HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report BOCC 07.16.84 - RevisedPROJECT INFORIT{ATION AND
Bocc 7/L6/84
STAFT COMMENTS
REQUEST
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONINGT
ADJACENT ZONING:
-II.
For a S.B. 35 Exemption
James Paruszewski
In Section 36, T4S, R91W; locatedapproximately 6 miles up t{ain ElkCreek off County Road 243.
The site is approximately LZ.sacres in size. The proposal is todivide this lot into 2 parcels of7.06 and 5.44 acres.
Proposed individual wells
Proposed individual septic
Off County Rd. 243
A/R/PD
I.
North A/R/PDSouth O/SEast O/SWest O/S
RELATTONSHIP TO THE COII{PREHENSIVE PLAN
The site Iies within the unclass:LE1ec[-section of the ComprehensivePIan zone district map.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Desc-s.iP+&g:. Th" site sits to the east and west of CountyffirrCreekistheprooosednatura1diviriinofaetrris the proposed natural dividing feature
.toT-!1" exemption request. rhere currentry exists two smarrbuildings on the west, side of the creek. tto other improvementsol the property were visibre. The site is densely vegetated onthe east side of the creek and has an open meadow area to thewest side of Main Elk creek. Much of the parcel which sitsbetween the county Road and the creek is w-itrrin the r00 yearfloodplain.
Elstory: In L975, James and lrlarian paruszewski received a S.B.35 exemption on this property. The exenption created 3 rots outof -a_45 acre parcel. These lots rdere 2L-.zL acres, L2.50 acresand 12.50 acres. The resolution approving this exemption (nei.76-91) did not include the ranguage that no further -exemption
sharr t9!" place on the exempted property. (see Resorution,pagettS ) The applicants are nohr requesting to divide thesout6El-y most 1?: s acre parcer inro 2 tots -divided by Main ElkCreek. The applicants propose to divide a 12.50 acre parcel into2 lOts of 7.06 acres and 5.44 acres.
III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Review Agency Comments
1. A letter dated May 30, Lgg[,Silt-New Cast1e Fire protection
a 500 gallon water storage tankfire protection purposes. (see
from Keith Crandell of theDistrict recommends that, there beprovided for each residence forlettert pageT )
B.
2. U. S. Forest Service - a letterForest Service express concern overIetter, page L I
Staff Comments:
4. An alternative to the applicant's7 acre parcel is to create an easementthe adjacent L2.5 acre parcel and the
would create a long driveway accessingpoint after it crosses the creek.
dated July 9th from the
access to public lands. (See
proposal for access to the
across the east side of
2L.2L acre parcel. This
onto County Rd. 243 at a
1. The county Environmental Hearth officer noted that if adwelling is loiated in close proximity to Main EIk Creek possiblehigh water t,abres may require that a septic system be designed bya Colorado registered, professional engineer.
2. Ir{uch of the L2.5 acre parcel is within the I00 yearfloodprain of Main EIk creek. There are, however, -everar
buildable sites above the 100 year froodprain on each of theproposed rots. A map of the 100 year floodplain was done byscarrow and warker in L976 when the applicant received theexemption to created the L2.5 acre parcel.
3. The proposed 7 acre parcel is to the east side of !,[ain ElkCreek. This side of the creek cannot be accessed directly off ofcounty Rd. 243. A 20r easement is shown on the map submittedwith the exemption apprication. The purchaser of Etre 7 acreparcel would have to construct a bridge to cross the creek.
5. Poth proposed parcels will need to acquire a driveway accesspermit from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department.
5. Currently, the applicant has one existing weII on the 2L.2Lacre parcel, however, no well permits were ever requested for thetwo L2.5 acre parcels.
7. The applicant, is not asking to create a separate lot on thewest side of County Road 243. The intention is to create one 5acre lot west of lt{ain EIk Creek. However, County Road 243 runsthrough the middle of the proposed 5 acre parcel. The Countyregulations governing exemptions give the Board of CountyCommissioners the ability to grant exemptions for parceli dividedby natural features and roads. Thus, it is conceivable that theapplicant or a future owner will request that the parcel bedivided again using the county Road as a boundary rine.
