HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportREQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
•
PROJECT INFORMATION & STAFF COMMENTS
Fou,
BOCC 1/11/93
Exemption from the Definition of
Subdivision
Lester Colodny
A tract of land located in a portion
of the NW 1/4 of Section 26, T7S.,
R89W of the 6th P.M.; more
practically described as a tract of
land located on the east side of
Three Mile Creek, south of Oak
Meadows Subdivision.
SITE DATA: A 124.54 acres
WATER: Individual Wells
SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal System
(ISDS)
ACCESS: County Road 117
ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located within District F, Rural Areas/Severe Environmental
Constraints of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management District map.
II_ DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is located on the east side of Four Mile Creek,
approximately one (1) mile south of Oak Meadows Subdivision. The property
includes extensive open ranchland on the northern portion of the property, and
four dwelling units located on the southern section fronting on CR 117. The
property is split by a ridgeline that trends from north to south, physically
separating the upper and lower ranches. Total elevation relief from the toe of
the slope to the top of the ridge (upper ranch) is approximately 320 feet. Four
Mile Creek trends through the southwest corner of the property. A vicinity map
is attached on page - / — .
B. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to split the upper and lower
portions of the property based on the physical separation by a ridge line that
1
traverses the property. The proposal would result in two parcels of
approximately 114 and 10 acres in size. Secondly, the applicant wishes to create
four tracts on the 10 acre parcel, creating legal parcels for each of the four
dwelling units. The existing residences are served by wells and ISDS. The
proposed four (4) lot splits are shown on page — — .
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1. Subdivision- Section 8:10 (Applicability -Exemptions) states that the Board has
discretionary authority to except a division of land from the definition of
subdivision. Following a review of the facts of each application, the Board may
APr2ov El approve conditionally or deny an exemption request. The board may not grant
an exemption unless the applicant can demonstrate compliance with zoning,
legal access, adequate water and sewer, state environmental health standards,
necessary road and drainage improvements, fire protection, adequate easements
and school impact fees.
In addition, Section 8.52 (A) states that a total of four (4) lots, parcels, interests
or dwelling units will be created from any parcel as that parcel was described in
the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office on January 1,
1973, and is not part of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be
divided by exemption that is split by a public right-of-way (State or Federal
highway, County Road or Railroad) or Natural Feature, preventing joint use
of the proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right-of-way or
natural feature, such parcels thereby created may, at the discretion of the Board,
not be considered to have been created by exemption in regards to the four (4)
lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable.
The parent parcel is divided into upper and lower ranches, with the split
delineated by a ridgeline. The lower point of the ranch is at approximately 7,080
feet, and the ridgeline crests at approximately 7,400 feet, based on an elevation
profile submitted with the application. This depiction, with no scale or source,
is shown on page ' 3 ' . Staff confirmed during fieldwork that the presence
of the ridge appears to conform to the requirements of Section 8.52 (A).
Therefore, the application is consistent with exemption requirements in terms of
parcels created by physical separation.
An unresolved issue is if the applicant is eligible for a four (4) parcel split. A
review of deeds on file with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office
indicate that the parent parcel in 1972 consisted of approximately 160 acres. In
March of 1984, the parent parcel was split into a two parcels of 124.54 acres
(2395-262-086, the subject parcel in this application) and a 34.5 acre tract (2395-
262-087). The 34.5 acre parcel was created by court action. This split is reflected
in the current parcel configuration shown on the Assessor's Maps (see Assessor's
Map on page ).
In staff's opinion, the parcel can only be divided into two (2) additional parcels
through the exemption process. Three (3) additional splits could be obtained by
using the natural feature of the ridgeline. The four (4) parcels requested in the
application does not appear to be consistent with the Exemption Regulations
described in Section 8.0 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
2
• •
2. Zoning: All lots appear to meet the minimum lot size requirements of 2 acres for
the A/R/RD zone district. All the existing structures appear to be consistent
with the respect to setbacks for this zone district, which are as follows: Front
and Back = 25 feet; Sides = 10 feet. For the purpose of interpretation, the west
property line, fronting on County Road 117, would be the front lot line.
