HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.04.2004Exhibits for Jenks Exemption BOCC Public Hearing held on 10/4/04
Exhibit Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A
Mail Receipts
B
Proof of Publication
C
Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended
D
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
E
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
F
Application materials
G
Staff Memorandum
H
Review Memo: Burning Mountain Fire District
I
Review Memo: US Corps of Engineers
J
Review Memo: Garfield County Vegetation
Memo : ?held County Road and Brid<zc
L
M
N
BOCC 10/4/04 — JH
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST
APPLICANT
ACCESS &
LOCATION
SITE DATA
WATER
SEWER
EXISTING ZONING
ADJACENT ZONING
Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision
Timothy Jenks
County Road 245, Buford.New-ca,stle-Road for
the eastern Parcel #2 an Elk Ridge Dr for
the western parcel #1,
Parcel 3, West Elk Creek Ranches, Mountain
Parcels, SW '/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 12,
Township 4 South, Range 92 West, 6th Prime
Meridian/to Garfield County
36.52 acres
Well (--0t44-�/(
ISDS - Individual Sewage Disposal System
ARRD
ARRD / Open Space (USDA Forest Service)
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The Site: The parcel is on CR 245 approximately 14 miles northwest of New Castle and is
divided across the eastern portion of the property by saidounty ,itoad and j+§ bordered by
USDA Forest Service on the east and private lands on all other sides. The Applicant is in the
process of building a single-family dwelling (BP # 9169, 6/25/04) on the far western portion of
land while there are no improvements on the portion to be divided east of the road. Both
parcels contain moderate to severe steep hillsides and predominately covered by aspen, gamble
oak, grasses, and other native vegetative typically found above 8,000 feet in elevation.
The Proposal: The Applicant proposes to split the 36.52 acre property into two lots (Parcel 1-
31.72 acres and Parcel 2 — 4.72 acres) and has indicated that CR 245,;
goad which bisects the property prevents joint use.
1
•
Domestic water source for the two lots would be shared from ati a st lg well, Colorado
Division of Water Resources Permit #255360.-ig ISDS in place for sewage disposal
purposes (SP # 3971, 6/25/04) fort hometh stun Parcel 1 and the same eesor are
proposed for the eastern parcel. Lt�ccest e easte p cel would g� ounty
Road 245 and-Elkaidgelr
11
Figure 1: from the high point of the lot at the west, and site of the new home.
New Construction
Parcel #1
Parcel #2
CR
Stream 245
Figure 2: Cross Section of the proposed lots west to east, looking from south to north. (not to scale)
2
II. REFERRAL COMMENTS
Staff referred the application to the following agencies and County Departments for their
review and comment. Comments received are attached as exhibits and incorporated into the
memorandum where applicable:
• Town of New Castle
• Burning Mountain Fire District
• US Corps of Engineers
• Garfield County Road & Bridge
• Garfield County Vegetation
• USDA Forest Service (WRNF)
• Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept.
No Comment Received
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
No Comment Received
Exhibit J
No Comment Received
Exhibit Is,
III. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in Study Area II and is designated as "Outlying Residential with
a 2 acre lot size minimum" on the proposed land use district map of the Comprehensive Plan.
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Subdivision: Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states
that
"No more than 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. In order to qualib, for
exemption, the parcel as it existed on January 1, 1973, must
have been larger than thirty five (35) acres in size at that time
and not a 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), preventing
'oint use o the s ro osed tracts and the division occurs along
the public right-of-way, such parcels thereby created may, in the
discretion of the Board, not be considered to have been created
by exemption with regard to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or
dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable. For the purposes
of definition, all tracts of land thirty five (35) acres or greater in
size, created after January 1, 1973, will count as parcels of land
created by exemption since January 1, 1973."
3
The property prior to January 1, 1973 was approximately 1,500+ acres in size and
was subsequently split into 35 - 35+ acre parcels by the split as shown in the site plan
of West Elk Creek Ranches Mountain Parcels. The Applicant states the wo (
proposed parcels as shown in the sketch in the application y a- ead-identiif ed
. County Road 245 .• e •• '-=•- 1), which renders the
property unusable as a wlio e lot.
Staffs review ofthe Exemption section ofthe Zoning Resolution Section 8.00 et. esq.
finds the request from the Applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the county
road has prevented joint use. The Applicant is just now making improvements to the
parcel for the first time and has no history of "prevented joint use". Additionally, the
Applicant's main issue, as stated in the narrative in the application, appears to be a
desire to split the property so the eastern parcel can be given or deeded to a child and
so a home can be built in the future for said heirs which does not demonstrate how the
road prevents joint use.
