Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.14.1995• • BOCC 8-14-95 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: An exemption from the definition of subdivision. APPLICANT: Peter Sahula LOCATION: A tract of land located in a portion of Section 30, T5S R94W and Section 25, T5S, R95W of the 6th PM; located on the east side of the Rulison I-70 Interchange and north of the Colorado River. SITE DATA: 96 acres WATER: Individual well SEWER: ISDS ACCESS: Access easement off of C.R. 323 EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD L RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in District B2a - Subdivision/Rural Servicable Areas within one mile of subdivisions with central water, Minor Environmental Constraints and District F - River/Floodplain Severe Environmental Constraints as designated on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts' Map. The subdivision designation is based on a nonexistent subdivision that only had a sketch plan approval in the middle serviceable's. There is no central water available to the area from this subdivision. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is located on the east side of the Rulison I-70 Interchange, between the Colorado River and the Rio Grande Railroad. The property is river bottom land that has various riparian vegetation, including large cottonwood trees. There is a pond on the west end of the property. A large portion of the property is subject to flooding during high water years. • • B. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to split the 96 acre parcel into four (4) tracts of approximately 10.0, 14.0, 36.0 and 36.0 acres in size. A sketch plan submitted by the applicant is shown on page . A cover letter from the applicant's representative is attached on page PHI Access would be provided by an access easement across the 10 and two 36 acre parcels, off of C.R.323. Water would be individual wells and ISDS would be used for sewage disposal. C. History: The 10.0 acre parcel was created by exemption in 1982, by Resolution 82-21, for Anvil Points Properties. At that time the 10 acre parcel was a part of a 622 acre tract that included land north of the railroad and I-70 and a 41 acre tract on the south side of the river. III_ MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Subdivision Regulations. Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations state 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) or natural feature, preventing joint use of the proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right-of-way or natural feature, 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 parent parcel, as it existed in January of 1973, was a 622 acre tract of land described in book 356, page 264. This parcel has been split one time by exemption in 1982,to create the 10 acre parcel noted previously. The original owner had a life estate created on a 41 acre tract on the south side of the river. The remainder of the original parcel is located north of the railroad right-of- way. The County Attorney has always taken the position that a parcel split by a deeded right-of-way is a legally separate tract of land. This leaves the applicant's land and the life estate on the south side of the river. The property on the south side of river would be considered as a split by natural features and not count toward the four splits allowed under the exemption procedure of the County. Therefore, the applicant does qualify for the proposed splits. Zoning. The exemption parcel are consistent with the required two (2) acres minimum lot size for the A/R/RD Zone District. C. Legal Access. Access off of C.R.323 is proposed to be via an existing access road that crosses over the 10 and two 36 acre parcels to gain access to the proposed 14 acre tract. It appears from one of the maps submitted with the application that the road crosses over a portion of the railroad right-of-way, but there is no documentation provided that shows any right to use this access for the property. It will be necessary to provide this proof of the right to use this road as depicted or to redefine the access via a legally described easement, completely contained on the applicant's property. .• • • D. Water and Sewer. The applicant did not submit any well permits with the application, but did indicate that the local Division of Water Resources that the applicant could get well permits for all of the parcels. It appears that the two 36 acre parcels would qualify for domestic well permits,based on their size exceeding 35 acres. Since no response has been received from the Division of Water Resources, staff is assuming that the state would issue a well permit for the 14 acre site, based on the County approving the proposed split first. The 10 acre parcel already has a well permit approved as a part of the previous exemption approval. If this is the case, staff recommends that the Board not approve the additional 14 acre parcel, since the County would be put in the position of determining injury to a water right, without anyone on staff qualified to make the determination. The soils identified as being outside the floodplain are identified as a Nlhill channery loam that has ISDS limitations due to steep slopes. The sites in question do not appear to have steep slopes that would limit development. The portions of the property in the floodplain would be required to get a floodplain SUP for any development, including an ISDS. All floodplain permits require an engineered statement. Staff suggests that a plat note stating that an engineered ISDS may be required for each of the parcels in question. E. State and Local Health Standards, No State or Local health standards are applicable to the application, with the exception of Colorado Department of Health ISDS setback standards, which should be verified by an engineer. F. Drainage. No drainage easements have been identified as being necessary, but given the location in relation to the railroad and the I-70 corridor, if there are easements not identified in the application, they will need to be shown on the plat. G. Fire Protection. The applicant has indicated in the letter attached to the application that the Grand Valley Fire Protection district is familiar with the property and has requested that culverts be placed in the road and that a dry hydrant system be installed in the pond on the property. Staff suggests that the applicant get a letter from the fire district identifying the location of the culverts needed and the specifications of the proposed dry hydrant system prior to any plat approval. Additionally, there is a need for an emergency access easement for the fire department to gain access to the proposed dry hydrant. H. Easements. Any required easements (drainage, access, utilities, etc..) will be required to be shown on the exemption plat. I. School Impact Fees The applicant will be required to pay the $200.00 impact fee per lot prior to the approval of the final plat. J. Natural Hazards. The project has a significant portion of the property in the Colorado River floodplain. As stated previously, any development in the floodplain will require a floodplain Special Use Permit.