Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report 8.12.96BOCC 8/12/96 PROJECT lNFORMA TION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: Exemption from the definition of subdivision Patrick Healy A parcel of land located in a portion of Section 18 , T7S , R87W ; Located approximately 3 . 5 mile s northeast of Carbondale, off of County Road 10 3 . 8 .3 acres Well I.S.D .S . County Road I 03 AIR/RD AIR/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 . Il. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A Site Description The subject parcel is of County Road I 0 3, just west of the C .R . l 00 and CR . I 03 intersection . The parcel slopes gently to the south, with an existing single family house and various outbuildings located on the property . A vicinit y map is shown on page =5__. -/- B. Request: The applicant is requesting to split the 8 . 3 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately 5.33 and 3 .0 acres in size . A sketch plan of the proposed is shown on page 0 C. History: In 1989, an adjoining property owner made application for the split of their 8. 3 3 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 . The applicant submitted an application in June of 1995 and received conditional approval of the proposed split , subject to the acquisition of" a plan of augmentation for the new well", approved by the appropriate court of jurisdiction and a physical supply for the new well having a pump test performed by a licensed well driller. The applicant was not able to complete this condition within one( l) year of the approval and the approval was invalidated . The new application includes a court approved augmentation plan . III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS I. Section 8 I 0 (Applicability-Exemptions) states that the Board has discretionary authority to except a division of land from the definition of subdivision . Fallowing 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 wat er 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 ofthe Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's office on January I , 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 copy of a plan for augmentation that would allow for the issuance of a well permit for the new parcel. (See pgs. 7 -/ 2-) The applicant has proposed to drill a test well to demonstrate that there is an adequate physical supply of water from the new well . -d-- 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 . 5 . Neighbors Comments: The residents of the Rimledge Homeowners Association have concerns about the impacts to wildlife, water and open space . (See pg . l..S__) IV. SUGGESTED FlNDlNGS 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 APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval l . All representations of the applicant sh a ll be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise stated by the applicant. 2 . The applicant shall have 120 days t o complete the required conditions of approval. Extensions of 120 days ma y be granted by the Board for a period of up to one (I) year 3 . The applicant shall submit $200 in School Impact Fees, prior to the signing of an exemption plat. 4 . 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 and the followin g plat note : "All new construction shall be consistent with Colorado State Forest Service wildfire prevention guidelines specified in the pamphlet"Wildfire Protection Wildland Urban lnterface"(C. S .F . S .# 143-6 9 1 )" -3- 5. If necessary, a driveway permit shall be obtained by the Road and Bridge Department prior to signing of a final plat 6 . Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner. 7 . Prior to approval of a plat , the applicant meet the following criteria for demonstrating the quality, quantity and dependability of the well proposed for the new lot• 1) A well be drilled and a 4 hour pump test shall be performed; 2) The applicant supply, to the Planning Department, the well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well , the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level ; 3) The results of the 4 hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge shall be submitted to the Planning Department; 4) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well would be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots and be submitted to the Planning Department ; 5) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit , using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; 6) The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates . @> @ I 18 ' @ ® @> '300 @ j ~ 6; @> ~ Cl) <:: ·, _<::. ' Cl :-, 0 ~ @l 0 19 @> 20 2JOJ -2H-00-2 9 ~ ~ § (§). @l <§) <§ 1-.:.1 \ r11 ·,,\ \-·w-z. ·~X \:.ll./\'r l -tl J 1'J ,u -6 •11 1·1rt__. 