3. Legal Access: Access for the additional lots will be obtained directly from
County Road 117. There are two existing driveways that provide access to the
existing dwelling units. Easements will be necessary on the Final Exemption Plat
to ensure legal access to all proposed parcels.
4. Water: The Four Mile Creek is considered an over -appropriated basin, and is
located in District B for purposes of augmentation with water from the West
Divide Water Conservancy District. At the time of submittal, the applicant
submitted a deed indicating adjudicated water rights from the Buck Farm Ditch
and Scott Well #1. In addition, a Referee's Ruling regarding RAC Well #3, and
a Diligence Notice for the same.
Planning staff referred the submitted documentation to John Schurer, Senior
Water Resource Engineer with the Office of the State Engineer for his review.
Mr. Schurer concluded that the State could not issue three well permits without
a water decree plan to augment stream depletions in the Four Mile drainage.
Furthermore, Mr. Schurer reviewed the application (Case Number 88CW024),
and concluded that the well is subject to administration (shut off) unless it is
operated under a plan for augmentation. Due to the over -appropriation of the
Four Mile drainage and the location of the property in respect to the Water
Conservancy District's, the site appears to not be developable at this time. The
State Engineer's Office recommended denial of the application.
Section 8.42(D) requires that an application for a subdivision exemption must
include "Proof of legal and adequate source of domestic water for each lot
created..". In the opinion of the State Engineer's Office, the applicant is unable
to meet this requirement. A copy of Mr. Schurer's letter is attached on page
5. Sewage: Sewage is proposed to be handled by ISDS. Staff reviewed the
County's Lincoln-Devore Hazards Maps, and these indicate that the area of the
proposed exemption is located in an area of "High Groundwater and Septic
Limitation". The relationship between the project and the hazards mapping is
shown on page — 4 - . Staff suggests that the following plat note be a
condition of approval:
'All lots may be subject to the requirement of engineered wastewater systems.
At the time of budding Permit Application for future structures, proof will be
required bya licensed Colorado Engineer regarding specific wastewater system
needs on each lot."
6. Natural Hazards: A review of soil and slope hazard maps (Lincoln-Devore
Testing Laboratories) do not indicate that the site presents significant
constraints to development.
3
•
7. Fire Protection. The applicant has not submitted documentation from the
appropriate fire district regarding fire protection.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. The proposal is in general compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan and the Garfield County Zoning Regulations.
2. The proposed land use would be consistent and compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses.
3. The proposal is in best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends DENIAL of the application due to the inability of the applicant to
provide suitable documentation regarding a source of legal and adequate water supply
to the proposed parcels (Section 8.42(D)). Secondly, a review of Assessor's Office
records reviewed by staff that the applicant is only allowed two (2) additional parcels,
or three (3) if the natural division is used (Section 8.52(A)) . And third, no
documentation has been submitted by the applicant regarding fire protection needs
(Section 8.52(G)).
If the Board feels that this proof of legal and adequate water supply could be obtained
in the future, the following conditions should be placed in the proposal.
1. All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval
unless otherwise stated by the applicant.
2. The applicant shall have 120 days to complete the required conditions of
approval. Extensions of 120 days may be granted by the Board for a period of
up to one (1) year.
3. A Final Exemption Plat will be submitted, indicating the legal description of the
property, dimension and area of all proposed lots or separate interests to be
created, access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easements for
drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
JL4, 1�2
OAC
4. The applicant shall submit $200.00 in School Impact Fees' prior to the signing
of an exemption plat.
5. Proof of adequate water supply, either in the form of well permits or an
augmentation plan, must be submitted prior to approval of a Final Exemption
Plat.
Unless proof is provided to the otherwise, the applicant is eligible for a
maximum of three (3) parcels, if the natural division by the ridgeline is approved
by the Board of County Commissioners.
4
L
The applicant shall submit documentation, consistent with Section 8.52(G),
regarding approval by the appropriate fire district prior to approval of a Final
Exemption Plat.
All the lots may be subject to the requirement of engineered wastewater systems.
