Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.21.1984REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACCESS: WATER: SEWER: SITE DATA: • 1 BOCC 2/21/84 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Request for Sketch Plan with request for exemption from full subdivision review. Donald and Ann Carter Section 33, T6S, R92W; located approximately 6 miles south of Silt off Dry Hollow Road (Co.Rd. 331) Off County Rd. 331 onto Johns Drive The proposal to use one existing domestic well to serve 3 lots. One existing individual septic disposal system and two individual septic disposal systems The site is a 37 acre parcel proposed to be divided into 3 lots of 4 acres, 8 acres and 25 acres. ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD in all directions I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site sits in District C, Rural Areas with Minor Environmental Constraints. The Comprehensive Plan suggest the density be one dwelling unit per five acres. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Descri2tion: The proposed 25 acre site and the proposed 8 acre site are open flat agricultural sites. The proposed 4 acre site consists of a gulch with relatively steep hillsides. There currently exists a mobile home (approved by Resolution No. 80-48) on the 25 acre site. The 25 acre site also includes an older home and several outbuildings. The 4 acre site includes a shed on the east side of the property. B. Project Descri2tion: The proposal is to divide 37 acres into 3 lots of 4, 8 & 25 acres. III.MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES A. Review Agency Comments: A letter dated January 27, 1984 was received from the Division of Water Resources. (see page _,58 ___) They have no problem with the proposed use of the well but noted that certain requirements should be made. These are as follows: /9 1. The well should be located on an outlot owned in common by property owners using the well. Access to the well and the right to establish and maintain a pipeline shall be provided by easements where necessary. 2. The well should be jointly owned by the lot owners. 3. Covenants and/or other mechanisms should establish lot owners association with powers to make decisions concerning management and operation of the well. A joint maintenance agreement is a required part of such an association. B. Staff Comments: 1. The site is a 37 acre parcel which was at one time a part of a larger ranch. The ranch broke out 40 acre parcels and sold these. There are approximately 16 of these 40 acre lots located in the general area of the Carter property. 2. The County Environmental Health Office suggests that the individual septic disposal systems on the proposed lots should be designed by Colorado registered professional engineers. 3. It is questionable as to whether or not the proposed 4 acre lot has a buildable site. The soils report indicates that through proper design and construction, soils limitations overcome. It should also be noted that all setbacks for the A/R/RD zone district are required. 4. The 25 acre and the 8 acre lots meet the density suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the 4 acre site is 1 acre short of the suggested 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. The 4 acre site was determined by the lay of the land thus allowing the natural features to determine the lot lines. 5. Lots, generally in the immediate area are large tracts with the exception of two 7 acre parcels created in 1981, three 10 acre parcels created in 1977, a 10 acre parcel created in 1982, a 14 acre parcel, a 2 acre parcel and a 9 acre parcel created in 1983. 6. Access is off of C.R.331 and onto Johns Drive, a 60' private access road. 7. The proposal is to have a 20' wide waterline easement from the well to the 8 acre parcel and the 4 acre parcel. There is no mention in the application of an easement for the well itself. 8. The well should be jointly owned by all 3 lot owners. 9. The proposal is in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Garfield County Zoning Regulations. IV. FINDINGS 1. 