11CQ'-l 1 'i'-LM~~;:J i --A ~I-,~ \orZ.. I I ; I ' I ; ' i : I ' I I i 1Jf.0Yo>~f> I ' I I I I I ' i I ' I _/ w~u .... L0<'..1-\T10~ ----~ 1'¥'-.l1?o s~f } ··tA r .ci.o1 _ ir.>'·2 I I I I 1 ___ J_ I 4'61_5 / ' ' I ' I I I ' I I I ' I I I I ' I I ! I i i I I l : ' i : ; l 1' l ii I I i I i i I ! ' I ' I I I 11 I I . 1 -·L -oi -1 .'I ----I f'oss 1 & 1 €, 1 f 6fl>ICJ<: A U:,110~ I I : ' I I . I i l b f1'. :Jr:;:,s6T'1i<. 1'1ZD I i,..J nr~ <).l_o A..D I I I ' ' '"· ·. ""_,..;-----: I I I I ' I ' 1' '1 1 : ' ' I i'<"-.·.' I I I l:=-ry '2.f)' ;o ~ ' I__.!~,;:;--. ~ -U~1 --------~L--~----'---------0:::__!:_ 0 " fl .1 I ' I I ~ ::::::----:---1 I I : : ;--_ : i i : I I ' I ' i I <c:i -.JJ82S I ' I I i ' ' i I I I ') c A L.0. ) I(-= I 0 ()I -b JUN 2 1 '3 5 0 3 : C:7~M LE~VD~l.JQRTH S. ~SS01: P.::: DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO . 5. COLORADO Case No. 95CW126 RULING OF TI!E REFEREE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF: PATRICK J. HEALY, in Garfield County, Colorado The above#entitled application was filed on June 29, 1995. This matter WM referred to the Water Referee for Water Division No. S, State of Colorado, by the Water Judge of said Court in accordance with Article 92 , Chapter 37, C .R.S. (1973), known as the Water Rights Determination and Administration Act of 1969 . The undersigned Referee, having made such investigations as are necessary to determine whether or not the statements in the application are true, and having become fully advised with respect to the subject matter in the application, does hereby make the following determination and Ruling as the Referee in thi.5 matter to-wit : 1. The statements in the application are true. 2 . The name and address of the Applicant is P atri~k J . Be>-'.il y, 4134 Crystal Sprin gs Road , Carbondale, Co 81623 . 3 . Timely and adequate notice of the fi lin g of th.is application Wa3 given as required by law. 4 . A Statement of Opposition was filed in this matter by John G. Puwcrs. Pursuant to a Stipulation entered into between the Applicant and the Objector Powers, dated May 6, 1996, the Objector ~ not to oppose the entry of this Ruling and Decree. Applicant and his successor owm:n of the Needham Di t~!: water rights referred to in the Stipulation shall comply with .all terms and conditions of the Stipulation entered into with John G. Powers dated May 6, 1996, which Stipulation is recorded in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado in Book 978 at Page 171 as Reception No. 493037, including the obligation to beneficially use water made available from Applicant's 37 shares of the Needham Ditch Company on the land described on Exhibit A to the Stipulation. S. The Applicant requests an underground water right more fully describerl as follows: P: \J'Ul?3 IKEAL l' .3 it! M.7 16. 1996 -7- JUN 2 1 '% 09:c:7AM LEAVEN WOR TH 8. ASSOC Case No. 95CW126 Ruling of the Ref crec A. Name of well : ·Healy Well. P .3 B. Legal description of well: The Healy Well is located in the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P .M., at a point 3,600 feet from the South line and 1,810 feet from the West line of said Section 18. C. Source: Groundwater tributary to the Roaring Fork River. D. Date of appropriation: April 11, 199 5. E. Amount claimed: 15 g .p.m., conditional. F. Use: Domestic and irrigation . 6. The Applicant also requests approval of a plan for augmentation more fully described as follows: A. Name of strucrure to be augmented: H ealy Well. B. Previous decree for water rights to be used for augmentation: Up to 1.0 acre foot of water to be secured from the Basalt Water Conservancy District's water allotment contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for Ruedi Reservoir water . Ruedi Reservoir is an on-channel reservoir located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Se.c ti on 18 , Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. Ruedi Reservoir wru originally decreed for 140,697.3 acre feet in Civil -Action No. 4613, Garfield County District Coun on June 20, 1958, with an appropriation date of July 29, 1957, for hydro-electric power generation, irrigation, municipal , domestic, industrial , piscatorial and stock watering