HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 04.10.89REQUEST:
APPLICANTS:
LOCAT] ON:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
BOcc 4/r0/89
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Exemption from the DefinitionSubdivision
Edward Walters & Doyle Likely
A tract of land l_ocated in theI/4 Sw l/3 Section 32, T5s, R90W ofthe 6th P.M.; localed northwest ofthe New Castle t-70 interchange.
The site consists of a 32.2 acre
t ract .
Central well
Indivj.dual Sewage Disposal System
trxisting access off State Hwy. 6
C/G, CommerciaL General
A/R/RD
of
NE
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site is located within the New Cast1e Urban Area of fnfluence asdesignated on the Comprehensive Plan Management District Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
site Description: The site has moderate to level slopes in it,sffir where the proposed lots are to be rocated.slopes throughout the remalnder of the site are fairly steep. Anirrigation ditch runs through the site along witr, severaldrainage swales. Vegetation is naLive and the sit.e is currentlyvacant .
A.
B.Project DeFcrl$ren: The applicant proposes
4 lots approximately 1.36
to subdivide the
acres , 2.02 acres,2.08 acres and 26.75 acres in size.
History: The applicant has submitted evidence that since 7g73 noparceG have been created out of this tract. rn r9g4, the parcelwas rezoned to c/G by nesolution No. g4-63, which contained acondition of approval stating the nprior to further subdivisionof the site, the applicant must demonstrate to the availabilityof central water and sewer". (See pages4+J/) ffris condition oiapproval- may be binding on the Board of County Commissioners, butthe county Attorney will address that issue at the meeting. rtshoul-d be noted that the Town of New castle did not support therezoning request until Mr. Schmueser made verbal commiLments toannex to the Town prior to further subdivision. The two otherconditions do restrict development to slopes less than 258 andthat any vehicle or construction equipment storage sha1l beobscured by landscaping or screening. These two issues can bedealL with as plat notes.
-t-
Page Two
III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1.The Town of New Castle has received a copy of the application andexpressed concerns about the types of usei that may 6..ur and theincrease in truck traffic at the intersection.
The applicant has submitted a well permit from the Division ofwater Resources which incl-udes speciiic conditions as to theamount of water which can be pumped from the werl and the typesof commercial business allowed Lo be served. The Division hasbeen contacted regarding the applicant's ability to servemultiple l-ots with the well anO- businesses other than thoselisted and verbally indicated that if there is a conflict withthe type of uses, the permit could be modified relatively easily.
the carfield county Zoning Resolution contains limitations on lotsize based on type of sewage disposal. Lots less than 2 acres insize must be served with domestil water from an ,approved centralsource" if an individual sewage disposar syslem is to beutilized. previously, the coun!y has accepted a single welrserving murtiple parcels as a central water supply system.
Soil Conservation Service information indicates that developmentis limited dug to slopesr.slow permeability, high clay conient,and shrink,/swel1 potential in the southeast poriion of the siteand rock outcrops, slopes, and stoniness affecling the balance ofthe parcel.
3.
t
5.The applicants' proposal to create a total ofsite will exhaust the total lots allowed toexemption pursuant to Section 9.52 (A) ofRegulations. As with all exemption applications,discretionary. The Board i.s not obligatedexemption from the definition of subdivisioi justmeets the basic criteria.
four lots on thebe created bythe Subdivisionthe approval isto approve an
because someone
6. one of the major issues of all parties concerned is theintersection of State Highway 6 & 24, County Road 240 and theI-70 interchange at the same basic point-. This developmentshould be subject to review and appro-val of the State HighwayDepartment highway access committee.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
V.
1. that proper posting and public notice was provided as requiredfor the meeting before the Board of County commissioners.
2. That the meeting before the Board of county commissioners wasextensive and complete, that al1 pertlnen[ facts, matters andissues were submitted and that all interested parties were heardat the meeting.
3. That the proposed exemption (wi11 will/not) be compatible withthe existing land uses in the area.
4. That for the above stated and othe r reasons, the proposedexemption is, or is not, in Lhe best interest of the health,safety, morals, convenience , order , prosperity and welfare of thecitizens of Garfield County
RECOMMENDATION
Subject to a determi
uses in the areashould be subject to
nation of compatibility
and previous Resolutionsthe following conditions
th the existing l_andApproval, any approval
w1
of
Page Three
5.
