HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Correspodence-Additional Information'.i!
.::::'=!=-+-_-'.--'---.-----'--- :-J:
l$ ;u,
^,t\ i\..'II} I\ i5\I ts i\."li)a\itN" \i I., lr. \,"i: ls r",tlN rr I'rs _\
\\-..r'1 \ t\ \
:\[Rx J\ .tr
* (^''
-i- ij\':
{l)
\N
N
qJNI
. r----- *l : :.. .=---!::--:-r-=--:j=
,= T Ny:NII }iILI\$-N; Rnt \ { \{
\\ i't\\ .\i\ t'^ \' $' I t
t$ $silrrNi$,.t$$\ \N$ l$*\ *
$
=N N .N .N)$ NYs
'': -.^;- ;:-. .--..;---: ;--;j-:3; I j;*."
rlt\(\rJ\rs\-. N
*,, ]l N-*JF \\-.\ I\.\
-L \\\\
$\'N. I\
sI\a-\,sN s'NN\q\'\
rN
N:--' N
\\{SN- \\
.1.._LrniL,l l.).),rilrl lll! !ilLtillt!'! i\) []l('L'!l\ ilt:.:i..(Li\i\il
2. Begin planning, engineering and right-of-rvay studics to four-lilne, rvith a median, Ili-qhway'l-33
from Highway 82 to ltlain Street in Carbondale.
3. Continue working on a four lane for llighway 82 to Aspen.
John West, Glenwood Springs City lr,lanager, requested:
I. Replacement with better signal lights at 8th and 9th Strcets on Grand Avenue, llould recommend
ones with left turn cycle.
2. New traffic lj.ghts at 10th or llth and Grand Avenue.
3. Incorporation of accel/deceleration lanes at I4th Street and Grand Avenue rvith median to control
turning movements.
4. Continued study of a Highway 82 bypass through Glenwood.
5. Consideration of tearing up and repaving Highrvay 82 from 6th Street to 23rd Street and replacing
curbing and striping.
other town and county requests to be as listed in letter of Sept. 20,1976, to Club 20.
The public hearing continued from December 7th was held for the zone change to PUD for Riverbend Subdivision
and for preliminary plat approval. This is a joint public hearing rvith the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the County Commissioners. Hamilton Duncan, developer, and Bob Wamsley, engineer, present.
County Planner Bob ltritkowski submitted proof of publication of notice of the hearing and proof of notifi-
catlon to adjacent landowners. There are three private landorrners and the BLll and Forest Service. Both
Forest Service and BLIt'l have given waivers of notice. Mr. Witkowski reviewed the project. He discussed
the fact that the subdivision is located in two school districts and he recommended that it a1l be in
one for practical purposes. Donation of land for the school site lras discussed. For final plat approl'al,
the change in school boundaries will be required. Any site selection must be contingent upon the ability
to purchase additional land to allow for a larger site. The State Dept. of lvater Resources had no objec-tion. USGS had some objections to Phase V and they will be worked out at the time of preliminary plat
approval for Phase V. Hamilton Duncan stated that they have drilled five rvater wells which have been
punped and tested. Phase V is the only part that is currently agricultural land to be developed, except
for the school site. Mr. Duncan asked about protection against dorrn zoning. He was informed that that
is always a right the county keeps. Mr. Witkowski presented his conditions for approval by the Planning
Commission. He added that the Planning Commission must find this project to be in conformance viith the
1968 General Plan. Mr, Duncan questioned why the convenience store was delayed to Phase V. After dis-
cussion as to why limit it at all but rather let be governed by need, it was agreed that the condj.tion
be changed to readrrwhen need demonstrated to the Planning Commission".
Dale Albertson, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, appointed Ed Cheler.iski as a voting member in
place of Dr. Carter Jackson, who was absent. Dick trlartin moved that the request for a zone change to
Planned Unit Development be granted with the follorving conditions: l) Settlement ponds and filtration
devices be included in the design of the storm drainage systen if the county finds that increased run-off
from the project poses a pollution hazard; 2) Planning Commission finds this project to be in general
conformance with the 1968 County General Plan; 3) The commercial convenience store shor.n on the the PUD
plan be included in development when the need is demonstrated to the Planning Commission; 4) The fireprotection system be designed so as to provide a minimum of 60 lbs. per square inch static line pressure
and 500 gallons per minute volume of flow to all lots platted in the project. Seconded by Arnold Uackley.
Itotion carried unanimously.
