Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 CorrespondenceBUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 22, 2002 Mr. Kent Schluter Dangling Rope Contractors P.O. Box 775671 Steamboat, CO 80477 Re: Dangling Rope Subdivision Exemption Dear Mr. Schuller: This letter is to inform you that your conditional approval for the Dangling Rope Subdivision Exemption has expired. The deadline to complete conditions of approval expired on December 31, 2001 therefore this is a dead application. If you decide at a later date to go through the exemption process, then a new application will need to be filed to start the process over again. If you have any questions please feel free to contact our office at the phone number listed below. Sincerely, Cathi Edinger Planning Technician cc: Kit Lyon 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 • • 1. PUBLIC MEETINGS: REQUEST FOR REVIEW - DANGLING ROPE CONTRACTORS, INC., EXEMPTION. LOCATION: 6434 COUNTY ROAD 309, PARACHUTE, CO. APPLICANT: KENT AND CAROL SCHLUTER Kit Lyon, Attorney Larry Mencer and Kent Schluter were present. Don reviewed the requirements for notification for a Public Meeting with the Schluters and determined they were in order and advised the Board they were entitled to proceed. Kit Lyon submitted a letter to update the Board on the current status of the Dangling Rope extension which was conditionally approved on September 18, 2000, and to present to the Board the applicant's third request for a time extension. Kit reviewed the project site, the original application, the amended proposal and stated to date, the applicant has neither obtained an adequate easement to CR 309 or CR 320, nor has an adequate road to 320 been installed. She quoted from the Subdivision Regulations Section 8.52(C) "The Board shall not grant an exemption unless all lots created will have legal access to a public right of way and any necessary access easement have been obtained or are in the process of being obtained; and Section 8:52(F) - The Board shall not grant an exemption unless provision has been made for any required road or storm drainage improvements. From Section 8:52(G) - The Board shall not grant an exemption unless fire protection has been approved by the appropriate fire district and impact fees are paid; Section 8:52(D) - The Board shall not grant an exemption unless provision has been made for adequate source of water in terms of both the legal and physical quality, quantity, and dependability, and a suitable type of sewage disposal to serve each lot proposed. In addition Kit said staff has received numerous phone calls and visits from various parties interested in this application. Apparently, the Arnetts have invested time and money in installation of a road to CR 320, with hopes to buy the new 8 acre exemption lot. Elaine Johnson, who formerly owned the property, has raised questions about the adequacy of the well pump test, and has concerns that the pond for fire protection does not have a year round source of water. The Schluters have stated that if they are unable to finalize the exemption and sell the new 8 acre lot, they are in danger of losing the entire property due to financial difficulties. Action Required: The Board of County Commissioners must decide whether to: 1. Find that mitigating circumstances have necessitated a time extension be granted to the applicant regardless of the policy to deny extension beyond a year; 2. Or, find that the applicant was informed of the policy to deny time extension beyond one year, and thus deny the request for a time extension and allow the conditional approval to expire; 3. Or, find that the representations made by the applicant and in the application were in error, and that the applicant can not meet the conditions of approval concerning fire protection and access, and thus allow the approval to expire. Staffs Recommendation: Based on the information presented in this report, and #3 above, Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners allow the approval to expire. Applicant Input: Attorney Larry Mencer - there are several items in the memorandum prepared by Kit Lyon that he responded to: Access Issue - this was created by an error in the legal description in the original conveyance documents from Elaine Johnson to the Dangling Rope Construction in 1999 and the error was discovered this summer about the time the 2nd extension application was done. He notified the title company and requested that they correct these description errors. There has been some action was taken in court to correct the legal description, however he commented that this can be done through the exercise of correction deeds and Ms. Johnson has been contacted and requested that those correction deeds be done - he even did them and sent them to her. Recently, word was received from Ms. Johnson that she held out for quite a while wanting some other concessions on the part of Mr. Schulter which he has agreed to and now a resolution has been reached the correction deed can be obtained which will solve the access problem as well as the current problem with he existing legal description to the property. Larry said he anticipated this would be corrected shortly. Reference was made to the last page of Kit's