HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 01.15.01PROJECT INT'ORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
BOCC lll5l0l
An amendment to an Exemption from the
Definition of Subdivision.
Leonard Lansburgh
A tract of land located in Section 18, T7S
R87W of the 6th P.M.; approximately tlree
(5) miles north of Carbondale, offof CR 102.
34.125 Acres
Wells and Shared Well
ISDS
CR 102
REQUEST
APPLICANT:
LOCATION
SITE DATA
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZOITIING:
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site for the exempted lots is located in the Medium Density Residential District (6-9
ac./du ) as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, Proposed Land
Use Districts Map.
I DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The site is located approximately five (5) miles north of
Carbondale, on the north side of CR 102. There is an existing house on Lot 3 and
the existing accessory dwelling on Lot 4. The other two lots are presently pasture
for the owners livestock.
E Project Description: The parent tract of land was subdivided into four (4) tracts of
4.07,4.10,11.99 and 13.90 acres :rr^1979 by Resolution No. 79'16I' In 1980, the
A/R/RD
L
original approval was amended to show four lots of 4.0 1 , 4.07 , 11 .99 and I 3.90 acres
each. The applicant is proposing to amend the configuration, so that there will be
lots of 7.91 2, 7 .960,8.3 15 and 9.938 acres each. There are two existing wells on
the property, one of the wells will be shared by two tracts and the other two lots will
have their own wells. All of the tracts will utilize individual sewage disposal
systems. Access will be provided by two easements offof CR 102.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AI\D CONCERNS
Subdivision Regulations. Section 8:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations establishes the criteria for the division of property via an Exemption
from the Defurition of Subdivision. This application is unique in that the original
exemption application was made before the Cotrnty has any real criteria for an
exemption defined by resolution and there was no requirement for an exemption plat
to filed. The applicant is requesting that the original approval be amended by
resolution and the filing of an exemption plat, based upon the recommendation of the
County Attorney. There is no formal procedure for this action, so staff has
processed this with the same notice requirements of an exemption.
Zoning: The proposal meets the criteria of a two (2) acre minimum lot size as
required bythe A/R/RD zone district. It should be noted that the dwelling on Lot 4
is now the principal use on the lot and any additional dwellings will have to receive
approval of an accessory dwelling Special Use permit. The same is true of any of
the lots, on which an owner may want to have more than a single dwelling unit.
Legal Access: Legal access will be provided by two separate, 40' wide access
easements coming off of CR 102. An existing access serves Lots 3 arrd 4, with a
proposed access easement for Lots 1 and 2. The access to Lots 1 and 2 needs to
acquire a driveway permit from the Road and Bridge Department, prior to the
approval of an exemption plat.
Water and Sewer: An existing well on Lot 3, will be shared by Lots 3 and 4, with a
well sharing agreement to define the use of the well. Lot 2 has an existing well to
meet its needs and a new well permit will be acquired for Lot 1.
Sewer: All lots will Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) for their sewage
disposal needs.
State and Local Health Standards. No State or Local health standards are applicable
to the application, with the exception of Colorado Department of Health ISDS
setback standards.
Easements. Any required easements (drainage, access, utilities, etc.) will be required
to be shown on the exemption plat.
A.
B
C
D
E.
F.
G.
ry. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting
before the Board of County Commissioners.
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.
That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, ofder, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends APPROVAL, with the following conditions of approval:
That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions
ofapproval.
A Final Exemption Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the
property, dimension and area of the proposed lot, access to a public right-of-way, and
any proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
3. That the following plat note shall appear on the Final Exemption Plat:
"Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner."
4 Prior to approval of an exemption plat, the County Road & Bridge Department will
either issue a new driveway permit for the exempt lots or a letter stating that no new
permit will be required.
