Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report D.D. 04.09.10Exhibits - Reid ExemPtion Director Determination April 9, 201 0 Mail Recei ffiode of 2oo8, as srnelqeq Garfield County C hensive Plan of 2000 Staff Memorandum B[ rveYing and dated JulY 19' Undated memo from J. W. SqlUgg-qglg! blockinq drivewa Email dated rit ajot0 from Jake l{e!! 39qq 3 Reid Maior ExemPtion Administrative Review PROJECT INFORMATION REQUEST APPLIGANT ' OWNER REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION SITE DATA WATER'SEWER- -- a ACGESS EXISTING ZONING Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision Reid Trust, Donnell Reid Cheryl Chandler, Cheryl and ComPanY East of Rifle at the intersection of CR 233 and CR 2g1 tsection 3, Township 6 South Range 83 West of the 6s P.M. 39.32-acres; Pareel No - 2177 -031 -00-01 I One Existing Well/ Two Existing Septic Systems CR 233 (Silt Mesa) Rural I PROPOSAL Parcet MaP witlr Aerials Reid Trust is the owner of a t4O-acre parcel located just east of the City of Rifle at the intersection of County Roads 233 and 291' knowledge with building and septic permits even though a sec91d dwelling unit is onlY Permitted bY obtaining the Proper Land Use Change Permit for Parcels within the Rural Zone District- Such a permit has not PreviouslY been issued for this property. To further confuse the issue the assessor records do not identify a second unit on this parcel, and the building and septic permit applications identify the adjacent parcel as its location. As you can see from the above aeriar map there are two units existing on this parcer today, and this application is an attempt to clealp tn. status of the units and the property. This exemption request is to Reid Major ExemPtion Administrative Review create three new parcels (each 3.33 acres), leaving a remainder parcel of +3O-acres' The apjroral of this exemption application, "nd recording of an exemption plat, would bring a cuirentty non-conforming piicet into zoning conformance with the Unified land use Resolution of 2008, as amended. The t40-acre property is served by a single pre-existing well and two septic systems' one of which was constructed in 2005. The well was recLnfly permitted by the Division of water Resources as an exempt well with the ability to serve three units- The septic system and related leach field locations are not definitively identified on the plat' The Applicant is requesting approval for the creation of three (3) new parcels and. a remainder parcel. lt is important to note that the Applicant has stated that the remainder parcet will be 'r"rg"d'witi'r an adjacent parcel under common ownership with Reid Trust' due to the inabilitylo demonstrate a legal or physical supply for water' This application is reviewed pursuant to 5-202 B. County Exemptions Requiring Platting, Major (4 Lot) Exemption, 5406 General County Exemption Criteria, and Article Vll, Standards, as contained within the Unified Land Use Code of2008, as amended. The application proposes to create parcels in the following manner: i Pro;:csr:<tr Fi'i':i Exenrpt[oli Plat 1 Parcel 1 Parcel2 Parcel 3 Parcel4 3.33-acres (one du existing) 3.33-acres (one du existing) 3.33-acres (vacant) 29.33-acres (to be merqed) 39.32-acres The Applicant has provided information sufficient to determine that this parcel has existed in its current configuration since February 16, 1961. II REFERRAL COMMENTS staff referred the ,ppiffition tolfre following agencies/County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are ittalned as exhibits and incorporated into this report where aPPlicable. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Road & Bridge: Environmental Health Vegetation County SurveYor Division of Water Resources Exhibits F and P Exhibit H Exhibit G Exhibit K No comment received 2 Reid Major ExemPtion Administrative Review 6. Colorado Geologic SurveY 7. Division of Wildlife 8. RE-2 School District 9. Rifle Fire Protection District 1 0. Soil Conservation District 1 1 . Water Conservation District Exhibit I No comment received No comment received Exhibit J No comment received No comment received 1z.City of Rifle Exhibit L 13. Resource Engineering (on behalf of GarCo) No comment received lll RELATIONSHIP l() I HE u(,InrKtrnENDr-Y.s r rhe subiect prop rehensive |HSI1999:::]: designated as ouflying Residential. The parcel falls within the 2-mile sphere of lnfluence for the City of Rifle. Clw oF RIFLE This site is of importance to the City as it is.included in the first tier of properties that would be annexed into the city. Matt Sturgeon has responded, Exhibit L, with several requests: P TO THE 1. 