memorandum is a sketch of the map of the property and Larry also showed the Commissioners a portion of the submitted plat showing the sections. Dangling Rope property is the NE NE corridor; the Parcel No. 1 is the 8 • • acre subdivision exemption parcel; the access which is proposed goes along the top of the SE SW and SW SE and is shown as a 20' wide access easement in Book 1154 at 900 along the North edge; a 30' wide access in Book 1151 at 248 along the East ditch. Those are the deeds which they are correcting. They will reflect a 30' easement across both the north and the east which will then get to the property which is shown by Dangling Rope. At that point, the roadway then goes and continues across the northeast to Parcel No. 1. The road has been constructed and has been completed to the property. The fire district examined it and submitted a request for turnouts and a graveled surface which the turnouts have been put in but the gravel surface has not been placed, arrangements are in place to have this done by the person interested in purchasing the property. Mr. Schulter commented that one of the things that happened on the easements, the easements were there even when he made the original application to get to CR 320; unbeknown to myself or the granter of those easements, the County has a stipulation they these needed to be 30'; he was given 20' at the time he purchased the property. Fire Protection - this deals with the access and the road issue - the requirement in the permit application was lining the existing pond to provide adequate protection. When the Fire Chief examined the property, he submitted a letter on August 10th requesting several different solutions to several items for fire protection. His client got confused as to what he needed to do, so Larry contacted Kit and based on that discussion she suggested to proceed as in the proposed in the original commitment which was done and delivered the required material on the site. When the property was purchased there was the irrigation right which is 2.9 CFS on the creek; that irrigation right was being used by Ms. Johnson by running the water through an existing pond and with Mr. Schuler's understanding at the time of purchase that the pond was full and could be kept full year-round. Apparently Ms. Johnson notified the Commissioners and the Fire District that she didn't think this was the case - she didn't inform Larry or Mr. Schulter of this fact however. Had Ms. Johnson done so, they would have had time to go to the Water Commission and resolve the issue. Even if the irrigation right is correct, they would still be in a position to obtain an amended use to allow for fire protection. But, they would need an opportunity to file under the water rights to get that done. Domestic Water - they have been submitted from Syracuse Drilling regarding the 4 hour test and these were submitted to Kit. The initial statement provided by Syracuse Drilling did not specify that the test he had run described the existing conditions. He verified that he ran 4 -hour test and it pumped 7 gals per minute which was sufficient using the existing pump and the 1,000 gallon storage tank which is already on the property. Exhibit E - Water Quality Test Results were submitted into the record. Other Issues in the Memo - Previous Extensions - Dangling Rope has a contract for purchase of the 8 acre parcel by the Arnetts. Larry agreed with the statements by Kit regarding the previous extensions. There are obvious mitigating circumstances which is the reason why Dangling rope has not been able to complete this; a lack of the proper description on the original deed and easement deed and the difficult to obtain the cooperation of the previous owners to get these resolved. Additional, there has been other issues that have come up at the last minute issues creating a difficulty to be timely. Easements - Commissioner McCown - noted the discrepancies showing the 30' wide easement on the SW SE corner showing a 25' on the NE NE corner. The way those two intersect where the two corners meet, one is on one side of the quarter boundary and one is on the other - therefore, is there going to be a clear joining of those accesses? Larry - yes, the access on that's on the west side of the NE NE is a dedicated easement from Dangling Rope to the new owner and that is 25'. They have gone to 30' on this adjacent property on the north and the east because that was discussed at the time he purchased the property. But there is common ground where these can be platted. Mr. Schulter explained how there will meet - as the 30' easement comes up it will turn and come into his 25' easement and where the two parcels join, for about 70'. It is approximately 200 of common boundary between those two and at that point there is 55' easement. Mark Bean clarified that 25' is minimum for adequate for road frontage onto a public road. Fire Department - Fire Suppression - Mr. Schulter - Additionally, on the Fire Department's request for fire protection storage, they made two other requests - one was to put a connection into the current irrigation 3" pipe so they could pull up, connect and have instant water supply. Then, after he said that, they proceeded to do that for them and he came up with