1
2
3
1
2
5. ilr/Lf/""*/H//,-A L4,Ut///rl
pl-rr?/f L.t/
L
/rP,qYsa /ts/a,,- 6aU
GARFNELD & TilECFilT, P"C"RONALD GARFIELDI
ANDRE\M V. HECHT2
MICHAEL J. HERRON3
DAVID L. LENYO
MATTHEW C. FERGUSON'
CHRISTOPHER J. LACROIXI,5
CHAD J. SCHMIT4
RECE|VEDNoy302000
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
(970) 92s_1936
TELECOPIER
(970) 92s_3008
1IO MIDLAND AVENUE
SUITE 20I
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
TELEPHONE
(9'70) 92'r-1936
TELECOPIER
(970) 92't-1783
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
E-mail:
atty @ garfieldhecht. com
Website:
www. garfieldh echt. com
November 30,2OOO
Via OSM
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Building and Planning Depr.
109 8'h Stree! Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Lansburgh/Missouri Heights Property
Dear Mark:
I write on behalf of Leonard Lansburgh, the owner of certain reat property in Garfield
County, the legal description for which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Property"). The
Property is identified in the Garfield County real estate records as parcel 239118200153 and is
identified by the Garfield County Assessor's Office as Schedule Number Rl 1 1583. The Property
is approxim ately 34 acres in size. During the period that the Property has been owned by Mr.
Lansburgh (and perhaps earlier) it has been identified in the Carfield County real estate records
and Assessor's office as a single parcel; however, as described betow, the Property actually consists
of four separate tracts.
The purpose of this letter is to notify the Garfield County Planning Department of
boundary line adiustments for the four tracts comprising the Property, as required by Section l:64
of the Subdivision Regulations of Carfield County, Cotorado of 1984 (the "Regulations,') r.
In discussing this matter with the Garfield County Attorney's office, Don DeFord
recomrnended that Mr. Lansburgh (i) obtain an amendment to the 1980 Resolution (as defined
below) that authorized the creation of four tracts on the Property to confirm the legal descriptions
of the tracts as reconfigured; and (ii) record a subdivision exemption plat in the Garfield County
real estate records showing the four tracts as reconfigured. The proposed amendment to the l98O
Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and the proposed subdivision exemption plat is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C" (the "Exemption plat,,).
t Section I :64 of the Regulations provides that "Boundary line adjustrnents for
parcels not contained in a recorded subdivision of record shall not be required to meet the
requirements of these Regulations, provided that notification of the revised legal descriptions of the
subject parcels is provided to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of conveyance and
that no new parcels or interests are created."
l. also admitted to
New York Bar
2. also admitted to
District of Columbia Bar
3. also admirred ro
Florida Bar
4. also admitred lo
lllinois Bar
5. also admitted to
Connecticut Bar @ P.inted on recycled paper
G.{RFIE[.D & [nE0[n]1, p.0
Mr. Mark Bean
November 30,2OOO
Page 2
The relevant history of the property is as follows:
In Resolution 79-161 (the "1g7g Resolution"), Garfield County granted to David Sontag
an exemption of the Carfield County Subdivision Regulations. The 1 979 Resolution provides thal
the Property may be divided into four tracts of approximately 4.O7, 13.g, 11.99 and 4.01 acres
each, more or less, which tracts are more particularly described in the Resolution as Tracts A, B, C
and D, respectively. The 1979 Resolution rvas recorded in Book 54.l at Page 604 as Recepiion
No. 300543. A copy of the 1979 Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit ,,D,,.
After the 1979 Resolution was adopted and recorded, it was discovered that it contained
two errors (see lohn Doremus letter to Garfield County Planning Office dated July g, l9gO, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "E"). ln order to correct the errorl, itappears that
Resolution 80-152 (the "l980 Resolution") was adopted. The I98O Resolution was recorded inBook552atPage356asReceptionNo.305853. AcopyofthelgSOResolutionisattached
hereto as Exhibit "F". lt does not appear that a subdivision exemption plat was ever recorded in
connection with the 1980 Resolution; however, in the Planning Department,s file entitled ,,David
Sontag - SB 35 Exemption" there is a map depicting the four tracts authorizedby the lggo
Resolution (l do not have a copy).
