HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report 6.5.95BOCC 615195
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONJNG:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Subdivision Exemption
Paterick Healy
A parcel ofland located in a portion
of Section 18, T7S, R87W; Located
approximately 3.5 miles northeast of
Carbondale, off of County Road
103.
8.3 acres
Well
I.S.D.S.
County Road 103
NR/RD
NR/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District C -Rural Areas Moderate Environmental
Constraints as shown on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject parcel is of County Road 103, just west of the
C .R.100 and C.R.103 intersection . The parcel slopes gently to the south, with
an existing single family house and various outbuildings located on the property.
A vicinity map is shown on page -Y-.
B. Request: The applicant is requesting to split the 8.3 acre parcel into two parcels
of approximately 5.33 and 3.0 acre s in size. A sketch plan of the proposed is
shown on page -S -.
C. History: In 1989, an adjoining property owner made application for the split of
their 8.33 acre parcel into two 4.15 acre parcels . The Board of County
Commissioners conditionally approved the exemption, subject to the property
owners either obtain a new well permit for the new parcel or reach agreement
with the other property owners sharing an existing well. The shared agreement
was not possible and the owners were required to go through a full
augmentation plan approval process to obtain a new well. They had no
_,_
augmentation water available for that purpose and as a result did not split the
property.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
I. 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 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.
2. Exemption Criteria. Section 8: 10, states that the Board may approve a total of
four (4) lots parcels, interests or dwelling units, as that parcel was described in
the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's office on January 1,
1973. A deed was recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office that describes the
25.00 acre parcel in December of 1966 (Book 380 Page 393). The owner of that
property split the property into three (3) parcels by exemption in 1976.
Therefore, up to two (2) parcels can be created through the exemption process.
3. Water and Sewer. The applicant intends on using the existing well to serve the
parcel with the existing house and a new well permit for the proposed parcel.
Enclosed is a letter from the State Engineers Office stating that they would issue
a well permit for the new parcel if the County approves it as an exempt parcel.
(See letter pg:-~:} Staff has sent a letter to the State Engineers Office questioning
the basis of their intention to issue a new well permit. The basic premise being
that these parcels would be considered pre-1972 parcels if the County exempts
them from the definition of subdivision. (See letter pgs.1-8 ) If the Board
approves the exemption, then the County is essentially making a determination
of injury to other water rights, without any technical basis or expertise to
support that approval. Also noted in the letter to the State is the fact that the
previously noted exemption request would have been approved if the State's
present interpretation was in place and this application would be subject to a full
subdivision review process. Staff has been told verbally that a response to our
letter has been prepared, but it had not been received at the time of writing this
report.
Sewage disposal will be handled by ISDS. Predominant soil on the site is
Empedrado Loam (#34), which presents only slight constraints for ISDS. No
plat notes are necessary, and site-specific percolation tests would be required at
the time of building permit.
4. Natural Hazards. Staff referenced the Lincoln-Devore natural hazard maps,
and the site is not located within an area identified as having soil, slope or ISDS
constraints.
-2-
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
I. 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
If the Board feels that the State Engineers office determination is appropriate then any
approval should be subject to the following conditions:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval
unless otherwise stated by the applicant.
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.
The applicant shall submit $200 in School Impact Fees, prior to the signing of
an exemption plat.
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 and utilities.
If necessary, a driveway permit shall be obtained by the Road and Bridge
Department prior to signing of a final plat.
Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
AJ,vo~~£pons~fro~ ~ Stat~~gin~i;¥0(fice s~ re'7iveyrby the
Plafmillg Depatim{nt pribf tb..th'€sighlngof a final-Efempt~lb(
All new construction shall be consistent with Colorado State Forest Service
wildfire prevention guidelines specified in the pamphlet"Wildfire Protection
Wildland Urban Interface"(C.S.F.S.#143-691)
-3 ...
800
j
2JiJ-2«-00-292
i .
196
I
I
<§>
I
••
<@>
18 ·
® <@> !
I ,_...... __ _,__~
~
N
1 ·
8
I
...... ~ .. ,..,
"' . ::i ·· .. <:. r---,---~...,
1-------~19 ~·
~ -~2 .·. e -,· ~
.:· :30
SEE MAP NO.