2. That the county 'only grant the two lots necessary to sell off the existing houses and require thsremainter be merged as a condition of approval'' - That the Applicant dedicate 112 the required righ_t-of-way for future planned roadways -'25',from the centerline of cR 233, 25', along the westerly and southeriy boundary of the parcel, and 50' along the eastern boundary' Mr. Sturgeon closes with "we respectfully reor]gst the Planning and Building Director condition the approval of the exemption bi requiring dedication of sufficient rights-of-way to accommodate the city's future transpbrtation needs- Additionally' we recommend Garfield County condition the approval oi the third 2-Z-acre parcel - the proposed vacant pr*"1 - by requiring the appticint obtain approval of a pre-annexation agreement before atlowing platting of a third parcel." IV ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Access lssues - Jake Mall, county Road & Bridge, responded to the referral, Exhibits F and p, by stating that "...the one driveway to the original existing home was to be cloied when the new driveway access to the modular was granted." This closure had not occurred as required and on April 7, 2O1O a photograph was submitted, Exhibit O, indicating that tree stumps had been place witirin the driveway, thereby creating a 'permanent' closure of the access' A new driveway access permit shall be required for Parcel 3- In Exhibit p Mr. Mall indicates that the placement of tree stumps in the driveway will 'work' but that the appearance is not pleasant' planning Staff would prefer to have a permanent closure and reclamation of the access driveway as it appears that the tree stumps are a temporary closure. Reid Major ExemPtion Administrative Review B. Additional Access lssues - County Road 233 is a prescriptive use and as such the Counff does not have a Righi-of-Way Easement for the road' lt has been common practte to describe that right-oiway t1?t exists within the Exemption property and designate it ,t tr"n oi tne plai. The dedication is an easement only, the underlying property remains 'with the adjacent parcels' This Lqrit"r"nt has n""i added as a condition of approval' c. city of Rifle has significant concerns and requests for the county including not allowing the creati6n of the third parcel and. th" provisio.n of rights-of-way to assure the City's future transportat'ron network' Due to this parcel being within the Tier t 916\ /tn area Staff recommends that no subdivision be approved through county action, but that ine nppricant discuss annexation to the city of Rifle. D.Septiclssues-JimRada,EnvironmentalHealthManager,responded'Exhibit H,thattheplatdoesnotlocatetheleachfieldfortheoriginalhomeonParcell nor has tfre Oisirinution system for water/wastewater been located on the parcel' The leach field location on Parcel 2 may not meet state statute - the required one hundred foot (100') separation from ihe well on Parcel 1 and the twenty-five foot (25',) separation of water distribution lines from the leach field' A determination cannot be made by the information provided T.h" Applicant has g provided a letter from J.W. Squiies Const., Exhibit N, regarding a wastewater system on proposed Parcel.1. This letter states that "All ldid was dig and backfill". This information is insufficient for staff to make a determination of the ,J"qrr"y of the wastewater system on either Parcel 1 or Parcel 2' :-.' : ,::i . E. Permit lssues - Proposed Parcel 2 currently is the site of a modular home served by an on-site ISDS, and water from the well on Parcel 1' This constitutes a zoning viotation as the Applicant did not acquire the necessary land use permits. ln fact the buildind permit information supplied by the Applicant (anO noteO by the plans exami-ner), Exhibit M, clearly states that the original home on the site was uninhabitable and therefore a permit was issued for the modular. 4 crV'rft FiAD, t53 -v? ;r!.qt!I liP,1 Rr:hA -': : ;-rrrr-i--if1#- .. . . ; -' .-'. . Fcir.jitr ' ; Erl".:i:ll ii ' -. : subsequently the original home on the site was made habitable without benefit of the necessary septic and building permits' F. Fire Protection - The Rifle Fire Protection District states, Exhibit J, that an adequate fire protection water supply currently exists for Parcels 1 and 2, however parcei 3 will may be t"qrlt"O to install a fire hydrant in order to meet the distance requirementsof the lnternational Fire code (lFC). REVIEW CRITERIA B. Major (4 Lot) Exemption. Division of land by which no more than four (4) parcels, i.e. the remainder pircel and not more than three (3) new parcels will be split from a parcel of land that was described in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's office as of January 1, 1973 as a parcel of land 35 acres or more in size and not part of a recorded subdivision. ln addition to the general exemption criteria, contained in Section 5- 406, the proposed Major Exemption sh-all require recording of a Major Exemption Plat, describing each Exemption l-oi uy a metes and bounds legal description and as a numbered or lettered "Exemption Lof'- Staff Findinqs The subject property existed in its somewhat-current configuration prior to January 1"t, 1973. A Boundary t-ine Adjustment has affected the parcel however it did not substantially change the parcelthat existed pre-1973' Domestic/lrrigation Water Leqal Supplv A Well permit was issued on February 5, 2010 for "Change/Expansion of Use of an Existing well". The well is permitted to ierve up to three (3) dwelling units and irrigate not 5 Section5-2o2ottipulatesthefollowingrequirements for a major exemPtion: Reid Maior ExemPtion Administrative Review proposed parcel 4, the remainder parcel, is unable to demonstrate a legal or physical water supply. The Applicant has siated ih.t P"t""l 4 will be merged with the adjacent p"r".l a;d't more than one acre of home gardens and lawns' straie5 an active r'rell l"ithin 'i miles of ihe approv€d Well Permit No. 282585 v.'ith e re'orded yi'ld of 15 Ssllons per ninute (Permit No' 153482)' AOUAMAP C6loredo Oivision ol Wder Resourceg Phvsical SuPPlv A