8. Apparently, there is some question as to the location of theCounty Road right-of-way for County Road 243. The County RoadSupervisor has noted that it would be helpful, at this point,, toestablish the County Road right-of-r'ray through the applicant'sproperty. A 50r wide easement (25'on both sides of the existingcenterline) should be established for the entire length of theapplicantrs property including the other L2.5 acre pircel and the2L.2 acre parcel.
rV. FINDINGS
That the applicantion is in conpliance with section g of theGarfield county subdivision Regulations regarding exemptions.
That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners wasextensive and complete, that arr pertinent facts, matters andissues were submitted and that all interested parties were heardat that hearing.
I.
2.
That for the above stated andis in the best interest of the
convenience, order, prosperityGarfield County.
other reasons, the proposed zoninghealth, safety, morals,
and welfare of the citizens of
3.
v.RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL, rrith the following conditions:
1. That the applicant receive an additional well permit orconfirmation from the Division of Water Resources that wellpermits can be issued for both parcels.
2. That a plat be submitted to the Department of Development. Thisplat shall include:A) Separate legal description for each of the two parcelsincluding all easements.
B) A 50r wide access easement fqr County Rd. 243 shallbe described on the p1at.
C) The plat shall indicate, the I00 year floodplain. Inaddition a notation shall read that the 2 parcels aresubject to the Garfield County Floodplain Regulations andthat any use to be developed within the 100 year floodplainshall be required to obtain a Special Use permit fromGarfield County and that such proposal is subject to Section6 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations.
D. The plat shall include a signature block for the Board of
County Commissioners and the County Surveyor.
E. The plat shall read " paruszewski Exempt,ion,' and makereference to the Resolution Number approving the exemption.
tr'. A plat note shall read that individual disposal systems maybe required to be designed by a registered, professional
engineer.
G. A plat note shall read that each lot must install a 500gallon storage tank for fire protection purposes when aresidence is established on the lot.
3. The applicant shall agree to a 50'access easement for County Rd.243 (25' on each side of the road centerline as it is in placetoday). The easement agreement shall extend the length of theapplicantrs property on County Rd. 243.
5.
4.
6.
'l .
A written legal description of eachprior to final approval. This legalall easenents.
A County Driveway Access permit mustprior to final approval.
A $200.00 School Impact, Fee shall be
approval.
parcel shall be submitteddescription shall include
be obtained for each lot
paid prior to final
The applicants have 120 days from the date of conditionalapproval to meet aII conditions.
-3-
RESOLUTION .ff .IL .O /
WHEREAS, HENRY PARUSZEWSKI and MARiAN PARUSZIWSKI, have petitioned the
Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado for an exemption
under C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-10l (a) - (d) as anrended, and the Subdivision
Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado adopted September l, 1972 and amended
April 14, 1975, Sections I .02.17 (d) and 3.02.01, for the division of a 45 .
acre tract into three tracts of aoproximately 12.5, 12.5, and 20 acres, more
or less, and more particularly described as follows:
See Exhibi t'A'Attached
WHEREAS, the petitioners have shown to the satisfaction of the Board of
County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that they desire said
exemption for the purpose of re-sale into single-family residential acreage,
and,
WHEREAS, future building sites on said tracts of land will be placed out-
side of the depicted t00 year floodplain, and
WHEREAS, petitioners rvill prepare proper Iegal de5criptions for the three
separate parcels prior to conveyance of any of the parcels; and
I,,HEREAS, petitioners have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board
that there is a reaonsable probability of locating dornestic water on each of
said three tractso that there is adequate ingress and egress to said tracts,
that the location of septic tanks will be permitted by the Colorado Department
of Health, that the requested division is in accordance with the general
purposes and intent of the subdivision regulations of the State of Colorado and
the County of Garfie'td and that said division will actually restrict the
density of housing within said area and should therefore be exempted from the
definition of the terms "subdivision" and "subdivided'land" as set forth in
C.R.S. (1973) Section 3O-28-l0l (10) (a) - (d) as amended;
Notl THEREFoRE, upon motion of l* k..4;.,seconded by
14*-n- &-..---<-l and unanimously carried said 45 acre tract of
land is hereby exempted from such definition and transfer of said tract may be
- /-
made by division into 3 tracts of 12.5,12.5, and 20 acres, more or less,
is more fully described in the Petition pertaining hereto, furthermore, it
an express condition of this resolution that alI future building sites on
parcels of 'land be kept out of the floodp'lain as depicted on Exhibit B and
made a part of this resolution. A copy of the instrument or instruments of
conveyance when recorded shall be filed with this resolution'
Dated this -(oL aay of September, A-D. ]976'
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COI'IMISSIONERS
OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Attest:
all as
is
these
-f-
o-lr'n4rc B
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor
Pr-,*r-rt rFD
- ''1 i'l
"-, '; )
C0Unfy Ur,,ri;!irSSf 0NERS
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3s81
GARFIETD CO. PI'"ANNE
January 22, L985
Mr. Iarry Velasquez, Chairrnan
C'arfield County Board of County @rnissioners
P. O. Box 640
Glemvood Springs, @ 81502
Dear !lr. Velasquez:
lltris is in resSnnse to your October 15, 1984 letter corrcerning Parazenski
exenption. Ib a5rclogize for our slow response. A rrernber of my staff has
discussed ttre letter with Cindy Houben on two oocasions in an effort to
resolve this matter. [G wrote a detailed letter on ttris case on JuIy 12,
1984. ti&r nen information has been suhnitted whictr might alter the corrcerns
that we have in regard to ttris protrnsal and we refer you to ttris letter for
more inforrnation concerning our Snsition.