another solution which is common practice and are requiring everybody to put in a 2000 gals of storage • • underground because it never freezes and always accessible. The proceeded to do that and thought he was meeting the conditions of the fire district to have adequate fire suppression necessary - he didn't find out until the last week of this extension that he still needed to build the pond despite the 2000 gallon storage tank. Kit clarified that after the time extension was granted, Mr. Schulter met with her. Kit also met with the Fire District - no matter, Mr. Schulter had to go with the approval of the County and therefore the pond was needed in addition to the 2000 gallon storage tank. Mark Bean - explained that the ditch Mr. Schulter had proposed is not year-round water source and irrigation water rights do not allow use for fire protection; a well can be dug for fire protection if it's identified as such. Water rights - Commissioner McCown - vested water, looking at the map there is already a single family with detached garage there and this well is serving water to that residents, and do we have a copy of the well permit to allow for a second residence? Do we have a well -sharing agreement? Kit verified they have an exempt well permit for up to three single family homes. Larry Mercer commented they do not have the either the well -sharing agreement or the road maintenance agreements, just as the County does not have the final draft of the plat as there are a couple of plat notes that need to be added. These three documents have not been submitted to the County but they are documents they generate once they clear up the access issue. Motion Commissioner McCown made a recommendation to grant an extension until January 1, 2002 specifying this will be that last extension. Larry Mercer mentioned it will take 120 days for water court action. Commissioner McCown inquired as to why this process wasn't started prior to today. Larry Mercer explained that 1) this pond was in existence and was full all the time. Commissioner McCown clarified that if he makes a recommendation and we may go to the underground tank... Larry Mercer's understanding regarding water court was related to filling the pond. If domestic water does not additional water court action... Kit said she assumed if the Conditions of Approval we'd have to do it at a public meeting. No public notice has been met for today's meeting. Commissioner McCown - since there is no quantity on the pond that's spoken of, I can specify a 2000 gallon plastic pond if I wish that will not freeze and that will suffice. Don DeFord - the original condition of approval was per the Fire Department recommendation which was a lined pond. Kit - referenced Condition No. 10 "The fire protection pond must be sealed with Benonite and be demonstrated to hold water, and the dry hydrant shall be installed, prior to signing of the final plat." It doesn't specify the size, freezing or not freezing. Commissioner McCown - there's got to be a pond sealed with Benonite and if we can assure a 2000 gallon flowable tank buried under his house. Kit clarified that her understanding was they would have to be back to a public meeting to change the conditions of approval and so informed the applicant. Don DeFord - Kit is correct about that, but since we are already talking about the Water Court approval that will probably require 120 days anyway whether you're talking about the pond or the tank assuming it would be filled by the irrigation supply. Commissioner McCown inquired as to why the tank could not be filled from the domestic supply. Water court - requires 120 days - filled by irrigation supply - could be filled with domestic well. Don didn't think it could. Commissioner McCown - it is a one-time fill. Mr. Schulter - that is very possible to do that, there is already 1000 gallon storage on that particular property and it would take very little work to make it to 2000 gallons storage that's dedicated just for fire protection. Also, during the summer according, while the irrigation water is running is to put that buried reservoir right next to the existing 3" water line, fill it up and it's there for the duration - it's accessible, it's located and marked. Commissioner McCown - unless you get a court decree allowing you to fill that out of the irrigation ditch you can not do it. That's the whole issue and that's both of them. • • Mr. Schulter asked the Commissioners to do something with the reasonable access to water [he could take the hose and run it 24 hours a day all the time] so whether or not he put it in a basin or let it run across his grass, does this really matter? Don DeFord - Yes, it does. Commissioner Stowe - it matters to us. Mr. Schulter - then I would tell you I would fill it out of the existing well. No one really shares this water with him - the river is next to his property. Don DeFord - suggested that given some uncertainty on which way to go on fire protection, the tank makes more sense practically if Mr. Schulter can do that, however, suggested to make a short extension of time now to allow them to amend their existing exemption because if it's amended then there is a new 120 day period that would rum from any approval of an amended exemption