Dick lYlartin moved approval of the pretiminary plat r,rith the following conditions: 1) Approval of the
final plat is subject to consolidation of the entire Riverbend project into one school district; 2) Thefire protection system be designed so as to provide a minimum of 60 lbs. per square inch s.tatic line
pressure and 500 gallons per minute volume of flow to all lots platted in the project; '3) Approval ofthe preliminary plan is subject to the approval of the request for PUD zoning by the Board of County
Commissioners. Seconded by Dotti.e Pretti. Motion carried unaninously.
Upon recornmendation of the Planning Commission, and subject to the conditions listed in the recomrnendation,
ItIr. Mattivi moved that the request for a zone change to PUD be granted and that the County Planner beinstructed to write a Resolution. Seconded by Mr. Hil1. Nlotion camied unanimously. Irrr. Ilattivi moved
approval of the preliminary plat for Riverbend Subdivision, subject to the conditions listed in the
recomrnendation by the Planning Commission. Seconded by l.lr. Hi11. ltlotion carried unanimously,
Ilr. Mattivi moved approvat of the minutes of the meeting of November 29. Seconded by l'h. Hill. llotion
carried. Mr. Cerise abstained as he was not present at the meeting. ['lr. trlattivi moved approval of the
minutes of the meeting of December 6. Seconded by lrlr. Hil1. Ilotion carried unanimously. NIr. iUattivi
moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of December 7. Seconded by l'lr. Hill. l'lotion carried
unan imous 1y.
Carpet bids were discussed. If it is a choice of carpet for the Commissionersr room or improvements tothe problem of the noise in the office of the Administrative Assistant, I'lr. Vetasquez felt the noise
problen should have priority. Ilr. It{attivi moved that the lorv bid of $20f6.00 from l{alt,s Custom Carpet
Service be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Hi11. l"lotion carried unanimously. l'1r. Smallwood was instructedto check on improvements for sound in the Administrative Assistantts office.
Mrs. Piper informed the Commissioners of a request to salvage at the landfill. The Comrnissioners were
unaninous in denying this request for safety reasons.
Ittr. HiIl moved adoption of Resolution No. 76-77 voiding outstanding warrant #21574 for the Department of
Social Services. Seconded by Mr. trlattivi. Ir.lotion carri.ed unanimously.
Resolution No. 76-77
WHEREAS, the below-listed warrants of the Garfield County Department of Social Services have not been
presented for payment;
AND IVHEREAS, it appears that said warrants should be cancelled by administrative action of the Boardof County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, thatthe below-listed warrants should be and the same are hereby ordered cancelled and the appropriate notation
made in the books of the Garfield County Department of Social Services.
BE IT FURTHER RES0LVED that in the event said warrants should be presented for payment, formal action
(4) Inclusion of provision in tne PTan that engineering standards to be used in the construction of
all pubTic improvemenxs under t}le PTan sha77 be connensutate with those standards used bg the
Citg of Rifle when such standards are at feast as restrictive as those ptesentlg in fotce
undet the regufations of Gatfiefd Countg, CoTotado.
and Xhat no deveTopnent of the subject propertg under sajd pTan or inpTenentation of said plan sha77 be
d.one until a77 of the foregoinq conditions have been compTied. with to the satisfaction of the Boatd of
Countg Connnissioners of Gatfield Countg, CoTotado. And that upon such compTiance, the Zone District Map
of GatfieTd Countg be accordingly anended to refTect thjs amendnent.
ATTES?:
BOARD OF COMMTSSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY
Pete J. Mattivi
Lgnh Hifl
Letter of application for change in classification for Air Quality Standards was discussed. Mr. Mattlvi
moved that the appli.cation be approved to reclassify that portion of Garfield County as outlined in the
application. Seconded by IIr. Hi11. Motion carried unaninously.
Discussion of Panr>ramjc ltesa Subdivrsion and acceptance of roads into County systen was held, Mr. Hartert
reviewed the recomnendation of Mr'. llcarrow and stated that no deed roas necessary. Mr. Hill noved that the
road be accepted for rnaintenance in the County road systen. Seconded by Mr, Mattivi. l.{otion carried
unanimously.
l'1r. l{itkowski presenteC Resolution No. 77-2 on PUD zoning for Riverbend Subdivision. Mr. Mattivi noved
that Resolution'/7-2 be adopted. Seconded by Mr. Hil1, Motion carried unanirnously.