It appears that Tracts A and B were conveyed on February I 5, 1985 by warranty deedfrom David Sontag to G. A. Seelbinder recorded February 22, 1gA5 in Book 6O+
^tpag,e
623.A copy of this warranty deed is attached hereto as Exhibit ,,G,,.
Tracts C and D to were conveyed on September lO, 1985 by specialwarranty deed from
flnofd Kassoy, Trustee, to G. A. Seelbinderrecorded October 1,1gBS in Book 676atpage508.2 A copy of this special warranty deed is attached hereto as Exhibit ,,H,,.
As a result of this conveyance, G.A. Seelbinder owned tracts A, B, C, and D, which
comprise the Property. G.A. Seelbinder subsequently conveyed small portions of the property to(i) Ursula M. Cogr,vill and Elayne Goldstein by quitclaim deed recoraed Vay JO, 1gg6 in Book689 at Page 153 and (ii) Susan Grymes Mackie, Trustee by quitclaim deed recorded May 30,1986 in Book 689 at Page 158 (together, the "Quit Claim Conreyan.es,,). Copies of the deedsfor the Quitclaim conveyances are attached hereto as Exhibit,,l,,.
C.A. Seelbinder conveyed the Property to Mr. Lansburgh on November 4, 1gB7 by
2 Based on the documents I have been able to review, it is not clear how Arnotd
Kassoy, Trustee, became the owner of tracts C and D. Arnold Kaisoy is not mentioned in the
Resolution, but David Sontag appears to have conveyed some of the property to him in 197gpursuant to a deed recorded December 27 , 1979 in Book 5 41 at Page 59O and some of the
Property appears to have been quit claimed by Arnold Kassoy, Trustee to David Sontag on lune30, l9S0byquitclaimdeedrecordedJulyS, 1980inBook541 atpage 542. Copiesoftheses
deeds are included in Exhibit,,H,,.
G.ARF'IE["D & fnECfil]t, p.C.
Mr. Mark Bean
November 30,2OOO
Page 3
warranty deed recorded November 6, 1987 in Book 724 at Page 1O2. A copy of this warranty
deed is attached hereto as Exhibit ")". The legal description of the Property attached to the deed
from C.A. Seelbinder to Leonard Lansburgh does not refer to the tracts created by the 1980
Resolution or use the legal descriptions from the 1980 Resolution but instead refers to 2 separate
parcels (by metes and bounds) that also comprise the Property (subject to the euit Claim
Conveyances).
Mr. Lansburgh is adjusting the lot lines of the four tracts comprising the Property. The
revised boundary lines are depicted on the Exemption PIat, which also includes the revised legal
descriptions for each of the four tracts. As a result of the adiustment, the four tracts consist of Lot
1 (7.960 acres, more or less), Lot 2 (7.972 acres, more or less), Lot 3 (g.gJB acres, more or
Iess), and Lot 4 (8.315 acres, more or less). The adjustment does not increase the number of
lots. Moreover, Garfield County will not be required to issue any building permits other than what
it would be required to issue for the already existing tracts.
As noted and described on the Exemption Plat, access to the four lots is accomplished via
two shared access easements, one easement for Lots 1 and 2 and another easement for Lots 3 and4. A driveway has already been constructed in the easement for Lots j and 4.
There are two wells on the Property and an application for a third well perrnit has been
filed. The well that currently exists on Lot 3 will serve Lots 3 and 4 and there will be a well-
sharing agreement to this effect. The well that currently exists on Lot 2 will serve Lot 2. An
application for a well permit for Lot t has been filed. Please let me know if you require copies of
the well permis for the wells on Lots 2 and 3 and/or the well permit applicalion for the proposed
well on Lot 1.
Finally, please consider whether the Exemption Plat should contain a note dedicating
County Road lO3 to the public, with the County assuming all responsibility for maintenanc;, etc
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to call if you
require any further information or if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
GA P.C.
