The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR02-118 denial of petition for variance for Castle Ridge SubdivisionCom- �sioner moved adr.. , of the llowing Resolution: _ S BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO, 2002 - DENIAL OF A PETITION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 4 -620.J OF THE EAGLE COUNTY LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR THE CASTLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION File Number VIS -0014 WHEREAS, Peter Fodors, (hereinafter "Applicant "), submitted to the Eagle County Department of Community Development a petition for a variance from the requirements of Section 4 -620.J of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (the "LUR ") for the Castle Ridge Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the specific variances are outlined in the April 4, 2002 letter from Steve Isom to Justin Hildreth and attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ( "the Board "), conducted public hearings on July 9, August 5 and 6, 2001 to consider the Applicant's petition; and WHEREAS, the Board, has considered all the evidence, exhibits and arguments presented at and prior to the hearings. WHEREFORE, based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that the Applicant's petition does not meet the intent of Section 5 -260.G which governs the granting of a variance permit from the Improvements Standards of the LUR, and- also finds the following: 1) The applicant has filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards_in._conformance.with the__requirernents of Section 5-260.G of the LURE 2) The petition has been properly advertised and was considered by the Board of County Commissioners. 3) The variances outlined in Exhibit A will not provide an equivalent level of public safety and durability as compared to a road constructed to meet the standards in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 4) The applicant has not demonstrated hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict adherence to the standards in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. IINI�IIIIIIIVIIIVIII�IIIIIIII�IIIBIINIIIIIInII m058�: Sara J Fisher Eagle, CO 370 R 0. 00 D 0. 00 5) Hardships to the applicant of not granting the variances do not exceed any currently perceived adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, or adverse impacts to the affected lands. NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: THAT, on balance, the benefits to the developer of granting the variance do not outweigh the adverse impacts to people and lands affected by granting the variance. THAT, The Board hereby denies the AppIicant's petition for a Variance Permit from the specific requirements of Section 4 -520 J. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations outlined in Exhibit A. THAT, the Board of County Commissioners directs the Department of Community Development to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Applicant. THAT, the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Eagle County. MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the Cou of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the day of _,2002. ATTEST: �.: By: Sara J. Fisher Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, by and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Michael L. Gallagher, Am M. Menconi, Commissioner <�)� %--t Tom C. tone, Commissioner 2 s Commissioner seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner, Michael L. Gallagher Commissioner, Tom C. Stone Commissioner, Am M. Menton This Resolution passed by Z5 -C) „ vote of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. 3 :. EXHIBIT ISOM & ASSOCIATES- Architecture Land Planning Project Management April 4, 2002 Justin Hildreth Eagle County Engineering P.O- Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631 RE: Variance request for Knight Road and Castle Lane - Roads o$' of Frying Pan Road, Near Basalt Dear Justin: Under separate cover i<som & Associates submitted a: letter and two sets of preliminary engineering drawings for Knight Road & Castle Lane prepared by Sopris Engineering, L.L -C. These drawings have been updated to reflect a more specific road classification as well as show a new road plan which improves safety & service while minimizing impacts to the area. In accordance with Section 5 -260 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, •the owners of Castle Ridge Subdivision would like to request a variance from four (4) improvement standards for the proposed upgrade of Knight Road and Castle Lane. The variances required, as identified by Sopris Engineering, L.L.C., are the following: 1) Road Right-Of-Way W dth- a) Section 4- 620.7, Table 4- 620.3 —Road Right -of -way, 40' instead of 50' b) 1+00 to 8+0 (Knight Road) &1+00 to I0+00(Casde Lane) c) It is a hardship to comply with this design standard as the cuts and fills that would be required by the county is undesirable for the local Residents. d) A variance from this design standard will provide equal levels of performance and safety, as the requested 40' ROW is the current standard on site. 2) , Lane Width (with shoulders)- a) Section 4- 620.7, Table 4 -6203 — Lane width 16' with passing lanes of 22' instead of 24' b) 1+00 to 8+00 (Knight Road) & 1+00 to 20+00 (Castle Lane) c) It is a hardship to comply with a regulation designed for a 50' ROW when there is only a 40' ROW in existence on site (issue of ROW discussed above). d) Avariance from this design standard will provide higher levels ofperformarice and safety because a uniform 16' wide road with areas of 22' wide passing Ianes and 2' shoulders is more consistent and predictable for travel than the current road which includes road widths as small as 12' wide. P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (970) 328 -2388 FAX (970) 328 -6266 3) Lane Surface Type- c a) Section 4 -620J, Table 4 -620J Gravel instead of pavement. b) Knight Road (I +00 to 8+00) c) It'is a hardship to use pavement as local residents have expressed the desire to keep the road gravel, and the Board of County Commissioners has required us to incorporate local issues in road design. d) A variance would provide equal levels of service as the existing standard on site is gravel, and pavement is contrary to local residents desires. 4) Maximum Road Grade on Knight Road - a) Section 4- 620.1, Table 4 -620.7 11 % instead of 8% b) Knight Road (1+00 to 8+00) c) There is hardship in complying with this design standard because of the topography on site which would require major cuts, fills and retaining walls -- all elements that are undesirable for the local residents. d) This variance would provide an improved level of service as the established standard on site contains sections of up to 13% grade. 5) Intersection Slope - a) Section 4 -620J, 9,33% instead of 21/'o b) Knight Road Intersection with county road C) There is a hardship complying with County Standards since the existing county intersection is 6% for the first 50'. This would be reduced to 3% for the first 50' d) This variance would provide an improved level of service from the existing 6 01a. 6) Maximum Road Grade on Castle Lane - a) Section 4- 620.7; Table 4-620.J-12.9% instead of 12% b) Castle Lane c) There is hardship in complying with this design standard because the existing grade is 16010 in some areas. The County standard is 12% for a Mountain Road_ A maximum grade of 12.9% would be a vast improvement on this County Road. standard on site contains sections of up to 16% grade. As you will note on the attached plans, Castle Lane (around 13 +00) was built outside of the existing 40' R.O.W On this plan Castle Lane has been built in the R.O.W. If there are any questions concerning the above variance or you need- additional information, please contact this office. Sincerely yours, tephe som President Cc: Brooke Peterson 9949Just iri Hildrec W,V)eCouutyrcVariancesO40362