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 hearing. 2. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in all directions. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed zoning is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. • V. RECOMMENDATION On February 8, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. That the final plat show a maintenance easement to the well itself as well as the 20' water line easement to each lot. The deeds to each parcel shall include the above easements. 1 2. That the final plat be signed by the County Surveyor and the Board of County Commissioners. This plat shall be reviewed by the Department of Development prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. That $400.00 be submitted to the Department of Development for the School Impact Fee, prior to final approval. 4. Confirmation that the adjacent land owners have been notified of the proposal shall be obtained prior to the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 5. The following shall be conditions regarding the well: 1. The well should located on an outlot or maintenance easements owned in common by property owners using the well. Access to thewell and the right to establish and maintain a pipeline shall be provided by easements where necessary. 2. The well should be jointly owned by the lot owners. 3. Covenants and/or other mechanisms should establish lot owners association with powers to make decisions concerning management and operation of the well. A joint maintenance agreement is a required part of such an association. 6. A letter shall be obtained from the Silt Rural Fire District prior to the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 7. There shall be a note on the final plat stating that septic systems for the 8 acre lot and the 4 acre lot may be required to be designed by a registered professional engineer. 1. 4 . 4'24.. _1.-( {. / 4 , RICHARD D. LAMM Governor 1956H OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 January 27, 1984 Ms. Cynthia M. Houben Garfield County Dept. of Development 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, GO 81601 Re: Carter Exemption Sec. 34, T6S, R92W Dear Ms. Houben: JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer L T��: 0.11.01 We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to separate 37 acres into three lots. Well permit number 113043 (81CW108) has been previously issued as the only well on 35 acres. The applicants propose to share this well between the three lots. The well permit has no restriction prohibiting the proposed use. In order to assure that a permanent water supply will be available on an equitable basis to either lot, we require the following: 1. The well should be located on an outlot owned in common by all pro- perty owners using the well. Access to the well and the right to establish and maintain a pipeline shall be provided by easements where necessary. 2. The well should be jointly owned by the lot owners. 3. Covenants and/or other mechanisms should establish a lot owners association with powers to make decisions concerning management and operation of the well. A joint maintenance agreement is a required part of such an association. If the above provisions are met, we can recommend approval of this pro- posal. Please let us know if you have any further questions. HDS/KCK:ma cc: Orlyn Bell, Div. Eng. Mel Malley Sincerely, Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer TOWN of SI!T • t P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 March 9, 1984 Cynthia M. Houben, Planner Garfield County Planning Environmental Health Building 87601 RE: Donald and Ann Carter Property Dear Cynthia: In answer to your; letter regarding the Carter property, South of Silt, that is proposed to be subdivided and if I thought a 1000 gallon cistern would be adequate. I would recommend another 1000 gallon cistern on the property. Sincerely, Keith Crandell Silt New Castle Fire Protection District Box 216 Silt, Colorado 81652 53,71/71 MAR I,. 