1.That the following plat
Exemption Plat:notes be included on the recorded
A.
B.
No further divisions by exemption from the definition ofsubdivision will be a1Iowed.
Each lot may be subject to engineered foundations and septicsystems.
c. That Lot 4 shall not be developed in any area where slopesexceed 252.
D. That all outside storage of vehicles or constructionequipment shal1 be obscured by landscaping or screening.
That easements be established and included on the Exemption platproviding access to Lots 1 & 2 in accordance with the proposedprivate access drive. fn addition, access easements sfratt becreated for access to Lot 4 due to the steep slopes existingalong it's frontage on State Highway 6.
That a letter of approval or an approved state Highway accesspermit be submitted prior to signing a Resolution of Approval orExemption PIat.
That verification be submitted from the Division of WaterResources that the well is approved to serve multiple l-ots andthose commercial activities as proposed by the applicant.
That easements for access and maintenance of the shared well andwaterlines be established and included on the exemption p1at. Inaddition, the applicant shal1 establish a homeowner association,covenanls, or other acceptable 1ega1 means for administrating theoperation and maintenance of the shared well and distributionsystem. Each tract sha1l be guaranteed or deeded a minimum of 5
GPM of water.
2.
3.
6. That the applicant shall submit a letter from the appropriateFire District approving the fire protection for the site and,specifically, addressing the proposed commercial development ofthe site.
A11 representations of the applicant, either within theapplication or stated at the hearing before the Board of Countycommissioners, sha11 be considered conditions of approval.
-3-
\rr4
STATE OF, COLORADO )
)ssCounty of Garfield )
A___,|t. u --retrgtar-=-------meeting of the Board of Countycommissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the Cornmissioners'Annex in Glenwood springs on MgLdjry _ _, the_ 2nd_dayof _.!garl__--_A. D. 19 S4_-Fer;-r,rere presenr :
_leerf&lasguez , Commissioner Chairman
- rla:reg={..-Lerlee--- r commissioner
-
r Commissioner
--.Eer!_Bbo4gc
r County Attorney
Mildred Alsdorf , Clerk of the Board
when the following proceedings, among others were had antl done, to-wit:
RESOLUTTON NO. 84_63
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH TIIE APPROVAL OF A ZONE DISTRICT A!,IENDMENT
REQUEST BY LARRY AND VIRGINIA SCHMUESER.
,r,i
i;. "IiEEREASr.the Board of County Commissioners of Garf ield County have'heretofore adopted and enacted a Zoning Resolution for Garfield tounty,colbia,Jo, incllding a9 a part thereof, certain zoning maps regulatingpermltted uses uPon the lands within Garfield County] Coiorad5; and
!{BEREAS, C.R.S. (1973) 30-28-109 through 20-28-116 provide for theapproval-of .all zoning plans and the adoptlon and amend-ment of regulationsarid resolutions_to implement such zoning plans by the Board of CountyComnlssioners of a given county; and
WEEREAS, Larry and Virginia Schmueser have applied to the Board ofCounty Commissioners for a zone district amendmenl of parcels of landlocated on the following described parcel:.
Township 95, Range 90W of the 6th Principal t4eridian Section 32, NEL/q svl L/4 excepting that portion conveyed to Minnie B. Coryel1 byDocument lggorded April 15, 1909 in Book 75, page 562 as reieptionnumber 36905r that portion as conveyed to the D6nver Rio Gran-d"Railroad Company by Document recorde,J epril 2, lBB9, in Book 19, page381 as reception number 8755 and excepting the right-of-way forBighway 6 a 21,
{ot such pr.operty- to change from Agricultural/RuraI Density Zoning toComnercial,/GeneraI zoningr and
WHEREAS, the Garfield County Planning Commission having consideredsuch,apPlication in conformity with the [rovisions of the zoningResolution of Garfield County, Colorado, recommended to the eoaid of!9unty Commissioners of Garriira County that the said request for a zonedistrict amendment be approved wit,h conaitions, foi the reasons set forthln the record of its actions; and
WBEREAS, this Board'has given notice of public hearing upon suchlPplication by publicaLion in a newspaper of general circr]talion inGarfleld Cguntyr^appearing in the Glenwood poit on February 22,19g4 andsuch hearing having been held on March 26, f984 and this g6ard-havinggiven furl consideration to the evidence submitted ther€at; and
I{HEREAS, this Board, based upon the record in connection with saidapplicationr makes the following-findings in respect thereto, to-wit:
'Lr/
FINDTNGS
That the applicant has followed all appticable regulations forthe processing of this application.
