HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 03.12.1984i
o o
BOCC 3/L2/84
PROJECT INFORT,IATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
For a S.B. 35 Exemption
Ilenry Dietz, IV
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
ACCESS:
SEWER:
E&!EB:
zoNlNq:
ADJACENT
A/R/RD
ZONING:Nor th
South
East
West
The following standards apply to those aspectthat require specialized site-planning or des
County.
A
Sec. 25, T5S, R91W; located NW of
New Castle along the entrance tothe EIk Creek Subdivision.
Division of approximately 9.2 acresinto 4 lots.
Off County Rd. 245 up an existing
pr ivate access road.
Proposed individual septic disposal
systems.
Town of New Castle
R - t4H/c/VD
A/s/so
R - MH/G/UD
A,/R/RD
f the natural environmentconsideration in Garfield
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site lies within District A Urban Areas of Influence for the
Town of New Castle.
The following is taken from the Garfield County Comprehensive plan NaturalEnvironment Section (pg. 77-78):
so
ign
I. Stee s1 s (258 and over and Moderate
s s 16r
Potential Problems1. Erosion.2. Sedimentation.
3. Rapid runoff.4. Revegetation difficulty.5. Excessive cut and fiIl.6. Landslide potenLial.
7. Subsidence.8. Increased potential of hazardous areas suchas rockfall, mud flow or unstable slope.
--4
I
a o
B. Performance Standards
Slopes 25* and over shall be restricted from
development. These slopes maY be:
Maintained as permanent open space.
Platted as a portion of an approvedbuilding lot, with an open space ease-
ment.Platted as a portion of a building lot
which has adequate usable building space
available other than steep slopes.Platted as a portion of a subdivision and
dedicated as permanent open space.
Developed with special design considera-tions and engineering.
Areas of disturbance or clearing on slopes 25*greater shall be sLabilized and revegetated to
disturbance levels with appropriater rapidly
established vegetation.
1
a
b
c
d
e
2 or
pr e-
5
1I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A.Site Description: The
along both sides of anSubdivision. The siteCoryell Ditch and the
Native or apt plant materials shall be used.
Melhod of stabilization used shall blend with
or enhance the existing surrounding environment.Stabilization methods shall be completed before
any lots or homes are sold unless otherwise
approved by the County Commissioners.
On moderate slopes ( 16t 24*) only thosestructures that are designed to fit the contoursof the land shall be considered. The leveling, ornbenchingn, of these slopes shaIl not be permitted.
Construction measures which
moderate slope hazards are:
may be used to mitigate
The disturbance of the natural vegetation shall
be kept to a minimum during the construction of
any development.
Dust and wind erosion shall be l<ept to a minimum
during construction by the use of temporary soilstabilization measures.Erosion and runoff control measures which
demonstrate the control of storm water and
water-born soil during and after constructionshall be provided for all development activities.
The grading of all new development shall be designed sothat cut and fill are kept to a minimum and can balancewithin the project site.
Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:lefficient stabilization methods are utilized.
The proposed development shall be designed in a
manner which demonstrates a "fit" with the existing
topography of the land.
a
b
c
3
4
a
b
c
a
b
site sits to the north of County Rd. 245existing access road used by the Elk Creekis mainly steep hillsides and contains theCity of New Castle Waterworks.
B. Project Description:The proposal is to divide the 9+4 lots of approximately 2, 2, 2, and 3 acres. Three oflots would sit to the west of the existing access road
would sit to the east.
acres intothe four
andone
f
o
Ilisto_ry: In 1983, a L2 + acre parcel was divided by exemptioninEo-7-tracts leaving this 9 acre parcel. At that time theapplicanL requested to be able to come in later for furtherreview to possibly get additional exemptions on the 9 acretract. Thus Resolution # Ql:E.a does not contain any restrictivewording regarding further eiempEions. (See pagetJtA!)
III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Review A encles:The Town of Nev, Castle noted in a letter to theter pageAt_) that they would be happy to workto provide water taps for the lots and thatto negotiate a land exchange with regards toorks area.
appl cant see let
B. Staff Comments:
1.The CiLy of New Castle and the applicant have reached an
agreement with regards to a land exchange. This could behandled through a boundary line adjustment.
2 The County Environmental Health office has noted that it
would be necessary for any septic systems on these lots tobe designed by a registered professional engineer.
