HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report• •
Riley SUP 3/11/98
Exhibit: Explanation:
A. Proof of publication
B. Certified mailing receipts
C. Application and all attachments
D. Project information and staff comments, with all attachments
E. Copy of the Garfield county zoning resolution of 1978, as amended
F. Copy of the Garfield county comprehensive plan for study area I.
REQUEST:
Unit.
APPLICANT: Kenneth Riley
PC 3/11/98
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Special Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling
LOCATION: A parcel of land located in a portion of Section
27, T7S, R88W of the 6th P.M.; located
approximately one mile north of Carbondale
along County Road 107.
SITE DATA: 5.5 Acres
WATER: Shared Well
SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS)
ACCESS: County Road 107
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: North/South/East: A/R/RD
West: O/S
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in the Low Density Residential Proposed Land Use District
(10+ acres/dwelling unit), as contained in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan for Study
Area I.
H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject parcel is 5.5 acres in size, located approximately one (1)
mile north of Carbondale on the west side of County Road 107. The parcel is
currently undeveloped and is reached by an unrestricted access easement from County
Road 107. Vegetation consists chiefly of pinion and juniper; and slope across the
parcel ranges from 11% to over 50%.
• •
Adjacent Land Uses: Land uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject parcel are
single family residential and agricultural. The Bureau of Land Management
administers a sizable tract west of the parcel. See vicinity map, page 6 .
C. Development Proposal: The applicant proposes to develop the site with an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU), prior to the construction of the principal residence. The unit
would be no greater than the allowed 1500 square feet of residential space and would
utilize an existing, shared well. The ADU is proposed to conform to Section
5.03.021, of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, which governs these units.
M. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: The subject parcel is zoned A/R/RD and was created as Lot #1 of the
Leonard Subdivision Exemption. Section 5.03.021 of the Zoning Resolution requires
that the parcel meet certain criteria, to wit:
1] The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site with slope
less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size.
Based on staff's calculations, it appears the subject parcel has exactly two acres of
land less than 40% slope.
2] The gross floor area for residential occupancy shall not exceed 1500 square feet.
According to the floor plan of the proposed ADU, the floor area devoted to
residential occupancy is approximately 1443 square feet. A similar amount of square
footage is proposed for the lower level; however, this area probably would not meet
the interpretation of residential occupancy floor area. See plans, pages 7'/ 1 .
3] Approval from the subdivision homeowner's association and/or allowed by
covenant, if applicable.
It appears there is no homeowner's association and the only covenant that seems to
be in force is a restriction that "No building in excess of one story above ground level
at its natural grade shall ver be constructed on the restricted property." See
Declaration, pages / 2,-1
.
4/ Proof of a legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit.
The application contains a well permit issued for up to five (5) single family dwellings,
which is in good -standing with the Division of water Resources. See permit, page
5] Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal .system regulations or
proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatment facility.
The applicant proposes the use of a an ISD system.
6] Only leasehold interest in the dwelling unit is allowed
It appears that, if approved, the applicant would utilize the structure as his own
personal residence. If a principal dwelling is ever built, then this provision for
leasehold interest would still apply.
7] That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code
requirements.
If approved, the applicant would be required to apply for and receive the appropriate
building and ISDS permits.
•
Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution sets forth the requirements that all special uses
must meet, to wit:
1] Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted
engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Health Officer shall
either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use;
According to the records of the Division of Water Resources, the well has been drilled
and found to produce 13 gpm, in a two-hour pump test. Staff presumes that either
a conventional ISD system or an engineered system could be utilized to treat
wastewater. The actual type of system to be used is generally determined after
issuance of a building permit.
2] Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the
proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in
place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use;
Access to the lot is via County Road 107, a generally steep, dirt road, and along a
non-exclusive access easement. The driveway is steep in places, in excess of 10%
grade, and narrow in places, approximately 12 feet wide. The intersection angle of the
driveway with the County Road is sharp and sight distances are limited. The driveway
currently provides access to two (2) lots and if this ADU is approved, it would seem
logical to require adherence to the Semi -Primitive access standards contained in
Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations. Given the terrain, it would be very costly
to provide this access.
Garfield County has adopted a road impact fee; however, the subject area is not
included within any of the impact zones. Therefore the impact fee would not be
applicable.
3 ] Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent
uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the
periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points,
lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood
character;
This provision is generally concerned with the aesthetics of development and the
application contains proposed building footprints and elevations. Given the
established character of the neighborhood, it is staffs opinion that the proposed land
use would not alter or degrade the neighborhood's aesthetic character, yet access is
a concern, as detailed above.
Previous Subdivision Action: As noted previously, this lot was created as Lot 1 of the
Leonard Subdivision Exemption. The application originally proposed a total of five
(5) lots, each approximately 2 acres in size. The application was eventually approved;
however, only two (2) lots were created, based on the following rationale:
• •
"Due to the slope constraints on the property, inadequate access (both the proposed
access easement and County Road 107), wildfire potential on the site, and the limited
building envelopes on the property, staff would suggest that only one dwelling unit
is appropriate for the site. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, two
lots appears to the highest density that should be allowed on the parcel." The entire
Staff Report is attached on pages / ? - /3 .
Staff suggests that this rationale is as applicable today as it was when the lots were
created. The allowance for an accessory dwelling unit would increase the density in
the area and likely exacerbate the existing problems with access and fire protection.
C. Comprehensive Plan: The subject tract is identified within the Low Density
Residential Land Use District, which proposes a minimum density of 10 acres or
greater, per residential unit. If approved, the resultant density of one (1) unit per 2.75
acres is 3.6 times greater than the proposed density.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the
hearing before the Planning Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were discussed within the Special Use Permit
application and the public hearing.
3. That the application is not in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
of 1978, as amended, nor the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan for Study Area
I, as amended.
4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed land use is not in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis and suggested findings, staff recommends denial of the
application. If the Planning Commission rejects this recommendation, then the following
approval conditions should be considered:
I. That all proposals of the applicant, made in the application and at the public
hearing with the Planning Commission, shall be considered conditions of approval,
unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That no slope greater than 40% grade shall be disturbed by construction of the
accessory dwelling unit or the principal residential structure.
•
3. That the accessory dwelling unit shall adhere to all provisions of Section 5.03.021 of
the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
4. That the accessory dwelling unit shall adhere to the following standards:
"One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit on this lot, and the dog shall be
required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. Enforcement
provisions shall be developed for allowing the removal of a dog from the area, as a
final remedy in worst cases."
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed on this lot. One (1) new solid -
fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will
be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances."
"All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting
shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be made to
allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries."
"The minimum defensible space distance for structures shall be 30 feet on level
terrain, plus appropriate modification to recognize the increased rate of fire spread at
sloped sites. The methodology described in "Determining Safety Zone Dimensions,
Wildfire Safety Guidelines for Rural Homeowners," (Colorado State Forest Service)
shall be used to determine defensible space requirements for the required defensible
space within building envelopes in areas exceeding five (5) percent grade."
u
••
, \.
Sutank
%y \'
+0391-- • 2/,
\ ;}r---!'
1 W `-r i\ ------ 417•
s 1 \ - ', 4
`•1.' 34 1
7Q,, ' : /
.• Carbond'a1e 1
ate i+• •"`- n
1
t
5,00
1 I
� 1
••.
LINES -IN -SPACE
f 03
Se�U_ow4_ 2?, T '? S., .88 \P.). 6 P.M•
e Cou+A Co \ 0 vti.c0c,
to
JOB NO.