At the time of building permit application for future structures, proof will be
required by a licensed Colorado Engineer regarding specific wastewater system
needs on each lot.
9 . EASEMEvTS foR. WPe1E[zLi S AND Acc-EsS AMD MplMlaioNI E oP 'Clic'
SE N\"LL BE- 6.10.-vp�-6 oN -r �`lEMptto� PLAT k ApPt'f�o� em..4{
Pu. R GtEvE q PEEDEP Iw?EP�Sl' IN I've A- L,)
o, A Wt .LL Slape.iNc.A QA ►ncN1 Svrt _ 1 PR.0vL Pf'-WL'ty
1- APPY�vPI.. of TJPL-Al AND SNsu,.
co V tit (.7to 4 w Ci k► En. Lt� Co mvEYW t7 W ELL OW f4E 4 IQ .
12) A,
OF Ft64A.1..-
if. E 13f-4Pcze Mvs ` 5E pr (c4 PL -Act✓ -pvtoa_ -ro SIL,41'4(1
C 'rot h.<ou�a.r �+i S. V .P. Fot
Co41t `x' 11 81T -Y- 3 :oo pM
C UI 1-10vs
11 ' Fwet� i - ( o
TuE c, N b "' N
oNo f���
-roe- Ply 445"4--�— �— i t� �"
ti
5
11
/1
i1, y ml W
• ci N
it fN
� mIlii
nIy
In to
.4:'-'7°- ' 'I • 7,, 1: .:A; ±- '- I'u
''''2"
a al
mi 11
-J
o
(
io/4`Js� •' o
1 ' t
c<
N
UO
`prY O
, 68p0
A
writ111
r)1
4II
0
0
b
•
ow.
4.3
9
tom
• •
3
!"f
,.ems,+�
1
sl.
T L
,.1d2)
046
,err
(Purl 01)
,D Div (Part of )
nlntums
10 -OF
14
SEE MAP NO 23114 -Il
04. ('93
094
UWtTTtL"*X74,_
atCOMDhind IYW�'
F.t a,•ff 054
1• $ T
05h
051
[-c521
Oe�
056
Ir•r
965
1
T. J
05
hrwl F 1
Adjoining 2401
Total Fos Land
Total Fob Lund
Total Lad (Otnorl
Total Land 10 Try
34
At
At
Ac
At
i
i
.400 0 1700 5400 1400 4000
1144;{ tN FL(T
L_
APPROVE
r
co
SEE MAP Wo
IO -OF
P. --
t e -Di
k
23:
T. 7 L - k
COLODNY PARCEL (086)
COLODNY EXEMPTION
ASSESSOR'S MAP
PARCEL SPLIT OFF IN 1984 (087)
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
GARFIELD y ; .:; < ( Y
)11
IATE OF cOLORADO
te
FCj,V
tb
n.�
Ca!1' , �/
EAGLE COUNTY
r 01-:r,tton1'EN
r
December 8, 1992
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Eagle County Community Development Department
P.O. Box 179
Eagle, CO 81631
Re:
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
RAC Arabians, PD -283-92-P, Preliminary Plan
Sec 26, T7S, R89W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to create four residential lots from a 10
acre parcel. The proposed water supply is to be individual on lot wells. There appears to be one
well on the property indicated in the submittal, with permit number 133901 which is issued as the
only well on a parcel of 35 acres, for domestic use for one single family dwelling. This office could
not issue three additional well permits without a water court decreed plan to augment stream
depletions. We have reviewed the Water Court application in Case Number 88CW024, and
conclude that this well appears to be subject to administtration (shutt off) unless it is operated
under a plan for augmentation. Based on the information provided, we can not recommend
approval of this proposal.
If you have any questions in this matter please contact me.
JS/racarab
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Bruce DeBrine
Sincerely,
�,,.. C
John Schurer, P.E.