$Ie question Mr. Parazer*ski's statenent ttrat dqrestic wells have been
atr4proved recently for lots similarly situated as his. The only t14n of roell
that we vlould issue along EIk Creek at this tinre on tracts less ttran 35 acres
would be lirnited to use inside one single-family dwelling. Secondly, we r,ouldlike to point out that each permit application is evaluated indeSnndently ard,
tJrerefore, our trnst decisions do not necessarily reflect future decisions.
As our earlier letter states, the protrnsed develotrnrent is contrary to ourplicies concerning subdivisions and exenptions in over-appropriated basins.
Sinc.e Ire are concerned about injury to senior water rightl, r.re cannot crcmmitto the issuance of well trnrmits and we cannot reournend approval.
Sincerely,
I
{ru 1LHal D. Sfurpson, P.E.
A.ssistant State Engineer
tffi/JPe*ra/42O2
ccs Or1yn Bell, Div. Erg.
EYed Loo
Steve Iautensctrlager
of GountY
Gornrntsslo
f-
ronots ,,,..Iy *:T*Y8I
]"*"-.*$,itff,.{
. * ..r;$.1ffi3$1c,nnt*\$q"*:o"'o
':ffii'$-.*#*::*B1@1 ocuober
15 ' 1984
"*,..,i,ffi'
:,$.ifiBe? tt i,
?*t"r,
'' ?:ig
\ t}?"r." uoo
^J
Mr. Ha1 SimPson
Page Two
October 15, 1984
As indicated above, Garfield County has relied uPon the expertise of
your office to determine the
decisions. On Mr. Parazewski's behalf
attention to your Past Practice of
EIk Creek. Without going into details,
that other domestic welIs have been
lots similarly situated as his ovrn.
In summary, it is our request that you continue to work with
Garfield County to resolv6 whatever issues you have as to the
County's auth-ority to approve subdivisions and subdivision
exe*p-tions. furth-er r W€ ali< that you giv-e t{r. Parazewski t s
application your utmost consideration so that hg luy treated fairlyr
as h,e are suri other applicants similarly situated have been treated
in the past.
Very truly yoursT
appropriateness of develoPnentwe ask that You PaY close
granting domestic wells on Main
Irlr. Parazewski has indicated
approved in the recent Past for
.tr
BOARD
Lrt09,b _ /-/5, b^
4,*^*oL) .AMM
Governor
302511
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
13't3 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
JuIy 12, 1984
i'lr. Dennis Stranger
Garfield County Planning Department
P. O. Box 540
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81602
D<emption Regulations
Paruszewski E<emption
Dear Mr. Stranger:
This letter concerns Garfield County's new SuMivision E<enption Regu1a-
tions as ttrby relate to our policies regarding well- availability for exemptic;i
referrals and the Paruszewski exemption si:ecifically.
Ttris office is able to work with individual counties and oevelop guide-
lines for weII availability. I-acking an agreement with an individual countyr
it is our policy to recornrnend approval only of those proposals reguiring a
maximum of one additional well for the first exen'ption of an original (June ;,
Lg72) parcel. Under this poliry, only two lots could be createo from an ori-
ginal parcel and the applicant must have a reliable water supply for one of
tf,e prirposed lots at thre time of application. Conditions of approval of
exisling permits nny also limit the availability of a well for such a proposz-
in the future.