93 -TS
SCALE
40'
IOATE OF PHODOS
0-2T-43
IS HE ET
i qF
0R AWN
6Feb .1q
REIDS AERIAL MPP •^, 3
0
a
• C
fir.✓
•
ry
1
j
`�
SFji
1
t'b
g
01
i
IEEE i
1�jcp
N
a
-0 T w
7
1.
e °wu- HVIA 11
a
±
-3£
.. ,
i
0
0
C
4
14
a
I
•I
FR?ST:WALL
2 February. 1998
•
Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Building & Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Special Use Permit Application -Accessory Dwelling Unit
Dear Mr. McCafferty
1PEN RILEY
P.O.Box 584
Carbondale, CO 81623
In response to your letter of 21 January, 1998 in which you delineated three areas of
incomplete information in my special use permit application, I am providing here the
additional information you requested. Should any further questions remain, in addition to by
mail I can be contacted at work at 963-1930.
Sincerely,
Ken Riley
1) The development plans and the need for an accessory dwelling on my property are
reasoned as follows. After living and working in Carbondale since 1986, I finally made the
commitment to dig in here and bought 5 1/2 undeveloped acres in unincorporated Garfield
County in April 1997 with the purpose of providing my needs well into the future. Presently I
am still a bachelor and do not require a big house. That could change should I finally meet
Ms. Right and start a family. For this reason I am seeking to build presently the smaller
accessory dwelling to leave the option later to build a family dwelling should my life change.
The structure 1 am proposing is an apartment on a second level built over a
garage/utility level. I carefully designed my dwelling to meet the 1500 sq. ft. maximum criteria.
The wooded and hilly nature of my land has caused me to consolidate my dwelling and utility
needs into one structure rather than clear more trees for outbuildings.
2) A complete list of my adjacent landowners is as follows: North -Steve & Helen Low 2855
Tilden St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008, East -Ric & Nancy Quisenberry P.O.Box 626
Carbondale, CO 81623, South -Allison Osius & Michael Benge P.O. Box 1972 Carbondale, CO
81623, and West -Bureau of Land Management 50629 Highway 6 & 24 Glenwood Springs, CO
81601. I am prepared to notify them all of my hearing upon the determination of that date. My
most immediate neighbors, the Lows and the Benges, have been personally appraised of my
planning all along so there would be no surprises.
3) I am not in a sub -division or home owners association and therefor have no restrictive
covenants ascribing to either. I personally however, through a multi -issue negotiation with my
neighbors the Lows, declared a protective covenant applying specifically and only to the
building envelope I am currently building in. After full presentation to the Lows of the same
building plans your office is now reviewing, and their acceptance of them, I agreed to suit
their comfort by restricting in covenant the building height so that nobody in the future could
add another level. Enclosed is a copy of this document filed in October, 1997. Concurrent with
this the Lows quit claim deeded to me a half acre portion of their land which included my
driveway, and they extinguished an easement they had through my land.
4 1 111111 111111 111111 111 1111 ! IIII iiii iui ii 1
515184 10/17/1997 02:13P 81038 P989 135 q;)
1 of 3 R 16.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 GRRFIELD CLERK
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
Kenneth William Riley, Jr., )eclarant) is the owner of a
5.03 acre tract of land known as l.at 1, Leonard Subdivision
Exemption, Garfield County, Colorado. A portion of said property
is described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference (Restricted Property), which Restricted
Property is the subject of this Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions. The Declarant does hereby declare and adopt the
following protective covenants and restrictions, which shall run
with the restricted property and shall be binding upon all
parties acquiring any interest therein or thereto and to which
the Restricted Property shall be subject in perpetuity.
SECTION I. COVENANT AND RESTRICTION
No building in excess of one story above ground level at its
natural grade shall ever be constructed on the restricted
property.
SECTION II. ENFORCEMENT
This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions is being made
for the benefit of Stephen Low and Helen C. Low (Lows), owners of
the property directly to the north of the Restricted Property,
and their successors in interest. The Declarant has received
good and valuable consideration for the granting of this
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, including the
execution of a quit claim deed from Lows to the Declarant,
recorded as Reception No. '.i of the Garfield County,
Colorado records. 5/51/2..
