The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.04.1996• • BOCC 11/4/96 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: An exemption from the definition of subdivision. APPLICANT: Thomas & Mary Odgers; Sam & Teresa Potter LOCATION: A tract of land located in Section 31, T6S, R94W and Sections 5 & 6, T7S, R94W of the 6th P.M.; approximately one (1) mile southeast of Rulison along County Road 309. SITE DATA: 204 Acres WATER: Shared Well SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) ACCESS: Direct access to County Road 309 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject tract is located in District B - Subdivisions/Rural Serviceable Areas 1/2 to 1 mile radius, Minor Environmental Constraints, as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Management Districts Map. The subdivision noted in the Comprehensive Plan is the Rulison Industrial Park, which was a subdivision that received sketch plan approval in the mid-1970s; however, it never progressed through any later stages of approval and is a nonexistent development. H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The subject tract is 204 acres in size, located approximately one (1) mile southeast of the Rulison I-70 exit, south of County Road 309. The tract slopes from south to north at angles between 6% and 25%, with an existing single family residence on the tract. See vicinity map, page • g • . • • B. Adjacent Land Uses: The subject tract is located in an area that is primarily agricultural, with single family residences located on generally, large lots. C. Proposal: The applicants propose to subdivide, by exemption, the 204 acre tract into four (4) parcels of 4.52, 4.53, 9.00 and 185.95 acres each. Staff presumes that, if approved, the parcels would be developed for single family residential use. See sketch map, page' D. History: In February, 1996, the Board considered a similar exemption request for the same property being considered in the present application. Due to a lack of certainty regarding the proposed legal and physical water supply, the Board denied the petition and a Resolution to that effect was approved. See Resolution 96-15, pages A•12. Staff notes that the earlier application proposed to use an existing well and spring water as the water supply. This application proposes the sharing of an existing well for the smaller parcels. Water supply for the larger parcel is not specified. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Subdivision Regulations: Section 8:52 (A) 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, and is 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 joint use of the proposed 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;" The applicants obtained the tract in 1995 and a deed and property description are attached on pages 't' . . The applicants have also submitted a previous deed from June, 1963, which describes the subject property and it appears the tract has remained in the same configuration since. See 1963 deed, page . Therefore, this request complies with Section 8:52 (A) of the Subdivision Regulations. B. Zoning: The subject tract is located within the A/R/RD zone district and all proposed lots are in excess of the two (2.0) acre minimum lot size requirement. C. Water Supply: The applicants are proposing a shared well as the water supply for the smaller lots that would be created. There is an existing well on the tract, located in the southeastern portion of the proposed, nine (9) acre parcel that would be shared among the exemption parcels. This well was pump -tested on March 20, 1996, and found to produce one (1.0) gallon per minute during a four (4) hour test, with a • • drawdown of 40 feet. The well recovered 22 feet within one (1.0) hour. See pump test information, page • / • . The individual who conducted the pump test offers the opinion that "if this well can sustain one gpm, with adequate storage it would produce 1440 gallons per day." He further states, "The test data obtained is representative of only conditions on that date and does not account for possible seasonal variation in the aquifer nor longer pumping durations" (emphasis added). Assuming the accepted engineering rate for water usage of 350 gallons per day (gpd), per dwelling unit, a combined total of 1050 gpd would be required to service the three (3) proposed parcels, or a continuous pumping rate of 17.5 hours. It is staffs opinion that without a 17.5 hour pump test, it is impossible to determine that an adequate physical supply of water exists, as required by Section 8:52 (D) of the Subdivision Regulations. Staff recommends that, at a minimum, an additional pump test of 17.5 hours duration be conducted, with all information provided to the Planning Department for review, prior to any approval. Furthermore, staff recommends the provision and installation of at least 3000 gallons of central water storage, which would also be beneficial for fire fighting purposes. Legal Supply: The applicants assert the well was in production prior to May 22, 1971, and therefore, is exempt from regulation and permitting pursuant to C.R.S. 37- 92-602(1)(e), and that the subject well cannot be interrupted by a water call on adjacent creeks or the Colorado River. See exemption narrative, pages i7+/q . Although these statements are accurate, the County has no definitive proof that this well can be used for the stated purposes. Staff has discussed these issues with the Division of Water Resources, who recommends the applicants late -register the well, for its historic use. The Division offers the caveat that the historic use may only be allowed for one (1) single family dwelling and expansion of the use would likely require issuance of West Divide Water Allotment contracts. Staff suggests that before any decision is made on this petition, the applicants take the necessary steps in demonstrating a legal supply of water for the proposed parcels. Additionally, the subject well is the water supply for the existing dwelling, and it appears the applicants are contemplating severing this well from the remaining acreage, upon which is the dwelling. If this is the case, then it is staffs interpretation that the remaining acreage must also secure a legal and physical water supply prior to approval of this petition, due to the fact that if this petition is approved as submitted, then approval would create a lot without a water supply, contrary to regulations. Staff would also like to address a statement contained in the application stating, "Garfield County has approved many similar sites and wells for subdivision exemption with the same or lesser available water supplies." Although there is a modicum of truth to this statement, as the criteria regarding adequate water supplies has evolved over time, the Board has not approved a similar water supply, for the entirety of 1996. • • Water Quality: A water quality analysis has been performed, testing for nitrate, nitrite and fecal coliform bacteria, indicatin the water would be suitable for human consumption. See water test, page . D. Sewer/Soils: The proposed method of waste water treatment is the use of individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS). According to the Soil Conservation Service, soils on-site where the development would logically occur, are of two general classifications, the Potts loam and the Potts-Ildefonso complex. When used for building sites, the soils are considered to have moderate to severe constraints due to slope and, in the Ildefonso, the presence of large stones. When used for ISD systems, both soils are considered to have moderate to severe constraints, largely for the same reasons. Staff recommends the inclusion of a plat note to address these limitations. E. Access: The exemption parcels have direct access to County Road 309 and staff would assume each parcel would have an individual driveway. Staff contemplates no specific problems with the access; however, recommends that the applicants consult with the Road and Bridge Department and receive any required driveway permits, prior to approval of an exemption plat. F. Fire Protection: The applicants propose to install outside valves, faucets or hydrants to allow firefighters access to domestic and irrigation water supplies. Additionally, the Grand Valley Fire Protection District has submitted two (2) letters, essentially approving of the request, upon the following findings/conditions: I] Requests that all structures be separated from native pinyon/juniper by a distance of four times the surrounding tree height or 60 feet; 2] Source of water for fire trucks is adequate from live stream or pond; 3] Access to all structures should be sufficient as parcels adjoin County road. See letters, pages 21.2'Z... Staff recommends these provisions be made conditions of approval and further suggests the inclusion of the standard plat note addressing wildfire mitigation. G. Easements: All required easements for access, utilities, water supply, etc.,will be required to be shown on an exemption plat. H. School Impact Fees: The applicant will be required to pay the $200 school impact fee for the creation of the exemption parcel. Potential Road Impact Fees: Upon adoption of a road impact fee, the lot created by this exemption will be subject to paying that fee; paid at time of building permit application, paid by the building permit applicant. This provision shall be included as a plat note. J. Comments Received: At the time the staff report was completed, the Planning Department had received the attached comments, pages £3 29 . ! • IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. 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 not in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the petition for exemption be DENIED due to the lack of a legal and physical water supply for all proposed lots.