RESOLUTION NO. 77-2
WHEREAS, HaniTton Duncan has made application to the Boatd of Countg Coromissioners of GatfieTd
Countg, CoTorado, for a PTanned Un.it DeveLopment amendment to the Zoning ResoJution of GarfieLd Countg,
CoTorado, said proposed PTanned Unit DeveTopnent being known as Riverbend aff as nore particularlg
described in said application; and
,r'HEREAS, said applicationrtas refetred to the PTanning Conmission of GarfieTd countg, CoTorado, as
provided in Section 8.04 of said Zoning Resol.utjon and furthet that said PTanning Connission has certified
to the Board of Countg Connnissioners of GatfieTd Countg, CoTorado, its teconmendation that the sajd
appTication be approved subject to conditions; and
uHEREAS, the Board of Countg Cornrnissiiners of GarfieTd Countg, CoTorado, has duTg and regu).arlg
held a pubTic hearing on said appJication in conformitg with the Taws of the State of Co)-orado and the
ptovisions of said zoning ResoLutioni and
WHEREAS, the Board of CountA Commrssjoners of GarfieLd Countg, CoTorado, is now fu77g advised in the
premises in regtard to said appTication, and finds that such Planned Unit DeveTopnent amendn]F_nt js in
confornity with the GeneraT PTan for GarfieJ-d Countg and the zoning Reso.lutjon of GarfieTd Countg, CoTotado.
NAN, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OT COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS OF GARFIELD COI]NTY, COLORADO, thAt
the appTication for a Planned lJnit DeveLopnent amendflF-nt to the Zoning Resol.ution of GarfieTd Countg,
Colorado, for the Riverbend ptoject, be and the same is herebg adopted, subject to the foTTowinq conditions:
(1) fhat said PTan provide for settJ.ement ponds and fiLtration devices to be incTuded in the
design of the storm drainage sgstem if the Board of Countg Comissioners finds that incteased
run-off fron the ptoject poses a polTution hazard.
(2) That the PTan provide that t.lre cowercial convenience stoxe shown in the PLanned Unit DeveToryent
be incfuded jn. the phased deveTopment when the need for said convenience store is demonsttated
to the Board of Countg Commissioners of Garfield CountY, CoTorado.
(3) That the Plan provide that the fire protection sgsten be designed to provide a minimum of
sixtg (60) pounds per square inch static line pressure and five hundred (500) gaTTons per
ninute voTume of fTow to a77 Tots as subdjvjded on the project.
and that no deveTopment of the subject propertg under said pTan or impJementation of said pTan sha77 be
done untiT afl of the foregoing conditions have been conplied with to the satisfaction of the Boatd of
Countg Conmissioners of GarfieTd Countg, CoTorado. And that upon such compTiance, the Zone District Map
of GarfieTd Countg be accordinglg amended to refTect this amendment.
ATTES!:
BOARD Of COMMISSIONERS
GARFLELD COUNTY /
BUILDING AND PLANNING
May 23,1994
Steve & Diane Boat
RB Water & Sewer Company
P.O. Box 1989
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RE: Subdivision Exemption
Dear Steve & Diane:
It took me a little longer than I anticipated to meet with Don DeFord to review the documents you
provided regarding the property on which the RB Water urd Sewer Company has facilities. Based
on the information you provided, it appears that the tract was created as an o(empt parcel or by
omission in the subdivision review process. In either case, Don and I agree that any further
zuMivision of the property needs to go through fu[ suMivision review.
Ifthe tract was created at the time of srMivision, tlrcre is rrc clear record of it, since it does not show
up on any of the plats. Gven that informdinq we have to assume that someone determined that this
was an exempt parcel, due to it being E utiliry company parcel. Since there is no document to this
effect, rr" .ri making a lot of assumptions, but we feel ihat is the only basis someone could have
legally conveyed the parcel. As we discussed prwiously, there are no exemptions evailable for the
property.
Given all of the uncertainty as to how this tract was created, Don and I feel that it would be less
nrbject to challenge, if you went through full srbdiviriog review. While this is a lengthier process,
it does provide all of the information anyone might heve about the application. If you have any
questions, feel free to call or write to re, at yotr oonveniencc.
Mark L. Bean
Diretor, Building & Planning
ldIS/sa
i
SUITE 303
EXHIBIT F
94542 1 2,GaS55 7 1 128S7072 GI-EIIIWOOO SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601lOOTTH STREET,
=f,qffiiHrry1[W