Lows and their successors in interest of the property now
owned by the Lows situate to the north of the Restricted Property
shall have the right to enforce by any proceeding at law or in
equity the restrictions and covenants imposed by the provisions
hereof. Such right of enforcement shall include the right to
seek monetary damages, as well as to compel specific performance
of the restrictions contained herein and the right to obtain a
temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, permanent
injunction, other type of injunctive relief, or other order of
court prohibiting a violation of said restriction. In the event
that any court action is commenced for enforcement as provided
herein, if the Lows or their successors in interest prevail in
said action in whole or in part, the owner of the Restricted
Property shall be required in said action to pay the reasonable
attorneys fees and costs incurred by the person or persons
bringing the action for enforcement. Failure to enforce any
rights hereunder shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the
right to do so thereafter.
After Recording Return to:
Mr.- and Mrs.. Stephen_Loa.
2855 Tilden Street, N,W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
w •
11IIIII 11111 IIIIII 111111111111111111111 III IIIII 1111 1111
316184 10/17/1997 02:13P E1038 P990 136
2 of 3 Ft 16.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 GARFIEL0 CLERK
In witness whereof, the undersigned beirlg the Declarant
herein, has executed this document on the /7113 day of October,
1997.
Kenneth William Riley,
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
7daySubscribed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me this /7---21"-
day
of 0r-,4 6 cr , 1997, by Kenneth William Riley, Jr.
Witness my hand and official seal.
tr-ce71
Notary Pub
My commission expires:
ioi Sr/ -,e.ma'1 or. coy- 01
A tract of land located
South, Range 88 West of
the Plat of the Leonard
Reception No. 472830 of
more fully described as
1111111 111111 111111 1111 III 111111 111111111 11111 11111111
515184 10/17/1997 02:13P 81038 P991 135
3 of 3 IR 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK
EXHIBIT A
in the HW4 NW14 Section 27, Township 7
the 6th P.M., within Lot 1 as shown on
Subdivision Exemption recorded as
the Garfield County, Colorado records and
follows:
Beginning at a point on the northerly boundary of the tract of
land described in Book 432, Page 448, records of the Garfield
County Clerk and Recorder whence the Northwest Corner of said
Section 27 bears N 30'44'22" W. 726.55 feet; thence 34.53 feet
along a curve to the left having a radius of 35.58 feet and a
chord that bears S 17'36'44" W. 33.19 feet; thence S 10'11'14" E.
106.16 feet; thence 73.80 feet along a curve to the left having a
radius of 42.72 feet and a chord that bears S 59'40'34" E. 64.96
feet; thence N 70'50'06" E. 112.94 feet; thence 99.86 feet along
a curve to the left having a radius of 769.92 feet and a chord
that bears N 74'33'02" E. 99.79 feet; thence N 63'24'13" E. 19.85
feet to the Northerly boundary of saidtract; thence N 73'19'56"
E 295 feet more or less to the point cf beginning.
Garfield County
Colorado
4
Wait tv-4;k_fiT4.0-4t4ttiAA
164,, cyrefv-a cet("4,
•
Form No. OFFICE OF THE
GWS -25 COLORADO DIV
APPLICANT
EXHIBIT A
818 Centennial 81dg., 1313 Sherman at., uenver, i.ow�rou wew
(303) 866-3581
8�0�0927Pf.f'.i 425
LIC
WELL PERMIT NUMBER
0,14117 F -
DIV. 5 CNTY. 23 WO 38 DES. BASIN
MO
Lot: Block: Filing: Subdn.:
ROCK A LEONARD
% LEAVENWORTH & CALOIA
P 0 DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPGS CO 81602
(303)945-2261
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NW 1/4 NW 1/4
Twp 7 S
Section 27
RANGE 88 W
6th P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
768 Ft. from Section Line
235 Ft. from Section Line
North
West
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the
permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another
owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction and Pump Installati3n Rules
2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well
Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 17.
