To: Board of County Commissioners
Through: Ceila Rethamel, Acting Director, Public Works & Development
Prepared By:
prepared
Raye Fields, Planner II, Public Works and Development
end
presenter
Presenter: Raye Fields, Planner II, Public Works and Development
end
Subject:
title
VAC26-004 - Sky Ranch Filing 7 Easement Vacation
end
Purpose and Request:
recommended action
The applicant and owner, PCY Holdings LLC, is seeking approval to vacate a 10-foot utility easement within Filing 7 of the Sky Ranch Development on the property at 332 N. Bently Street (Lot 3, Block 7). The existing easement sits on the south side of the property; other utility easements have been dedicated on the east and west sides which serve the property and it has been determined that the easement is no longer needed.
end
Alignment with Strategic Plan: Good Governance - Plan for future service, infrastructure, and fiscal needs.
Background and Discussion: The Sky Ranch Filing No. 7 Final Plat (PF24-002) included numerous utility easement dedications. The anticipated house template for this lot has a roof eave that would encroach into this easement. If the proposed easement is vacated, there would still be a six-foot utility easement on the west side of the lot and a ten-foot utility easement on the east side of the lot. The remaining easements allow the provision of utilities to the property and the applicant proposes vacating the easement to avoid any building encroachment.
All outside referral comments in regard to VAC26-004 were addressed, see attached summary of external referral comments. Of particular note, the utility providers Xcel, Lumen, and Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority had no comments or identified no conflict with the proposal.
See attached Exhibit A showing a legal description and illustration of the proposed easement vacation.
The proposed easement vacation, Exhibit A (attached), meets the following Vacation approval standards found in Code Section 5-6.7.B:
1. The vacation is in accordance with any original conditions of approval for a plat, preliminary development plan, final development plan, general development plan, specific development plan, or other applicable documents;
The proposed vacation does not conflict with original conditions of approval for the Sky Ranch Filing No. 7 Final Plat (case PF24-002). The plat was approved by Resolution No. 24-248, including the following conditions:
1. Prior to signature of the final copy of these plans the applicant must address Public Works and Development Staff comments and concerns.
2. Prior to the signature of the final copy of these plans the applicant must provide a letter from Bennett School District as to whether cash-in-lieu is required for the 12 additional lots, including the amount of CiL required. The applicant must pay the required amount of cash-in-lieu prior to the signature of the final copy of these plans.
Neither of the original conditions of approval require the preservation of the easement proposed for vacation.
2. The vacation is in keeping with the spirit and intent of Section 4-2.4, Land Division Standards;
Part of the intent of the Land Division Standards is to “[p]rovide for adequate, safe, and efficient public utilities and improvements…” The proposed vacation would not affect the provision of adequate utilities to the site and would remove a potential conflict with a proposed building. As described above, utility providers reviewed the proposal; they either identified no conflicts or had no comments. Based on utility provider comments, the remaining utility easements on the west and east sides of the lot provide for the adequate provision of utilities to the property. The proposed vacation is keeping with the spirit and intent of Section 4-2.4, Land Division Standards.
3. Platted or deeded roadways or portions thereof, or unplatted or undefined roadways which have arisen by public usage shall not be vacated so as to leave any land adjoining said roadway without an established public road or private access easement connecting said land with another established public road. [43-2- 303(2)(a) C.R.S.];
The proposed vacation is for a utility easement and not a roadway, so this standard is not applicable. Adjacent properties are served by dedicated public right of way and the easement vacation would not affect their access or connectivity.
4. If it is a State Highway, the Transportation Commission approves. [43-1-106(11) C.R.S.]
The proposed vacation is for an easement on private property and not for a State Highway. This approval standard is only applicable to proposed State Highway vacations, so it does not apply to this easement vacation proposal.
Alternatives: The Board of County Commissioners has alternatives that include the following:
1. Approve the easement vacation.
2. Deny the easement vacation.
3. Continue to a date certain to obtain additional information.
Fiscal Impact: This application does not fiscally impact the County.
Alignment with Strategic Implementation Strategies: This proposal is a quasi-judicial application and is evaluated against criteria in the Land Development Code.
Staff Recommendation: The Public Works and Development Planning and Engineering Services Divisions have reviewed the application and are recommending approval of this case. Staff review found that the proposed vacation meets all applicable approval standards.
Concurrence: N/A