drawings before the hearing held last month, and we complied with the request. There doesn't appear to be any point in these drawings as submittal requirements if a survey and plat map are required before a hearing or conditional approval is obtained. Part of the reason I was asked to help Mr. Smith with this application is that I recently went through the exemption process for my own property; in that process I made the same applications (scaled sketch drawing and topo map) and received conditional approval prior to obtaining the survey and plat map. Also, Mr. Smith considered your additional suggestions regarding the size and shape of the newly created parcels and he has sound reasons for creating the parcels precisely as he did; the hearing will provide the best forum for discussing this matter with all parties in interest. Please review this matter at your earliest convenience and let me know at once whether you agree that insofar as the issues raised in your letter of February 8th are concerned the Smith application is in compliance with the written requirements and precedent at this stage of the process and we should be allowed to proceed with the scheduled and fully noticed hearing on the 20th of this month in order to obtain conditional approval of the exemption request. Robert W. Ramsey P.O. Box 430 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 379-5733 • • GARFIELD CO UNT Y Building and Planning Department February 8th, 2001 Robert W. Ramsey PO Box 430 New Castle, CO. 81647 RE: EE Smith SB 35 Exemption Dear Mr. Ramsey: While an Exemption request can save the applicant some money in review and processing fees there are some costs that cannot be avoided. One of those costs is a survey of the property from which the exempted lots will come and the properties to be exempted; in this case the entire 927 acre parcel of land and then Parcels A, B and C. In the file, at this time, we have nothing except a butcher paper and topo quad map rendition of where the respective properties is and the exempted plats will be. As stated in a telephone conversation to you when this file was received by the planing office we will need this survey and the corresponding plat map available to the Board of County Commissioners for their meeting on the 20th of February 2001. All requests are reviewed by the county attorney and planning director prior to the scheduled hearing date, this SB 35 Exemption Request was no exception. At that meeting some suggestions were made: making Parcels A and B larger by removing that parcel that separates the two. In addition to that, extending Parcel A down the full length of CR 313 east to the property line. OUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • • RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2001 DATE: January 9, 2001 TO: FROM: Mr. Greg Butler GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Glenwood Springs, Colorado Shirley L. Sullivan Alvin P. Byers 120 East Blue Spruce Court Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80126 303.791.0542 RE: SB -35 Exemption for 4000 County Road 313 New Castle, Colorado 81647 SUBMITTED BY: Edward E. Smith RESPONSE TO NOTICE BY THE GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Butler or whom it may concern: This letter is it serve as our opposition / objection to the above mentioned SB -35 Exemption. We are the owners of the mineral rights (1/6th) for the property described in the notice as 'Section 21-7-91, et al', for which we pay taxes each year to Garfield County. The mineral rights are leased to ANTARA RESOURCES, for which we receive a small payment each year. The lease is #C0507138-003 (Mann Creek Prospect). Our objections to this proposal are as follows: 1. Mr. Smith, nor anyone associated with him, has contacted us to discuss this proposal. 2. No one has contacted us to discuss how it affects our mineral rights for the property. 3. What is the future plan for this 'subdivision' of the property, and how will this affect our mineral rights. 4. Has Mr. Smith contacted Antara Resources and informed them on this plan and how it affects their lease. 5. A certified letter dated 12-28-00 from a Mr. Robert W. Ramsey, which whom we have no idea who he is, who he may be associated with, or why he sent us the notice, is the only contact we have received from any party in this matter. This is very disconcerting to us as to why such 'secrecy'. +-. to contact Mr. Smith cr M Rnmsw fnr .. .h,,.n we h v nn folanhr'r ni irnhcrs and only a U. Attempts v. M. �, �. _:.. ., _ ,.- Post Office box number, have been to no avail. 7. We have also been unable to contact Antara Resources to find out if they have been contacted and are aware of the proposal. These issues summarize our objection to the proposal, which we feel is totally unacceptable until some communication is established which will insure that our interests in the property are protected, which is our right. Sincerely, Shirley L. Sullivan Alvin P. Byers �yi;�' a Pl���"� �.�Po�G Y v 1700 Broadway, Suite 410 Denver, Colorado 80290 303.830.8002 303.830,2819 Fax To: Greg Butler Fax: yr r1iG. 970 — 384 - 5004 Company: Garfield Cnty Planning Telephone: From: Shirley Sullivan Date: January 10, 2001 Project: SB -35 Exemption Pages: 2 C: File 0 Urgent ❑ For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 For Information RE: Attached Letter. Dear Mr. Butler: 1 is my understanding that you are the case manager for 4000 County Road 313 SB -35 Exemption. Attached is a letter concerning this issue (Hard copy to be sent by mail). Contact Kevin Sullivan (for Shirley Sullivan) with any questions at telephone number above. Thank you, Kevin Sullivan CONFIDENTIAL Td WdT©:ET TOOE ETT 'LJef ET8 B202 : 'ON xed S1d3JNO3 lkddnl. dl I HDdtl : WOdd • 11/08/00 10:30:10 PM Greg Butler, Senior Planner Department of Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED NOV 1 Z000 RE: Petition for Exemption to Subdivision Regulations - Edward E. Smith, et al. Dear Mr. Butler: I have discussed your letter of 10/19/00 with my associate, Mr. Smith; I have been directed to respond as follows: 1. Mr. Smith plans to supply water for each newly created lot by drilling a well. 2. The existing parcel has a spring that supplies water for the existing dwelling. 