5198 \. 4 masa maw. i RFLELA\3&CA LE Cynthia Houban Garfield County Department of Devel•pment 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Ms. Houban: A FARTNE .HlP February 17, 1984 This letter is in reference to the planned hearing of the petition of Donald and Ann C.rter for Sketch Plan Review and Exemption from full Subdivision Review. Rifle Land & C.ttle, a partnership, is the holder of the note and first deed of trust on the parcel which the Carters desire to subdivide. Rifle Land and Catt e does not have any objections to subdivision of the tract. We do, owever, have some objections concerning the pro- posal as it presently exists. Our objections are: (1) The propo'ed tracts of 8.8 acres and 4.0 acres, especially the 4.0 acre tract is inconsistant with the size of tracts in the area. To my knowledge no ether tracts are this small. (2) The 4.0 a•re tract may not have irrigation rights. (3) The impac of two additional households on the wells already in use needs careful study. Rifle Land and Cattle holds a mortgage on the total property. There are no existin provisions for partial release of any of the land. We will probably be illing to co-operate with the Carters, but have no firm arrangement .t this time. LCT/gt 1564 RORER RXXXXUX P. 0. Box 2556 Ogden, Utah 84404 801-394-3805 Very truly yours, RIFLE LAND & CATTLE Zigseet.le L wrence C. Tayl . 47(0434-' Partner • • • 4 a /i7/47 y 64/2&%6za 0:90,0-a`D- E1a-ofvn G -O) 4/ 1 I 7t&-- / /r/ -A %a---. .GGcz-A•1uu64250 �prl! � !Mt) : Cy 01-14-141. d {�C -: kttb S1(71 P44 -,J /Z& -Via -Tit) "-No X 12per, i•-•:-u.1-at.f b� -ON/f/d' le --"0/46-24) 13 R-1\1 • A1./0 wirA/ exea&-re �'t2 S.go-ue V) E. N ops' 1N- Q-orc Kaizet/A,D VZ) 44/ /490- c r8ctli.Ot Ot-tot L P *IQ 0 FL LL p ui re;minvi,d's . 1z6t4ict) l.o-d'v Lae) Wro ice' Qom" ialharS5i7C � . r a w ivtlacirti UWri.ct,N to ;ifivD, 0200///a s'vu 0 P-YL+p i' TYP/ice P 4 GIftr PP /2-0 01/2/11 -7 -b -z htt,,o/wrx,z, e cip_a be -r. P- ,dev � P fetwtAr U ALIMA\'‘ s St VAC EVS 415 Na f / geWithaftity ltie 6,tf0 Q "Nn CIA -RN 7 -ex -ops cv-&' f► t1� • I) kb:Ike-Avg' P410 aTal ki-tert1 IQ 0 HiQ.lor c t !O vre cvt/w/ Y3'. o/A" oewaty Rte' N tt 11 ND WZid ieelt /e'U. ' t" CL A Li sir I? 7 /V Cc, v b dz7017U7' ay, . L C, 7' pAelitS' V cr 'J C4 Pc}e - pa/i.r, 6;74."1 PpRvavF-L, Paz PeRr v rU vyk u urs (1o) c ic- C Su P / /lite7� COO k) .kiort "Srarntr 175146- • C lk-(2Q`k tc (3 V " water Nau6p MIS A-.1,8 vCt. -- ai tSl irrk) (d) PC / 1517140rG et rf TAM 'A/ ioy /9-42 � PM7e,E2s 06- ,1-1-L av ?c/ A- << to® SuQ-n/V/f/ t)''1 (11 q3IlUOLtJQ) C1774L goJ 1� t L et) S'u D/ t//ff / i70 1,515 6vdaz zki!/ / j 9 otwe&e: 9r © elErezTUr,4 u D I Vs& 77-"/ps— /4 is 2s A1141 r; f3 2C_f' - ,macLof tt,us-Pie ,fL ov. vzth.e4 it/ • Cs-C7"7/3L/s',HL-1, r..‘C, .T -(7-/- 2o1J *' Wilk - C rvir` -- 'R) )0 --�r2 . ` i s Suit411/iS/Ifit) 4v. ^ 0 c am` �_ V iii f `i + 44-so JJ A 1 # v L s 4u LLy T1,044/r- F! t Y's ie2&.r' -w- 1 -- v TO ovj tNY t ca 7 • Cr-. relic? . vV9srk L6 00,11 p a-, v r� 6i7 5,¢i 6 WT ii i � n % 700 751X QF- VA rp t 4-171 4,4141 '. ' OLe ,4117-0 niAQ-4 Per i/ , ,4 % 5^ c • 4) 194 /9- 71/Wag Tketu 4Iv0 / 41 Mt) • o- GI -fele -47'2 Vie i nal g-` '1 a *?- 7ePip/ i f es" Qigyt1 1:1c. I+ t deg C 5-7 1\S" -G W2A13 r % »C fir/' %'" P / C';7 7 a-Ka:11)1\01A, 01/4) t cidg Goriss7e zt" 476 iat2An..cfbad). 1-i Alm X 11112 ,L7' //U,JA C / A�1�`>c ' Q [fit 11%01 j/tj AsfW'Z- FY'- m u col -7f11 JLII- W 0 6A - i vts >r t, ppe- i-ou 5 - ,f g. G 4711(1,1, �-..F ILO.1 A &- ' vt) ag C��1 C ilED • �v y Pi ( AvlOrr- Moon-all L, a ii\acr6tzvei i i Arirtr N, `C icz c rt.b v r qi cTZ h- ate V (iA 7?2/ i ? I:010K: IA i2 cp visr WAFT-- 7 .r -co Z wf -fit.. 00,e t Y T?T ' �- //tee-c/k -di M u ��--,� Erni � �-� G _ � le t. Ra-- Fowl/10144,y filictumeP fives • t io p a ? pins ?',l o TtiOreL P O -oar or ''r'� p'iVe6 ' • • As 4 PRE 0_10/19/1 17i)141 70 „ft/4 /0/ W/Pcr Pe goti ifr‘!t-1- • WE- V t elk) ""cirk- aim 0 aur / /vat) /etc flax r at) -(4,1 1 A- 410/0 p ac\TM,r4.1 n,) WW NFEV z._ W.s77 Af-c out) ik3 c 72_ pgosp6s777c7 (/11Jt, (i-rz Yt572.r. )J F-ceirlrivere iltrid c"mfikle-:;,(eri*-CN: 7t) 24- sti rib 9 4/ /,.716-A/f /1 1 7 (7)f. 27r c21z P.