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37.90-137(2) for the construction of a well, appropriating ground water tributary to the
Roaring Fork River, as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit, on the condition that the well shall be
operated only when the Basalt Water Conservancy District's substitute water supply plan, approved by the State
Engineer, is in effect and when a water allotment contract between the well owner and the Basalt Water
Conservancy District for the release of replacement water from Ruedi Reservoir is in effect, or under an approved
plan for augmentation. BWCD contract #3.3.5.227.
yM;.-
4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to fire protection,*Inan household purposes fnsIde Qve (5)1'1
tingle family dwellingsthe irrigation of not more than 0.29 acre of home fawns and gardens, and the watering cf
domestic animals. All use of this well will be curtailed unless the water allotment contract or a plan for
augmentation is in effect.
5) The maximum pumping rate shall not exceed 30 GPM.
6) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 2.6 acre-feet (847,210 gallons).
7) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records
of alt diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division
Engineer upon request.
8) The well must be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit, and more than
600 feet from arty existing well.
9) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court
case number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these
markings. ' ,7_ 7c, -,�y
APPROVED
J02
10 NEWS cop7il,ce z • -70--
y
Su. En ,n..,
Receipt No. 0365843
DATE ISSUED OCTo1 1994
EXPIRATION DATE OCT 0 1 1995
SEO-WTR DIV 5
TEL:303-945-5665
Mar 04 98
10:33 No .003 P.02
(NO.
'JS -32
t 1 os
PUMP IN iL1A71ON AND TEST REPORT
STATE OF COLO O, OFFICE OF THE STATE !ENGINEER
Fa anee u« only
,
E. ` 1f E.
'5''.e,:J
Nt81996
�.
WELL
0441 17
PERMIT NUMBER F
2.
OWNER
Mailing
City,
Phone
NAME(S) Mike Benge
Address O Q 0 9 Co Rd. 107
St. ZIP Carho t9 1 r r`n
( 970 ) 963-9449
—
B1fi7i
3.
WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED: NW 1/4 NW 1/4, Sec. 27 Twp. 7 S , Range 88 W § th
DISTANCES FROM SEC. ONES:
768 ft. from North Sec. line. and 25 ft. from west Sec. line.
FIUNG(UN[T)
SUBDIVISION:
STREET
(hoed, et aouw► (sow or woo
LOT BLOCK
ADDRESS AT WELL LOCATION:
4.
PUMP DATA: Type silhmer j ble Installation Completed 9 / 26 / 95
Pump
Design
Pump
ADDITIONAL
_
Manufacturer Goulds Pump Model No. 1 0GS20412L .
GPM '10 at RPM 1450 , HP 2 , Volts 230 , Full Load Amps 14 ?
Intake Depth c?n' Feet. Drop/Column Pipe Size 1i.+0 Inches, Kind srh Rn Pvr.
INFORMATION FOR PUMPS GREATER THAT 50 GPM:
TURBINE
Design
DRIVER TYPE: IN Electric ■ Engine 0 Other
Head feet, Number of Stages , Shaft size inches.
5.
OTNEFI EQUIPMENT:
. Monitor Tube Installed
0 Yes 0 No,
95555689
Depth ft
Airline
Flow
Meter
Installed 0 Yes ■ No, Orifice Depth ft.
Meter Mfg. Kp n t Meter Serial No.
•
-�f
0
Readout LE Gallons, Thousand Gallons, 11 Acre feet, 0 Beginning Reading n
6.
TEST
is submitted on Supplemental Form.
9/2125
DATA: ■ Check box if Test data
Total
Static
Date
Date
Well Depth 580' Time
2 HR •
_
Level 496 ' Rate (GPM) 13
_
Measured 9 f 7 V 9 S Pumping Lvl. C113 '
7.
