The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Staff Report BOCC 06.15.87REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: PRO.IECT INFORMATION BOCC 6/rs/87 AND STAFF COMMENTS Exemption from Lhe Definition Subdivis ion of Spring Valley Ranch, Ltd. The SE l/4 NW 1/4, Section 34, T65, R88W of the 6th P.M., located approximately 9 miles southeast of Glenwood Springs, off of County nd. 115. The site consists of a 40 acreparcel. Individual or Shared Wells IndividuaL Sewage Disposal Systems Private access drive off of County Rd. 1I5. A/R/RD A/R/RD Serviceable Areas Garfield County WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in District B, Subdivision/nural(0 to L/2 mile radius ), as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Management District Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Desclftion: The site is located in a rural portion of the @a uses on the site and in the vi-inity, singlefamily residential, ranching, and open space. Several largeresidential developments are located in the area but remain undeveloped at this time. Slopes on the site are moderate withnative vegetation. B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to divide the 40acre tract into 3 lots approximately 13 acres each in size, to be used for single family residences. C. History: The existing 40 acre parcel was part of a large 3000+acre ranch in January of L973. Since L973, the creation of 6 newIots by subdivision exemption have been approved by the Countyout of the original ranch. (nes.#77-16 - pete Cabrinha - I 1ot, Res. #77-82 and Res.#78-78 L-P Gas,/Beattie 5 lots ) . Theapplicants 40 acre tract has also been created, along with theremainder of the overall ranch , for a total of 8 parcels. The remaining acreage of the ranch has been included as part of theproposed Spring Valley P.U.D. -) - II. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS t. The applicant has represented that well permits for the lots will be obtained, through the Division of Water Resources and the acquisition of a water allotment contract with the BasaIt Water Conservancy District. Access easements for Lots 2 & 3 located off the County Rd. shouldbe established along with obtaining County Driveway accesspermits as required. Approximately 2/3 of the site is categorized as poorly suited for homesite development by the SoiI Conservation Service, due to large stones in the soil and shrink-sweLl soils. The site is currently located outside but adjacent to the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District Boundary. In order toestablish fire protection for the site, the applicant shouldpetition for annexation to the district. (See page /Z ) Section 8.52, of the Subdivision Regulations of Carfield County,establishes thatr 'The Board shaIl not grant an exemption unlessthe division proposed for exemption has satisfied the following criteria. A) no more than a total of 4 lotsr pdf,celsr or interests or dwelling units will be created from any parcel, as that parcel was described in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorderrs office on January 1, L973,....' The total number of lots already created since L973 out of the originalparcel is 8. One of these lots was apparently created solely for the purpose of a boundary line adjustment and should not count towards the total new lots created since 1973. The applicant has addressed the issue of the number of allowab1e splits in the application submittal. (See page /3 ) The Spring Valley Ranch Partnership has submitted a letter stating that they have no objection to the proposed split and that they have an interest in splitting some 40 acre parcels they own, in a similar manner. (See page /4 ) tois Veltus, a neighbor, has submitted a letter objecting to the approval of the proposed sp1it. III. SUGGESTED FINDTNGS (See page /5 ) 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as requiredfor 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 alI interested parties were heardat that meeting. 3. That the application for Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision was found to be consistent,/inconsistent with the requirements and standards of Section 8.05 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County of 1984. 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is,/is not, in the best interest of the health, safety,morals, convenience, order , prosper ity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. IV. RECOMMENDATION 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. DENfAL, based on non-compliance with Section 8.52 Regulations of Garfield County of 1984. ShouId the Board of County Commissioners approvefollowing conditions should be applied. of the Subdivision said Exemption, the _L- 1. 2. That the applicant submit an exemption pIat, 24" x 36' in size and include the following plat note: Due to soil constraints on the site, each lot may be subject to engineered foundations and septic systems. That the applicant submit well permits capable of serving each Iot. Shou1d shared wells be utilized, easements for waterlines and for access and maintenance of the wells be included on the Exemption PIat, and each lot sha1l receive a deeded interest in the well of no less than 5 GPM. 3. 