Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 08.03.87PROJECT INFORMATION Bocc 8/3/87 AND STAFF COMMENTS ExempLion from Lhe Subdivis ion Definition ofREQUEST: OWNER/PLANNER: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is located in District D, ruralenvironmental constraints as designated on Comprehensive Plan, Management Districts Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Michael and Caro1 TruLove A tract of Land sit.uated in the SWL/4 NE l/4 and rhe NW 1/4 SE t/4 ofSection L4,T7S, R88W; approximately 5 miles northeast of Carbondale off of County Rd. LLz. The site consists of an 18 acretract. Shared well Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Existing private access road off of County Road LL2. A/R/xo A/R/RD areas with moderatethe Garfield County A. Site Description: The site is located in a rural portion of the ffiusesinthevicinityprimariIyraiching,sing1efamily residential, and open space. The site is partially woodedwith slopes ranging from less than 10t to greater than 25t. Oneexisting dwelling with accessory buildings is located on thesite. B. project Description: The appllcant proposes to divide the 18acre tract into three lots, 5 acres, 5 acresr and 8 acres insize. The existing dwelling is located on the 8 acre tract. Allthree lots shall have frontage on an existing private accesseasementr and all three shall share an existing well. C. Histo-gg: The parcel was created in L969 and based on SectionElffir the suuoivision Regurations courd qualify f or thecreation of three new parcels by exemption. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS Access to the site is by means of an existing private accessdrive on a 60r wide easement. Approximately three other dwellingunits and as many as seven lots are located off of the accessdrive, which consists of a gravered single lane, with moderate tosteep grades. Verification of the legality of the access shouldbe established. 1. The State Division of Water Resources has reviewed the proposed use of the existing well to serve the three lots. (See page y' ) SoiI Conservation Service information indicates that some soils on the site are poorly suited to development, with the main limitations to development being slope, shrink/sweL1 soils, and stones throughout the profile. Soil Conservation Service comments have ilso been submitted. (see page / ) IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS That proper posting and public notice was provided as requiredfor the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, Ehat aIl pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that aL1 interested parties were heardat 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. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, with the following conditions: t. That the following plat notes be included on the Exemption plat: A. No further divisions by exemptlon from the definition of subdivision will be allowed.B. Each lot may be subject to engineered foundations and septic systems. 2. That the applicant, submit proof of legal access to the lots from a public right-of-way. The access easement shall also be shown on the exemption p1at, where adjacent to the proposed lots. 3. That easements for waterlines and for access and maintenance of the existing well be included on the exemption plat. In addition, each parcel shal1 receive a deeded interest in the well of no less than 5 gpm. 4. That, the applicant submit a letter addressing fire protection for the site from the appropriate fire district. 5. That the applicant submit, $400 in School Impact fees for the creation of two new lots. 6. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shal1 be considered conditions of approval. 2. 3. 1. 2. V. [/ pf l nt{i( I " .',' ti I , .-.*-.- - -2- ROY ROMER Governor JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES '1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 June 25, 19Bl Garfield County Planning Department ]09 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, C0 Bl60l Re: Crystal Ridge Subd'ivision Sec..l4, T75, R88W Dear Sir or Madam: [,le have reviewed the above referenced sketch plan to spl'it lB acres intothreq parcels. The proposed source of wateris an exempt well, permit number40495, decreed in Case No. W-2715. An jnvestjgation as to the physical adequacy of this well to serve three homes should be conducted prior to prel iminary plat referral . In order to assure that a permanent water supply will be avajlable on anequitable bas'is to each lot, we also suggest the following: l. The well should be located on an outlot owned in common by allproperty owners using the well. Access to the well and the right toestabl'ish and maintain a pipeline shall be provided by easements where necessary. 2. The well should be jointly owned by the lot owners. 3. Covenants and/or other mechanisms should establish a lot owners associat'ion_wi!h powers to make decisjons concerning management andoperation of the well. A joint maintenance agreement is i requiredpart of such an association. We would not object to this project if the applicant can demonstrate thatan adequate physical supply wi 1'l be avai lable from the exist'ing wel I and theother issues in this letter are addressed. HDS/JRH/0765Icc: Steve Lautenschl ager Sincerely, 4"'t I* Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Deputy State Engineer ,, -.,- JUN 21 1987 GARFIELD COUNTY Mou r )pns Conservation D istrict P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 JuIy 1, L9BT Garfield County Planning Departnent 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, C0 81601 Re: Sketch Plan Review, Crystal Ridge Subdivision Dear Mark: After review by the Mount sopris Soil conservation District Board rnembers, they have the following comments ihey would like to submit for consideration of the Planning Comnission. 1. They feel that lot 1 is very steep. 2. Are there plans for dog control for the deer and elk in the area? 3. Plans show just one we11, will that be enough water for domestic use and fire control? 4. Will there be some neans of dust control on the county Road, since this will generate more traffic? The Board appreciates getting a sketch plan for review and comments, and hopes that tLeir concerns witt be considered by the Planning Commission' Sincerely, %arz* I,larian Smith, Clerk Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District -tl -I CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SELF.GOVERNMENT JuL 2198?