Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 PC Staff Report 06.14.1995l- A 1'fv E1-0 SRfi:ZS OP ISS, coc, to $rd ay' u t s -r PLAT' PC 6/14/95 T c r ��ape -rt Uw-°ix) PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Ane r � 'Esl �`' }.nvr1-(-`4µi.5 � � � �' ��rlo2wvN � oT REQUEST: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision Preliminary tY. L-' _ Plan APPLICANTS: Barton Porter ENGINEERS/PLANNERS: High Country Engineers LOCATION: Located in a portion of Section 15 and 22 T6S. R92W; located approximately two (2) miles south of the Town of Silt. SITE DATA: 129.35 acres WATER: Wells (2) SEWER: 1. S.D. S. ACCESS: County Road 331 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COM PREIIENS IVE PLAN The subject property is located partially in District C - Rural Areas/Minor Environmental Constraints as shown on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The property is located south of Silt, in the lower reaches of Dry Hollow Creek, south of Weible Peak. Elevations range from 5600 to 5800 feet. Dry Hollow traverses lots 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14. 'The site is undeveloped, and in native vegetation. A vicinity map is shown on the attached blueline. B. Project Description: The proposed subdivision is a "resubdivision" of Lots 17, 18, and 19 ofthe Sierra Vista Subdivision, approved in 1980, and amended in 1983. The 1983 amendments did not affect this portion of Sierra Vista Ranch subdivision. All parcels created in 1980 exceeded 35 acres in size, and did not require any subdivision review. A copy of the previously subdivided lots will be available at the public meeting. A sketch plan was submitted to the Planning Commission in September of 1994. It is proposed to split the 129.35 acre site into 14 (fourteen) ) single-family lots ranging in size from 6.5 to 13.8 acres in size. Average lot size is approximately 9.2 acres per dwelling unit. An existing well located on Lot 13 would be used as a community system, with an existing well on. Lot 14 to serve as a backup. A blue -line ofthe Preliminary Plan ofthe proposed s division is attached to the staff report, as well as the application on pages • • • III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Division of Water Resources: The Division has not responded to the application. 2. South Side Soil Conservation District: The District has responded to the applica 'on, and has concerns regarding revegetation and animal control (see letter on page+j. 3. Colorado Department of Health: The Department of Health has not responded to the application. 4. Division of Wildlife: The DOW has reviewed the project and had the following comments (see letters on pages / 1 ). (A) The project is located in critical deer winter range, and development in the area has a high potential to impact wintering deer herds; (B) The DOW has discussed concern with Mr. Porter and agreed upon the following mitigation measures: 1. Dog kennels will be required prior to final CO; 2. Fencing will be consistent with DOW standards and restrictions on fencing of acreages will be enforced; 3. Covenants will state that lot owners are responsible for providing fencing around stacked hay and ornamental vegetation. 5. Colorado State Geologist: The State Geologist has reviewed the project and had the following comments: A. The Wasatch Formation, which underlays the entire site, is highly erodible, and, on steeper slopes, subject to mass slope movements (i.e. landslides, slumps and rockfalls); B. Each lot should have an engineering geologist review and prepare recommendations prior to construction. Engineered ISDS may also be necessary. Jim Soule's March 8, 1995 letter is attached on pages 12 + /V . IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The 1984 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan gives little guidance regarding subdivision design in rural areas. The proposed layout includes large -lot design, consistent with the rural character of the area and the absence of central water and sewer. Staff notes that the average lot size (9+ acres per dwelling unit), surpasses the minimum lot size allowed under existing zoning by a factor of four. Assuming that building envelopes are designated to avoid encroachment of Dry Hollow Creek and existing rockfall hazards, the proposed design is consistent with policies regarding natural hazards and floodplain development . B. Soils/Topography: The Soil Conservation Service has provided a summary of geologic constraints in the site, including "steep slopes, expansive soils and structurally weak soils" (page 4). The preliminary plat has indicated "Building Restrictive Area", consisting of rockfall hazards and the floodplain of Dry Hollow Creek. • • In addition, the applicant has suggested the following plat note: "A site specific geotechnical report, prepared by a registered engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, is required for all structures, including sewage disposal systems, prior to the issuance of a building permit or an individual sewage disposal permit". Staff would suggest that this be a condition of approval. C. Road/Access: The project proposes two (2) points of access from County Road 331 (Dry Hollow), spaced approximately 800' north and south. Both access points were existing access points platted in 1980. No individual lots will access directly onto CR 331. Due to the topography of Lots 9 and 11 frontage to Rio Seco Road, an additional access is necessary around the eastern boundary of Lot 10. All roads, with the exception of the access road for lots 9 and 11, will be designed to Garfield County Road Standards for a Semi -Primitive Road Standards. Garfield County road standards require the following configuration: Number of Lots 12 Minimum ROW 40' Lane Widths 8' Shoulder Widths 2' Ditch Width 4' Cross Slope 2% (Chip/Seal), 3% (Gravel) Shoulder Slope 5% Maximum Grade 10% Surface Gravel A portion of Rio Bravo road crosses underneath a Public Service easement, which has granted approval for the encroachment. Grades for Rio Seco Road