Senior Water Resource Engineer
T�
AREA OF HIGH GROUNDWATER
AND SEPTIC LIMITATIONS
THE LINCOLN DeVC
COLORADO: Colorado Springs, Pi
Avon -Vail, Gunnison, Glenwood
Drawn by:
Chocked by: k
Scale: 1:2
Contour I
COLODNY EXEMPTION
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
March 9, 1993
Mr. Lester Colodny
8102 County Road 117
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: COLODNY SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
Dear Lester:
On Monday, March 8,1993, the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approved your
request for a subdivision exemption. The approval was subject on completion of the following
conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval
unless otherwise stated by the applicant.
2. The applicant shall have 120 days to complete the required conditions of
approval. Extensions of 120 days may be granted by the Board for a period of
up to one (1) year.
3. A Final Exemption Plat will be submitted indicating the legal description of the
property, dimension and area of all proposed lots or separate interests to be
created, access to a public right-of-way and any proposed easements for
drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
4. The applicant shall submit $200 in School Impact Fees for each lot created.
5. Proof of adequate water supply, in form of well permits, must be obtained prior
to approval of a Final Exemption Plat.
6. If wells are shared by exemption parcels, a well sharing agreement shall be
provided prior to the approval of the exemption plat and recorded in
conjunction with each deed conveying well ownership.
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
•
Mr. Lester Colodny
March 9, 1993
Page Two
7. That easements for waterlines, access and maintenance of the proposed well will
be included on the Exemption Plat.
8. The bridge necessary to access Lot #3 must be constructed prior to the signing
of an Exemption Plat. A Floodplain Special Use Permit may be necessary
depending on the design of the bridge.
9. Prior to the signing of an Exemption Plat, the applicant shall either apply for a
Guest House Special Use Permit for the cabin located on Lot #4, or the cabin
will be removed from the lot.
10. Prior to the signing of an Exemption Plat, the applicant shall submit a letter of
approval from the appropriate Fire District. Any conditions recommended by
the Fire District shall become conditions of approval.
11. The following plat note shall appear on the Exemption Plat.
"Control of noxious weeds will be the responsibility of the property owner."
If you have any questions regarding the conditions of approval, please do not hesitate to call.
rely,
David H. Michaelson
Planner
DHM/dhm
r1 PUBLIC MEETING FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION;
2 LOCATED ADJACENT TO FOUR MILE CREEK, APPROXIMATELY FOUR AND ONE-HALF
3 MILES (4-1/2) MILES NORTHWEST OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE. APPLICANT:
4 LESTER COLODNY
5 Steve Zwick, Assistant County Attorney, stated that there were certain
6 notification requirements and requested the return receipts. Lester
7 Colodny stated that they did not receive a return receipt from John
8 Martin as he had been out of town. Steve said that there were six
9 mailings and 3 cards returned. Don Swigert remailed the notice to
10 Carter T. Jackson because he had been out of townand did not receive
11 the first one. Another person received theirs and another was
12 returned. Dave Michaelson verified that the property was posted.
13 Steve said that it was okay to proceed with the meeting. Dave
14 requested that Exhibit "A" - Return Receipts, Exhibit "B" -
15 Application, Exhibit "C" - Staff Report and Exhibit "D" - Elevation
16 Profile and Lot Configuration be entered into the record. Chairman
17 Mackley accepted Exhibits "A" through "D" into the record.
18 Commissioner Arbaney asked if he should declare a conflict of interest
19 and withdraw from the proceedings as he owns property adjacent to
20 Lester Colodny. Steve felt that it would be a conflict of interest.
21 Commissioner Arbaney left the meeting.
22 Dave explained that this was was a request for an exemption from a
23 subdivision and the applicant was Lester Colodny. The parcel is almost
24 125 acres in size with water provided by individual wells and the
25 existing units are serviced by ISDS. The zoning is currently A/R/RD.
26 The property is located on the east side of Four Mile Creek,
27 approximately one mile South of Oak Meadows Subdivision. The property
28 includes extensive open ranchland on the northern portion known as the
29 upper ranch and four dwelling units that are located on the southern
30 section fronting CO RD 117. Dave stated that it was his understanding
31 that these houses were built as employee housing units when the ranch
32 was active. The property is split by a ridgeline that trends from
33 north to south, physically separating the upper and lower ranches. The
34 applicant is proposing to split the upper and lower portions of the
35 property based on the physical separation of the ridge line. That
36 would result in two parcels of approximately 114 and 10 acres in size.