za-frour pumP test will be required Pursuant to 57- 1048.2.a., however the Applicant did demonstrate that adjacent wells have the potential to Provide a sufficient supply as indicated bY the Division of Water Resources Aqua MaP (shown here). This is an interim demonstration of the potential for a sufficient water suPPlY. A well-sharing agreement is required and a draft version of that document has been submitted. Additional information is required regarding the water distribution system, including the multiple spigots on Parcel 1. tne wEtl p"titit allows. a total of 1 acre of irrigation on the combined area of the three parcels and'these multiple spigots appear to have existed for an agricultural use that can no longer exist given the water constraints' parcel 4 has not demonstrated a legal or physicalwater supply. The Applicant has stated that the area of parcel 4 will be meiged witn fire parcel in common ownership to the east. A plat note will be required that staies that Parcel 4 cannot be transferred except for the pripo"". of merginithe area with the adjacent parcel (Tax ld #2177-031-00437)' Zoninq The subject property is located within the Rural (R) Zone District. As required by the ULUC, the Applicanl', proposal as represented will bring a non-conformity (the second Jwelling unit)'into compiiance w1h County zoning requirements. Accgss .. -r ^----1.. n^^.r^ nQQ naA )O4 Ao The proposed exemption is located at the intersection of county Roads 233 and 291' As stated earlier, Road & Bridge has commented regarding the non-compliance with closure of a driveway access whei a driveway permit wls granted. The.closure of this access point has occurred however the natuie'of the closure appears temporary' Given the numerous violations that have occurred at this site over the past couple of years'..the placement of tree stumps and a two strand fence does not meet the intent of a "closure"' 6 Reid Major ExemPtion Administrative Review The dedication of right-of-way, as requested by the city of Rifle, is necessary to assure the future transportation network of the area' Wastewater The Applicant has stated that the site is currently serve-d- by tw9 lndividual sewage Disposal System (ISDS), one for each residence. bne ISDS permit has been issued in the recent past, and the'ietter frornJ.W. Squires does not demonstrate the construction of a leach field for parcel 1. Additional information has been requested regarding the y il;ffi oiG*'j"rch fields on each of these systems however sufficient information has not been provided to demonstrate the adequacy of the wastewater system' Fire Protection The subject property is located within the Rifle Fire Protection District. Response to the referral resulted in comments regarding the potential necessity of installing a fire hydrant to assure an adequate supply -ot *it r foi fire protection to Parcel 3' This type of requirement, installation of 'a iublic improvement, is typically considered a "subdivision improvemenf, that is required to be iniluoeo in a subdivision lmprovements Agreement and bonded for completion. The Applicant has stated that the necessity of this permitwill be determined by the future owner of tn" parcel. Staff has determined that the exemption lots cannot demonstrate the provision of adequate fire protection for the parcels proposed to be created through this application' Easements The plat does describe 30'Well and Water Line Easement from the well, through Parcel 2 to the lot line oi parcel 3. The plat does not describe any easements for other utilities such as electric and'telephone although the utility improvements (pedestals and poles) are located on the plat. Through thL platting process the Applicant is required to legally describe all easements. Mineralvvtv.YY.rr.t.----ineral ownershiP which has been severed. should the application be approvLd thrJfollowing plat note would be required on the Exemption Plat: ,,The minerat rights associated with this property will not.be transfened with the surface estate iherefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on thepropertybythemineralesfafeowner(s)orlessee(s).,, A list of required standard plat notes has been provided to the applicant for their inclusion on the exemption plat however the exemption ptat currently does not meet the standards iequired in the Unihed Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended' Veqetation steve Anthony, county Vegetation Manager, has responded, Exhibit G, that noxious .weeds are present on in" =it" and that thJapplicant provide a Weed Management Plan' Staff has not received this document- Reid Major ExemPtion Administrative Review Geoloqv Karen Berry, Colorado Geologic survey, Exhibit l, has reviewed the proposal and determined that,,the site does not appeario contain any geologic hazards that will prevent development. However, the site does contain soil conitiaints that need to be considered rnthe design of building, septic systems and other improvements'" School Land Dedication The Applicant shall be required to pay a fee in-lieu of land dedication to RE-2 School Districi ior two of the three lbts created. This results in a fee of $400'00' VI COUNTY EXEMPTION CRITERIA . The fotlowing general exemption ctiffir-shall apply to all proposed exemptions requiring platting. A. Gompliance with Zoning and use Regulations. The development and use. of Exemption Lots comply with the zoning regulati-ons and use restrictions of this Land Use Code and the PUD zone designations, if applicable' 1. The resulting Exemption Lots are not illegal or nonconforming lots under these Reguiitions. Any Exemption Lot that is nonconforming shall not increase its degree of nonconformance' 2- The resulting Exemption Lots contain safe, adequate building sites can-ablg of complyinj with applicable use restrictions, criteria and standards set forth in these -Re-gutations. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated comPliance with this Provision' B. Not within the purposes of Subdivision Statutes or This Land Use Code' The division of land by the exemption processes, detailed herein, is not within the purposes of the state subdivLion statutes, Part 1 of the County Planning. and .Building Code Act, c.n.s. s30-28-101, ef seg., or the subdivision regulations of this Land use code' C. Adequate Water Supply. The resulting Exemption Lots have a sufficient legal and (potential) physical source of water, in compliince with the requirements of this Land Use dode set forth-in Section 7-105 of Article Vll, Standards. D. Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Disposal System. The resulting Lxemption Lots have not demonstrated the existence of an adequate water distribution system and wastewater disposal system in.compliance the requirements of this Land Use iode set forth in Section 7-106 of Article Vll, Sfandards. E. Adequate Access. The resulting Exemption Lots have legal and adequate access in compliance with the requirements of-this Land Use Code set forth in Section 7-108 of Article vll, sfandards. However they may not be in compliance with conditions of approval of prior driveway permits. Other access issues have been identified by the City of Rifle. I Reid Major ExemPtion Administrative Review F. Hazards. The resurting Exemption Lots do.not create hazards identified in section 7-21gand Sectio n7-210 of Aiicle Vli, or exacerbate existing hazards' G.GompliancewithcomprehensivePlanandlntergovernmentalAgreements. The.proposedexemptionisno!consistentwithapplicableprovisionsoftheGarfield County Comprehensive Plan and any intergovernme.nial agreements between the County and a municipality that apply to the Jt"" *t"t" the division of land will occur' Due to the location of the site within ttre iier 1 Growth Area of the Gity of Rifle Staff recommends that the Applicant seek annexation' H. Exemption Map Requirements. see the specific Pq.-uir9m:nts for Exemption plats at section s-soitcxo) and (cx7). The following generat criteria also applies: 1. suitability of Plat for Recordation. The exemption map or plat is drawn in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations and is not suitable for recordation. 2. Adequacy of supporting Materials.. The exemption plat does not meets all planning, engineeringl"no surveying requirements o-f these Regulations for maps, data, ,rrEy", analyses,- studies, reports, plans, designs, documents, and other supporting materials' 3. Liens and Encumbrances. The exemption p.lat..does not include a lien' conveyance, or encumbrance to the property dividing..a lot or encumbering tne puntic use of public dedications for roadways public utility easements or other PurPoses. l. Taxes. The Applicant has not demonstrated that All taxes applicable to the land have been Paid. VII PROPOSED FINDINGS 1. That proper notice was provided to adjacent propefi owners as required by the Unified Land Use Code of 2008, as amended; 2. That the administrative review was extensive and complete, that all pertinent f391", matters and issues were submitted and that adjacent property owners had the ability to be heard regarding this request; 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption-has !99n determined to not be in the nest interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield CountY; 4. That the application has not met the requirements Article V, Division 4 and Article Vll of tna'el*eld County Unified Land [Jse Code of 2008, as amended, and has not adequat"ty i""ponJed to the ULUR deficiencies and issues identified by 9 Reid Major ExemPtion Administrative Review staff. VI STAFF RECOMMENDATION staff finds the proposed Exemption DoES Nor comply with the Garfield county unified Land Use Code of 200g, as amended, and therefore recommends that the Director of Building and planning issue a Determination of Denial. The specific issues that need to be addresied prior to relconsideration of the application include the following: Provide an engineer's statement regarding the septic system and-leach field on parcel 1. This statement should iniude t[e bcation of the leach field' An ISDS peimit is required for this system, and due to the fact that it currently exists the Building Code permits, and itatf recommends, a doubling of the submittal fees for this permit. Provide a surveyor or engineeds statement regarding the location of the leach field on Parcel 2 and have thetefinitive location indicated on the plat' obtain a building permit for Parcel 1 improvements that have occurred since issuance of the p6*it for the modular when the home was stated as "inhabitable"' The Building code permits, and staff recommends, a doubling of the submittialfees for this permit. city of Rifle comments, particularly the provision of rights-of-way and the deletion