2391°-30
20
29
11 II r---1
! I I I/ . I ' I ' Ii ' I ' ' ' ' 'i' ! ' 11 I I ·•·1
1
I I . I I I 1 I i I I
! I I GJ(l~,J~ I : i I 1' I
',1 ,, 1,' ~,,14f1', '"~ i ! ! I ' I I
i I
-;:1
I I
I
I
I
I
: '
I I I
I , ·I 1. I',, !,· I
I
, . . . , · , I I J
I i ~~~!~,, . I : ! ·· 1 I l ! ' ' I ~I · I '· ! I I I
I I i l~t'I'' ·~ ' I : i ,1 I ! I ! I 11 · I 'I 1.,' I i i
I . I I I I I I I .. I 1 · i i ' I ; I ; .
i,
1
. ·/' ·,
1
141 l'~'Vo.S.TEo. '\l~"E~Sf 'J".!Z.1M . ey -:-• ' I , , ! I i • i=,f.o~ ;c.t'-/:5-f~~ ?l'~ '~,~~ 'll-0 ·, 60/~b.1 ,,..,~~L\ ... ~U.-<o~"ST
·'1 ' ', ,. ,' lo..:.~~ I 0 Fi ·r~o'i'O.S(i~ 151 . .s..sr I c.~i /-rJA.-ec.r.1._ ~ i/ .i !
I ! i I ! I I ' .
·p,. r.1.:::l.e v-rrt;H
I, I ' i I I
: I I i I
I I /
1
I•
' I I
I I I
I i
!
I
I
1 1 1 I ••I ! .... r I, i I · I 1 l 1.11..1 i 1 I : .;
1 1 1pfr:f'~1Lt1.4TE!;· .;:;x1 1~1~"1 J'>A~ ·~~91..0 1712.· !
'\ · J ~~t:..o~D !11.~o e0uJt:~ 1 F"od "J?A<?.t:J ~<l.. -vrrc:::.N
1
1, I '~1 .~AU.JI: 9,f I '1 ··1, ·... • I \
·, I ' " I " ' . " "'I : . ' : . ·' ) I !. . i .
I I ' ' I 1
:, , ' i . I ·'· . < I
\ I ! i I
I I
I:: 1l I.·· I 1
1
1, . ·,
I 11
I II I ,11.1
. 1' :.1 I
11
!I
• ~
I k
I :
_l _ Ji
~ I
I:. I
I 1 · I .. '
i i
I I I
' '1 i I I I I
i I i I I i I · 1 j • I
~ 1''2.o'Pos-.io ~ €wi YR:o.P~y · 1... ,.)€:"
·11 i I Ii , i I I •. , . I I • '
' I : ' I I
I I i I · \ ...
1
1
•· I 'l 1 ·
,··: Ii .1 I I
I/ i I 4"61.s , I
·1 . . · 1· ,, ' 1 ·' ··' .·
I : ' I . I . .> ..
I l I I
,!
• 1
I
I ! ' !
!
I
' '
11· .I:'</ ''..Ii , '.,' ' i •.· . . ' ., ' I I I::' ! 'i' ·,;" ·' .• ! I ......... ' ·. ' .. , I I 'I
'( I
5 e..A L~ J .::: I on
" I ,·11 '),·
J'' . • l • ~
..
l '··
' '.
' r !
/ . . :· ·L,-
:.f
: '!
' ..
'i=
:,,
. : :· I~: ( ~
.·;
' :1::,:l:·:.;;f .: ' '
'.' ' :, ! ~ :_':
;: '.~·iifi ::\ ;.
·1;J3 ·:·>
.•··
. ' ...
:1: ·,
.,,
i\·, ,. ·,·;,·
i .
,.'i' a ·:•, 1;'
·i . '
·,!
" '''. ( i
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
D ivis ion of Water Reso urces
Department of Natural Reso urces
·13 1 3 Sh erm.in S1rce 1, Room ll'l ll
D e nve r , Color,ido B020 I
Phone (30Jl BG6 -_l 5 111
FAX ()OJ) flGG -:l5fl9
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street , Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Healy Subdivision Exemption
April 6, 1995
NW 1/4, Section 18, T 7 S, R 87 W, 6th P.M .
Water Division 5 , Water District 38
Dear Dave,
c _.\, ·: ::. Roy Rom er
Gove rn o r
IJrncs S. Lod1h eJd
Exe c utive Direllor
I !:i i D. Simpson
S1,1 1e Enginee r
We are in receipt of the subdivision exemption referral for a 8.3 acre parcel located on the
south side of County Road 103, approximately six mil es northeast of Carbondale . The applicant
is proposing to split this parcel into two parcels of 5.3 and 3 .0 acres. No information concerning
the proposed water supply was included in the submittal materials.
The Colorado River system and its tributaries at this location are over-appropriated . As
such, well permits applications in new subdivisions must be evaluated to determine if other water
rights would be injured considering the cumulative effect of all proposed wells . It is likely that
in many circumstances well permits could not be issued by our office witho ut a water court
approved plan for augmentation. However, under current statutes, if the Garfield Board of
County Commissioners approves this split by exemption as defined in Sect ion 30-28-101 (10)(d)
C.R.S., our office must evaluate the well permit applications as if the division of land occurred
prior to June 1, 1972.
