The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 BOCC Staff Report 01.15.1990• • BOCC 1/15/90 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision APPLICANT: David Tomasetti and Roger Wilde LOCATION: A parcel of land situated in Lot 14, Section 18, T7S, R87W; located approximately 8 miles northeast of Carbondale off County Rd. 100. SITE DATA: The site consists of a 12.94 acre tract. WATER: Shared domestic wells. SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems ACCESS: Proposed access drives off County Rds. 100 & 170. EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD & 0/S I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in District B, Subdivision/Rural Serviceable Areas, Minor Environmental Constraints, as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Management District Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is located in a rural portion of the County with adjacent land uses primarily single family residential, agricultural, and open space. There are no existing improvements on the site at this time. B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to divide the 12.94 acre parcel into three tracts each approximately 4.3 acres in size. (See pages ,5";r `/ ) Two lots are proposed to access off County Rd. 170 requiring an easement across B.L.M. lands and all three are to share a single domestic well. C. History: Deeds submitted by the applicant establish that the overall tract has not been subdivided since January 1, 1973. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1. The application has been referred to the State Division of Water Resources with no comments received at this time. Verification, from the Division, that the existing well permit is authorized to serve the three dwelling units should be provided. 2. Soil Conservation Service information on the site indicates that the soils are poorly suited to homesite development due to large stones and slopes. 1 • 3. An existing driveway crosses a portion of the site serving a neighboring lot. The applicant should clarify if this existing drive is to be used by the proposed development, approval by the County Road and Bridge Department would be required for any new access point off C.R. and may require improvements including culverting. 4. Verification of approval of the access easement across BLM lands should also be submitted, or an access easement established serving all three lots from County Rd. 100. 5. A letter from an adjacent property owner, Robert Gillespie, was received expressing concerns regarding the proposed subdivision. (See page/( fi ,'j IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required by law 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 exemption is in the best interest convenience, order, prosperity and Garfield County. other reasons, the proposed of the health, safety, morals, welfare of the citizens of V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, with the following conditions: 1. That the following plat notes be included on the Exemption Plat: A. That engineered foundations and individual sewage disposal systems may be required. B. That no further exemptions subdivision shall be allowed on 2. That the applicant shall provide water source for each lot consisting Division of Water Resources that from the definition of the site. documentation of a domestic of verification from the the existing domestic well permit is authorized to serve the three lots. 3. That the applicant submit $200 per lot in School Impact Fees for the creation of two new lots. 4. That the applicant shall submit an approved driveway access permit from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department for any new access drive off County Rd. 100, or a letter stating that a permit would be issued at a future date. 5. That the applicant submit documentation of an approved access easement across adjacent BLM lands serving Lots B & C, or establish easements serving these lots from County Rd. 100. Provisions for construction and maintenance of access drives shall be established through a homeowner's association, covenants or other acceptable means. 6. 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. December 7, 1989 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION/ David Tomasetti and Roger Wilde, Applicant. Dear Board of County Commissioners: The petitioners herein submit that the subject property satis- fies the submittal requirements set forth by Garfield County for an exemption from the definition of Subdivision under C.R.S. (1973), Section 30-28-101, (10), (c) -(d). The petitioners propose to create 3 lots from a rectangular, 13 acre parcel of vacant land located south of County Road 170, (Panorama Road) at the intersection of County Road 100, (Catherine Road). Each lot would be approximately 4 1/3 acres. The subject property is not part of a recorded subdivision and has existed in its current described fornin the County records dating back at least to February, 1971, (See accom- panying title documents). Application is for single-family homesites to be approved in accord with Garfield County Zoning requirements. There exists direct access to the property from County Road 100, which is the easterly boundary. Additional access has been applied for from the Bureau of Land Management which owns a narrow strip of land between County Road 170 and the subject property thereby providing more economical access to the back 2 lots, (Lots A & B). Construction of this access would be in conformance with County road and grade specifications at its intersection with the County road. There exists a domestic well located on the property, (See Plat and accompanying well documentation and test report), which, according to Samuelson Pump CO., has sufficient production for 3 or more single family dwellings. Lot B would be subject to a water line easement, as shown on the plat, for service to Board of County Commissioners Page 2 adjoining Lots A and C. The sharing of the well would be provided by a recorded well agreement. It is proposed that individual septic systems serve each lot for sewage disposal. Fire protection would be provided by the Carbondale Fire Protection District and, according to William Gavette, Chief, the subject property is within the boundaries of the District, (see accompanying letter). The petitioners submit that approval of the proposed exem- ption would not be detrimental in any way to the general public welfare, is compatable with the use of neighboring properties and, to the best of the petitioners' knowledge, complies with all County requirements for approval under which the property is subject. Respectfully submitted, J. Tomasett , Petitioner Roger Wilde, Petitioner MR. ROBERT F. CILLESPIE 7484 COUNTY RU. 100 CARR( 11.4 111, It ',..T/571-Fil AN 4 19N January 2, 1990 Board of County Commissioners - Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RFc.VFD JAN 3 1990 ILLO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Subject: Application of David J. Tomasetti and Roger Wilde for Subdivision Exemption to subdivide 12.91E acres into three 4.3 acre lots, property located on County Road 100, approximately 8 miles northeast of Carbondale. Dear Commissioners: I own the property (7.98 acres) immediately adjoining the land for which a subdivision exemption is sought. Ply home is situated on this property and was constructed there in 1978. I am opposed to this subdivision exemption and ask that it be denied for the following re;:'son: The property in question contains a well. I believe this well is tributary to Cattle Creek (as is my own well). As you know, the Cattle Greek drainage has been classified as "overappropriated" since early in the 1970's and continues in that status today. It is reasonable to assume that the three lots proposed will ultimately contain at least three residential dwellings. The plan which is part of the subdivision exemption application reveals that it is intended that these three lots be served by the existing well. Applicants assert that a recent test of this well showed a volume of 12 GPN. One can only speculate as to the adequacy of 12 GPM to serve three dwellings. The likelihood is great that this expanded demand upon the existing precarious water supply in this area will have a serious adverse effect tion my well and water supply. That is my primary concern. The fact that this well carries a "domestic" classification which permits irrigation, however limited, further ex;,cerbates the situation. Please bear in mind also that the Tomasetti/Wilde well was constructed in 1971 and, to the best of my knowledge, has never been placed in beneficial use during its 18 -year existence. (There are no struntures on the property except a Public Service electric wire tower). Certainly the well has not been in beneficial use during the 11 years that :I: have lived adjacent to it. Ily well was placed in beneficial use in November 1978. As stated earlier, I am opposed to this subdivision exemption and ask thct you give serious consideration to the above statements and to the threat which the proposed subdivision exeinrtion poses for my water supply. I plan to attend the January 15, 1990 meeting at which this matter will be reviewed. Thank you. Sincerely yours, h Robert F. Gillespie CC: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Division of Water Resources P. 0. Box 396 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Mark Bean, Director Building, Sanitation and Planning 109 8th Street - Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 31601