Also, within Section 8.52 of the Subdivision regulations is additional review criteria
which states that
B. All Garfield County zoning requirements will be met.
Staff Comment - See zoning comments boles- 5 d''-- 3 6-
C. All lots created will have legal access to a public right-of-way and any necessary
access easements have been obtained or are in the process of being obtained;
Staff Comment - Discussions with the Garfield County Road and Bridge
'department and the Forest Service indicate that access may not be possible due
o sight distance safety restrictions. The applicant has not shown how access
will be made to this lot. This Item has NOT been met
D. Provision has been made for an adequate source of water in terms of both the
legal and physical quality, quantity and dependability, and a suitable type of
sewage disposal to serve each proposed lot
Staff Comment - Th A leant has not shown how water service will be
shared with Parcel #2;ents on the plat for the proposed waterlineian—
C✓�(road cut or bore permits that will be necessary for required water connect' are
not been shown to be feasible given the significant changes in elevation. This
Item has NOT been met
E. All state and local environmental health and safety requirements have been met
or are in the process of being met;
Staff Comment - Staffnotes the proposed Parcel #2 appears to have slopes in
• •
excess of 30%. Colorado State Board of Health's "Guidelines on Individual
Sewage Disposal Systems (Revised 2000) require that no ISDS can be
permitted on slopes of greater that 30% unless designed by a registered
professional engineer and approved by t cal board of health." The
Applicant shall provide this informatio
requirement. This Item has NOT been
;-ej646
�,pv� .a� tit4
4tb
F. Provision has been made for any required road or sto drainage '
improvements; WMw
dicates satisfaction of this
Staff Comment — The Applicant has not shown how road improvements will
be made and that storm discharge will be accommodated which will not
adversely affect lands oioftl�e propo d Parcel #2. This Item has NOT been
met
H. Any necessary drainage, irrigation or utility easements have been obtained or
are in the_process of being obtained;
Staff Comment — As noted above, valid water utility easements and drainage
easements must be shown. This Item has NOT been met
B. Zoning: The proposal meets the criteria of a two (2) acre minimum lot size as
required by the A/R/RD zone district. It appears that Parcel 2 has slopes in excess of
40%. The applicant has not presented information necessary to meet the
requirements for development on lot slopes is discussed below or show that it is not
applicable: This Item has NOT been met es,
5.04.02 Development Limitations Based on Lot Slope:
Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum building envelope of 1 acre
in an area that has less than forty percent (40%) slopes; however, a smaller building
envelope may be approved by the Board after review of the following which shall be
submitted by the applicant:
For all lots: Driveways, access ways and access easements within the development and
on the property of developer shall have a maximum grade of fourteen percent (14%). (A.
94-046)
C. Legal Access: the Applicant contends legal access can be provided from County
Road 245 to the eastern lot and, there is adequate access for the western parcel #1
from Elk Ridge Drive for the single family dwelling unit currently under construction.
Discussions between the County Road and Bridge Department and the U.S. Forest
Service indicate that although the County maintains CR 245, the Forest Service has
been the agency responsible for permitting this type of access and their policy does
not allow new access for individual homes. As a result/no legal access to the.newtr"?
parcel can be created. ' `�
/tel 7r414✓�
5
D. Water: Domestic water for the property is provided by a domestic well as noted in
the application under Colorado Division of Water Resources Permit #255360, issued
2/23/04, which allows for the use of ground water from this well which shall be
limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than three (3)
single family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens
and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals. o ✓�
The Applicant has indicaed herere�° w,t- sources on the property bu�o
documentation pro. T epphcan£as I 'o! . ed drill reports on a nearby well
indicating adequate supply is available. As a result, it appears the Applicant has
provided adequate proof of a legal water supply.
Regarding adequate physical supply for the well permit as noted above and prior to
the signing of the plat, all physical water supplies shall demonstrate the following:
a. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used;
b. A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the
characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level;
c. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in
gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge;
d. A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well
should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots;
e. An assumption of an average or no less than 3.5 people per dwelling
unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day;
f. The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet
State guidelines concerning bacteria, nitrates and suspended solids;
g. A water sharing agreement will be filed with the exemption plat that
defines the rights of the property owners to water from the well.
Also concerning adequate physical supply, the Applicant proposes to share the water
from the well with the newly created parcel, therefore they would need to craft a well
sharing agreement, easements for the well and water lines before any plat could be
approved. The Applicant shall submit a well sharing agreement that defines what
entity (such as an HOA) owns, maintains, and governs the use of the well including
the supporting infrastructure such as the pumphouse, pump, waterlines, etc. In
addition, the agreement shall also determine who owns and administers the water
rights provided for in the above mentioned well permit. The agreement shall include
a reference to an easement which shall be depicted on the final exemption plat. This
easement shall be recorded in the County Clerk and Recorder's Office and its book
and page shall be noted on the final plat.
i//''
of water is
provisionaggravated by three potential issues; 1) by the
physical separation created by over 300 feet in elevation between the two jegpitia
building sites, 2) the location of the future well and how water provisions will be
satisfied, and 3) the physical separation of the road which will require a road cut or
bore permit and a US Army Corp of Engineers, Clean Waters Act, Section 404
permit to connect the water distribution network.
