Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.19.2005BOCC 9/19/05 MB PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) APPLICANT / OWNER Kenneth McMechen LOCATION 2438 CR 102, Carbondale, CO, generally located approximately 6 miles northeast of Carbondale off of Harmony Lane SITE DATA 7.39 acres ACCESS Harmony Lane, off of CR 102 WATER Shared Well SEWER ISDS (Individual Sewage Disposal System) EXISTING ZONING ARRD (Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density) I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL : The applicant is proposing to place a 1434 sq. ft. accessory dwelling unit on the 7.39 ac. tract of land. The tract is accessed off of Harmony Lane, which accessed directly off of CR 102. The proposed water source is a shared well and sewage would be treated by an Individual Sewage Disposal System. The property is located partially in Garfield County (5.69 ac.) and partially in Eagle County (1.65 ac.). All of the improvements are located in Garfield County. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Special Use Permits are subject to the standards set forth in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution. This section states that utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service, street improvements, and design of the proposed use to minimize impact through various means shall be provided. B. Zoning Resolution: An ADU is a special use in the A/R/RD zone district pursuant to Section 3.02.03 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978. The application must address the general Special Use Permit requirements in Section 5.03 as well as the specific Special Use Permit standards that apply to Accessory Dwelling Units in Section 5.03.21. The requirements / standards are listed below in bold italics followed by a Staff response: General Special Use Permit Requirements (Section 5.03) 1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall 1 either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. The applicant has provided documentation showing that the applicant has 2/12ths interest in the Mid Valley Well #1. Part of the documentation is an apparently not fully executed "water agreement" dealing with the division of "shares" in water, well and storage tank; maintenance expenses; and easements. This well was originally drilled in 1965 and pump test was preformed in August of 1979 by Bill Lorah, Wright Water Engineers, Inc.. In his recommendations, Mr. Lorah recommends that Mid Valley Well #1 be adjudicated by the Water Court. No documentation of that sort has been provided. In addition, Mr. Lorah notes that the well can yield 15 gpm on a long term basis, but that the yield may drop if "additional wells are drilled nearby and "compete" for the available water." He states that the long term yield could also drop if recharge patterns are changed, i.e. reduced irrigation on nearby farm lands. It has been over 25 years since the well was tested and there is no record of the recommended monitoring program or adjudication of the well. During the ensuing years, a great deal of development has occurred on the nearby farm lands and the amount of irrigation has likely been reduced substantially. Without a more current well test, it is impossible for staff to say that there is adequate water available from the existing well for another dwelling. In a recent conversation with Mr. Lorah, he suggested that a 24 hour pump test be performed to establish the existing capacity of the Mid Valley Well #1. Our normal 4 hour pump test is not adequate for a non -alluvial well to establish the long term capacity of the well. ISDS appears to be appropriate, provided that the required permit and percolation test is done prior to installation. Staff Finding: Due to the uncertainty of the water supply this section has not been met. 2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; The access to this property is via Harmony Lane, which provides access to a number of dwellings in the area. While the applicant shows a 60 access easement to the property, there is no documentation verifying that right of access. A copy of the easement or other documents proving the right to use the identified access easement needs to be provided to staff. Staff Finding: No documentation of the access easement has been provided to staff, therefore this section has not been met. 3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood 2 character; The proposed use would be consistent with the surrounding uses, in that large lot residential development is typical for the area. Staff Finding: The proposed use would be consistent with neighborhood. Specific Special Use Permit Standards for ADU (Section 5.03.21) 1) The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site with slopes less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size. Staff Finding The property contains 7.59 acres, which exceeds the minimum required for an ADU and the area proposed for the location of the ADU and main dwelling do not contain slopes steeper than 40%. This standard is met. 2) The gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft. Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed a gross floor area of 1434 sq. ft. for the residential portion of the structure constituting the ADU will not exceed 1,500 sq. ft. This standard is met. 3) Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by covenant if applicable. Staff Finding The applicant has not provided any information regarding covenants or a homeowners association. . This standard is not met. 4) Proof of a legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit. Staff Finding The previous comments on the adequacy of the water supply apply to this section. This standard is not met. 5) Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations or proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatment facility. Staff Finding The Applicant has an existing ISDS associated with the existing dwelling. It appears that another ISDS could be developed on the property. This standard is met. 6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units are allowed. Staff Finding The Applicant understands that only leasehold interests are allowed in the unit. This standard is met. 3 7) That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code requirements. Staff Finding The Applicant understands that all construction (septic system and ADU structure) shall require the appropriate building permits and inspections to be conducted by the County Building and Planning Department. This shall be considered a condition of any approval by the Board of County Commissioners. III. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use permit is not in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends DENIAL of the application due to a lack of information regarding the adequacy of the proposed water supply, proof of access and homeowners association approval. 4