DISINFECTION:
Type Chlorox
_
Amt. Used 1/3 CuD
8.
Water
No
Quality analysis available. ■ Yes 0
9.
Remarks
10. I have
(Pursuant
degree
CONTRACTOR
Mailing
read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and that they are true to my knowledge.
to Section 24-4-104 (13)(a) C.R.S., the making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second
and is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor.)
J & M Pump Co Phone (970 ) 945-6159 Lic. No. 1196 .
Address 0241 Co Rd 167 Glenwood Springs Co 81 601
Name/Title (Please type or print)
Richard A Holub Owner
Signet?
f.-Yi:e'/�j/ /� ft ,'rw
Date y
/1/a (�
-3-31-A`i L .
eitotASrr4�
w4444 t 4 itc,tS
E t G STZ_
Di. D Fia/W0t)�
1"14.4
E:t. a C4411.+ -11 S oil'
BOCC 4/11/94
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: An exemption from the definition of
subdivision
APPLICANT: Rock Leonard
J.00ATION-
Locaited in a portion of Section 27, T7S,
R88VV of 6th P.M.; Located off of CR 107,
approximately one (1) mile north of
Carbondale (Red Hill).
SITE DATA: 10 acres
WATE& Well
SEWER: I. S. D.S.
ACCESS- Access easement from CR 107
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I.
11.
RELATIONSIIIP TO THE COMPREI-IENS YE PLAN
The site is located in District E - Rural Areas / Severe Environmental Constraints as
designated on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts' Map.
t/ • ► •
•;•• a
A. Site -Description. The exemption parcel is located in the Red Hill area, north of
Carbondale. The property is currently undeveloped, and takes access from an
unrestricted easement from CR 107. The property is heavily vegetated with
pinion/juniper, and includes several rock. outcroppings. The existing access road
is unimproved, and may include grades in excess of 10 percent. A vicinity map
is shown on page •
Project Descri tp ion. The applicant is requesting an exemption to split the 10.0
acre parcel into five (5) tracts approximately 2 acres each. The fifth parcel
(shown as Lot I) is being requested due to the natural split of the mid -point of
a southeast -trending ridgeline descending to CR 107. The applicant's have
submitted a sketch plan indicating the proposed split (see Figure 1).
B.
• •
FIGURE' I
SKETCH PLAN
LEONARD EXEMPTION
FEET
PraorosED
WELL $RE
COUNTY ROAD 1 07
N
FIGURE 2
SLOPE ANALYSIS
LEONARD EXEMPTION
IMI40% 5 LOPE IDENTIFIED
BY APPLCANT.
- ADDITIONAL 40% SLOPE
IDENTIFIED BY 97AFF.
ti a .4 M IY
FEET
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Subdivision Regulations Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations state that "No more than a total oflour(4) lots, parols; 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 ofa 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 of railroad) or natural feature, preventingjoint useofthe
proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right -of - way ornatural
feature such parcels thereby created may, in the discretion oflhe 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;
Records in the Garfield County Assessor's Office indicate that the parcel
consisted of 10 acres in acres in 1971 (Book 432, Page 448 (Reception 254356)).
Therefore, up to four (4) parcels may be created through the exemption process.
The fifth parcel is being requested due to the natural split by the midpoint of a
ridge.
B. Request for Natural Split for Fifth Parcel. The operative language contained in
Section g.52 of the Subdivision Regulations regarding the fifth parcel hinges on
a finding that the split "prevents joint use of the proposed tracts". In the past,
the Board of County Commissioners have approved "natural splits" based on
county road divisions, creeks/streams, major drainages, and the crest or toe of
slopes. To staff's knowledge, the horizontal mid -point of a slope has never been
proposed as a natural split based on Section 2.52. In staff's opinion, the
applicant's proposal is beyond either the spirit of intent of exempting natural
divisions, and should be denied.