The soils report from the Soil Conservation Serviceindicated that all soils types found on this site havesevere limitations with regards to development due to steepslopes, rock exposures and shallow soils.
o
with the applicantthey vrere willingthe cityrs water w
3
4
5
There is a smalI portion of proposed lot #4 (.03
has been encroached upon by lot #7 in Block 4 of
Creek Subdivision. The applicant wishes Lo giveparcel to the owners of the lot in the EIk Creek
Subdivis ion .
acres) thatthe Elkthis small
6
The existing access road used by the E1k Creek Subdivision
and which is to serve the proposed lots is not a part of ilreEIk Creek Subdivision and is not Iegally a public accessroad. The applicant would need to convey the existing roadto the proposed parcers. The appricant should also considerpreparing a legal easement document for the EIk CreekSubdivision with regards to the existing road. This couldbe done through ownership and appropriate easements.
Since the applicant had one exempted parcel created in 1983,the proposed number of additional lots (4), if approved,would mean that the applicant has had a toLal of 5 lotscreated by exemption from one original parcel.
The surrounding property incrudes the E1k creek subdivisionwhich has approximately I/4 acre lots.
The site review of the parcel indicated that areas of theparcel could be in excess of 25?. slopes. A S.B. 35exemption application however does not require a topographyor elevation map.
7
I
IV. FINDINGS
2
I The hearing before the Boardextensive and complete, that
and issues \^rere submitted.
of County Commissioners wasall pertinent facts, matters
That further review is required prior to the creation of theproposed new 1ots.
That for the above stated and other
shoulci bo through the fu11 Garfield
r eview proces{-,' - (-
reasons the proposal
County subdivision
3.
o
V. RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL of the S.B. 35 exemption request to make 2 boundary line
adjustments; one with the City of New Castle and one with lot 7 of
Block 4 of the EIk Creek subdivision with the following conditions:
The boundary line adjustment with 1ot 7, Block 4 of the Elk Creek
Subdivision.1. That a revised plat of the Elk Creek Subdivision be filed inthe Clerk and Recorder I s office showing the boundary lineadjustment. This plat shall be reviewed by the Department
of Development and shall be signed by the County Surveyor
and Lhe Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the above conditions must be met within 120 days.
The boundary line adjustment with the Town of New Castle:
I That a plat be filed in the Clerk and Recorderrs office
showing the boundary line adjustment. This plat shall be
reviewed by the DepartmenL of Development and signed by the
County Surveyor and the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the above conditions must be met within 120 days.
For reasons listed in the Staff Comments with regards to soils and the
number of potential lots proposed to be created through the exemptionprocess, it appears that the ful1 subdivision review process would
address the concerns regarding the soils and more specifically
determine whether or not each 1ot could provide a building site and is
capable of handling individual septic disposal syst.ems without causinginjury to adjacent land owners or creating a public health hazard.
If this applicantion is approved, the following minimum conditions
should be imposed.
1. That there be a plat recorded in the Clerk and Recorderrsoffice including the following:a) A 1ega1 description of each lot which includesthe appropriate access easements with regards tothe existing access road. It shall also include
any ditch easements for the property.
b) That a plat note be included stating that each Iotis subject to both errgineered foundations and sepLic
systems engineered by a Colorado registered professional
engineer .
o
2 $200.00 per lot
Development for
appr oval .
shall be paid to the Department ofthe School Impact Fee prior to final
7-
o O
TOWN OF NEW CASTLE
BOX 166
NEW CASTLE. C()LORAOO 8t647
TELEPHONE: 904-231 t
January 19,1984
Gary D. Berschauer
Landmark Surveying
P.O. Box 883
Rif1e, Co.81650
RE: Water Taps
division.
for Dletz Exemption ProperEy - Elk Creek Sub-
Dear Gary,
The Town of New castle ls qulte willing to provide lrater tapsto the identified property provided an adaquate system can bedesigned and approved by the Town which lnsures that adequatepressure is available to the 10ts served. Thls can be accomp-llshed by a number of systems. The Townrs Engineer will be morethan happy to work wlth you.
I.Ie are also willlng to negotiate a land exchange for the ident-lfied properties.
we do have a concern that the utuost care be taken in the designof the wastewater systems so as to insure that the Townts potablerJater system is not contamlnated. The Townrs water processlngplant ls located downhlll of the proposed subdivlsion.
I.Je l-ook forward to worklng wlth you on thls project.
l+r -
Respectfully,
Kenneth Resor
Town AdministraEor
-.:-]:-:-.:-:1
.4
JAi'l 2 0 igg4(/^
iiit
U
,
I
xr
cc: Garfleld County Planning and Zoning Commission
- Jtr-
GA,{FIEII] CO. PLANIIE
o
I
a
srATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
At a regular meeti ng of the
Commissioners for GarfieId, Colorado, held at
o
Board of Countythe Commissioners t
Monday
Annex in
A. D.Glenwood Springs on
19 83 r there h,ere
, the 13th day of June
present:
Eugene rtJimrr Drlnkhouse , Commissioner Chairman
, Commissioner
, Commissioner
, County Attorney
, Clerk of the Board
Larry Velasquez
Plaven J. Cenlse
Earl Rhodes
Mildred Alsdorf
when the following proceedings, among others were had and doner to-wit:
RESOLUTION NO. 83-138
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH GRA}TING AN EXEMPTION FROM THE GARFIELD COUNTY
SUBDMSTON REGULATTONS FOR HENRY W. DTETZ, IV.