plat. Kit - it seems a new approval would be a much better way to go. Don DeFord - that is a new approval and if there are any other issues we need to address or change that could be done at the same time. Commissioner McCown - but that wouldn't entail a new application? Don - no, it doesn't actually, but there might be enough changes that the applicant would have to address that - it would depend on the number of alterations. Commissioner McCown - so it's new noticing, it's new everything. Don agreed. Larry Mencer - inquired as to the time frame on that. It seems the only real issue they have is filling the pond. Don said he was only making this recommendation in light of Commissioner McCown position saying that a tank would be a better approach, if you want to go with a pond which is the.... Commissioner McCown - a pond is a moot point because we're clearly going to be beyond his recommended extension time to get through the Water Court. If you're talking 120 days to get through the court, he was not going recommend the Board extend it beyond December 3 lst. If you can get a water decree out of the State Engineer's Office stating you can fill that pond or tank for fire suppression for 2000 gallons out of your existing well, that would meet the fire department's recommendation. Mark Bean - it's still requires re -notice to do something formal like that. Larry Mercer said they tried to talk about changing this application and were told they couldn't do that. Mark - you were never told that. You were told that you would could amend the approval by going back and reopening the hearing as we're suggesting now. It's amending what you have now arguably by reopening the hearing, yes, you do reopen all the issues by this but the majority of these issues have already been dealt with. Commissioner McCown - that's starting over. Chairman Martin - you are looking at is an amended recommendation by the fire department to be able to live with that as well. Larry Mencer - we'll need them to verify which of the three but thought they could get this and asked the time -frame. Kit - it requires a 30 day notice for a new hearing so the soonest possibility for a new hearing would be in late November. Don - and that's if any additional information were received by ... Kit said she needs any new information 2 weeks prior to the public meeting so she can add it to the staff report. Don suggested this would not take any longer than trying to go through Water Court. Larry Mercer said his concern is that the former owner had the pond there and as long as Mr. Schulter can remember and every indication Ms. Johnson gave was that the pond was there and she filled it every year and it stayed there. Kit Lyon has checked with the Water Court or engineer and the indication is that she didn't have the right to do this. Now we have to go back in and get a change of use to allow us to fill that pond. Commissioner McCown - was it for the specific purpose of fire protection or was she not allowed to fill that impoundment for irrigation purposes. But the Water Court said she was not allowed to fill the pond, period - that was an illegal detention. Mark Bean - our understanding was the use of the irrigation water for fire purposes was not something that was consistent with the pond. As far as the issue of filling the pond, we don't have the answer. • • Commissioners McCown - this is where he wanted to go with this - the pond can be filled and it can have a dry hydrant in it or it can have a fitting in the bottom of it that they could drain that pond, is that not true? Not for fire protection. Commissioner McCown - clarified he didn't say for fire protection, he said for irrigation purposes. Don DeFord - then they haven't met the condition of approval providing fire protection. Kit said she never received information on the irrigation rights and doesn't know if they have the right according to the Division of Water Resources to fill it for irrigation purposes or stock watering purposes or anything. Commissioner McCown - historic use doesn't carry any validity. Sprinkler systems are also an option - it takes a lot less water storage. Mark Bean - Kit hasn't suggested that. Larry Mercer - didn't they include that option in their letter? Mr. Schulter - if we reapply and start all this process over again, not only does he take the chance of the Commissioners saying no we don't like that application. Commissioner Stowe - there's no guarantees in life. Kit said she didn't remember sprinklers ever being any part of their recommendation, before the approval at least and subsequent recommendations, but it wasn't proposed in the application. Chairman Martin - there was a recommendation in the letter. Mr. Schulter - in the August 10th letter he did discuss sprinklers. Kit - this was after the application had been approved. Commissioner McCown - but if you reopen it, sprinklers are a possibility; all of the rural fire departments recommend sprinklers now because it will knock down the fire in an area in the house with the least amount of water - you probably don't have to have that much storage, just enough to satisfy their sprinkler needs. Larry Mencer asked if that would apply or require sprinkling in the new house. Commissioner McCown