Byt
Ttrr sr HECHT,
t,[,&r'
Leonard Lansburgh
Don DeFord, Esq.
cc:
Chris LaCroix
ra
o
n
a
!o
o,
aa
\-
a:
i
*.
c
O
."::t'\o- r)o
B<o-
6N9
-
{
I
i
^ --'-.. r(.--. ----
q
o
rl-
E
I
I
_)
t
T.
\
t0.
It
I.
.,.iI
r..
J,
ETt6
L\isI
\'
ao
$
\\
::
N\s
N
N
I
,
t
g
b
q\
\I
Sf
I
t
l.
bWI..itt
Eu
I
h
n
HI
tt:l
k
ITt--e
P.
I
c
I
I(
t
tlrtIIIIItlItI
JAH_ 15_E 1 E5 :37 P}"I ROCKY T4OUNTA I N CATTLE ]4V 97A 963 9545 P.61
i
i
torm No
I
0ws-2s
I
I
OFFICE OF TI-IE STATE ENGINEER
g,t*gmt',,g,,q HlHlP.l)| gt,W#I EE # E s o u R c E s
t)
g oN D lr I oN S O F;AP-P R9VAL
This well shall be used in such 6 v,Ey as to cauae no material irrjury to existhg we(sr rights' Tne lssuance 0( (hll pcrrnit
doo* not as'Ure lhs eppllcat)l rni r no lnlury will occur to anotht,i vcotcd wstor riEht or Precludo ennlhor ownnr ol e Vsstgd
wotor right from sooking reliel in r civll court ectlon'
The congtruction ot thle wolr snar re ln compilanue wlrh the \ryHter woll conrtruction Rules 2 ccR 402'2' unlosc epprovel
of a varlenco has been granted by the state Board of Examin.r.s of warer we, construction and Pump rnsterlation
Contraclofs ln accorrjarrce wilh F tlle 10.
Alrer'ved pursuanr to cRs 37-gr .oo2(3)(b)(il)(A) ae rhe onry wlrl on r.rosidenrrer site of 7,43 acres described as lot 1'
Sanrrg Eya,nptlon (Resolution N ). 80'152). GaietO County. (Pdor to lot line adiuetmont' thi! lot wes descrlbed es Tracl A'
ISSUAN.:;E OF TNIS PERMIT DOES NOT CON FER A WATER RIGI]T
bclng'l'071 ocrcc)
ThE uBe Of groun6 war€r trom tnl i well is llmltEd ro ordinary household PurPoE€o incido one eingle fe'nlly dwellho Tne
ground wator shall not be u8od l( r |trlgaUon 0r oher purposes'
The meximum pumping rets ol tl l!; wgll shell not exceed 15 GfM'
]'hc relurn llow lrom tnc usa ol 0 i: well must bc through on inrlividual wE€to water, dleposal systpm ol lhH
nen.cyogorolive type whore tho \vatef ls returno6 to tne sarlle :illBam syslem ln whish lhe wsll ie loootod'
Ihrs wetl Shal be conspucfg(t no rnorE lnan 200 feet lrsm tho location rpooifiod on thic Permrt'tIn t- l)-J''"1
0u
(303) 966.358r
LEONARD LANEBURGH
P O BOX 457
CARBONDALE, CO 81623.
(970) 96s.9666
Lo[ 1 Block: Filing: Subdiv:NTAG
APPBoVED wELl I opATloN
GARFIELO COUNTY
NW 1tL NW 114 Secllon 18
Township 7 S Range 87 W Slxh P'M'
ptsraNcEs FROM SECTIQN Lll'lES
230 Ft, from North Seclion Line
125 Ft. from west Sectlon Line
iJl-M c9oBp.!-NATES-
Nonhing:Easting:
5)
ri)
7l
APPR(JVEO
JO2
irSlatB
WELL PERMIT NUM9ER
DIV. 5 WD 38 MO
231034
OES. BASIN
Received Time Jan,l5. 3:37PM
^E
IRAT T