37 The applicant is requesting four tracts to be split on the lower ranch
38 which includes the existing dwelling units.
39 Dave stated that the upper ranch split is consistent with exemption
40 requirements in terms of parcels created by physical separation but
41 there is an unresolved issue whether or not the applicant is eligible
42 for a four (4) parcel split as the parent parcel was split into two
43 parcels of 124.54 acres (the subject parcel in this application) and a
44 34.5 acre tract. The 34.5 acre tract was created by court action.
45 Dave said that it was Staff's opinion that the parcel can only be
46 divided into two additional parcels through the exemption process. A
47 third split could be obtained by using the natural feature of the
48 ridgeline. In Staff's opinion a court ordered split may not have to
49 conform to subdivision regulations but it still represents a split and
50 counts against the four lot minimum.
51 Dave continued that there seemed to be no problem in terms of zoning or
52 legal access although water has become a bit of an issue. Dave said
53 that in terms of where the property is located, Four Mile Creek is
54 considered an over appropriated basin. Dave sent all the documentation
55 regarding the water to John Schurer, Senior Water Resource Engineer
56 with the State for his review. John Schurer concluded that the State
57 could not issue three well permits without a water decree plan to
58 augment the stream depletions in the Four Mile Drainage. John further
59 stated that the well is subject to administration (shut off) unless it
60 is operated under a plan for augmentation. Due to the
61 over -appropriation of the Four Mile drainage and the location of the
62 property in respect to the Water Conservancy District, the site appears
63 to have significant development constraints at this time. The State
64 Engineer's Office recommended denial. Dave stated that in a meeting
65 with the applicant, Lester Colodny provided Staff with copies of four
66 well permits that weren't included in the original submittal so they
67 have not been reviewed by John Schurer. Dave said that he will refer
68 the material that the applicant submitted to John for his review.
Page 7
t •
1 After this information is received from John, Staff can make a
2 determination if the well permits are adequate to provide water for the
3 three or four parcels.
4 Dave said that sewage would be handled by ISDS. Staff suggests that
5 the following plat note be a condition of approval: "All lots may be
6 subject to the requirement of engineered wastewater systems. At the
7 time of Building Permit Application for future structures, proof will
8 be required by a licensed Colorado Engineer regarding specific
9 wastewater system needs on each lot." The applicant has not submitted
10 documentation from the appropriate fire district regarding fire
11 protection.
12 Dave stated that the Staff recommendation at the time of writing was
13 denial of the application due to the inability of the applicant to
14 provide suitable documentation regarding a source of legal and adequate
15 water supply. Staff also questions the ability of the applicant to
16 receive four splits on the parcel. Dave said that Steve is prepared to
17 make an interpretation from the County's perspective on what the code
18 says regarding a court ordered split. The third reason for
19 recommending denial at this time is that the applicant has not
20 submitted any fire protection documentation from Glenwood.
21 Dave said that if the Board felt it was warranted, Staff would not have
22 any problem (assuming that the number of lots Lester Colodny is
23 eligible for could be resolved) with a 30 -day continuation for the
24 water problem to be resolved.
25 Steve Zwick addressed the number of lots as per section 8.52 of the
26 County Subdivision regulations. Steve concurred with Dave stating that
27 it was irrelevant as to how the lot was created.
28 Lester said that he was surprised about the letter from the John
29 Schurer as they are allowed to put 7 houses on the wells that they
30 have. Sherry Caloia, Lester Colodny's attorney, is aware of the wells
31 and feels there is no problem regarding adequate water sources. If an
32 additional 30 days is allowed, he stated that they would bring in the
33 necessary documentation.
34 Lester discussed the court ordered split of the property for a
35 foreclosure. He stated that if the property was split previously, the
36 court could still order another split, even though no more splits were
37 available. Lester said that he did not want to build any additional
38 houses; he only wanted to sell the houses that were in existence. He
39 said that the employee housing was built in the upper area and these
40 houses already in existence were built there for the people to stay in
41 that were coming in to purchase the horses. Lester also stated that
42 the Fire Department has been out there and reviewed the situation.
