HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 04.03.1995ooEr+ zle
Z+b 9L
atc flljs,";e;;
{o Eotzl2 EhnaOr/L\
BOCC 4l3l9s
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REOUEST:An exemption from the definition of
subdivision.
APPLICANT:ADD Investments, LLC (David Harris)
I-OCATION:A tract of land located in Section 5, T65,
RglW of the 6th PM, located approximately
two (2), rniles west of New Castle.
SITI DATA 27 acres
WATER:Well
SBWER ISDS
ACC ESS:CR 214
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING:A/R/RD
I. RE IONSHIP TO TIIE COMPR["}IENSI\rE PI,AN
The site is locatecl in District D - Rural Areas Minor Environmental Constraints as designated
on tlte Garfield County Compreltetlsive Plan Management Districts'Map'
II.DESCR ION Of,'TIIE PR OPOSAL
Project Description: The applicant is proposillg to split tlte 27 acre parcel irrto five
(5xr."t. "f ,pp-ximately i.5, 6.0, 2.5,7 .5 ard 7.5 acres in size. A sketch p_lan of
ih" propor"d Lxermptior.r .ub*itt.,l with the application is shown on page'5 '. The
fillipaicel is being requested clue to the natural split of a gulclt running north/south
tlrrorigh tle portion of i5e properly north of Courty Road 214, as well as the natural
division by the County road.
III MA.IOR ISSI]ES AND CO CERNS
A Subdivision Renrlations. Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations state that "No more tltan a total of four 4 arcels, interests or
dwelling units will be created from any parc el, as that p arcel was ed
records ofthe Garfield County Clerk and Record on auuary I ,7973, and
is not a paft of a recorded subdivision; however,any parcel to be divided bY
exemption that is split by a public right-oflway (State or Federal highwaY, CountY
road or railroad) or nattlral feature, preventing joint use ofthe proposed tracts, and
the division occurs along the public right-of-way or naturaI feature, such parcels
thereby created may, i1 the discretiol of the Board, not be considered to have been
created by exemption with regard
limitation otherwise applicable;
to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or
A.Site Description: The property is located between New Castle and Silt, on the north t soorH
side of County Road 214, in an area of historical agricultural land' The propefiy
includes gentiy sloping lands descendirrg towards the Colorado River, and a
predominant clrainage that clescends fi'op the lower portions of the Grand Hogback'
Avicinityrnap is slrowrr onpage' 4 '
Sl\^
arl-H"Jy
nr.rurrT
I
B
S
-
O
dwelling unit
B
C.
o o
A deed subrnitterl with the application describes the parent parcel on October 17'
lg55 (Book 288, Page 103). Therefore, trp to four (4) parcels can be created
through the exetnption process.
Section 8.52 allows a natttral split due to a natural feature that "prevents joint use of
tlre proposed tracts". The gtrlch itt questiolt is approximately 12 feet across, and
drains considerable acreage ti the nofth (BLM property). Fieldwork conducted by
stafffotmd consirlelable tlebris and scottt'ilrg along the upper reaches of the gulch'
indicating sigtrificant past flows.
In aclclition, the nofthem pofiion of the property is split by the Coturty road ROW'
Zoning. All of the llarcels exceed tlte two (2) acre minimum lot size consistent with
the A/IVRD zone district. Tlte area betweett New Castle and Silt along CR 214
inclucles densities gelterally cottsistettt with the proposed exemption (see assessor's
rnap on page ' b:
-)
Legal Access. The pafent llarcel is accessed directly fi'om County Road 214' County
Road 2 l4 5as seen sigrrificant increases on traffic over tlte last five (5) years. Staff
would suggest that Jared access be reqtrired for the Lots 4 and 5 to minimize
driveway cuts. Oriveway pennits will be required fi'orn Road and Bridge prior to the
signing of a final Plat.
E
D. Water and Sewer The four proposed lots will not qualiff for an exempt well permit,
and the applicant rnust apply for wat er from the West Divide Water Conselancy
District. The well pennit applications and the appli cation to West Divide have been
filed (see
suggests
approval.