of parcel 3. Address the issue of annexation or compliance with the City of Rifle Comprehensive Development Plan of 2009' Fire protection requirements for the hydrant to serve Parcel 3' pursuant to Section A-lo4,Administrative Review Process, the Applicant has the ability to request reconsideration of the Directo/s Decision. Specific requirements of this reconsideration are itemized in 4-104 B-1' of the ULUR' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning DePartment Review AgencY Form Date Sent: FebruarY 22,2010 Comments Due: March 15r 2010 Name of application: Reid Exemption Garrreld County requests your comment in review of this project' Please-notiff the Planning Departrnent in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline' This form *uy U"io"dfor your response, or you may attach ygy-o*ludditional sheets as ,r"".rr*y. Writien comments may be mailed, e-mailed' or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff Contact: KathY EastleY 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 exemption. A new &iveway access Dermit sha[ be @.The drivewav access perrnit the location of the iE General Comments: Bridge DeParffitent. Name of review agency: Garfield countv Road and Bridge Departrnent Februarv 2f .2010-.By: Jake B. Mail Date Revised 3/30/00 To: From: Re: Date: MEMORANDUM Kathy EastleY Steve AnthonY Comments on the Reid Exemption (Fil#MAEA5909) March 16' 2010 It appears that the major weed issues are a few Russian-olive trees scattered along a ditch' Staffrequests t#;,h" appticant provide a plan on how ttey will manage these trees' From: Sent: To: Subiect: Attachments: Jim Rada Friday, February 26,2010 2:30 PM Kathv A. EastleY MAEA59O5 - Reid exemPtion Jim Rada (rada@garfield-county'com)'vcl Hi KathY, My comments regarding this application are as follows' 1. The well sharing agreement (Appendix 2) is not signed or dated' As is' the Agreement in the packet would not appear to be legally binding on anyone' z. Based on the site plan, the leach field on parcel 2 does not appear to meet the minimum loGfoot separation distance between a wefl and leach field. Separation distances should be verified and conformance with the county lsDs regulations should be required' 3. The leach field location on parcel 1 is not identified. water spigots associated with the well are scattered around parcer L. county rsDS regurations require a minimum 25 feet between a leach field and a potable water line unless the water line is prop"rly encased according to regulations' Leach field locationshouldberequiredanda]lappropriatesetbacksorencasementshouldberequired. lnmyopinion,theexistingwaterandwastewatersystemsonproposedParcellandParcel2putParcel3 potentially at risk unless it is determined that appropriate setbacks are being met' Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal' Ji, (rd., KLHS Environmental Health Manager Garfield CountY Public Health '1 95 W 14tn Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 970-625-5200 x81 1 3 Cell 970-319-1579 Fax 970-625-8304 Email irada@qarfield-countv.com Web www.qarfield-countv.com coLoRADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY-- serving the people of colcrado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Shenr-ran Street. Rcom 715 Denver. CO 80203 Phone: (303)866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 March 11,2010 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfi eld CountY Planning 108 8'h Street Suite 201 Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601 tred i arrtlanlE'sa rfl e I ci-ct) trrrir''collr Re: Reid Exemption from Platting, CGS GA-1G'0004-1 COLORADO I)EPAI{TMENT OF NATURAT RESOURCES Bill Rilter Govertror Jarnes B. Martitr Executive Dlrector Vincent Maithews Division Director and State Geologist Dear Mr. Jarman: Thank you for the submittal of the above referenced proposal. The proposal is to create four single- family/agricultural lots fro- un existing parcel ofabout 40 acres' Ifapproved' parcels I -3 will be about 3'3 acres *Jpl"""f 4 will be 30 acres. Individuaf wells and septic systems are proposed. various structures and improvement are currently located on parcel l. The rest of the site is an irrigated field' A drainage flows across the southem end of subdivlion "r"-ption. The drainage becomes steeper and deeper west of the parcel 1. A geologic hazardreport was not submised with the application- The following comments are based upon site obiervatlons, existing geologic maps, and Garfield County 1041 Hazard Maps' Collaosible Soil The site appears to be underlain by unconsolidated deposits ofsil! clay, and sand that cover the ground surface and/or wind-blown dust (loess) composed of "Uy"yto sandy silt' - Botir are susceptible to hydrocompaction and collapse. Historic ir.lguion,,,uy have reduced tu"f, n-*at b*t little is known about site-specific subsurface conditions. PotentiallY Unstable Slooes Garfield County HazardMaps indicate that areas in and near steep drainages are potentially unstable' Parcel I is located near but outside of such areas. Any i"rtuuirity would likiy damage county roads before effecting Parcel 1' care should be taken to prwent the discharge of concentrated flows from the site into the steeper sections ofthe drainage. Hishlv ExPansive Soil and Bedrock Below deposits of silt, sand and clay, bedrock that contains highly expansive claystone and shale may be present' It is possible that below grade construction will encounter expansive clays- SummarY The site does not appear to contain any geologic hazards that will prevent development' However' the site does contain soil constraints that need to be considired in the desigrr of buildings, septic systems and other improvements' March 11,2010 PageZ If the exernption is approved it would be prudent for the county to require site-specific soils and foundation in estig"tiorrs ror each lot before permits ior buildings and septic systems are approved' please contact me ifyou have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 303.866.2018 or by email at karelr' berr)'@.state' co' us' Sincerely, t [-.