3. It is our understanding that proof of physical supply for the public meeting may be documentation from the Division of Water Resources that demonstrates that there are wells within 1/4 mile of the site producing at least five (5) gallons per minute. We supplied such documentation with the petition. 4. Mr. Smith requests that you proceed with the application through the public meeting phase so that he may "prove up" his water source within the time usually allowed following the commissioners' contingent approval of exemption. Please notify us as soon as convenient whether the above request is acceptable. Thank you. erely, Robert W. Ramsey P.O. Box 430 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 379-5733 cc: Edward E. Smith (by hand delivery) ,Garfield County October 19, 2000 Robert Ramsey PO Box 430 New Castle, CO. 81647 RE: Exemption Request — Edward E. Smith Dear Mr. Ramsey: Building & Planning Department In reviewing the Edward E. Smith Exemption request it was discovered that there was no source of water for these lots. A water source must be "proved up" before this request can go any further. Without a proved up source of water "dry lots" could be created. We will need this information before the review of this file continues. Please re -submit the above -referenced information at your earliest convenience. The Planning Department requires this information to continue reviewing your Petition for Exemption. Cordially GARFIELD COUNTY PL NING DEPARTMENT Greg Butler, Sr. Planner P — 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 March 14, 2001 Robt. W. Ramsey PO Box 430 New Castle, CO 81647 ,Garfield County RE: EE Smith Exemption Dear Mr. Ramsey: Building & Planning Department Per your letter, and now for the second time this week...Once an item has been approved with conditions those conditions are mandatory not optional. As you can see by the attached minutes of the hearing the condition in question was part of the approval. If you feel this condition is onerous please feel free to apply to the Board of County Commissioners to have this condition removed. I cannot of my own accord remove this condition. As I stated in my last letter concerning this item, and mailed to you two days ago, the Smith's will be required to have the property surveyed; this is the time to have these building envelopes and slopes determined. This will create additional costs, but needs to be done as a part of doing business. While the Planning Department tries to respond to requests in a timely fashion workloads, deadlines to hearings and meetings can mean a slight time delay. Please factor this in the next time you contact this office. Cordially, GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT C 1E ler, Sr. Planner 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 03/14/01 WED 11:52 FAX 970 876 0670 • 03.'07/01 12:35:11 PM Crown Peak Northern Greg Butler, Senior Planni r Garfield County Department of Building and Alarming 109 $°i Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • E 003 RECEIVED NAR U 6 AVI COPY RE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF EDWARD E. SMITH PETITION FOR EXEMPTION TO SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. Butler: Thank you for your second letter dated February 20, 2001. Mr, Smith agrees the conditions of approval stated in that letter accurately reflect the substance of the heating before the County Commissions on February 20, 2001. We would_ however, like to be sure there is no confusion regarding section 5 of that letter: Prior to approval of an exemption plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a building envelope meeting the criteria identified in Section 5.04 of the zoning resolution. The building envelope shall be determined by a surveyor and certified by the surveyor [underline added]. it is our understanding that the underlined requirement applies only to the 2,48 acre parcel. Pursuant to § 5.04.01 of the zoning resolution: For lots of two (2) or more acres in size and tracts of and proposed for other methods of development wherein creation of individual lots within said tract is not anticipated, the de1errrirurtiotr of lot slope shall he triode uiilizing<rrcrilrrble iopogrophic mops femphasis added). Mr. Smith agreed at the hearing that the 2.48 acre lot will require the services of a professional engineer to meet the requirements of § 5 04.02 (2) because the site is steep; but Mr. Smith indicated the other sites easily meet the one acre minimum building envelope with less than a 40% slope. ft should therefore be unnecessary for Mr. Smith to incur the expense of having a surveyor determine and certify the building envelope for the five acre paFcets,and topo maps should suffice to meet the requirements. Since your letter does not specify which building envelope must he determined and certified by a surveyor, we want to verify that the Commissioners made no ruling requiring .a procedure ditlerent than that set forth in the zoning resolutions