March l7th, 1995 letter fi'orn Sherry Caloia on Page a,Staff
tlrat the well llennits and ConseNancy District contract be a condition of
Staff has referrecl the application to the State Engitteer's Office' No response has
been receivecl to date. Siaffwould suggest that a favorable feq)onse fi'om the State
be a condition of aPProval.
Sewer will be provided by ISDS. Soils on the site are predominantly Olney loam
(#51), which is consider.,l to l,rr. moclerate cottstraints for ISDS, although the
prirnury constraittt is basecl ort percolatioll rates, which would be performed at the
tirne of building penrrit strbmittal.
State and Local Health Standards. No State or Local health standards are applicable
t,, tf,. ufrplication, *itl, tl* exception of Colorado Department of Health ISDS
setback stanclarrls, which should be verified by an erlgirreer.
Drainage. A 20 foot drainage easement fi'orn the centerlille of the drainage is shown
on the proposed sketch Plan.
Fire Pr.otection. The Fire District has ttot responded to the application. staffwould
suggest that a fhvorable reqronse be received ty the Fire District prior to approval of
the final plat.
Easetnettts. An adclitional petlestrian/eqtrestrialr easen'lent providirrg access to BLM
lrr"l*"y is showrr on tlie sketc[ plan. It is urclear if the easement would be
inaintained by a Home Owrers Association, or be sinrply an easement over propefiy.
property. if a s6arecl driveway is a condition of approval, appropriate access
easemetrts must also be showl. Any required easemeuts (drainage, access' utilities'
etc..) will be required to be slrowtt ott tlte exernption plat'
School hnpact Fees The applicant will be reqtrit'ed to pay the $200.00 per lot impact
fee prior to the approval of the final plat.
-Z-
F
G
H
I.
o
N4trrral Hazards. Staffreferencecl the Lincoln - Devore Laboratories Natural f{azards
Mapping for the site. The prollosed exemption NOT located within an area
identifiecl as haviug slope, soil, or ISDS constraints. No plat notes are necessary.
BLM: The BLM had the following comments:
A) Tle proposed easement could result in a proliferation of trails and disturbance to
wildlife. Public access is already available from existing county roads;
B) The adjacent BLM parcel has cument livestock gtanng pennits and BLM is
reqtresting o f.n.. be installed to specifications along the northern botrndary of the
,*ffig.*: ,Te March 28, tee5letter from Michael Mottice on pases
STIGGESTED FTNDINGS
l. That proper posting ancl public notice was provided as required for the meeting before
the Board of County Cornmissioners'
Z. That the rneeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pefiinent facts, matters and issues were subntitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meetirrg.
3. Tlat for tfie above statecl arrcl other reasons, the proposed exemption is in the best
ilterest of the health, safbty, nrorals, cottvenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield Cotrrrty.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommelds APPROVAL ofthe application, subject to the following conditions:
l. 'l1at all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
meeting before the Boarcl of Courrty Cornmissioners, sltall be considered conditions
of approval.
Z. A Filal Exernption Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the
propelty, dimerision ancl area ofthe proposed lot, access to a public right-of-way, and
any propose{ easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
3. That the applicant shall have 120 days to presellt a plat to the Commissioners for
sigrature fi'om the date of approval of tlte exemption'
4. Tlrat the applicant shall subrnit $200.00 in School hnpact Fees for the creation of
eaclt exemption parcel.
5. A favorable req)o1se fi'om the State Engirteer's Office must be received prior to the
sigrring of an exemPtion Plat.
6. A favorable response fi'om the New/Silt Fire Protection District must be received
prior to the sigrring of an exemption plat.