^h-b^''.:-*:\- *) Karen A. Berry Geological Engineer, PG, AICP, CPESC-SWQ .EXHIBITIIiv Date: FebruarY 26,2014 The Rifle Fire proteetion District has recently reviewed the proposedReid Trust Property. The properry is located 1150 County Road 233, Rifle Co. The District understands that the intent is to subdivide a 40 acre parcel and create three 3'33 acre f*."t, and one :O.f OS acre parcel. The District furttrer understands that it is unknown what the square rootug" of the residential structures will be on the individual lots' The proposed subdivisionls within the boundaries of the Rifle Fire Protection District and fire Ld "*".g.ncy medical services are provided by the District' [n order to improve our ability to provide these services, the bistrict *uk"t the following recommendations: l. There is adequate fire protection water supply provided to the existing structures on Parcels 1 and2 at this time' 2. An additional fire hydrant may be needed to meet the distance requirements of the International Fire Ciae gfC; when new structures are built on Parcel 3 and parcel 4. This needs to be evaluated prior to any new construction on any of the parcels in this subdivision. The fire dist ict recolnmends that a cost share 'agreement be attached to all four parcels in the. event zlny new construction requires additional fire hydrants or fire protection water supply' (See preliminary plan review letter from Fire District in applicant,s packet). 3. All driveways appear to be offCR 233. This meets the requirements for fire apParatus roads. 4. Posting of addresses: Addresses are to be posted where the driveway intersects with the County Road as well as on the individual homes and / or where single drives interseciwith the shared driveway. Letters are to be a minimum of 4 inches in height, Yrirrchin width and be in contrast to background colors. 5. lndividual propane tanks are to be placed in a location where they are not subject to damage *d combrrstible materials are to be kept a minimum of l0 feet away from tanks. 6. Vegetation should be removed from near any stmctures to provide a safe area in the event of a wild land fre. 7. Roadways: Consideration should be given to the heavy weights of emergency apparatus when constructing roadways and roads are to be of an all weather- driving surface. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Kevin C. Whelan Fire Marshal Rifle Fire Protection District Gaffield CountY SURWYOR SCOTT AIBNER, P.L.S To: From: Subject: I)ate: Michael Langhorne - Bookcliff Survey, Inc' Scott Aibner- Garfield County Surveyor Plat Review - Reid Subdivision Exemption $1a4120rc Dear Michael, upon review of the Reid subdivision Exemption, I have no comments or corrections to be made prior to approval for survey content and form. Once all final comments from Building and planning have been completed, thelVlylar may be prepared for recording. The Mylar shall be delivered to the Building and Planning offrce with all private party signatures no later than Monday the week prior to the next commissioner meeting day in order to make that meeting' SincerelY, Scott Aibner Garfield CountY SurveYor cc Cathy Eastley - Building and Planning Departrnent 109 g th street ,suite 201 , Glenwood springs, c081601 . (g70)g45-1j77 ' Fm: (970) j84-3460' e-mail:saibner@orfield-countycom DEPARTIIETTT OF PtANilIilG & DEI'ELOPI'E]IT z}2Rallroacl Avenue, Rifle, co 81650 pnone, 970'625-6224 Fax 97G625-6268 ll\!r -E'r March l, 2009 MAR i 5 2010 G/.RFIELD COUNTY BUiLDING T* PLANNh\G Ms. Kathy EastleY Garlield County Building and Planning 108 8th St., Suite +01 Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601 RE: Reid Subdivision Exemption (MAEA5909) Dear Ms.'EasdeY, Tha]rftyouforreferringt}reabovereferencedMajorSuMivisionExemptiontot}reCityofRifle.The properry is oot immediatety "dj"..r,iio A" "ra, o1nin1't corPorate boundary; however' the City does ,.,n ;- [il*r'c*n"fa County "o*ii", the followingwhen taking action on this application' The subiect property falls within the Crty of Rifle's Tier 1 growtlr T ry is a priority gowth area pres,med *ripe' or onear ripe" forwb"r,-development by tf,* Rille Comprehensive Development Plan ("dopted November 2009). The plan calls for Lw Density Residentialdevelopment at this location' Low Density is dessibed as single-family residential at a density; f 3 - 6 rmits per acre (see attached)' The *planning Narrative'included in the application states this reguest is lade to clean uP some outstanding zoning issues as well as to allow the two residences in'the "otthwest comer to be sold off' The narrative glo", or, io ,t a" the remainder will be absorbed into the Parc€l under common ownership