The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.20.2007Exhibits for Public Hearing held on February 20, 2007 Exhibit A Exhibit Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D E Application materials Staff Memorandum F Memo from Jake Mall of Garfield County Road and Bridge, dated 12/11/2006 G Email from Jake Mall of Garfield County Road and Bridge, dated 1/22/2007 BOCC 2/20/07 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision OWNERS Helen and Stephen Low LOCATION The subject property is located approximately 1 mile north of the Town of Carbondale, CO on County Road 107 SITE DATA 43 Acres WATER Well SEWER Individual Sewage Disposal System ACCESS County Road 107 EXISTING ZONING ARRD ADJACENT ZONING ARRD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Study Area 1 (Low Density Residential 10+) I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The owners of the subject 43 -acre property request approval from the Board of County Commissioners to split the tract into one 22.91 -acre tract and one 19.48 acre tract by way of the County's Subdivision Exemption process. Each new tract will have direct public access from County Road 107. Water to each lot will be provided by a well and wastewater is to be handled from Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS). II. BACKGROUND & ELIGIBILITY As of January 1, 1973, the subject 43 -acre tract was owned by Daniel W. Strook and apart of a larger 480 acre tract. On March 2nd, 1973, Daniel Strook split the subject 43 acre parcel from the 480 acre pre -January 1, 1973 configuration and sold it to Helen and Stephen Low of Bethesda, Maryland. A real property search was conducted by Tom Schuneman of Land Title Company on October 22, 2004 indicating that there were no property divisions of the original 480 acre tract between January 1St, 1973 and March 13th, 1973 as described. Hence, it can be deduced that the 43 -acre parcel which was split and sold to the Low's in March of 1973 was the first eligible exemption from the original -1- 480 acre parcel. Staff has deduced that since March of 1973, at least seven further splits have occurred from the original 480 acre parcel. Per Section 8:52 (A) of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, each property as it was described on January 1, 1973 is permitted to be split into a total of 4 parcels through the Garfield County Exemption process unless the parcel is divided by a public right-of-way which prevents joint use of the subject property. It is Staff's opinion that the original 480 acre property has been split into more than the 4 total allowable parcels and none have occurred due to a lack of joint use caused by a public right-of-way. As the Applicant is not proposing this Exemption due to an inability to use the parcel jointly because by the presence of a public right-of- way, Staff does not believe the Low's property is eligible for Exemption as proposed. In addition, following further review of the Garfield County Assessor's data, it appears that the subject parcel as identified by the Applicant is not consistent with the Assessor's database. As is indicated by the Assessor's map below, the Low's parcel (number 239322300184) is almost 80 acres whereas the Applicant identified parcel is 43 acres and contained within parcel number 239322300184. The parcel proposed for Exemption must be consistent with the Assessor's data and recognized as a taxable parcel. Original Parcel as of January 1, 1973 21 Subject Parcel as Identified in Garfield County Assessor's Data BLM BOLNU4RY' SEE MAP NO. 2393-28 Subject Parcel as Identified by Applicant Dui BO i'IIIAR Y -2- SBE�1P NO. 239 -27 01.141 TYPE E ,E, MC AWhAOEVEHT. OP NO..CATES CBI. W FOREST SE, CE U.S Row: Ser.., Helen and Stephen Low - Exemption 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -3- S III. REFERRAL COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following agencies / County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are attached as exhibits and incorporated into the memorandum where applicable: A) Town of Carbondale: No Comments Received B) Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District: No Comments Received C) BLM: No Comments Received D) Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: See Exhibit F and Exhibit G. IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Not Eligible for Exemption As is outlined above, the 480 acre parent parcel appears to have been split in excess of the allowable 4 splits permitted under Section 8:52(A). B. Submitted Parcel does not conform to Garfield County Assessor's Data The submitted 43 acre parcel is not consistent with the parcel as identified in the Garfield County Assessor's data for parcel number 239322300184 which is shown as approximately 80 acres. In addition, public noticing needs to be consistent with Assessor's data. C. Legal Access The two lots being created both front directly on County Road 107 and as such have access to a public right-of-way. The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal (See Exhibit F) and recommends that "a strip of land along CR 107 be deeded to the County to make a 60 -foot deeded ROW for CR 107. The deeded strip of land will be the entire length of the property to be subdivided. All fences, trees, brush and any structures shall be moved back to the new ROW line(s) at the subdividers' (Applicant's) expense prior to final plat." There is currently a 40' ROW for CR 107 through the Low property. However, following a site visit by Bobby Branham of Garfield County Road and Bridge, it has since