43 Lester said that two of the houses are completed. Two of the houses
44 are finished outside but not completely finished inside. Mark stated
45 that these houses were built as employee housing and the permits could
46 not have been issued any other way.
47 Chairman Mackley entered Exhibit "E" into the record. This is an
48 overlay map of the area. The Commissioners, Lester, Dave and Mark
49 examined the map.
50 There was additional discussion about the existence of the houses
51 allowing four splits. Dave said that the code does not give Staff the
52 flexibility to allow additional splits. Chairman Mackley stated that
53 since Counsel tells them that there are 3 splits available, that is
54 what he is going to go use. Commissioner Smith agreed with this.
55 Commissioner Smith made a motion that 30 days be given to the applicant
56 to provide documentation for the water and availability of fire
57 protection and the meeting continued until 2/16/93 at 2:00 P.M.
58 Chairman Mackley stepped down as Chairman and seconded the motion;
59 carried.
1-iljl?5
60 PUBLIC HEARING FOR FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT; LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
61 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF CATTLE CREEK, ALONG THE WEST BANK OF THE rOARING fORK
62 RIVER. APPLICANT: LARRY MINCER
Page 8
• •
1 thank them for the opportunity to work for them. Joe Kracum stated
2 that the County is a good owner and he would like the opportunity to
3 work for the County again.
4 ROAD AND BRIDGE
5 King Lloyd, Road and Bridge Superintendent, stated that on February 10,
6 1993 most of the chip and seal roads in the area of the County that are
7 being traveled by the Gas Industry were closed due to rain and
8 substantial thawing of the roadway. There were two provisions that
9 were made: CO RD 215 up Parachute Creek was not restricted and there
10 were no restrictions on the roads with a gravel surface.
11 King discussed the problems with people stealing the barricades on Red
12 Canyon. They will stake them down. There have been some snowslides on
13 the road. There was a slide on Parachute Creek that went over the top
14 guardrail. Unocal opened the road up to one lane and the County
15 finished clearing the road.
16 CHANGE ORDER -BAXTER PASS
17 King explained that this was the other half of the first change order
18 for additional backfill that was needed to take care of the
19 over -excavation. King stated that the extra excavation was due to the
20 high pressure line of Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. King will talk to
21 Don about writing a letter to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas to recoup the
22 costs because the project was moved at their request. The Board
23 directed King to have the letter come from Don's office. Commissioner
24 Smith made a motion that the Change Order for backfill on the Baxter
25 Pass project in the amount of $3,375.00 be approved. Commissioner
26 Mackley seconded the motion; carried.
27 ROAD AND BRIDGE
28 There was discussion about the purchase of additional sanding
29 material. King stated that he sent another letter to the Division of
30 Wildlife regarding the Crystal River Bridge. King said that he would
31 be attending a CDOT meeting next Sunday, Monday and Tuesday to find out
32 about funding that might be possible for Mamm Creek and also for an
33 update on ISTEA.
34 PHYSICIAN SERVICES AT THE JAIL
35 Don Schneider reported that a resignation had been received from Dr.
36 Eicher with two weeks notice given and he is on two weeks vacation and
37 he is taking this now.
38 EXECUTIVE SESSION -HEALTH CARE IN THE JAIL
39 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Board go into Executive
40 Session to discuss the health care in the jail. Commissioner Mackley
41 seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Smith made a motion that
42 the Board come out of Executive Session and reconvene as the Board of
43 County Commissioners. Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion;
44 carried.
45 GRANT APPLICATION FOR HEALTHY BEGINNINGS
46 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Chairman be authorized to
47 sign the grant application for the 1993 Community Services Block Grant
48 in the amount of $21,473.00 for Healthy Beginnings. Chairman Arbaney
49 stepped down as Chairmanand seconded the motion; carried.
