HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportPROJECT NAME:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
PROPOSED ROADS:
EX]STING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
PRO"-CT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENT'S
El-k Cneek Meadows Ranch
Robent and Naomi Mayo
2 miles Nonth of New Castl-e on County Road 245
Individual- wel-Is (the applicant already has
individual wel-I permits fon each lot proposed)
Individual septic
The parcel-s wil-l- be senved by an existing
dniving fnom County Road 245.
A/R/RD
Nonth: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
ed approval- of the sketch plan and
e two conditions as specified by the
REI,AT]ONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The propenty lies within the New Castle Ur-ban Anea of Influence and within Distnict F
of the Comp::ehensive PIan.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL :
The applicant wishes to split an 86 acre tlract of l-and into 2 pancels of 66 and 20
acres each. The 20 acre pal?cel was created in the 7g7)ts through a:lsenate BitI 35
Exemption to Sid Milfer. The applicant then acquired the 20 acire tract and adjoining
pancels. Because of the Court of Appeals Ruling in the VanHuysen vs. Board of Adjustment
of Adam County case, it is the opinion of the county attorney that the acquisition
of-EAf"-IA l]y created contiguous properties by a single individual creates, once again,
a single large tract, and all p::evious exemptions are declared nul-f and void. And,
since Mn. and Mns. Mayo, have not owned the pnopenty fon 5 on more yeans to qualify fon
a Senate Bil-I 35 Exemption, they are submitting this sketch plan with a request for
exemption fnofr fur.ther subdivision neview.
PREV]OUS H]STORY:
Robent and Naomi Mayo submitted a sketch pJ-an request for this property last year,
and received sketch pJ-an appnoval in Apnil, 1-981 . Due to hea.l-th considerations,
the Mayos wish to discontinue their pursuit of the preliminary and final- plats, and
to subdivide the property into the two J-a::gen parcels presently pnoposed.
Standard Conditions:
t) Revlewing agency comments:
Town of New Castle - no response at the time the agendas wene assembl-ed.
Sil-t-New Castle Fire Protection District-property is within 5-7 minutes
response time for the distirict. No fire protection measures on site
woul-d be necessany for the density proposed.
FINDINGS
7. The applicant is in compliance with the County Compnehensi.ve Plan.
2. The applicant is in ccimpliance with the County Zoning Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommendation is fon APPROVAL of the sketch plan and exemption from
further subdivision review with the following conditions:
L. An access easement will- be included in the legal descniption of the pancel;
2. The applicant shall- submit a $ZOO.00 sbhool assessment fee to the Planning
Department prior to issuance of the exemption resofution.
On May 5, 1,g8;, the Planning Commission reco
on
,e
6,to
PROJECT NAME:
O}INER:
IOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
PROPOSED ROADS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
PROJEC NFO5.l'iATI0N Arr*D STAFF COMMENTS
ELk Creek Meadows Ranch
Robert and Naomi MaYo
2 mil-es North of New Cast1e on County Road 245
fndividua] wel-Is (the appticant already has
individual weIl permits for each l-ot Proposed)
lndrvrdua]- sePtlc
The parcefs wifl be served by an existing
driving from CountY Road 245.
A/R/RD
North: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD
East:, A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
RXI,ATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The property lies within the New CastLe Urban Area of fnfluence and within District F
of the Comprehensive Pfan.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL :
The applicant wishes to split an 86 acre tract of l-and into 2 parcels of 66 and 20
acres each. The 20 acre parcel was created in the 1970's through a lSenate Bill 35
Exemption to Sid Milfer. The applicant then aequired the 20 acre tract and adjoining
p.".-1=. Because of the Court oi eppeats Ru1ing in the VanHuys9n vs-- Board-o{ 4djustment
of adam County case, it is the opinion of the county attorney that the aco-uisition
;f-ilaEIaual1y created contiguous properties by a single individual crgates, once again,
a single large tract, and all previous exemptions are declared null and void. And,
since Mr. an6 Mrs. Mayo. have not owned the propenty for 5 or more years to qualify fon
a Senate BiIl 35 Exemption, they are submitting this sketch plan with a request for
exemption fnorn funther subdivision review-
PREVIOUS HISTORY'
,
Robert and Naomi Mayo submitted a sketch plan request for this property last year'
and received sketch plan approval in Apnr1, 1981. Due to health considerations,
the 1iayos wish to diicontinue their pursuit of the preliminary and final p1ats, and
to subdivide the ProPerty into the two larger parcels presently proposed
Standard Conditions:
7) Reviewing agency corirnents:
Town of New Castle - no response at the time the agendas were assembled.
Silt-New Castle Fire Pnctection District-proPerty is within 5-7 minutes
response time for the district. No fire protection measures on site
- would be necessary fon the density proposed.
FINDINGS
l. The applicant is in compliance with the County Comprehensive Plan.
2. The applicant is in compliance with the County Taning Regulations-
REC0I'iY,ENDATION:
The staff recommendation is for APPROVAL of the sketch plan and exemption frorn
further subdivision review with the following conditions:
1. An access easement will- be incl-uded in the IegaI description of the parcel;
2. The applicant shaIl submit a $200.00 sbhool assessment fee to the Planning
Department prior to issuance of the exemption resolution.
)^ln
Dde
Ite
A
:i?rPRooc.D
d\( L{ea s