uses. Subsequently , in Case No. W-789-76 , Water Division No. 5, the amount of water decreed to Ruedi Resenioir was reduce.d from 140,697.3 acre feet to 101,369 acre feet. 7 . Statement of plan for augmentation, covering all applicable matters under C .R.S. §37-92-103(9), -302(1)(2), and -305(8). The Healy Exemption Parcel is a 3-113 acre parcel planned for development for a single-family dwelling generally located in the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 114 of Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P .M. The source of water supply for the domestic and irrigation needs is the Healy Well. The water requirements and potential stream depletions associated with diver sions from the Healy Well arc~ follows: -2- -B- J~N 21 ·95 0 9=2 8 ~M L E ~VE N W O RT H & ~s s oc Case No. 95CW126 Ruling of the Referee Total Demand (l) (2) Domestic Lawn Month In-House Irrigation January 0.030 0 .000 February 0.027 0.000 March 0 .030 0.000 April 0.029 0 .002 May 0.030 0.031 June 0.029 0 .040 July 0.030 0.037 August 0.030 0.024 September 0.029 0.020 October 0.030 0.005 November 0.029 0.000 December 0 .030 0.000 Total 0.358 0.159 (1) Number of Residences #persons/resident # gallons/person/day (2) Sq. ft. of lawn irrigated lawn application rate (af/ac) (4) % CU domestic (5) % lawn irrigation efficiency (3) Total 0.032 0 .029 0.032 0.033 0.064 0.073 0.071 0.057 0.052 0.037 0.031 0.032 0.544 consumption of irrigation (af/ac) (3)(6) Total includes 5 % transit loss P .-1 Consumptive Use (4) (5) (6) Domestic Lawn In-House Irrigation Totil 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.004 0.000 0 .004 0.005 0.000 0.005 0 .004 0.002 0.007 0.005 0.024 0.030 0.004 0.032 0 .038 0.005 0.030 0.036 0.005 0.019 0.025 0.004 0.016 0 .022 0.005 0.004 0 .009 0.004 0 .000 0 .005 0 .005 0.000 0.005 0.054 I 0.127 0.190 l 4 80 3000 2.297 15 80 1.838 Transit losses between the outlet of the Ruedi Reservoir and the point of depletion are estimated to be five pcrceTlt ofthe potential annual augmentation requirement. Depletions from the Healy Well will be in priority during portions of the year. The Applicant plans to provide P ; \J'II..ES\Hl!Al.T .JllU ~ 11, 1996 -3- -9- 09=28AM LEAV ENWOPTH S. ASSOC . 95CW126 f the Referee P . '.:' :d water out of Ruedi Reservoir to cover for any depletions due to the diversions into 1 Well to adequately protect downstream vested water rights. Releases will be made Ruedi Reservoir pursuant to a contract either with the United States Bureau of ion or the Basalt Water Conservancy District, in amounts equal to th e out-of-priority !pletions associated with diversions under the Healy Well as directed by the Division The Referee does therefore conclude that the underground water right requested :ealy Well, as more fully set forth in Paragraph 5, above, is hereby granted and 15 f water with an appropriation date of April 11, 1995, is hereby awarded conditionally :stic and irrigation purposes, provided always that said 15 g.p .m. is awarded on the . that said quantity of water be diverted and applied to beneficial use within a reasonable mECT, HOWEVER, TO ALL EARLIER PRIORITY RlGHTS OF OTHERS and to m and tabulation by the Division Engineer of such priorities and changes or rights in :;e with law. n Application for Finding of Reasonable Diligence shall be filed in the same month as .e herein is Mtcred every six years after the entry of the decree herein so long as the t desires to maintain the conditional water rights herein awarded, or until a i tion has been m<!de that such conditional rights are made absolute by reason of the Jn of the appropriation, or are otherwise disposed of. The Referee does further conclude that the application for plan for augmentation ! herein i3 hereby approved. ). The proposed plan for augmentation meets the statutory criteria for a plan for :tion set forth in C.R.S. §37-92-103(9), -302(1)(2), and -305(8), 3.l one contemplated id, if operated in accordance with the terms and conditions of thi! Ruling, the use of m the Healy Well set forth and augmenterl herein will not injuriously affect the owner ;ons entitled to use water under a vested water right or decreed conditional water right . To the extent that exercfae of the rights sought herein depend upon Ruedi · as a source of augmentation water, such rights shall not be exercised should Ruedi · water or an acceptable alternate source not be available for Applican t1 s use . The Applicant or owner of the water rights and