The new Garfield County SuMivision Regulations provide for exenptions
allowing up to four lots to be created from an original parcel as it exisEed
on Januiry t, tgZ:. We would consider this to be an excessive number of lots
to be conlidered as an exemption to subdivision reguirements and we believe
injury to vested water righls would result if wells were allovred on all the
lots which could result from this policy.
The paruszewski property was'clivided into three lots by a 1976 exen6:tict- ;
the sane applicants no, wisf,- to create a fourth lot by splitting one of the
Iots established by the prior exenption. Elk Creek runs through this proper:-.''
The additional weII which would be reguired would effect Elk Creek- Elk Cr*''
was considered to be over-appropriated well before we became concerned abou-- =
Colorado River mainstem call since flows are insufficient to fulfi11 all wa"=-:
rights directly dependent upon IiLk creek for their supply. since the propc'z:
u JERIS A DANIELSON
Stale E norneor
Page- 2l4r. Dennis Stranger
JuI1, 12, 1984
clevelopnent is contrary to our poli-cies and
injury to water rights, we cannot corrunit to
th6retore, we cannot recomnrend approval'
we believe there is a history of cooperation between this office and
Garfielcl County. In February of fgAg, OitX Stenzel, Keith Keplerr dod myself
me.t with the county planning staff to discuss our policies concerning suMivi-
sion ana exemptioni.- We remain willing to discuss these policies, to consider
tire county's goals, and negotiate soluiions when possible. Our input was not
solicited concerning the f6ur lot exemption issue when the regulations were
n"irg forrm:Iated. i must wonder whethlr our feedback is welcome now that the
ieguiations have been adopted. If Garfield County wishes to open discussion
of the issues contained in this letter, please let me know.
since we are concerned about
the availability of wells and,
Sincerely,
t/ a/U a J'*v*"-
HaI D. SimPson, P.E.
Assistant State ftrgineer
HDS,IKCX:ma
cc: orlyn 8e11, Div. Eng.
Fred Ioo /
Qfnthia ttouben /
United States
Deparlmenl ol
Agriculture
Foresl
Service
Rifle Ranger District
't-4rJD)t) C
1400 Access Road
Rifl-e, CO 8I650
Garfield County Conrnissioners
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Commissioners:
Ttris letter is in response
exemption in the division
Parus zewski.
For two years the Forest Service hasfor two public rights-of-way throughpersists in not signing either R-O-W
to an application before your board to grant anof a L2r+ acre parceL for James and l,Iarian
Repry ro 5460 R-O-I^I
t'tatn Elk Road
Dara; Js$ t, 1984
tjuL i 0 13i14
GAi{i IiLD
COUIiil COI\TMISSION ERS
SrEq
DnHJ(f,flfs
ttUs0uiI
--,:.
10
Cr).ii
,r r; i:.
J'iL
,Fii[U
i litij'
lrl
, ii!ij:,
r--.i,-r-.
-:;\GiGr
i i' rll ll
pB4 fljl
- - --*-;l-J
PLAIIiJIRL
JAI'{ES L.
Dis tri ct
been negotiating with Mr. Paruszewski
his property.. Mr. Paruszewski
easerrEnt.
One easement is intended to clarify the public access on County Road, t1243(Forest Development Road #603) . I^Itrile Mr. Paruszewski has never blockedpubllc access on this road, the Forest senrice has surveyed the road,prepared a plat and an easement deed, and feels this R-o-W is needed toguarantee public access.
The second easement is for Forest Trail tl2l57. Mr. Paruszewski- ispresently denying public access to this trail. While several alternativeroutes have been investigated, they are all considerably more expensivethan the option of using the existing route with a R-G-h, easemeoc.
I believe that as a condition of allowi.ng the landowners to divide theirlands and thus increase their personal value of that Iand, they shouldbe requlred to sign the easement deeds which will allow public'access toNational Forest Lands surrounding this property,
sincerery, I?Ef- r='l\/E
-, RLI
FS-6200.r lb (7.8t1
d.
SIMONSON
Ranger
^( -
SILT.NEW CASTLE FIRE PROTECTION DIS,I'RICT
May 30, 1984
Cynthia M. Houben
Garfield Planning
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Jim Paruszewski Subdivision Exemption
Main Elk Subdivision
5648 Rd 243
New Castle, CO 81647
Dear Ms. Houben:
I approve the captioned subdivision.