- Atik)o a.) T T-H'N iktITHD,IZ 'Cr} A-rila • oN fr-aki-7745 erf2 qt ci7# LE-te_c • 'Pi/ WI& P/ a- ert,I7 j7" it 672W etsitictM, (r1 = "V 00 141A riZ-2,1,37 artf— eel tt, Fc./ inizetLs7 C--'04125(7* 7 Flir›Q 50 ISVIV L ( ti -vu IL) • yo efitii -CT- gae 7-10A 70 7(-71-4/440 "te_ r-07M'ir Feb. 17, 1984 Garfield County Dept. of Development 2014 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Attn: Cynthia Houban Re: Donald and Ann Carter Petition for sketch plan review and exemption from full sub -division review Dear Ms. Houban; We do not have the background as to what specific distinction exists between Sketch Plan and Full Sub -Division requirements. However, we would hope that access, domestic water, irrigation water and building standards typical of the area would be appropriately addressed by the Dept. of Development and County Commissioners. As northern boundary neighbors of the Carter property we have specific additional concerns as follows: 1) Adjacent properties have "No trailer house" covenants. We would request that a "No trailer houses" clause be included in the covenants of all three Carter parcels as a condition of sub -division approval. 2) Adjacent properties have a "Minimum (10) acres sub -division covenent". Noting that the Carter (37) acre tract would thus allow sub -division into (3) parcels, we request that the less than (10) acre parcels be allowed, but: a "No further sub -division" clause be included in the covenants of all (3) sub -division parcels. 3) Water for irrigation of parcels to the north of the Carter property including those owned by Niblers, Adams, Bells, Taylors, Heins, Girtons, and Bergonzinis must proceed along traditionally established easements through the Carter property. Previous sub -division without adequate delineation of these easements has produced concern and confusion through- out the neighborhood. Further sub -division will also further aggravate this highly confused situation unless the details of the easements are fully identified for present and future owners of the Carter parcels. We suggest that a full description of the easements on ditches and headgates along with an itemization of the associated water shares be included in the plat and easement descriptions of all three Carter parcels. • 4) As a matter of convenience to the Carters; and in an effort to reduce soil erosion on the Carter property, two irrigation water pipe -lines have been agreed to which replace existing, traditional open -ditch easements which were subject to erosion. Pipe -Line #1 is a 10" aluminum line, existing and :in place, which delivers water from the Multa-Trina Headgate, to the Davis Ditch. Pipe -Line #2 has been generally routed from a yet to be con- structed division box to the west of the Carter lane to the intermediate Carter cross -ditch which conveys Multa-Trina water to the Nibler property via a traditional easement. We request that the full description of these easements to install and/or maintain the Multa-Trina headgate, Pipe -Line #1; Division Box, and Pipe -Line #2 be formally included into the Plats and Property Descriptions of the proposed Carter parcels as a pre -condition to sub -division approval. We view the conditions out -lined as reasonable and necessary protection both for the existing owners, and any prospective Carter parcel buyers. We further view these considerations to be within the responsibilities of the the Petitioners, and within the authority and responsibilities of the Commissioners. Upon the previously noted concerns being fully addressed, we will fully endorse the Carter Petition for exemption from full sub -division review. Sincerely, Gregory H. Nibler P.S. Suggest you contact State Engineers Office relative to this and all future sub -divisions requiring easements for, or allocation of irrigation water rights. GHN/db