plan for augmentation decreed ill be required to renew its contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District for :r .J JW -4- -/{)- Case No. 95CW126 Ruling of the Referee P.b water from Ruedi Reservoir as set forth above and to provide proof of such renewals to the Division Engineer, if request is made, for every year in which Applicant intends to divert water punuant to this plan for augmentation. Applicant shall have a fully executed contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District for the use of Ruedi Reservoir water prior to the .implementation of those portions of the augmentation plan which require the use of such water. · 13. The Applicant or owner of the water rights shall install measuring devices which are reasonable, necessary, appropriate and required by the Division Engineer to administer these water rights and plan for augmentation. 14. Pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-305(8), the State and Division Engineen shall curtail all out-of-priority diversions under this augmentation plan, the depletions from which are not replaced so as to prevent 1njury to vested water rights. 15. It is ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk subject to judicial review. 16. It is further ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed with the appropriate Division Engineer and State Engineer. --i~ ~ Dated tniSC£._ day of ~ , 1996. c-·---· ).. ~.a"~~ 1':\KU3\HV.l.. Y .l R.U . May l6, 1996 ~~.-s,~ -5- Water Division No. 5 State of Colorado -I I JUN 21 '% 09:29~M LEA VENW ORTH 8. ~ss o c Case No. 95CW126 Ruling of the Referee P.7 No protest was filed to this Ruling of the Refer ee . The foregoi ng Ruling is ccnflrmed and approved and is made the Judgment and Decree of this Court; subject, however, to reconsideration on the issue of injury to vested water rights for a period of __ years , which the Court finds reasonable given the source of augmentation water. The month and year for filing an Application for finding of Reasonable Diligence shall be , 2002 . Dated this _ day of _____ , 1996 . F: \FIU!S\HEALY .3JW M-r 16, 1996 -6- WATER JUDGE ~ ! ;J - \JV A (\~ f ) .. \l '~ n VJ ('\' .-\ , {;\jo yv v \' I TO: Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County RE: PAT HEALY SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION 7-22-96 As adjacent property owners to Pat Healy's proposed subdivision exemption, we unanimously object and oppose the granting of a subdivision exemption for this property. 1-Wildlife is already being infringed upon by present allowable growth. 2-Water has and is a very serious concern . Another new permit well could gravely effect all present area water users . There are already confirmed new-well problems in the surrounding area. 3-As an adjoining subdivision , all§ of our lots are 17.5 acres . The proposed subdivision exemption doesn 't co incide with the surrounding density . 4-Changing the existing allowable density to the property (1 lot-1 house), takes away precious open space. :: !d~1 k yot..: fo r your consideration in this matter ! Mark Tye . '. J1 //,, ,.r. (/!fl.llJ .:_, Ii;, 1K..... President, Rimledge Homeowners Associat ion Representing : Robert and Michelle Bac on, Bridgette Rooney, Jim and Valerie Byrnes , Summers Bromwell, Myron Raschko and Skip and Susan Ackerman. -0- JUL 2 4 l~~b GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO: Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County RE: PAT HEALY SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION 7-22-96 As adjacent property owners to Pat Healy's proposed subdivision exemption, we unanimously object and oppose the granting of a subdivision exemption for this property. 1-Wildlife is already being infringed upon by present allowable growth. 2-Water has and is a very serious concern. Another new permit well could gravely effect all present area water users. There are already confirmed new-well problems in the surrounding area . 3-As an adjoining subdivision , all§ of our lots are 17 .5 acres . The proposed subdivision exemption doesn't coincide with the surrounding density. 4-Changing the existing allowable density to the property(1 lot-1 house), takes away precious open space. Thank you for your consideration in this matter! Mark Tye J. /fl,p.JJ.. !//, ~ President, Rimledge Homeowners Association Representing: Robert and Michelle Bacon, Bridgette Rooney , Jim and Valerie Byrnes, Summers Bromwell, Myron Raschko and Skip and Susan Ackerman.