HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportGARFIELD trOUNTY
PLANNINE DEPARTMENT
GLENWtrOD SPRtNGS, COLURADO Al60l
2OI4 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-EJ212September 6, 1978
I'IEMO T0: Pl-anning Commission
FROM: Stephanie Andreasen
SLIBJECT: Rive::bend Ranchettes
This pneliminary plan submittal fon the Rive::bend Ranchettes involves
thnee ::esidential lots and two (2) commenical lots adjoining the pnesent
Riverbend Development. The nesidential lots have existing structunes on them
which are presently senved by we1ls and existing septic systems. One of the
commencial lots has a stable and the other is vacant. It has been pnoposed
that these five (S) tots be plated and added to the Riverbend PUD.
The location and general anea of the commercial lots were indieated in
the oniginal PUD. Howeve::, the area of both tots has been inc:reased in this
submittal, the vacant 1ot fuom 0.33 to 1.0 acnes and the stable f:rom 2.0 to
2.73 acnes. Because of these changes, a zone change will be necessary. There-
fone, it is necommended that the Planning Commission exclude these two lots
fnom its considenation of the Riverbend Ranchettes pneliminary p1an. lle have
been tol-d that a zone change request will be submitted by the ownen at a laten
date.
Thene are two (2) aneas of concenn ::elating to the three nesidential lots
in the Riverbend Ranchettes:
It has been pnoposed that these lots be connected to cent::aI water and
sewel? systems that senve the Riverbend Development. Mn. Ham Duncan, the developer
and Jim .Cunningham the owner of the wate:: and sewer systems have not yet come to
terms on how this is to be handled. It is particulanly important that this be
resolved because one of the thnee (3) pnoposed lots is less than the 2.0 acnes
nequined in onden to have on l-ot septic system and weII. The only way that this
lot can be bnought into confonrnance is to pnovide off 1ot waten o:n sewer
The othen pnoblem with this subdivision is that the pnotective covenants
appnoved for the Rivenbend Development do not wonk for the Rive::bend Ranchettes.
These will have to be amended befo::e the suldivision can be appncved.
f have talked with both parties, explained the situation and necommended
that they get togethen on these two (2) issues and pnepane written agneements
befo::e coming to the public heaning. It is not the nesponsibility of the Planning
Commission to senve as mediaton in these matters. Thenefone, it is necommended
that if these differ:ence aue not nesolved by the date of the meeting, that the
Public Heaning be continuted until the following month. It is funthen recommended
that if at that time, things ane not settled, that the pneliminary plan submittal
be denied.
SLA/tn