I would like to request that there would be a b00 gallon water storage
tank for each residence.
Sincerely,44(LJ,//
Keith Crandell, Fire Chief .
Silt-New Castle Fire Protection District
P.O. Box 216
Silt, Colorado 81652
-7'
SIIT.NEW CAS?IE fiREPROTEC?IOI I
Mar Bo, 19g4 vDrs?Brc?
.1H{##ffi8160r-',#,,ffm;lI-
Dear JlIs. Houben:
f aPProve the captionerr -..r ,. -
#rll1 lfe,lrfir* I;',I:T,,,,
be a 500 gallon ruafurstoragpr Sinoerely,
*fl"Hffi-{:m,
Exenpfion
sat, corlriil ,ruu,
''i \
#; c4"-'2+
/>*,V*'A'aGARFIELD
COUNTY Board of County Commlssioners
FLAVEN J. CERISE
District l, Carbondale 81623
EUGENE (JIM) DRINKHOUSE
District ll, Rille 81650
LARRYVELASQUEZ
District lll. Glenwood Springs 81@1
a*;*^
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
109 8th Street P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Telephone: (303) 945-9158
s. R. (STAN) BROOME
CountY Manager
October 15, 1984
t'lr. Hal Simpson
Assistant State Engineer
Engineering Section
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
13i3 Sherman Street - Room 8I8
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Application for a domestj'c wel] by
u;: and Mrs. James Parazewski
5.36; Township 4 SouthT Range 91 West
Dear l{r. SimPsons
This letter is written on lbehalf. of !/[r' and Mrs' Parazewski in
regards to "i- "iltiA-dlqi'i,,wUi"t--i"
present,ly' pending in your
office. rr 1984,, the paiil,.iffti; ".tn" Lo carfiEid=county in regards
ro a sptit of property whict;ifi,gi-;diii on JuIv 16/ Ie84 the Board
approved the sprir with I"r:tiii, ;;;aitions.- oie oi those condit!ons
was that ttre waili supply io"-i[" new lot muq! -be- approved by .youroffice. Mr. Parazewski,. haS come to Gar'fietrd CounLv and asked the
assistance of trrE-soaia or"-6ou;it commissionerE witlr the probrern
that your office has "ppui"ntfy is unwilling 'to grant' such an
approval.
Garfield County is in receipt of your letter dated- JuIy \2'- .1984'
we also note that Mark iean oi our planning staff responded to you
on August 7t 1984 generally-settilS forth the Countyts position.' As
I hope you wiIl .agree, Garfield county has worked cl'osely with your
office on water matters. fhe County. . apPreciates its legal
responsibility not. to_create neht lots, ihich-do not have an adequate
physical and legal supply oi-*.t"t. The County.is- also appreciative
of the fact Etrat water is a scarce resource- in Garfield County and'
in fact, the avaiLability ;; ;"t;;-may deternine the development of
the Land for higher usesr-whettrer tlrat be residential, industrial or
commercial. The Board is afio mindful that on June L2, 1981'. Jeris
A. Danielsonr"-S[iie gngineer, wrote_this County with regards to your
policy f or approving domestic wells and ot-her water plans f or
previousfy pfallea an6 ptopo""a-suUaivisions. It is our impression
that since that date, Garfield County l?" .cooperated with your
office and t""ognired your jurisdiction in this important area'
Ivlr. HaI Simpson
Page Two
October 15, 1984
As indicated above, Garfield County has relied upon the expertise ofyour office to determine - tl," appropriatiness of ieveiopmentdecisions. On Mr. parazewskirs behalfattention to your past practice ofEIk Creek. Without going into details,that other domestii wetls have beenlots similarly situated as his own.
we ask that you pay closegranting domestic we1ls on Mainltlr. Parazewski has indicatedapproved in the recent past for
In 99m49ry' it is our request that you continue to work withGarfield county t,o resolve whatever issues you have as to th;Countyrs authority to approve subdivisioniexemptions.
application Furtherr w€ ask that you giveapplication your utmost consideration so th;t heas we are sure other applicants similarly situatedin the past.
Very truly yours,
and subdivisiont{r. Parazewskirs
may treatqd fairly,have been treated
BOARD NTY CO}IMI
,H,z