been determined that the existing 40 -foot deeded easement is adequate to facilitate future road improvements along this corridor (See Exhibit G). D. Domestic / Irrigation Water The Applicant has indicated that there is a current residence which is being served by well permit number 66939-A on Parcel C. No further development on Parcel C is expected at this time. The applicant has obtained a monitoring well permit for Parcel D (number 270839) and a Basalt Water Conservancy District Contract (number 505). Surrounding wells are currently producing between 5 & 15 gallons per minute and range in depth from 360 to 600 feet. Well permits shall be obtained prior to final exemption plat. -4- C. Sewer / Waste Water The existing residential improvement on Parcel C is presently served by an ISDS. The Applicant proposes the same method of handling wastewater on newly created Parcel D. The soils found on both parcels include primarily Tridell-Brownsto stony stand loams. Tridell- Browsto is very rocky with sand/gravel layers below the surface. This soil type is known for high erosion rates and low water capacity. Staff suggests, due to the soil types in the area that, as a plat note on the Final Exemption Plat, "any new septic systems constructed on Parcels C or D shall be required to be engineered by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado". D. State and Local Health Standards Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment ISDS standards require the County to issue an ISDS permit for all such systems installed in the County. The future lot owner will be required to obtain the necessary ISDS permits from the County at the time building permits are obtained. E. Drainage / Floodplain There are no mapped floodplain areas on the property. As mentioned above, the soils found on both parcels have a high erosion hazard. F. Fire Protection The property is located in the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. The plan has been reviewed by the local fire protection district. The new lot will be subject to the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District's impact fee of $437 per unit. G. Easements There is currently one 40' right-of-way running the length of the Low property for CR 107. H. School / Development Impact Fees The property is located in the School District RE -1 which requires the payment of a $200.00 school site acquisition fee for each new lot created. In this case, the new lot being created for the purposes of applying this fee is Parcel D. 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, the proposed exemption has been determined to NOT be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, -5- prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has NOT met the requirements of Section 8:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board deny the request for an Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision for Helen and Stephen Low finding the proposal does not meet Section 8:00 of the County's Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. -6- GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form EXHIBIT Date Sent: December 6, 2006 Comments Due: December 27, 2006 Name of application: Low Subdivision Exemption Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff contact: David Pesnichak 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objection to this application with the following comments. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department requests that a strip of land along Cr. 107 be deeded to the County to make a 60 -foot deeded ROW for Cr. 107. The deeded strip of land will be the entire length of the property to be subdivided. All fences, trees, brush and any structures shall be moved back to the new ROW line/s at the sub -dividers expense prior to final plat. The deeded strip of land can be either on one side of Cr. 107 or a strip on both sides of Cr. 107 to make the deeded 60 -foot easement to the County for future road improvements. Driveway access permits if not already permitted will be required for the two parcels. If driveways are existing they shall be improved to meet the new driveway guidelines, unless they meet the current driveway access standards. Driveway access permits will be issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department with conditions specific to the driveways. If more than one residence is to be built on either parcel a stop sign will be required at the driveway entrance to Cr. 107. If stop signs are required the sign and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Final inspection and approval of driveways will be required before a CO will be issued for new homes If more than one residence is be built on each parcel it may be necessary to do a current traffic analysis on Cr. 107, unless a fairly current one exists. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date December 11, 2006 Revised 3/30/00 David Pesnichak From: Jake Mall Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:33 AM To: David Pesnichak Subject: Low Exemption David: Page 1 of 1 E)C1-11BIT After an onsite meeting with the applicants with Bobby Branham we have agreed to accept the 40 -deeded easement as it is and not ask for a wider ROW. Also the applicant will be exempt from the driveway permit requirement as this does not change their existing driveway and the new driveway will be constructed using a road that is already in place. Jake B. Mall Administrative Foreman Garfield County Road and Bridge Department 970-625-8601 Office 970-618-6194 Cell 1 /7')/7(1fl7