That the meeting before the Board of count.y commissioners wasextensive and conplete, that all pertinent factsr rnEtters andissues hrere submitted and that aII interesEed parties were heardaE that hear ing.
That the proposed zoning is in compliance with the
recommendat.ions set forth in the conprehensive plan for theunincorporated areas of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Courity Commissioners ofGarfierd county, colorado, that the request of Larry and virginia
Schmueser for a zone district amendment be approve'd with the followingconditions:
1. Prior to further subdivision on the site, the applicant mustdenonstrate to availability of central water and- sewer.
2. The areas of the site that exceed 25t in slope shall be deletedfrom the developable portion of the site. No County building
.permits shall be issued for these areas.
,' i. The storage of any vehicles or construction equipment shal] beobscured by landscaping or screening.
Dated this 2nrr_ day of _Apx.if___, A.D. lagll .
ATTEST: GARF.IELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Upon motion duly made and secon
adopted by the followirtg vote:
ded. the foregoing Resolution was
Larrv Velasouez Aye
1.
2.
3.
GARE'IELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
couNTY, coLoRADO
-
- FleveL-J=-Qerreg--
Eugene trJimrt Drlnkhouse
Aye
Aye
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Garfield )
oftil;i".:;l.I":,;;:333";}-:;5';i:.:1erk
aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing order is trulycopied from the Records of the Proceedings of the tioard of CountyCommissioners for Said Garfield Countyl now in my office
of
19
WHEREOF, .I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the sealat Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D.
of the Board of County Commissioners.
IN WITNESS
said County,
- 5--
County CIerk and ex-officio Clerk
NOTICE
Take l{otice that Edward s. lhlters & Doyle Likely have applied to the
Board of County Corrunissioners, carf ield county, State of Colorado, to
grant an Exemption in connection with the iollowing described property
situated in the Cou"[V of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
LegalDescription:township5South,Rangeg0I.Estofthe6t'hP.M.,
Section 322 ltl L/4 SW t/4 excepting therefiom-that porEion conveyed to
Minnie B. Coryell by Document iecoiaed april 15, 1909 in eook 75 at Page
562 as Reception No. 39605, that portion -conveyed to the Denver and nio
Grande Railroad company by ooctmrent recorded april 1, 1889, in Book 19 at
page 3Br as Reception No. 8755 and excepting the right-of-way for Highway
6 arfr 24.
Practical DescriPtion
residences): A Parcel
(location with respect to highway, County roads and
'iocated Nw of the New Castle I-70 interchange'
Said Exemption is to al1ow the petitioners to divide a 32'2 acre trnrcel
into four (4) parcels of approximately 1.36 acres, 2'02 acres ' 2'08 acres
and 26.74 acres each
on the above described ProPertY.
A1I persons affected by the proposed Exemption are invited to appear and
state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear
personally at iucrr' mleting, then you are urged to state your views by
letter, particularly if you have objections to such Exemption request ' as
the Board of Couniy Comm-issior"r" ,Lll give consideration to the conments
of surrounding property owners and otheri affecLed in deciding whether to
grant or deny the r"!r""t fo. lf," Exemption. This Exemption application
may be reviewed at ihe office of if," ilanning Department located at 109
Bth Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courlhouse, Glenwood Springs '
colorado between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. , t'onday through
Fr iday.
That public meeting on the application. for the above Exemption has been
set fo? the lgth day of april, lgAg, at the hour of 10:00 A.M.,
at the Garfield Coui-rty CoLrthousl, Commissioner's Hearing Room' Suite 301'
109 Bth Street, Glenwood springs, Colorado'
Planning DePartment
Garfield CbunEY
'd:
;$. \")'
'-a I.
L
{
Lt:l ,t.
'l
t
\I
*
\r1(
Uf\l
F
.!
.'$ r.'
$.,o, "
Lz
\
a
I
I
I
;l
o
0
0(9'
l
,
t1
$${
F [\
s$tN\N$
Beurr, ^hJo,
/E;"ffiFs"""* aJqboz
b f*7refua illdsatasz/a,ga7>a
Zb.o &),r47W,o?b/ -zy'f ,ea
fuhD 1eva 6.b/6/7