C. Zoning. The exemption parcels are consistent with the two (2) acre lot minimum
lot size for the A/R/RD zone district. However, based in part on the topography
and access constraints in the area, staff notes that the current draft land use
districts for the proposed Comprehensive Plan call for 10 to 35 acre tracts (see
reproduction of "Proposed Land Use Districts" on page 23-)
D. Legal Access. Legal access is obtained from an access easement from County
Road 107. County Road 107 is considered a two-lane unimproved road, with
both vertical and horizontal deficiencies. The access road from CR 107 is
currently a one -lane undeveloped access road, not suitable for year -around
vehicular access. Staff notes that the access constraints, in part, are a
consideration in the proposed densities of the Comprehensive Plan.
King Lloyd, Supervisor of the Road and Bridge Department, has reviewed the
sketch plan, and had significant concerns regarding the appropriateness of the
proposed density with the access constraints on County Road 107. He also
questioned the ability to provide additional maintenance services.
E. Water and Sewer The applicant has submitted a well perr ii,: backed up with
Basalt Water Conservancy District Contracts (see pages Y ).
Sewage disposal for the exemption parcel is ISIS The Sell Cnnvervatinn
•
Service (SCS) soil profile for the site indicate Based on fieldwork and SCS
information, staff suggests that future property owners mayexperience difficulty
in developing individual parcels.
TABLE 1
SOIL PROFILE FOR EARSMAN SOIL TYPE
LEONARD EXEMPTION
Development Type
CONSTRAINT LEVEL
Severe
Moderate
Slight
£ ;; ,•
'>;
Shallow Excavations
Dwellings (Basements)"
Dwellings without
Basements,ri
Local Streets and
Roads
s ;b :z,;
ii
ISDS (Absorpuon
Fields)
. : r:
s
Source:
, United S ate Department of
Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service), May 1992. Table 10 - Building Site
Development and Table 12 - Sanitary Facilities.
1 11 - w
If the Board approves the exemption, staff suggests that the following plat note
be included:
"Soil conditions on the site may require engineered foundations and
septic systems. At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant
will be required to have all structural and ISDS plans certified by
Colorado Register Engineer."
F. Fire Protection. Ron Leach has reviewed the project, and his February 16, 1994
letter is shown on page 3 . Ron suggested the need for a 10,000 gallon
storage tank for fire fighting purposes. Staff met with Ron on April 5, 1994 to
further discuss the exemption proposal, and Ron re -visited the site again on
April 5, 1994, specifically to assess the feasibility ofemergency vehicles to access
the site from the proposed primary access from County Road 107. Ron
concluded that present alignment of the road precludes any emergency access to
the site by Fire Department equipment. In Ron's opinion, the topography of the
site would restrict any reconstruction of the road to improve the access situation.
In addition, the wildfire hazard in the area is "extreme", and USFS prevention
guidelines should be followed.
Rock Leonard has indicated his intent to upgrade the access, but improvements
to County Road standards in neithecrearded through the exemption process,
or physically possible.l»cL�
-ZD
•
G. School Impact Fees. Each newly created lot (total of 4) are subject to the
► required 5200.00 per lot school impact fee.
H.
Natural Hazards The Lincoln-Devore mapping defines the northwestern
portion of the parcel in an area of"major" slope hazard. Based on fieldwork and
discussions with Ron Leach, the property is also located in an area of significant
wildfire hazard, due to the predominant vegetation, orientation, and
topographic features on the site.
Conformance with Section 5.04.02 - Development Limitations Based on Lot
Sli. Section 5.04.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution excludes land
whose original and undisturbed slope is or was in excess of 40 percent (40%)
from meeting minimum lot size (2 acres). Section 2.02.36 defines lot slope as
follows:
• "The gradient of or configuration of the undisturbed land surface of a lot
or building site which shall be established by measuring the maximum
number of feet in elevation gained or lost over each one hundred (100)
feet or fraction thereof measured horizontally in any direction between
opposing lines; the relationship of elevation or vertical measurement as
divided by the horizontal measurement shall be expressed as a percentile
as a means of quantifying the term lot slope".