(See map pg._) The plat should show the floodplain line and have a plat note stating that any development in the floodplain will require compliance with the permit requirements of the Garfield County Floodplain Regulations. • • K. BLM Comments: The BLM noted that the property is within the floodplain and may be subject to Clean Water Act Section 404 permits. They also note that living adjacent to public land does not grant any special rights to a property owner. (See letter pg.e. IV. SUGGESTED D 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 is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V_ RECOMMENDATION Approval of the requested splits, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. A Final Exemption Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the property, dimension and area of the proposed lot, access to a public right-of- way, and any proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities, and the 100 year floodplain line, and an emergency access easement for the fire district,to the dry hydrant located on the pond . 3. That the applicant shall have 120 days to present a plat to the Commissioners for signature from the date of approval of the exe ption. pc"'Ia1 4. That the applicant shall submit $200.006n School Impact Fees for the creation of the exemption parcel. 5. That the following plat note shall appear on the Final Exemption Plat: "Soil conditions on the site may require engineered septic systems. Site specific percolation tests at the time of building permit submittal shall determine specific ISDS needs on the site." "The areas of the property shown as being in the floodplain are subject the permitting requirements of the Garfield County floodplain regulations" i/chic— g;r" • • 6. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner. 7. That a dry fire hydrant and culverts be installed to the specifications and location requested by the fire district and that a letter of approval of the installation be provided to the County prior to the signing of the plat. 8 r eut-,n 4_ 2i/JA-7-,^h'� �-/ r 74/2,t_ro tc e,G c ss rd-tkd /2 ,gyp 4-10-,r01411641 J y ckP • 1 SOPRIS REALTY, INC. P.O. Box 995 Carbondale, Colorado 91623 (303) 963-2000 June 30, 1995 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mark: I am writing on behalf of Peter Sahula, owner of the property in Rulison, which we have previously discussed. Mr. Sahula is herein submitting a Petition for Exemption from Subdivision Regulations to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, which have enclosed; I believe we have addressed all requirements. Upon inspection of the ground by the owner and Frank Herrington of High Country Engineering, it is important that the 10 acre parcel previously split by Exemption Resolution 82.21 be granted a boundary line adjustment extending its southerly boundary to the centerline of the Colorado River and moving its easterly boundary to the West. The parcel would change only in shape and legal description, not in size. This is being requested to insure a highly buildable site on the adjoining 36 acre parcel to the East of the 10 acre parcel. I have enclosed a survey of the property completed in 1988 as well as a rendering of the boundary line change on the 10 acre piece and the proposed boundaries for the (2) 36 acre parcels and the remaining 14 acre parcel. This rendering also shows the 2+ acre strip Mr. Sahula has "lost" as a result of the relocation of the E1/4 corner of Section 30 by the Bureau of Land Management. have spoken with Dwight Whitehead at the Division of Water Resources and have been advised that in-house use well permits would be granted on the 10 acre piece and the Easterly 14; two full domestic well permits would be issued on each of the (2) 36 acre parcels. I have also spoken with Gary Mahaffey, Fire Chief of the Grand Valley Protection District, who is very familiar with the subject property. He knows there is a road in place (see rendering), which is adequate for fire truck access, once culverts are installed in the area of the pond for drainage purposes. He also indicated that an inexpensive dry hydrant system in the pond would be desirable for purposes of fire protection when the property was subdivided. IC ,1. REALTOR Carbondale - " Where Rocky Vistas Meet Crystal Waters " • 1 Mark Bean June 30, 1995 Page Two Public Service utilities lie to the north and east of the subject property. Septic systems specific to the site and as required by the County would be installed. This parcel, bounded on the north by the Rio Grande Railroad and 1-70, on the West by County Road 323, and on the South by the Colorado River, existed as described on January 1, 1973, with the exception of the 10 acre split in 1982. If you or your staff have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 963-2000 or Mr. Sahula at 927-3475. Thanks very much for your assistance in the past, Mark. I look forward to working with your office on this matter. MCD:cf Enclosures • Sincerely, ) Mary C. Donlan United States Department of the Interior --1 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Area P. O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 August 8, 1995 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street - Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: IN REPLY REFER TO A; F1,1-j7P11. AUG 1 0 1995 In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed Sahula Subdivision Exemption located east of the Rulison I-70 interchange and north of the Colorado River, I offer the following statements for your scheduled August 14, 1995, public meeting. The 90 acre tract appears to abut a 40 -acre parcel of public land at the eastern side of the proposed subdivision. Current uses on the BLM include wildlife habitat and numerous rights-of-way (ROWs) for Interstate 70, frontage road, railroad and utilities. 1. Ownership of land adjacent to BLM-administered public land does not grant the adjacent landowner(s) any special rights or privileges for the use of the public lands. 2. The adjacent public land is not currently permitted for livestock grazing. 'I'he proponent should be aware of the location of property boundaries to ensure no encroachment occurs on public land. Should any fence construction be considered along the private/BLM boundary, the fence standards should allow for easy passage by big game. This office can provide additional information regarding fence standards upon request. 3. Any roads, trails, paths, or utilities (water, electric, phone or otherwise) crossing BLM would require ROW permits from this office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of the ROW permitting process. 4. .Portions of the area proposed for subdivision appears to lie within the floodplain of the Colorado River. 5. Construction activities (dredging or filling) occurring within areas designated as wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) require a perncii: under the Clean Water Act. Some areas within the proposed subdivision may be designated wetlands. Contact the COE office in Grand Junction to obtain a map of known wetland areas. 6. Review of our lands records shows there are no federal minerals located within the subject private lands. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Jim Byers of this office at 945-2341. Sincerely, )0-e 4.: ---S294,1'-ii4 A) Michael S. Mottice Area Manager