7. Control of noxiorts weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
8. Driveway permits fi'om Road and Bridge must be received prior to signing of an
exemption plat. Driveway access shall be shared between lots 4 and 5.
o
J
6
w
v
o 3 O
o o
,1,
\:l'
\il
tl
lr
o qtu
R N
.lt
\
I
I
I
)
I
//wlzo
(,
LoT L
I
il
?anD
co r,r >r T tl
ACRG 9
II
6O
3.5
ACEC-J
t/
/i
LOT
I
/
LoT 3 Lor Y
2,s
ACBCI 7.5
4cEe s
Lor 5
?.s
Aczc s
o o
d qo" ot sq8.7
t8 o rl3 t6 6 i5 .2-
N qo" ot € t3Lo.o
to ' TuALr C ttTl Llfal E,<se,-reruT 4 L,NG Coup77 PoAD
(A
o
c
J
m
J
u)J
q
o
sq
fi
-J
)
ro
^l
o
o
Nl
tv)
q)
o
t
a
\
C€-*rtgr.,-r tr g
Lexteta rre- ._._ZO,
24'
DeAl^r4G€ €ASera,.gnrT
?vevtre ?ceertwtap ANb FeuesT p-t0N EAta-.,en,
//ttctt = Zoo t
e 5-
oo
u=Jr 7bz(eL-nlv E'5.(ADD
?#*.h^e-''tTN*s,ojs HAP
@
6e.._al
Adjoining 2125 R.9'1
S_
SEE
21
@
@@@@
@
PEACH VALLEY MINOR
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
t-@
I
I
oo
LIIAVBNWORTTT & CAI,OIA, P.C
ATTORNBYSAT LAW
March 17, 1995
1011 GRANDAVENUE
PO. DRAWER 2O3O
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE; (303) 94s.2261
FAX: (303) 94s-7336
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
SHEHRY A. CALOIA
SAMUEL J. LIGHT
JEFFEBSON V. HOUPT
CAHOLYN M. STRAUTMAN
KENNETH R. MOTSENBOCKER
Board of Commissioners
Garfield County
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Subdivision Exemption Application filed by ADD Investments
Dear Board Members:
ADD Investments has asked me to prepare and file well permit applications for the lots
they wish to create in the subdivision exemption process. Because the four new lots to be
created will not qualify for an exempt well, it will be necessary for ADD to apply for water
from the West Divide Water Conservancy District in order to obtain approval oi such well
permits.
Please be advised that well permit applications and applications for water from the West
Divide Water Conservancy District have been filed. We anticipate that the permits will be
issued in conjunction with the issuance of a West Divide Water Conservancy District, as there
appears to be no impediment to their issuance. ADD does meet the requirements as were agreed
to by the State Engineer's Office and West Divide Water Conservancy District.
. We anticipate receiving approval of the well permits and contracts within the next few
weeks and will provide you with copies of such well permits when they are issued. We are
requesting that the subdivision exemption application be approved contingent upon receipt of
such well permit.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & CALOIA, P.C.
4b4
SAC:lln
cc: ADD Investments
Don DeFord, Esq.
Dave Michaelson
F:\FII FS\BOCC.2LT
2 7
Sherry A Caloia
I
[Jnitecl Stzrtes Department of the Interior
o
tlt ililiAt ) ()F I ANl) MANA(;IiMt,tN'f
(llcrrrvoorl Slrlirrgs llesotrlcc Alcit
5(Xi2l) IIiglni,ly (i irrrrl 2,1
l'.(). Iiox l0lX)
(llt:nrvoo<l S1rr irrgs, (lrlot'urlo tll(i0!
Marcl-r 28, 1995
lN RU'1.\' lllllrl:l{ 1I )
1785s
(7-880)
Mr. Dave MichaelsonGarfield Count-y Planning Corunission109 Bth SLreet, Suire 303
Glenwood Sprinqs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
fn response to your recltrest- for commenLs r:eqarding the proposed Cedar HillsRanch Subdivision, I offer: ttre following sLatemenis for your scheduledApril 12, 1995, Planning Conunission review of the sketch p1an. The entirenorthern edge of the 120 acre tract is acljacent to public lands administeredby this of f ice. Current- uses on t-he BLM include Iivest.ock grazing, wildlif ehabitat, ancl dispersed recreation such as Lrunti-ng, horseback riding, andiriking.