said we've been as low as 500 gallons on sprinklers. Whatever it takes to meet the requirements of the sprinkling system, the fire department will tell you that. Don DeFord - Keep in mind on exemptions, at the end of the approval process you make that decision, you can override the fire department if you want to, so you can limit it to the new home is they choose. Commissioner Stowe added that the applicant is in charge - whether the Board approves it or not and they can not tell him. Larry Mercer advised his client that he was okay with the acreage issue. His inclination would be to get this application amended as fast as they can. He presumed we are only taking in terms of those issues that need to be amended, the rest of the issues, while they can still be raised, are still going to be the same conditions and we won't have to go back in on those. Don DeFord - that is really what you'd request in your requested amendment except where you're requesting a change, leave everything just the way it was. Chairman Martin - so that's what the request is - continuance to reopen? Kit asked for clarification - is there a new fee that needs to be filed and a does a new application need to be submitted or is it just going to be a letter basically detailing the amendments. Don - in terms of the fee we've historically left this to the Board, on the question of waiver of fees as to what they have to do to apply, what form it is he wasn't certain but it would be the same that's been approved with whatever changes they're asking for. He suggested addressing the fee issue now if that's the way the applicant chooses to go and find out the position of the Board on that. He said he was also asking that the extension be granted to such a time that would allow them to apply and be heard. Commissioner McCown inquired if December 31st would still be adequate for that. Don - they are hoping to be heard before that, but this may be a good approach. Mark Bean - yes if they get their application... Commissioner McCown clarified that December 31st would be the outside, if it happens before that, that's great. Motion Commissioner McCown made a motion we continue, it's not a continuance Don DeFord - you are extending their current approval to December 31, 2001 and if they chose, they don't have to reapply, they can try to meet whatever we're doing now by December 31st if they chose to do that. But if they chose to apply, I'm assuming you would waive re-application fees. • • Commissioner McCown - yes that would be my intention and I would include that in my motion. Commissioner Stowe - I'll seconded that. Chairman Martin - to continue the approval till December 31, 2001 waiving any fees if they wish to reapply. Commissioner McCown - amend. Commissioner Stowe - apply or reapply. Chairman Martin - right. Commissioner Stowe - now you need a roll call. Commissioner McCown - aye Commissioner Stowe - aye Chairman Martin - aye. Kit requested all the water and fire documents returned. • • GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department August 31, 2001 Mr. Kent Schluter Dangling Rope Contractors P.O. Box 1237 Rifle, CO 81650 Re: Dangling Rope Subdivision Exemption Dear Kent: The purpose of this letter is to follow up our telephone conversation that occurred about two weeks ago. I informed you I would discuss the status of your exemption application with our County Attorney's office and follow up with you. The County Attorney's office has confirmed what I told you previously: that all conditions of approval must be met prior to 9/18/01. Please refer to the attached letter, dated 9/18/00, which lists all the conditions of approval in detail. All materials submitted to this office on or before 5:00 p.m. September 18, 2001, will be accepted. If said materials are found to be insufficient evidence of having literally met the list of conditions, and the 9/18/01 deadline has passed, the conditional approval shall expire. No supporting materials will be accepted by this office after 5:00 p.m. Sept. 18, 2001. Please understand that we have no authority or flexibility at a staff level to change any conditions of approval, or grant any extensions of time. If you have any questions, or different understandings, please contact me without delay. Please understand that any conditions which require property improvements be installed (such as roads or ponds, etc.) these improvements must be installed prior to 5:00 p.m. 9/18/01, and proof of such installation shall be submitted to this office by the same deadline. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Kit Lyon, Senior Planner Cc without attachment: Cathi Edinger, Office Manager David Blair, Grand Valley Fire District Jim Leuthauser, Asst. County Attorney Mark Bean, Planning Director Phone: 945-8212 / Fax: 384-5004 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 LAWRENCE M. MINCER ATTORNEY AT LAW • • 'RECEIVED SEP 1 2 2001 September 12, 2001 Kit Lyon Senior Planner Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Tangling Rope, Inc. Subdivision Exemption Dear Kit: 811 Colorado Avenue Post Office Box 850 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (970) 945-5448 Fax (970) 945-5475 Kent Schluter has requested that I write you concerning the above referenced application. I have reviewed the subdivision exemption resolution, the preliminary exemption plat and discussed these matters with you recently by phone. It appears that Dangling Rope has met all of the requirements for the exemption except for the following: 1. Providing legal access to the property. 