I{HEREAS, Henry 9{. Dietz, IV. has petitioneo the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for an exemption from the
definition of the terms "subdivision" and "subdivided land" under C.R.S.
1973, 30-28-101 (10) (a)-(d), as amended, and the Subdivision Regulations
of Garfield County, Colorado, adopted January 2, 1979, Sections 2.02.2L(d) and 3.02.0f for the division of a L2 acre tract described as follows:
That parcel of land located as described in Book 555, Page 329 as filed in
the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado into 2
tracts of approximately 9 acres and 3.84 acre's each, more or less, which
proposed divided tracts are more particularly described as follows:
TRACT A: A parcel of land in the NE 1/4 of Section 25, Township 5 South,
Range 91 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Garfield County,
Colorado and being more particularly describeo as follows:
Beginning at the center L/4 Corner of said Section 25i thence
N.00o07'59"8. a distance of 435.67 feet to a point on the
Southwesterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 245i thence
Southeasterly following a curve to the left along said
right-of-way line whose radius is 639.8I feet and whose central
angle is 38009'07" for an arc Iength distance of 425.03 feet and
whose chord bears S.62009'05'8. 4L8.2L feet; thence continuing -
along said right-of-way line following a curve to the right
having a central angle of 22"27101" and a radius of 550.52 feet
for an arc length distance of 254.89 feet and whose chord bears
S.70o00'08"8. 253.27 feet; thence continuing along said
right-of-way line S.58o46'37"E. a distance of 254.94 feet; thence
continuing along said right-of-way line, along a curve to the
left having a central angle of 01009r34" and a radius of 1316.73
feet for an arc length distance of 26.65 feet and whose chord
bears S.59'2L'24"8.26.65 feet to a Point on the Southerly line'
of the N.E. L/4 of said Section 25i thence S.89o27'50"fi1. and
along the said Southerly line a distance of 849.76 feet more or
less to the PoinL of Beginning. Containing 4.1412 acre, more or
less.
TRACT B: The parcel as described in Book 555, Page 329 with the exception
of Tract A, as described above.
(in the State of Colorado and County of Garfield); and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the
proposed division does not faII within the purPoses of Part I, Article 28,
Title 30, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973r Ets amended, for the reason that
the impact created does not warrant further subdivision reviewr dDd
-J? -
Oo
I' WHEREAS, the Petitioner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that there is
a reasonable piobabilit.y of Iocating domestic water on each of said
tracts, that there is adequate ingress and egress to said tracts, that the
location of septic tanks wiff be permitted by the Colorado DeparLment of
Health, that the requested division is not Part of an existing or larger
development and doei not faIl within the general purPoses and intent of
the srUdivision regulations of the State of Colorado and'the County of
Garfieldr.ald should, therefore, be exempted from the definition of the
terms "subdivision" and "subdivided land" as set forth in C.R.S. L973,
30-28-I01 (10) (a) - (d) , as amended i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the division of the above
described tracts nAr and 'tBrr from the above described L2 acre tract is
hereby exempted from such definitions and said tract may be divided into
tracti rrAr ind "B"r aII as is more fully described above, and said divided
tract may be conveyed in the form of such smaller tracts without further
compliance with thA aforesaid subdivision statutes and regulatioDs.
fn iaaition, a copy of the instrument or instruments of conveyance when
recorded shall be filed with this Resolution.
ATTEST3 GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COIVIMISSIONERS
GARFTELD COUNTY, COLORADO
r of the Boar n
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was
adopted by the following vote:
Eugene'Jimtr Drlnkhouse a
Larry VeLasquez e
Flaven J. Cerise A
,
STATE OF
County of
COLORADO
Gar field
)
)ss
)
r - , County
of the goard-;Fcountf commissioners in and for C1erk and
the County
ex-officio CIerk
and State
Order is truly
Countyaforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing
copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of
Commissioners for said Garf ield Countyr llow in my of f ice.
IN WITNESS WHEREOr, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal
of said County, dt Glenwood Springs, this day of
A.D. 19 County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
Board of CountY Commissioners.
-3o-
,