1- Ownerstrip of land adjacent t.o BlM-aclministered public land does not grantthe adjacent fandowner (s) any special rigi-rts or pri,vileges for the use of Lheprrblic lands.
2- During staff review, it was noLed that the proponents propose a 50 footaccess easement between lots 3 and 4 t-hat would "prowide perminent riding andhiking trails to the BLM". The proposed 50' easement woul-d likely aEtractor encourage recreational use, mainly from subdivision residents, and therecould be negatlve impact.s from such use. Such an easement could resul-t in theunauthorized proliferation of trails by both nonmotorized and mo1ori-zed users,trash dLrmping, disturbance of wildlife ancl firewood cutt.ing. public access tothe affected public lands is already avaj.labte from existing county roads inthe vi-cinity and the need for addit.ional public access is nit apparent.
Any developed Lrail syst-ern from the subdivision onto adjacent public landwoul-d. require prior a1>prowal f rom Lhis of f j-ce, and such .pp.olr.I is uncertainaL this time.
3. I am concerned with j-ncreased ollV use on public l-ands from subdivisionres idents and the ef f ect.s such use coul d have on Lhe landscape (erodi-blesoi ls, vistlal qr-ra1ity, vegetat-ion) ancl any archeological or paleontologicalresources tlrat may exlst in Lhe area. T'he proponenLs should be aware of tfrel-ocat.ion of property boundaries to ensure no encroachment occurs on publicland.
To tre)-p cont.rol suctr impact-s on tlre adjacent publ ic land, I recommend theconstruction of a bounclary fence along Lhe proponent's nort.h boundary as aco1!itj-on of approval. such a fence would "nsi,.e no encroachment occurs onpubLic lancl , and l'relp cort[-rol ] ivestock. ']'he f ence si'rould be constructed tog|low for easy passa(Je by big garne, i.e- less Lhan 42,, in heighL wit.h a 10,,kick space between Llre Lo1> 2 wi-res.
4. The owners should be aclvisecl tl-rat. Lhe acljacent public land 5as current.permits f or livest-ock grazing. tlnder coloraclo staEutes, it j-s the owners,responsibility to constrtlct, and nraint.ain in good condit.ion, a Iawful- fenceprotecting their properLy in order Lo recover any damaqes from Lrespassfiy9?tock- Again, a c()nLjnuous fence built to the abowe standards along thesubdivision/BLM bounclary i s reconunencled to resol-ve Lhe potential useconfl icts .
5' .Adjacent publi-c land is open to hunting and other dispersed recreationacLivities' The proponents should be awar6 that huntinq and oJn"r recreationuses are allowed on BLM-adminisLered land.
e 8-
oo
2
6. The CounLy and the subdivision proponenLs should be made aware thab coal
minerals underlying alI of the proposed subdivision that Iies within SecEion6, (T5S, R92W, Sixth P.M.) are reserved to the Unibed States. This subsurface
ownership underlies portions of proposed lots 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, and all lots
proposed in the option Parcel. Accordlng to the records available at this
office, no leases have been applied for or issued for coal within the federal
coal reserve.
7. Any roads, trails, paLhs, or utifities (water, electric, phone or
otherwise) crossing BLM would require right-of-way (Row) permits from this
office. An environmental assessmenE report would be completed as a part of
the ROW permitting process.
8. The proposed subdivision lies wiLhin crucial deer winter range.
Encroachment of homesites and people on big game winter ranges can have a
profound effect on game herd populations and health.
fn cfosing f ask for your consideraLion in these matters in regards to the
pending Sketch Plan for the Cedar Hil1s Ranch Subdivision. Thank you for the
opportunity to conunent. If there are any quest-ions, please conLact Jim Byers
of this office at 945-2341.
Sincerely,
fl4-Hr-a<-
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
,,