2. Completion of the requirements of the fire protection district. 3. Clarification of any storage requirements for the domestic water. The access problems are the result of errors in the easement deeds from Elaine Johnson to Dangling Rope. We have made several requests of Ms. Johnson to correct these problems but she has been very uncooperative. Tt is our understanding that she has also contacted your office objecting to this exemption for various reasons which she had not explained to us. We have made a formal demand upon her to correct these problems and expect a response shortly. Mr. Schluter has, at considerable expense, completed construction of the road. The location and width are satisfactory to the Grand Valley Fire Protection District, and addition work as been done since its August 10th letter. We have arranged to have the plat completed to show the final location, but need the proper easements from Ms. Johnson. Kit Lyon September 12, 2001 Page 2 • • As you know, Mr. Schluter has been further frustrated by the changes to the fire protection requirements requested by representatives of the fire protection district. In the letter dated August 10, 2001 from Chief Blair to you, he limits the options to (1) a separate local supply for each residence, or (2) a pressurized supply for all residences. He strongly recommends a fire protection sprinkler systems for both residences, but it is not clear how this would affect the other two options. When we discussed this by phone, you said the County would not change the requirement in the original resolution to seal the existing pond. As soon as the easements are received, Mr. Schluter will seal the pond, unless you tell us to do otherwise. Mr. Schluter is checking with Syracuse Drilling on any pump and storage requirements for the well. We expect clarification of this in the next week. Because of these problems, it appears we will not be able to make the September 18, 2001 expiration date of the current permit. We would therefore ask that you consider this a request for additional time to complete the remaining requirements and present this to the County Commissioners. Both Mr. Schluter and I are willing to be present when the matter is before the Commissioners, and we will of course meet with you to discuss the matter further if you desire. Yours very truly, LMM/dv cc: Don DeFord Kent Schluter Vtp)-Y • • GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department August 31, 2001 Mr. Kent Schluter Dangling Rope Contractors P.O. Box 1237 Rifle, CO 81650 Re: Dangling Rope Subdivision Exemption Dear Kent: The purpose of this letter is to follow up our telephone conversation that occurred about two weeks ago. I informed you I would discuss the status of your exemption application with our County Attorney's office and follow up with you. The County Attorney's office has confirmed what I told you previously: that all conditions of approval must be met prior to 9/18/01. Please refer to the attached letter, dated 9/18/00, which lists all the conditions of approval in detail. All materials submitted to this office on or before 5:00 p.m. September 18, 2001, will be accepted. If said materials are found to be insufficient evidence of having literally met the list of conditions, and the 9/18/01 deadline has passed, the conditional approval shall expire. No supporting materials will be accepted by this office after 5:00 p.m. Sept. 18, 2001. Please understand that we have no authority or flexibility at a staff level to change any conditions of approval, or grant any extensions of time. If you have any questions, or different understandings, please contact me without delay. Please understand that any conditions which require property improvements be installed (such as roads or ponds, etc.) these improvements must be installed prior to 5:00 p.m. 9/18/01, and proof of such installation shall be submitted to this office by the same deadline. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Kit Lyon, Senior Planner Cc without attachment: Cathi Edinger, Office Manager David Blair, Grand Valley Fire District Jim Leuthauser, Asst. County Attorney Mark Bean, Planning Director Phone: 945-8212 / Fax: 384-5004 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • • Memo To: Board of County Commissioners From: Kit Lyon, Planning Department CC: Kent & Carol Schluter Date: 04/30/01 Re: [Click here and type subject] of Garfield County Building & Planning Department The Planning Department is in receipt of a request for an extension of 120 days to complete the conditions of approval of the Dangling Rope Exemption. The exemption was conditionally approved at a public meeting on Septemeber 18, 2000. The Schluters were granted a first extension from 1/16/01 to 5/16/01. Staff recommends that the Schluters be granted a second extension until 9/18/01, with the understanding that is has been the Board's policy not to grant extensions beyond one year. • Page 1