Therefore it is apparent that an adequate physical supply of water to the new parcel
has not been demonstrated. This item has NOT been met ere,aAtPlifi
E. Sewer: . . ; _ _ SDS systems serving_any y legally placed dwelling
units. All structures currently being built shall meet Sections 8:52 (D) and (E), which
require a suitable type of sewage disposal, in compliance with the applicable local and
state environmental health regulations prior to a final Certificate of Occupancy. A
permit has been applied for by the applicant as discussed earlier. The portion of thlS
item has been met.
As discussed earlier, staff notes the proposed Parcel #2 appears to have slopes in
excess of 30%. Colorado State Board of Health's "Guidelines on Individual Sewage
Disposal Systems (Revised 2000) require that no ISDS can be permitted on slopes of
greater that 30% unless designed by a registered professional engineer and approved
by the local board of health." The Applicant shall provide this information which
indicates satisfaction of this requirement. This Item has NOT been met
G. Drainage: Because the proposed subdivision is traversed by West Elk Creek, the US
Army Corps of Engineers was sent a referral request for review and subsequently
responded with a letter dated September 10, 2004 which indicated that "In
accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a Department of the Army
permit is required for any discharge of dredged or fill material in the water of the
United States." Additionally they have assigned the proposed parcel split with a
project number, #200475432, for any work as noted in the attached exhibit letter.
Also, the parcel to be created by exemption, in its natural state, does not appear to be
prone to flooding or other drainage problems, and all structures created shall be at
least 30 feet from normal high water.
H. Fire Protection: The Applicant included a letter detailing a "fire protection plan"
which was sent to the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District, dated May 28,
2004, which acknowledges that the property is within the District boundaries. The
Fire Chief cited that the district encourages the inclusion of the NFPA 13D residential
sprinkler system for homes in this are, though not required. The District letter does
not address any specific protection requirements though the Applicant proposes
several protection measures that were not commented on by the district, as seen in
the application and in the attached exhibit supplied by the fire district, these items are
listed below:
1. Implementation of a 100 foot perimeter clearing around any structure of low
growing fuel sources
2. Removal of decaying fuel sources including downfalls around any structure
7
• •
3. Maintain 35 ft. definitive area around any structures
4. Removal of all ladder fuel sources
5. Ten (10) foot spacing from the crown of all trees
6. Provide and maintain access road of a minimum of twenty feet width and have a
gravel base
I. Vegetation Management: The Vegetation Management Department has no
concerns with this proposal
J. Easements: Any required easements (drainage, access, utilities, etc.) will be required
to be shown on the exemption plat. This includes well and water line easements for
the shared well / water system to serve both lots. Either the applicant must record
conveyance documents at the time of final plat, if the easements and water rights will
be owned by an entity such as an HOA, or conveyance documents must be created
and signed when a lot is sold. This Item has NOT been met
K. School Impact Fees: The Applicant is in the Garfield RE -2 School District and shall
be required to pay a $200.00 school site acquisition fee for the newly created lot,
prior to the approval of the exemption plat.
L. Soils: The soils of the smaller parcel #2 are exclusively Lamphier loam, found on
slopes of 15 to 50 percent. It is noted that permeability is moderate, and available
water capacity is high, surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Most
importantly, septic tank filter fields, community development and roads are limited by
steep slopes. Surface runoff can increase erosion hazard on cuts and fills. Because of
the steep slopes on site there is sufficient evidence to indicate the soil classification
may adversely impact the construction of ISDS, an access road and general safety of
lot inhabitants as well as the users ofthe road. A site specific soils evaluation and the
identification of a suitable building envelope of at least one (1) acre would be
necessary to adequately determine whether this lot can be safely developed. This
Item has NOT been met
V. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting
before the 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 that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons throughout this staff report, the
proposed exemption has been determined to NOT be in the best interest of the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare ofthe citizens
8
• •
of Garfield County.
4. That the application has NOT met the requirements of Section 8:52 (Exemption
from the Definition of Subdivision) of the Garfield County Subdivision
Resolution of 1984, as amended, finding that County Road 245, also known as
Buford -New Castle Road does not prevent joint use of proposed Parcels #1 and
2 that comprise the Applicant's property.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the application does not comply with Section 8:52 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
Therefore, Staff recommends the DENIAL of the application as proposed due to the following
5 reasons:
1. The inability to make a finding that fAtifeFEI-New-C--astie-Ruall7 County Road 245
prevents joint use of Parcel #2 from the parent parcel.
2. Parcel #2 has no identified building envelope of one contiguous acre with slopes less
than 40%
3. Parcel #2 does noo have an ide tified area of less than 30% slope for ISDS.
4.N design • water system emonstrating service capability of Parcel #2 for the well
on the Parcel #1 j"*
5. Legal access from County Road 245 has not been demonstrated.
9