to the east. Because this is a Tier I gro*,lr rr.", the City would request the Coturty only gant the-two lo1 necessary to sell offthe existing houses *d."q#" th. r"*"irrd", be mergedas condition of approval' Second, and critical to the city's future transportation network, is a requestthat right-of-way be dedicated for fut,re planned roadways. The City *orli.eqt"st the follow-g tght-:lYay dedications on t}re sub&visioi Exemption plat- The reqrest d de&cations would offer one half the right-of-way necessary to construct a street to City standar&' r 2s fleet lrom gre centerline of cR 233 running along the entire northboundary ofthe subject ProPerty' t 2sfeet along the westerly boundary of the subject parcel to allow for futt$e reaiignment of CR 233. ll|feetalongentiresoutherlyborrndaryforplannedeast.westroadway' o 50 feet along entire easterly tourrdrry-2s feet on each side of tle described Boundary Line Adjustrnent-for " pl*.i connecrion between cR 233 and 293' A similar right-of-way dedication was approved for a county Rural Land Development proiect done by Ranch savers LLC' Staffreviewed the Garff.eld County Comprehensive Plan (2000). The following are comments regarding certain sections ofthe Plan (Planning Areas 1 - 3) as they relate to the proposed project: policy 2,2 tall$ about the "logical, legal, and economic extension of service lines from existing water $ystems." It states the County'will'reguire developmeut adjacent to water or sewer systems to enter into an appropriate.g."uIrrerit to receive service. A water line is adjaceut to the subject property. Crty Courrcrl is the ipproval body for water service reque,sts' so staff cannot say whetbei ,.rdr. ,"q,-r.st *ould b. gr.rrtei. In tlis instance, staff recommends the landowner study whether sulfiaent service could be obtained from the City and the landowner requests City Council grant such service through a pre-annexation application. Section 10.0 6(Urban Area of Influence" puts forth the following goaT: Ensute development and overcll land use policies occuning in the County that affea a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning anitfuture land use Abil'lJlioo oJ the approyiau municipahey. There i:Xttle that can be done to mitigfate fut*. impact of .*.tirrgirouses tlelandowner is seeking to sell off; however, Rrther i*p|.t to RiIle's urban expansion could be avoided by disallowing the creation of a third 3 acre lot' Section 10.0 trban Area of Influence' puts forth Objective lO.3: Development in an Urtan Area of l4lluace will have a rtted pattetn that is cimpaxble wirt t)te afected municiTalitl. while there are no streets proposed, the intent of this objective is to ensure land use activities don't impact municipal street Patterns. Section 1O.O (.Urban Area of Influence'puts forth Policy 10.3: Developmentwill be expected to design a skeet system that will meet the affected municipality's sbeet standards for construrtion *d"right-of-way width. The requested right-of-way widtls are tyPical and would accommodate municipal street standar&' The Reid Sub&vision Exemption seems l&e a minor land use action; however, the parcel in question occupies a critical location with regard to t}e City of Rifle's future transPortation network. We ,"rp""afrr[y request the Planning "ira nritai"g Director con&tion_t]re approval of the exemption by ,"q.ririrrg i"Aotio, of su{Iiaeni rights-of-w":y to accommodate the city's future lransportation needs' na&tiorltly, we recommend Garffeld County condition the approval of the third 3.3-acre parcel-+h1 proposed vacant parcel-by requiring the applicant obtain approval of a pre-annexation agreement before allowing pl.ttiog of a thirdparcel. Assistant City Manager City Council Planning Commission Gnowrx ParrenNs EcoNoutc Base /.,.^!.!... Susr*.rhlsLe AErJLrue A Hrcrt[ti,vr.asLe Cor*uuNtlY Zoom in ro see tnops in greoter detall ESIDENTIAT tAND USES __5uu,vrRY APPENotxil lNrcooucrroN op CoNrtNts & OaYctlts Resldenllol (LDR) : 3-6 dulocre ,Ie.Fomi|yResldentiollonduseisosuburbontyperesidentioldensityollowingresiden. londuseintendedprimorilyforsingle.fomilyusesonindividuollots.Tree.linedlocol inlerconnecled pedesirion circulolion syslems ond proxlmlty to schools ond porks terize ihis zone. Duplexes ond iriplexos resembling lorge, single-fomily homes uldbepermitledbutdesignmuslmorrywilhothersingle-fomilyhomesondshould usedprimorilyoncornerlolsforlronsitions.AccessoryDwellingUnitsshouldohobe Locallonalcrilrerlo: Areos lhot will not be odvorsely impocled by sunounding lond uses; oreos wilh no physiogrophic consiroinls; locolions suitoble for qulel neighborhoods; within wolking dislonce of neighborhood shopping' aducotionol' or recreolionol but do not require closo proximi! io Downtown Rlfle' Flgure 2l: ExomPles ^.PPLICABLE ZONES: of Low DensilY Residentiol LDR . Low-Denslty Resideniiol Dislrict Figure 22: Locotton of Low-Densily Resldenfiol Rlfla Comprehenslw Plan Expirafon: Juno 2ol0 VrsrovSWoNs &.Oqecrvts -_Fururu'lrixo Use !.coNoi,ttc31L A Htcr+ijY'Uvensut CopuauNtrv lNpLuteNcg Exrunr.rll FoncEs Sula,ra*RY I ApPENDTx I.. I LrNo Ltst M,rr IlNrnoDucrtou isl-E or CoruteNts & Suts/tRE.ts I O Ttrn I PntontrY Gnowrn Anrr Tier 1 londs ore oreos odJocent to the existing city where the City will priorltize onnexoiion ond of munlcipol services' Tier 1 includes the moior oreos thol hove olreody been contem- for development, such os RimRock' mosi of Bryce's , The Form, Powers Ronch ond the Airpo*' alr t Trrn 2 SrcottornY GBowTH Anrr Tier 2 Growlh Areo represenis o second ring of devel- thot would be logicol oreos for Rlfle to grow otler build out of Tler '1. Except for lhe development pro' torlhe Momm Creek lnlerchonge' Iier 2 oreos ore where infroslruciure con be eosily extended from TiAr I develoPments. Rllle ComProhonslw Plan Expiraton: Junc 2010 s Urbon Conloinment SYslem MoP lo view tha future lond use mop in more detall' S+ Flgure 64 Cllck fhe (e1 rf$ c : Rlfle' imoge BMtgga I ITI a- llltlllllll - lnle rstote/FreewoY -Mojor Arlerlol -Minor Arteriol -Colleclor II I tI \ NOTE: Alignments moY vorY Ind no,l!