Under current laws, Section 37 -92 -602(3)(b)(ll)(A) C.R.S ., and hydrologic conditions, it
appears that our office could in this circumstance approve well permits for ordinary household
purposes inside a single -family dwelling provided t h at the well would be the only well on the
individual parcel, return flow would be to the same stream syst e m in which the w ell is located via
a non -evaporative disposal system, and that evidence is submitted showing that t he County has
approved the parcel as an exemption . Absolutely no outside uses, includ ing irrigation and the
watering of animals, are allowed under this type of permit.
Should you have any questions regarding the water supply for this project, please contact
this office.
JD/jd
cc: Orlyn Bell , Division Eng ineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Sincerely,
i· ,--/" ~-· rf ct . ) e ..-,(i_,{ ,-~ i-<.._,
Jeff Deatherage
Wate r Resource Engineer
Steve Lautenschlager, Assistant State Engineer
healy.sub -(6, -
May 5, 19<JS
llal I). Simpson
State Engineer
Office of the State Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
I 3 I 3 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Subdivision Exemptions
Dear Mr. Simpson,
Building and Planning
Recently, a letter was scnl to our office 1egardi11g lhe Sla le's willingness to issue a well permit for a subdivision
exemption based on lhe premise that the parcel lo be created would be treated as if it had been created prior to June I,
1972. This policy docs not make any sense and essentially puls the County in the position of dclcnnining injury lo other
water rights. This seems to contradic t the County's intent in rckrring an application to your onicc for a determination
of the legally adequate source of domestic waler.
In 1984, you sent the enclosed letter lo this office expressing a concern about the number of lots the new
Subdivision Regulations would allow by cwnplion ftom lhe definition of subdivision. In short, our response staled that
the County would not approve any exe111ption, unless the State Engineers office could issue a well per111il umlcr the your
nor111al policies or with acceptable aug1nrntalion. Until recently, we have always req11i1ed that the app li cant either receive
a well permit from your onice or a lel lcr indicating that you would issue a permit for the prorx~rty . The most recent letters
seem lo say that, if the Counly willing lo approve lhe exemption from the dcf111ilion of subdivision, the State will iss ue a
permit for a well, reg ardless or lhe polential for injury lo other water rights. This, by default, put s the County in a
position of dctennining whether or not there is any injury. Whi ch is inappropriate for us lo do both from a legal point of
view and the lack of staff qualified lo make such a dclcrmi11alion .
Ironically, the recent letter regarding the I Icaly subdivision cxe111plion reviewed by your office is adja ce nt to and
shares a well with an adjoining prorx:rly that did receive approval for an exemption. Due lo their inability lo obtain
augmentation water al a cost that lhcy fell was 1easonahlc, the app licalio11 was withdrawn. This puts both of our offices
in a position of contradicting a previous dclcrminalion lhal resulted in someone not being able to obtain a well permit
without augmentation water and as a rcsull, the splil of the properly . If this splil had occurred, the I lcaly application
could not be considered as an exemption, but would be required to go through the regular SB JS subdivision review
process contained in 30 -2 8 -IO I, cl seq.
I 09 8111 S tred, S uite JOJ 9 <15 -8212/625-5571/2P.5 -7971. Clrnwood Spri11gs, ( :olorado HI(,() I
Perhaps another way of viewing the Garfield County Subdivision exemption process, is lo view ii as a minor
subdivision, not requiring all oflhc slalulory documentation of a normal subdivision. To consider an exempt lot as if it
had been created prior lo June of 1972, is 110! what !he County en visioned when these regulations were created . It was
intended lo allow the larger properly owners lo split off three, less than J5 acre lracls of land, wilhonl having lo go lo the
expense of hiring a professioHal engineer lo lake them through !he process . They arc still required lo demoHslrale that
they have a legal son rec of domestic waler for each parcel lo be created . As noted previously, if they cannot prove that,
the exemption is not approved.
By this letter I am asking yon lo reconsider lhe inlerprelalion given as a basis for approviHg a well permit for the
J lcaly exemption, which will be considered by !he Board of Co11J1 ly Commissioners on June 5, I CJJ5 .. If you have any
questions or would like lo di scuss this furl her, reel free lo call or write lo this office al your convenience.
Sincerely, ,
' -/)/ ) /'--/··/ / ' 141. C J \ 1(_)1/
I · ) / ( ,.,( ;•' ( _ ___.,-'
. ; .
_,;
Mark L. Bean, Director
ll uilding and l'la1111 ing Depa rlmrn l
xc : James S. Lochhcad, Executive Director
Orlyn Bell, Divi sion Engineer
Jeff Deatherage, Engineer
enclosures
. i '
. ii '.
'iii
j ' ~
I ' :, ..
. :· .i: .
... ~ .
.... i .
.· : .. . J'.
·--···//