On March 6, 1994, the applicant submitted a graphic (prepared by "Lines In
Space") showing 40 percent slopes. In short, the topographic analysis found that
each lot had at least 1.0 acres of area less than 40 percent slope (range = 1.04 to
1.33 acres). Staff reviewed the submittal, and by applying the 100' approach
described in 2.02.36, found additional 40 percent slope not shown on the "Lines
In Space". These two approaches are shown graphically on Figure 2.
Staff notes that the "fraction of" methodology allowed in the code creates
differing interpretations of slope calculations. The important point in relating
the application to lot slope calculations include the following:
I. The applicant is requesting the minimum lot size allowed within the
A/R/RD zone district;
2. In order to be consistent with minimum lot size requirements, the
applicant must amend the section of the Code addressing slope and
minimum lot size. A companion application to the exemption requests
an amendment to Section 5.04.02 which would require only one (1) acre
of land to be less than 40 percent slopes. Based on the topographic
analysis, Staff has significant concerns if all lots would meet the amended
requirement, assuming the Board approves the Zone Text Amendment
(hearing scheduled for March 11, 1994 at 10:30 am).
J. I31.M Comments: The BLM reviewed the project, and had the following
comments (see letter on pages 37.3
• The adjacent public land is open for hunting and other dispersed
recreational activities;
• Any proposed utilities that will cross nuhlic land will rrmiire a rioht-11f-
1/
way from the local office.
IV. SUGGESTED 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
Due to the slope constraints on the property, inadequate access (both the proposed
access easement and County Road 107), wildfire potential on the site, and the limited
building envelopes on the property, staff would suggest that only one dwelling unit is
appropriate for the site. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, two lots
appears to be the highest density that should be allowed on the parcel.
If the Board feels that an exemption is appropriate for the site, the following conditions should
be considered:
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. Prior to the presentation of a final exemption plat, the applicant shall submit
evidence, signed and stamped by a registered Engineer, that each proposed lot
can accommodate a single family residence and a leach field. Building
envelopes, consist with the finding of the applicant's engineer, shall be shown on
the plat. Any specific mitigation measures shall be included as plat notes.
3. A Final Exemption Plat will be submitted, indicating the legal description of the
property, dimension and area of all proposed lots or separate interests to be
created, access to a public right-of-way, building envelopes approved by a
licensed engineer, and any proposed easements for drainage, irrigation, access
or utilities.
4. That the applicant shall have 120 days to present a plat to the Commissioners
for signature. Extensions of time may be granted if requested prior to the
expiration date.
5. That the applicant submit S200 in School Impact Fees for the creation of each
new lot.
6. A driveway permit, if necessary, shall be obtained from the Road and Bridge
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
•
7. The following plat notes, in addition to any mitigation suggested by a licensed
engineer, shall appear on the final exemption plat:
1. The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester, wildfire
prevention guidelines, specified by the pamphlet entitled "Wildfire
Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface" prepared by the Colorado
State Forest Service (C.S.F.S. 043-691) shall be followed in the
construction of all structures. No combustible roofing materials will be
allowed.
2. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
3, 5011. GQ,-) O i 7t o j (5c.Q fit,pE: g�
s t)
1-41614/±-&L.. pr (-1E5
• 10 Mici�M�hn
• C=a1.-n, C.. -fl •,1 IMP
° V..4 tatty44\' ;r3PJXU17.-
ii
o Ltz to
-so,.,- MCrz_
LPr\i C Z51 circ
1-1(ElnFT)
$uc&‘.: q
.rn4v31E. wS
3 SCO vim$*_ Nwt ate= 1
t.t oo Pvr