The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Staff Report• • BOCC —12/16/02 Regular Meeting TP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW: Amended Plat APPLICANT(S): Brian Schwarz and Susan Dardine LOCATION: Block 3, Lots 3 & 4, Elk Creek Subdivision ZONING: R-MH/G/UD (Residential — Mobile Home /General / Urban Density) LOT SIZE: Both subject lots contains approximately 6,600 square feet. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: 1. Development Proposal: The Applicant proposes to eliminate the lot line between Lots 3 & 4 in order to erect a new home on Lot 4 without interfering with setbacks normally associated with the individual lots. 2. Site Description: The property is currently improved with an existing mobile home, a covered storage area, and aluminum shed. 3. Applicability: Pursuant to Section 6:00 of the Subdivision Regulations, an amendment may be made to a recorded plat, if such amendment does not increase the number of subdivision lots or dwelling units, or result in a major relocation of a road or add new roads. II. REVIEW AGENCIES AND OTHER COMMENTS: This application was not referred out for comments. The Applicant is in the process of obtaining a letter from the Homeowners Association, which should be provided at the meeting. III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR AMENDED AND CORRECTION PLATS (SECTION 6:00) A. All Garfield County zoning requirements will be met. Response: The proposed parcel reconfiguration does not violate Garfield County Zoning requirements. This criterion is met. B. 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. Response: The existing residence is served by a driveway off of Comanchero Trail This driveway will • • Schwarz /Dardine Amended Plat BOCC —12/16/02 Page 2 continue to serve the parcel in its current location. No improvements are anticipated. This criterion is met. C. 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. Response: The Elk Creek Subdivision has its own water system. Included with the application is a copy of the Water Purchase Agreement between the Elk Creek Homeowners Association and the Town of New Castle. A new septic system was installed on Lot 3 on July 25, 2002, (Permit No. 3669 issued May 15, 2002) since the previous septic system needed to be replaced. This criterion is met. D. All state and local environmental health and safety requirements have been met or are in the process of being met. Response: No new state or local environmental health and safety requirements will be affected by this parcel reconfiguration. This criterion is met. E. Provision has been made for any required road or storm drainage improvements. Response: Provisions for road is addressed previously in this memorandum. Storm drainage improvements for the new residence will need to be addressed at building permit. This criterion is met. F. Fire protection has been approved by the appropriate fire district. Response: This application was not referred to the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District. No fire protection was proposed as part of this amendment. Compliance with fire codes is required at building permit. This criterion is met. G. Any necessary drainage, irrigation or utility easements have been obtained or are in the process of being obtained. Response: There is no need for drainage or irrigation easements as part of this reconfiguration. There are two 10' Utility Easements [per Protective Covenants] represented on the survey. One easement is located along the south property boundary line of Lot 4 and the other easement is located on the south property boundary line of Lot 3. The Applicant attached documents from Qwest Corporation, Public Service Company, AT&T Broadband, and the Town of New Castle regarding the easement(s) on Lots 3 & 4. Qwest Corporation released and abandoned the use of the easements on Lots 3 & 4; Public Service Company has Quit Claim Deeded to the Applicant's the 10' easement along the south boundary line of Lot 4; AT&T Broadband indicated that the merger of the lots will have no adverse effect on service since there are no facilities in the existing easement between Lots 3 & 4; and the Town of New Castle indicated that there are no Town utilities or easement located on the subject property. This criterion is met. • • Schwarz /Dardine Amended Plat BOCC —12/16/02 Page 3 H. School fees, taxes and special assessments have been paid. Response: There will be no new taxes or special assessments needed as part of this reconfiguration. The Applicant has paid the normal application fee. This criterion is met. IV. OTHER COMMENTS: The Applicant indicated in the application that future plans on the property include the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and garage. The garage will need to comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements at the time of construction. The Applicant shall be aware that in the R -MH / G / UD zone district, ADUs are not allowed. V. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 2. That the application has met the requirements, standards and/or criteria, of the Garfield County Subdivision Resolution of 1984, Section 6:00, Amended Plat. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board APPROVE the Schwarz / Dardine Amended Plat application to eliminate the lot line between Lots 3 & 4 of the Elk Creek Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board, shall be considered conditions of approval; 2. A letter from the Elk Creek Homeowner's Association shall be provided to the Building and Planning Department prior to the finalization of the Amended Plat. 3. The plat shall be titled "Amended Final Plat of (subdivision name)". Within 90 days of approval, the Amended Final Plat shall be signed and dated by the County Surveyor, than signed and dated by the Chairman of the Board and recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Garfield County. The Amended Final Plat shall meet the minimum CRS standards for land survey plats, as required by Colorado state law, and approved by the County Surveyor and shall include, at a minimum, the information outlined in Section 5:22 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. EXHIBITS A. Addendum to the application dated November 25, 2003 • Brian Schwarz and Susan Dardine • 271 Comanchero Tr New Castle CO 81647 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT Nov 25, 2002 AMENDMENT to OCT 29th letter from Brian Schwarz and Susan Dardine re Amended Plat Application Dear Garfield County Planning Department After recently going over our application it was descovered that, in the last part of the third sentence, our letter contained some un -intensional misinformation that was over looked at the time the application was submitted. In the Oct 29th letter we led you to believe that we were in the process of installing a septic system, when in actuality, it had already been installed as of 7/25/02. Several months had passed since the time I had originally written that letter and the time we actually submitted it to you. We both simply failed to catch the mistake and amend the letter. expkt <� Hopefully the following will help -why we went ahead and installed the septic system. After consulting with Garfield Counties cheif building official on our septic placement and particular constraints of our 2 lots and future plans we caim to realize that there is really only one possible location. In between the time we acquired the permit (5/15/02) and the installation of the system (7/25/02) , the middle easement came to our attention. After researching whether or not the current placement of the septic system would be OK, and the possible need to apply for an amended plat, and getting some conflicting information on those to issues, Susie and I decided to meet with a person (Kim) in the planning department, who, after leaving the office a few times during our meeting to confir with colleages, informed us that it should not be a problem from the counties point of veiw, to go ahead with installation while persuing a lot merge at the same time. Kim also made it clear that the county could not speak for the utilities or other parties with possible interests in the easement. It was with this information we decided to move ahead with installation. Thank you once again for your consideration of this application and we appologize for any misunderstandings we have caused. Sincerely Brian Schwarz and Susan Dardine