4. That the applicant annex the property into Fire Protection District. the Carbondale Rural 5. That the applicant establish access easements to serve lots *2 and *3, and apply for driveway access permits as required by the Garfield County Road and Bridge DePartment. That the applicant shall submit $aOOthe creation of two new lots.in School Impact fees for 6. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Conmissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. -D"vrd.t tt",$,J**-.-Ll,5 lrt (Y1 txtule.f - 7- F. IT F SPRING VALLEY MNCH, LTD. 40 ACRE SUBDIVISIOI{ PP^OOF OF WATER r The source of ruater r+ill be weIls. Augmentatioriwater will be provided by contract" toith B;;;i;I^Iater conservancy Distrilt. see-ieiter attached. SEI,IAGE DISPOSAL By indlvidual lraste disposal. systems. F'IRE PROTECTION The north boundary of the carbondale Rural Fr.reProtecrion Dierritt is the t"ri-r""i center rineof sectlon 34. Thus the only_-poriro" of the ;;b:ject. parcel in rhe District'ri itre-small trransrein Ehe norrlg"r!- quarrer of the sourhwesr aG;E;;of Secrion 34. Th€; carbondare orsiiicr rnrcirms-us!h"y ryould respond-if caIleg1 bua-ihar ah;-;;Jo;:lty gf the partel lies outside ifreir Districr-boundary. ,:. ,..!i) .'.rt.-: it.... rli"' ' i ' .d'i+r. ':.:n:: ,:"i'.i): :(.1 i t'l:i' '::i:l' , . J-.lJ ., I ... . . ,-..1.i":,. .: ):,,; ., .: r},,,::. .:':ilk* -/2-': I. SPRING VALLEY RANCH, LTD. 40 ACRE SUBDIVISIOIiI FOUR PARCEL SPLIT PROVISION This parcel on January I, 1973, was part. 6fa 3 r 000 acre ranch owned by the Raymond Hopkinsfamily. The ranch lay along County Road I15 forover two miles, and was traversed through SpringValley by the road. All the residential parcelsthat existed in 1973 were located at the west endof the ranch on the south side of County Road II5in order to use the Hopkins spring for domesticwater. The subject 40 acre parcel is on theextreme easterly end of the ranch and lies onthe north side of County Road 115. The ranch was purchased by the applicant inL977. Five small residential tracts were createdin L977 by the exemption procedure. AI1 were inthe same area as the two original Hopkins housesat the west end of the ranch south of the road. Applicant sold the ranch in L979 to SpringValley Holdings but retained the subject 40 acreparcel. It is noted that applicant had acquiredand simultaneously sold the sister ranch (westhalf of original Hopkins homestead/ranch) toSpring Va11ey Holdings which in effect recombinedboth into one 5r800 acre parcel. Applicant believes that the spirit of the fourlot split limit in current County regulations willbe met. The subject parcel is located an extremedistance from previous splits of any kind on theranch. It further appears that if necessary,discretion could be applied due to the "spIit bya public right of way .... " provision of theexemption regulation. The parcel for which thisexemption is sought 1j-es on the north side ofCounty Road 115, but previous splits occurred onthe south side and over two miles avray. As noted above, applicant was successful inl-979 in combining the previous Hopkins Ranch divisionback into one 5,800 acre tract that has been deveropedas a most orderly P.U.D. to the benefit of the areaand the County. Perhaps having combined 5rgO0 acrescould earn consideration for splitting the one re-taj.ned 40 acre parcel. We request the application be approved in lightof the hi-story of the area and the facts. We believeit to be consistent with the public interest and theobjectives of the regulations. ,.,] hts ffi[. trl 'f ..-,{.,. ,ffi # !ffi tr ",fi d: :ffiT ffi i{ ,fr ^ l3- *'s.qi{*try_ br*f.r { * $.n1} r.l*UNIY '1, , JUN....',8 1987 .: :,:rl^ra, ,,, l;!l- r . ,;,'s;qfiffElD, .] RAI{OH | :: TELEX: 910 9296683 ZATRAC GLWS PHONE: (303) 945-1175 ')u.ne $n 198'7 ' i.1, : ,. i ::!,.r:, 1,:l il' COU Nry C0rr{Mtssl0t{tf,S ,1*0rj.iiii ficad Glei:rarntlrl Springs, CO 81601 GentLernen: approval v;hich is Garfield Uounty Comnissionere 109 Bth Street , . ,t."tGlenwooc Springs . :. i :'irir i have no objegtigns i,e6a1 Description3 :l.ri: '":1i..:.:to lthis l,/4, uw 6th, P.l.{., In my opinion your approval president which uilI allow Spring of exemption on two other located in the same arc€i. Sincerely, ..{..:*ji:l,f,..r: l,'rir !flili,i {.f si,r i' t.t d & $- .6_. $;+'i 'i,tiI # n r; H.al ts3s6].f '-.I $pring Vallelt: *l+- !': June 10, 1987 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County PIann 109 8tfr Street G I enwood Spr i ngs, C0 Dear Mr. Bean, i ng Department 8l 501 As a property owner, affected by the proposed exemptionappl ied for by Spring Val Iey Ranch, Ltd., I wish toexpress my objections to the exemption. Personal ly I feel the spl itting of the tract into threeparcels would adversely affect my property value and privacy.I also have a great concern for the affect on my well. My larger concern is the future development of Spring Valley.Spring Valley Ranch, Ltd., has in the past requested and beengranted multiple spl its on their property in Spring Val ley.At the same time there are three entities in the spring valleyarea that have gone through the PUD process at great expenseto plan orderly development. Please give my expressed concerns your cons ideration in makingyour recommendation to the County Conrnissioners. I do plan to attend the meeting on June l5th. Sincerely, //\_Lt-, "AlNno3 olliiuve iiil ,86;il ili ill i.ligml-q,=trrH'Ui , . t--4"-' ) v' .', i/--)(.-LL-4---/ Lois Veltus 6651 115 Road G I enwood Spr i ngs, C0 -/l-