50 CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF A
51 SUBDIVISION; LOCATED ADJACENT TO FOUR MILE CREEK, APPROXIMATELY FOUR
52 AND ONE-HALF (4-1/2) MILES NORTHWEST OF CARBONDALE. APPLICANT: LESTER
53 COLODNY
54 Chairman Arbaney declared a
55 audience. Chairman Pro Tem
56 Sherry Caloia, attorney for
57 were present.
conflict of interest and took a seat in the
Smith presided.
applicant, and Lester Colodny, applicant,
58 Dave Michaelson introduced Exhibit "E" - August 28, 1984 letter from
59 County Attorney Earl Rhodes which discussed the possibility of future
60 problems regarding the splits available to this property. Chairman Pro
61 Tem Smith admitted Exhibit "E" into the record.
Page 6
III
1 Dave explained that the Lester Colodnyhad requested a four lot
P
2 exemption on the property based on a physical separation which is a
3 slope that splits the property in half. Staff had recommended denial
4 for two reasons. The first is that a parcel had been created from the
5 parent parcel in 1984 by Court action. Based on Staff's interpretation
6 and discussion with the County Legal Staff, it was determined that he
7 was only eligible for three parcels. The code reads that four parcels
8 are allowed for the property as it existed in 1973. There was one
9 split. In addition, a lot that is physically separated by a physical
10 feature or a County Road may be created. Staff felt that even though
11 there were four dwelling units down there, Lester Colodny was only
12 eligible for three splits on the lower portion. There were also
13 questions about the existing well there. Dave stated that he and
14 Sherry had discussions with each other and with the State regarding the
15 wells. The State told Dave on Friday that they felt that three wells
16 could be put out there, each serving three dwelling units. Dave said
17 that water does not appear to be an issue. Dave sent a letter to
18 Lester Colodny on January 19, 1993 summarizing what happened at the
19 previous hearing. The Board instructed Lester Colodny to resolve two
20 issues; the first was the well issue and it has been addressed and
21 secondly the Board requested him to reconfigure the proposed exemption
22 to allow only three parcels.
23 Dave stated that the fact that there are four dwelling units there has
24 no bearing on the number of lots that are available.
25 Sherry explained to Don DeFord that they have decrees for three wells
26 on this parcel and they are exempt wells. There would only be two
27 wells used on the lower parcels and a well sharing agreement would be
28 necessary.
29 Lester stated that they did not do a second site plan yet. He stated
30 that they would like to ask again that with the existing topography and
31 the road system that services these houses. He discussed taking the
32 last house and having a bridge put over the creek and redoing the road.
33 Sherry explained that the reason Lester is in this predicament now is
34 because of something that was beyond his control where part of the
35 property was taken by the bank and foreclosed upon. Sherry said that
36 what he is seeking is to split the property to be able to sell off four
37 lots with existing houses. Sherry felt that the County could still
38 grant four lots because this was not something he had done previously.
39 Sherry said that Lester's goal was to have 4 lots for the 4 houses that
40 are existing.
41 Don Schleiger stated that he had talked to Jack Jones this morning and
42 he said stated he would send a letter stating this property is in the
43 Fire District and the District is able to provide fire protection
44 service. Jack Jones did make an on site protection.
45 Don DeFord explained that the regulations require that the lot line
46 fall on the road or terrain feature and it makes no provision for an
47 exception as to a Court -created lot. There was considerable discussion
48 about the number of lots. Don Schleiger said that there were three
49 natural features separating the land: the old train track, the creek
50 and the ridge.
51 The Board directed Lester Colodny to work with the Planning Staff so
52 that the lot lines fit with the intent of the law.
53 Commissioner Mackley made a motion that the meeting be continued to
54 March 8, 1993 at 3:00 P.M. Chairman Pro Tem Smith stepped down to
55 second the motion; carried.
56 EXTENSION-DELANEY AND BALCOMB SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
57 Dave said that Ken Balcomb called and requested 120 days extension for
58 the Delaney and Balcomb Subdivision Exemption. They need the extension
59 to complete the paperwork with West Divide Water District.
60 Commissioner Smith made a motion that a 120 day extension be granted
61 for the Delaney and Balcomb Subdivision Exemption (Coke Oven Project).
62 Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried.
Page 7