-.. Functiono I Clossif icotion ili{le TronsPortoiion Mosler Plon t l- l'r [' ilr il I. EI d c d d 3/9/2010 lE:r llH lrli llXi*:: ll\ :i;i lls Erli ll{ ir:i ll= rEis !REi TEts Ele -ii: !E! tii !: t{s [q] ! i ii E E ; k I i ! E; !! iiii:f,i1,fi :i;;it ;i!i:; ;l!q!: !iiiii 'ljIrIa1 S.\ SU tL: \r*i .rl \"- F\ r/j 3i> r s \l .-ivldl.- dEc ;.b, 9: U .i p) r- c<)FTI' -l}1v E ; F L 'ri'ri5ir i ii5ffgisE =t4 *Ex El[. ?T;* -r!.'L-. 4?,1 t' --- r'" -,+t_ro t4-\<tcitrb C.i"tS l-*r \L** c-"=n; FFz*,j cl EXHIBITt l-\ !tiiii --.---{-ti :t rlIi Ir ir__i: ilil ;i ili! EXHIBIT? From: Sent: To: Subiect: Kathy: Thursday, APril08, 2010 5:46 AM Kathy A. EastleY RE: Reid ExemPtion L That will work, looks like yuk with the stumps I think just Thanks Jake B. Mall Administrative Foreman Garfield County Road & Bridge Department ima ll @ garfield-countv.com Phone (970)525-8601 Ext. 104 Cell (970)618-6194 the fence would have worked and looked better' From: KathY A. EastleY Sent: WednesdaY, APril07, 2010 3:15 PM To: Jake Mall Subject: Reid ExemPtion Jake, one of your responses to the application requesting an exemption was that one of the driveways was to be closed' Please see the attached and respond whether this "closure" is sufficient' Kothy EostleY, ATCP Senior Plonner Gorfield County Building & Plonning 108 8th Street, #4AL Glenwood Springs, CO 8L6Ot Phone: 97O-945-8ZLZ ext - t58O Fax: 970-384-3470 keost ley@oorf i eld-countY.com Fred Jarman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jim Rada Friday, April 09, 2010 3:53 PM Kathy A. Eastley Fred Jarman RE: Reid Exemption Jim Rada (jrada@garfield-county.com).vcf Kathy, J.W. -squires letter indicates that he and the property owners repaired(or altered) an ISDS in Garfield County without obtaining the required County permit. It also appears that he is not aware of the Colorado ISDS Act or the applicable local iegulations regard the requirement of a permit. For your co0nvenience, I've included the applicable cites below. From the Statel^SDS Guidelines which Garlield County used prior to 2008 and wlrich are essentially the same as the GarJield County updated ISDS Regulations of 2008: IV. Administration and Enforcement A. Permit Application Requirements and Procedures: 1. Prior to commencement of installation, alteration, or repair of a system, a written application shall be submitted to the local health department providing, as a minimum, the information called for on the application form and a permit shall have been issued by the local health department or its designated agent having jurisdiction. From the current ISDS Act: 25-10-113. Penalties. (1) AnV person who commits any of the following acts or violates any of the provisions of this article commits a class 1 petty offense, as dehned in section 18-1.3-503, C.R.S.: (a) Constructs, alters, installs, or permits the use of any individual sewage disposal system without first having applied for and received a permit as provided for in section 25-10-105 (i) (g) or section 25-10-106; In addition, the information provided in the letter and sketch does not indicate the location of the new leach field in relation to the well and the associated potable water lines that I suggested in my original referral response as important information needed to determine conformance with the ISDS regulations. It appears that perhaps the specifically requested information was not relayed to Mr' Squires. For resolution, I suggest that all components of the ISDS be marked (staked) and that someone(you, me, both of us, private consultant or all) go make a measurement or two to determine compliance. Let me know what you think. J;* (rJr, KLHS Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 14s Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 970-625-5200 x81 1 3 Cell 970-319-'1579 Fax 970-625-8304 Email irada@qarfield-countv.com Web www.garfleld-county.com From: Kathy A. Eastley Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:13 PM To: Jim Rada Subject: Reid Exemption It appears that J. W. Squires has provided a letter (?) about the wastewater system related to the original home on the site. Do you find this sufficient to make a determination of a legal and adequate wastewater system? Should we require that they obtain a permit PRIOR to any decision being made on the exemption application? I am at a total loss here on how to get the information that we need. Please respond to this letter. Kothy Eostley, ATCP Senior Plqnner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #4Ot ?lenwood Springs, CO 8l60t Phone: 970-945-8?12 ext. 1580 Fox: 970-384-3470 keostley@qarf i eld-counfy.com ffi Pl.rr. considet tfre enr.ilonment before printing this e-m.ail.