Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 03.04.1985REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: BOCC 3/4/85 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS For exemption from the definition of Subdivision Gary, Steve and Paula Kellaway A tract of land in tne SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 12, T5S, R92W; located approximately 5 1/2 miles north of Silt ott of County Road 226 The site is approximately 10 acres in size Cistern SEWER: Individual sewage disposal system ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: Existing private access drive off of County Road 226 and access easement A/R/RD A/R/RD in all directions I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located within District C, Rural Areas With Minor Environmental Constraints, of the Garfield County Comprenensive Plan. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is generally level with grasses and open fields as the only vegetation. One single family residence exists on the eastern part of tne parcel. Surrounding land uses include single family residences, along witn small and large rancning operations. B. Project Description: The applicants propose to divide the 10 acres into two 5 acre parcels. C. History: This 10 acre parcel was created by the Grathwnol minor subdivision exemption in November 1980, as approved by Resolution No. 80-277, along with 2 other parcels. One final lot can be created by exemption from one of these tnree parcels, based on current Subdivision Regulations as revised in 1984. The applicants did apply for a Special Use permit tor a duplex on tne site in May of 1983 and eventually withdrew their request. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1. Garfield County nas approved approximately 10 exemptions within a 2 mile radius of tne site. Of the lots created by exemption in the area, approximately 1/3 were less than 10 acres in size, with some as small as 2 acres. 3.. • 2. Tne applicants proposal is for the use of a cistern as a source of water. This proposal is a result ot tne very poor quality of water obtained by wells throughout the area in the vicinity of tne site. 3. Based on representations of the applicant, cisterns are the major source ot domestic water for tneir neignbors and surrounding properties. 4. Tne applicants own 3 shares of irrigation water in tne Farmers Irrigation Ditcn proposed to be uses in conjunction with their cistern. 5. In the past, tne Board of County Commissioners have maintained a policy that cisterns were not an adequate source of water when considering development proposals including Exemptions and Subdivisions. 6. While tne Division of Water Resources recommended approval of the Gratnwnol Minor Subdivision Exemption creating three lots in 1980 and indicated tnat they could issue well permits to individual :Lot purcnasers. There is no clear indication whether a well permit would be approved for any additional lots. 7. In addition, tne Division of Water Resources local engineer recognized, on an informal and historical basis, the poor quality ot well water in the region of Harvey Gap. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before tne Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at tnat meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is in tne best interest ot the Health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, pending the determination by the Board ot County Commissioners tnat the use of a cistern constitutes a legal and a__egate source of water, in this situation, and with tne following conditions: 1. That the following Plat Notes be included on the recorded Exemption Plat: A. That no additional lots may be created througn the exemption process. B. That the Division of Water Resources nas not issued or agreed to issue well permits for ootn lots. 2. Access and utility easements for the newly created lot be shown on tne Final Plat and described on deeds to both lots. 3. That all proposals of the applicant be considered conditions ot approval, unLess stated otnerwise by tne Board of County Commissioners. 4. That a $200.00 School Impact tee be paid to the County prior to final approval. In case that the use of a cistern is not considered a legal and adequate source of water by the Board of County Commissioners, Hthe Staff Recommendation is APPROVAL, removing condition (18) and adding Condition 5 as follows: 5. That approved well permits be ootained from the Division of Water Resources for both lots prior to final approval.