and Mr_ Smith may submit topo maps for the five acre parcels and engage a professional engineer to establish a building envelope for the 2.48 acre parcel Please let us know your perspective on this matter at your earliest convenience. Since Y, Robert W. Ramsey P.O. Box 430 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 379-5733 03/14/01 WED 11:52 FAX 970 876 0670 03/07/01 12:35:1.1 PM Crown Peak Northern 1j002 • • Greg Butler, Senior Planner Garfield County Department of Building and Planning 109 81s Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF EDWARD E. SMITH PETITION FOR EXEMPTION TO SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. Butler: On 03/07/0I we filed a Letter to you requesting clarification on the matter of verifying building envelopes for the Smith exemption [copy attached]. We request a response so we may proceed in a timely manner if there is disagreement. Please call., fax, or write as soon as possible. Thank you in advance. Robert W. Ramsey_ P.O. Box 430 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 379-5733 UI\CLC H%ARCO r11VHL f"LH 1 Mark Bean - this matter was Akre the Board this morning - thought itaw going to be resolved - the applicant has entered int Subdivision Improvements Agreemen th County that says applicant will be responsible for $274,490 worth of improvements - the SIA shows they have completed $147,000 of this but there is no signed statement from a certified engineer. There are two options: 1) Certification by the engineer, or 2) they need to give us the revised check for $274,000. Don DeFord requested this be set over until February 26, 2001 under the Consent Agenda. BUILDING & PLANNING ISSUES: PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR AN SB -35 EXEMPTION FOR EDWARD E. SMITH LOCATED 9 MILES SOUTH OF NEW CASTLE ALONG CR 313. Don DeFord, Greg Butler, Robert Ramsey and Edward Smith were present. Don determined that proper and adequate notification was given to owners of land immediately adjoining and within 200 feet of the proposed exemption, mineral owners and lessees of minerals of record and advised the Commissioners that they were entitled to proceed. Chairman Martin swore in the speakers. Greg Butler presented the following Exhibits: Exhibit A - Proof of Publication Exhibit B - Green and White Returned Receipts Exhibit C - Application and attachments Exhibit D - Zoning Resolutions of 1978 as amended Exhibit E - Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1994 Exhibit F - Project Information and Staff Comment Exhibit G - Letter of concern by neighbor Shirley Sullivan Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A - G into the record. The Smith family owns approximately 927 acres in this area. In order to provide home sites for their children, they would like to divide out three parcels, two -5 acres in size and one 2.48 acres in size. Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of this request for an Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. All representations by the applicant whether written or spoken shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. All school site acquisition fees will be paid and a copy of the receipt made part of this file. 3. All road impact fees will be paid and made part of this file. 4. Prior to signing of the Exemption Plat the applicant will show proof that they have applied to the proper agency for well permits or that a legal entity has been created to share the water from the existing wells on the property and the ditch water rights. All wells will meet the following criteria. 1) That a four hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; 2) A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the acquifers and the static water level; 3) The results of the four hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallows per minute and information showing down draw and recharge; • • 4) A written opinion of the person conducting the wll test that this well should be adequate to supply to the number of proposed lots; 5) An assumption of an average or no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallows of water per person, per day; 6) The water quality be tested by an approved laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria, nitrates and suspended solids; 7) A water sharing agreement will be filed with the exemption plat that defines the right of the property owners to water from the well. 5. Prior to approval of an exemption plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a building envelope meeting the criteria identified in Section 5.04 of the zoning resolution. The building envelope will be determined by a surveyor and certified by the surveyor. 6. Parcels A and B will have a common boundary -line and Parcel A will be extended down CR 313 to the property -line, as shown on the exhibit attached to the staff report. 7. Since Parcels A & B will have a common boundary line, a shared driveway is recommended. 8. Plat Notes: The following issues will need to be included in the covenants of the proposed subdivision: "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owners property boundaries." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C. R. S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances." "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." "The property in question does not own all of the mineral rights and a mineral rights owner has the right to access the property for the purpose of extracting mineral rights, subject to the appropriate local, state and federal regulations." Edward Smith commented on Parcel A & B, Plat A can be bulldozed out and a certified engineer look at. He discussed two concerns with the Commissioners: BLM and DOW have requested access to Divide Creek and the fact that this is a working ranch and one dog will not be enough to control the ranch portion of this property. Mark Bean said they have acknowledged that ranch property is not limited to the one dog. Robert Ramsey responded to Shirley Sullivan mentioned that these concerns have been addressed and there are no concerns as of this date. Mark explained that the property be merged together in order to prevent a split by the County Road. Don DeFord mentioned that an additional plat note could be added that the property cannot be any more exemptions from the definition of subdivision. The applicant agreed this would work better from them. Section C is a moraine from the glazier and not suitable for farm ground. It would make a lot acceptable for a house. A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe and seconded by Commissioner McCown to close a1_ - --__1_1._ 1-------- __ •-,] • ,Garfield County April 24, 2001 Robt. W. Ramsey PO Box 430 New Castle, CO. 81647 RE: EE Smith Exemption Mr. Ramsey: Building & Planning Department Re -opening the EE Smith SB -35 Exemption to modify Condition #5 will be both costly and time- consuming. In order for the Board of County Commissioners to review this request to remove Condition #5 the applicant will have to go through the same noticing process required for the original Exemption process. Attached is the staff report for the request to modify Condition #5 the EE Smith Exemption. As you can see, staff is recommending to the Board of County Commissioners that Condition #5 be neither modified nor removed as originally written in the Staff Report of February 20th, 2001 (enclosed). Either you or your client will have to complete the Petition for Exemption packet (enclosed) and submit the required $300 for staff time. A public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is required. Since this will be a public hearing there is a requirement for proper mailing and property posting. You will need to complete the mailings and newspaper noticing listed below prior to May 6th, 2001 to hit the fifteen -day window. Be very cautious that you meet these requirements. If you see what appears to be an error or point of confusion concerning the legal noticing please call this office at once for clarity. Under Public Notice where I've said Please place the appropriate legal description here, please do not copy this verbatim but actually put the appropriate legal description. The same holds true for the Practical Description, if there is a mailing address please place it in the space provided. If not, state something to the effect of none available. Public Meeting: The date for this public meeting has been set for May 21St, 2001 at 10AM in the Garfield County Courthouse, Room 301. Notice by mail and Property Posting. containing information as described shall be mailed to all owners of record of land immediately joining and within two hundred (200) feet of the proposed exemption, to mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners of record of the land proposed for conversion. The exemption site shall be posted clearly and conspicuously visible from a public right-of-way, with notice signs provided by the Planning Department. All notices shall be mailed at least fifteen (15) and not more than thirty (30) days prior to the meeting. The applicant shall be responsible for mailing the notices and shall present proof of mailing at the hearing. Please review this very carefully; it is the applicant's responsibility to make sure that everything is correct and done correctly. Posting of Property, use the wording here. PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Edward E. Smith has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to review Condition #5 of a previously approved SB -35 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • • Exemption, pursuant to the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 8 in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: Please place the appropriate legal description here Practical Description: Mailing address if any Said review of Condition #5 will allow the applicant to ignore Section 5.04 of the Zoning Resolution as it pertains to building envelopes and severe slopes. All persons affected by the modification to Condition #5 of the previously approved SB -35 Exemption are invited to appear and state their views, endorsements or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meetings, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request to modify Condition #5 of this SB -35 Exemption. This modification to the EE Smith SB -35 Exemption may be viewed at the Planning Department office located in the Garfield County Courthouse, 109-8t Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30AM and 5:OOPM, Monday through Friday. That public hearing on the application for the above SB -35 Exemption modifications has been set for the 21st day of May, 2001 at the hour of 10AM, at the Garfield County Courthouse, 109-8t Street, Suite 301, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County Again, please review the above information very carefully and if you see what appears to be a mistake call this office immediately. Please feel free to contact this office once you and your client have decided whether to request a review of Condition #5 of the EE Smith Exemption or accept Condition #5 as originally written. Cordially, GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT tier, Sr. Planner • • B of CC May 20, 2001 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENT REQUEST: Review of Condition #5 of the EE Smith Exemption APPLICANT: EE Smith 1. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: The Board of County Commissioners approved the EE Smith SB -35 Exemption with the following Conditions and Plat Notes 1. All representations by the applicant whether written or spoken shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. All school site acquisition fees will be paid and a copy of the receipt made part of this file. 3. All road impacts fees will be paid and made part of this file. 4. Prior to signing of the Exemption Plat the applicant will show proof that they have applied to the proper agency for well permits or that a legal entity has been created to share the water from the existing wells on the property and the ditch water rights. All wells will meet the following criteria: 1) That a four hour pump test be performed on the well to be used; 2) A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; 3) The results of the four hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing down draw and recharge; 4) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply to the number of proposed lots; 5) An assumption of an average or no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; 6) The water quality be tested by an approved laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria, nitrates and suspended solids; 7) A water sharing agreement will be filed with the exemption plat that defines the right of the property owners to water from the well. 5. Prior to approval of an exemption plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a building envelope meeting the criteria identified in Section 5.04 of the zoning resolution. The building envelope will be determined by a surveyor and certified by the surveyor. 6. Parcels A and B will have a common boundary -line and Parcel A will be extended down CR 313 to the property -line, as shown on the exhibit attached to the staff report. 7. Since Parcels A and B will have a common boundary line a shared driveway is recommended. Plat Notes: The following issues will need to be included in the covenants of the proposed subdivision: " No open hearth, solid -fuel fireplaces are allowed anywhere within this subdivision exemption. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove, as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated there under, shall be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units shall be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances." "All exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision." "The property in question does not own all of the mineral rights and a mineral rights owner has the right to access the property for the purpose of extracting mineral rights, subject to the appropriate local, state and federal regulations." IL STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, EE Smith, would like to challenge Condition 5 that states: Prior to approval of an exemption plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a building envelope meeting the criteria identified in Section 5.04 of the zoning resolution. The building envelope will be determined by a surveyor and certified by the surveyor. Section 5.04, Supplementary Lot Area Regulations Development Limitation Based on Lot Slope: Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum building envelope of 1 acre in an area that has less than forty percent (40%) slopes; however, a smaller building envelope may be approved by the Board (Board of County Commissioners) after a review of the following which shall be submitted by the applicant: (A) A soils land foundation investigation prepared by a registered, professional engineer. (B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet. (C) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered, professional engineer. (D) A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts and fills in excess of five (5) feet. (E) A detailed re -vegetation plan. All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot and shall provide evidence that all structures and facilities can be built within such building envelope area so as not to disturb any forty percent (40%) slope area. The following shall be conditions of any approval: (A) Foundations shall be designed by and bear the seal of a registered, professional engineer. (B) All final plans required to be submitted by a professional engineer shall be approved in their final form and bear the seal of such registered, professional engineer. It will be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate a preliminary plan that can meet these requirements. (C) For all lots: Driveways, access ways and access easements within the development and on the property of the developer shall have a maximum grade of fourteen percent (14%). Condition 5 is a standard Exemption condition when warranted by potential future use, soils type and steepness. In this case the applicant stated that these lots would be "family -only." However, unforeseeable change in the economic climate could force the sale of these parcels to persons outside the family. Secondly, the soil, Bucklon-Inchau loams, is shallow and well -drained making erosion danger severe where the slopes are steep. This same steepness can also limit community development. While a USGS topographical map with this property delineated was part of the file it is difficult to determine build able lot slope and size from these maps. 2 • i The applicant will have to have the property surveyed and the created parcels delineated. Staff felt when drafting the report that soils type and steepness coupled with the fact that these lots could be sold off in the future warranted this measure of safety. IIL SUGGESTED FINDINGS: 1. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, when the EE Smith Exemption was granted, was extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the meeting. 2. That Condition #5 was based on requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations, as amended, and required for the approval of the SB -35 Exemption. 3. Condition #5 was placed on the EE Smith for the above stated reasons and to continue regulating Exemption requests in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners Retain Condition #5 of the EE Smith SB -35 Exemption as originally written. A:\Salzman Disk EE Smith Condition 5 3 October 19th, 2000 Robert W. Ramsey PO Box 430 New Castle, CO. 81647 RE: Exemption Request — Smith To Whom It May Concern: Garfield County Building & Planning Department Your Exemption Request Application, received by the Garfield County Planning Department on September 12, 2000 has been found to be in substantial compliance with the regulations set forth in the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 8. This determination does not imply approval of the Sketch Plan, nor does it imply that the plan is complete. Additional information may be required and review agencies will have the opportunity to comment on this proposal. In addition, your application will have to go before the appropriate elected and appointed boards. Cordially, Garfield County Planning Department Greg Butler Sr. Planner 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 November 27, 2000 Robert W. Ramey P.O. Box 430 New Castle, CO. 81647 RE: Smith SB -35 Exemption Dear Mr. Ramey: Garfield County Building & Planning Department The Garfield County Planning Department has reviewed the Smith SB -35 and would like to schedule this item before the Board of County Commissioners (B of CC) January 15, 2001. Because this is an Exemption Request a public meeting before the Board of County Commissioners is required. Since this will be a public meeting there is a requirement for proper mailing and property posting. You will need to complete the mailings and newspaper noticing listed below prior to December 29th, 2000 to hit the fifteen -day window. Be very cautious that you meet these requirements. If you see what appears to be an error or point of confusion concerning the legal noticing please call this office at once for clarity. Under Public Notice where I've said Please place the appropriate legal description here, please do not copy this verbatim but actually put the appropriate legal description. The same holds true for the Practical Description, if there is a mailing address please place it in the space provided. If not state something to the effect of none available. Public Meeting: The date for this public meeting has been set for January 15t, 2001 at 1:30 PM in the Garfield County Courthouse, Room 301. Notice by mail and Property Posting, containing information as described shall be mailed to all owners of record of land immediately joining and within two hundred (200) feet of the proposed exemption, to mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners of record of the land proposed for conversion. The exemption site shall be posted clearly and conspicuously visible from a public right-of-way, with notice signs provided by the Planning Department. All notices shall be mailed at least fifteen (15) and not more than thirty (30) days prior to the meeting. The applicant shall be responsible for mailing the notices and shall present proof of mailing at the meeting. Please review this very carefully; it is the applicant's responsibility to make sure that everything is correct and done correctly. Posting of Property, use the wording here. PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Edward E. Smith has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to review an SB -35 Exemption Request, pursuant to the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, Section 8 in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • • Legal Description: Please place the appropriate legal description here Practical Description: Mailing address if any Said Petition for an SB -35 Exemption will create three parcels of land, two being 5 -acres in size and the other being 2.48 -acres in size. All persons affected by the proposed SB -35 Exemption are invited to appear and state their views, endorsements or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meetings, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for Petition for a SB -35 Exemption. This SB -35 Exemption application may be viewed at the office of the Planning Department located at the Garfield County Courthouse, 109-8t Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30AM and 5:OOPM, Monday through Friday. That public hearing on the application for the above SB -35 Exemption has been set for the 15th day of January, 2001 at the hour of 1:30PM, at the Garfield County Courthouse, 109-8t Street, Suite 301, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County Again, please review the above information very carefully and if you see what appears to be a mistake call this office immediately. At least ten (10) days (1/05/2001) before the scheduled B of CC meeting I will need no less that 10 full copies of the Smith SB -35 Exemption request. Cordially, GARFIELD COUN Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT Greg Butler, Sr. Planner Attachments: Staff Report and Comment Section 8