range from -4.93% to 10%, with the steepest portion along the northern edge of Lot 9. Grades for Harmony Road range from 1.0% to 2.3%, and Rio Bravo Road range from -7.4% to 8.8 %. Fire Protection: The Burning Mountain Fire Department has reviewed tlip project, and does not appear to have any objections with the plan (see letter on page' % • ). E. Floodplain: The Dry Hollow drainage floodplain has been mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (Floodplain Management Study - Colorado River Tributaries, July 1986). Sheets 3 and 4 of the Preliminary Plan do not indicate the floodplain of the creek, but an approximation of wetland/floodfiinge area. Due to the significant liability associated with development in the floodplain, staff would suggest that the Planning Commission require the applicant to digitize the actual mapped floodplain on the final plat. In addition, the following plat note should appear on the plat: "Areas within Lots 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14 include areas within the regulated floodplain of Dry Hollow Creek (Floodplain Management Study - Colorado River Tributaries in Garfield County Colorado, U.S. Department ofAgricu Lure, Soil Conservation Service, July 1986, Sheet 10 of 29). Any encroachment into the regulated floodplain will require a Special Use Permit from Garfield County. In addition, these lots may also include regulated wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as amended. These areas of potential wetlands have not been formally delineated. Respective lot owners should contact the Army Corps of Engineers before any construction in areas having potential wetlands." •3 • • F. Water: The proposed water supply will require an approved augmentation plan to support the proposed wells. In addition, the augmentation plan calls for two ponds, which appear to be located on Lot 14 adjacent to Dry Hollow Creek. Augmentation ponds are considered to be a part of the overall water system for the subdivision, under the control of the homeowners association. As such, easements should be shown on the plat for both the ponds and easements for the discharge path to Dry Hollow Creek. This is identical to the condition placed on Springridge Phase I. In addition, the location of the ponds should also be shown on the plat. Section 4.91 ofthe Garfield County Subdivision Regulations requires "evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision". In addition, evidence must be submitted concerns the potability of the proposed water supply for the subdivision. The applicant has submitted evidence of both potability and yield for Well No. 2 located on Lot 13, which is capable of 25 GPM. Staffnotes that the well log indicates a pumping rate of only 15 GPM. Staff would suggest that the Commission require the applicant to address this discrepancy. Well #1, located on Lot 14, would be used as a potential backup. G. Wastewater: Sewage disposal will be handled by ISDS. Section 4.92 requires that "evidence of the result of soil percolation tests and produce excavations to determine maximum seasonal ground water level and depth to bedrock shall be provided". Several soil types on the site include significant constraints to ISDS, including slow percolation rates and rock outcroppings. Percolation tests on Lots 6, 8 and 11 have been conducted, and range from 101 to 128 minutes, all outside of accepted levels for conventional ISDS. Engineered systems will be required, and a plat note should appear on the final plat. H. Zoning: All of the proposed lots conforrn with the minimum parcel size and development requirements of the Zoning Resolution. Lot Design: The applicants have modified the general design to address lot design constraints, including relocating portions of Rio Bravo Road. In addition, Rockfall Hazard areas and floodplain/wetlands areas have been conceptually identified. Staff would suggest that "buildable areas" be shown on the final plat to prevent severe driveway cuts in areas inappropriate for access points. Staffwill graphically depict possible building envelopes at the hearing before the Commission. J. Adjacent Property Owners: Four letters of opposition are attached on pages V. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval based on the following conditions: 1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the public hearing with the Planning Commission, be considered conditions of approval. 2. The applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association and shall be incorporated in accordance with the requirements of Colorado Revised Statutes. The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the augmentation plan, well maintenance, road maintenance and snow removal. The articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants shall be reviewed by County Staffprior to the approval of a Final Plat. 3. The applicants shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement, addressing all improvements, prior to recording a final plat. 4. A11 new utilities shall be placed underground. en, 5. All cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native grasses using certified weed -free seed. The SIA shall include security for all revegetation. 6. The applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school impact fees prior to approval of the final plat. 7. All roadways shall be designed and constructed in conformance with design standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at the time of final plat. 8. Only one (1) dog will be allowed for each dwelling unit to protect adjacent agricultural uses. Kennels shall be required, and language ensuring compliance shall be enforced through the covenants. fencing shall conform to DOW standards. befo a ounty Comnlis-si .e s. 10. The following plat notes shall appear on the final plat: A. No open hearth solid fuel burning devices will be allowed within the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision; B. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural-gas burning fireplaces or appliances; C. All dwelling units will be allowed not more than one (1) new wood burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder. D. A site specific geotechnical report, prepared by a registered engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, is required for all structures, including sewage disposal systems, prior to the issuance of a building permit or an individual sewage disposal permit. E. "Areas within Lots 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14 includes areas within the regulated floodplain of Dry I -follow Creek (Floodplain Management Study - Colorado River Tributaries in Garfield County Colorado, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, July 1986, Sheet 10 of 29). Any encroachment into the regulated floodplain will require a Special Use Permit from Garfield County. In addition, these lots may also include regulated wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as amended. These areas of potential wetlands have not been formally delineated. Respective lot owners should contact the Army Corps of Engineers before any construction in areas having potential wetlands." 11. The location of the augmentation ponds shall be shown on the final plat, including easements for the ponds as well as discharge paths to Dry Hollow Creek. 12. The actual floodfiinge and floodway lines shall be shown on the final plat. 13. Building envelopes shall be shown on the Final Plat to minimize risk to structures and excessive driveway cuts. �— VV. -/='(-_-4.-\04T 1.6z kss To AUGuk ktr,�T� o� �b 11 � °NrctiL F FI6t r/.1e, polvo. 3Pt rib 1-1zO so PPL✓ - Z-41, • ,-44,77, /La ,dc`4 �( ) w�. 4A, P' -rr v -FC Ai, /t- • • PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL SIERRA PiNYONS SUBDIVISION Site Description Sierra Pinyons is located South of Silt, in the lower reaches of Dry Hollow Creek, south of Weible Peak. Elevations range from 5600 to 5800 feet. Dry Hollow Creek runs along the Westerly boundary of the subdivision and traverses lots 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14. The Site is currently undeveloped, and in native vegetation (Please see attached soils report). A vicinity ►nap has been included on the cover sheet of the construction plans. Project Description The proposed subdivision is a "resubdivision" of Tots 17, 18, and 19 of Sierra Vista Subdivision, approved in 1980, and amended in 1983. The amendment did not affect this portion of the Sierra Vista Ranch subdivision. All parcels created in 1980 exceeded 35 acres in size, and did not require any subdivision review. The sketch plan for Sierra Pinyons was submitted for review to the Planning Commission in September of 1994. Sierra Pinyons was previously submitted as a Preliminary Plan to the planning co►nmission by Starbuck Engineering, Inc. That submittal was later withdrawn due to changes to the site plan. The subdivision plan proposes splitting the 129.35 acres into 14 (fourteen) single-family lots ranging in size from 6.5 to 13.8 acres in size. Average lot size will be approximately 9.2 acres. Water Service The project will be served by a community water system. The proposed 7500 gallon tank located on the Northwest corner of Lot 12 will be supplied via a 2" poly -ethylene pipe ran from the two well sites located on Lot 13 and Lot 14. The well located on Lot 13 and referred to as Exist. well No. 2 is currently capable of supplying water at approximately 25 GPM. (Please see attached well test.) 1t is the intention of the water system plan to use this well as the primary supply for the water tank and let the well located on Lot 14 serve as a backup well in the event that the primary well should fail. Water will be provided to the lots via a 4" 0900 pvc water distribution system. The size of the distribution line meets the requirements set forth by the Garfield County regulations. Individual water services will be provided off of the distribution line. Enclosed with this packet is a copy of the augmentation plan that has been submitted to the State for review. The augmentation plan is being prepared by Mr. Ray Walker. • Sanitary Sewer Service Sanitary sewer service will be provided by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS). Please find copies of the perc test performed by Starbuck Engineering. The perc test indicate the ISDS systems will function adequately on the project. Soils/Topography Attached please find a copy of the pertinent soils information for the project. The site plan also indicates rock hazard areas and approximate limits to the wetland/flood fringe area for Dry Hollow Creek. This is NOT the flood plain for the creek. It is an approximation of wetland / flood fringe area only and has not been mapped by any agency. It is the developers intention to prevent construction within these highlighted areas. We would also suggest that a site specific geotechnical report, prepared by a registered engineer licensed by the State of Colorado be required for all structures, including sewage disposal systems before issuance of a building permit or an individual sewage disposal system permit. Road/Access The project proposes two (2) points of access from County Road 331 (Dry Hollow). The distance between the access points is approximately 800 1.f. Both access points were existing prior to this resubdivision, and the 60' easements they will utilize were platted with the Sierra Vista subdivision. None of the individual Tots are planned to access directly onto CR 331. All roads will be designed to meet the Garfield County Road Standards for Semi - Primitive Roads except for the access road off of Rio Seco Road that will service Lots 9 and 11 which will be designed to meet Garfield County Road Standards for a Primitive Residential road. It is my understanding that this road classification can service two lots or less. Drainage A separate drainage study has leen included with this sulnuittal. Electric/Telephone Electric service will be provided by Public Service and phone service will be provided by U.S. West. Public service currently has a 100' easement across the property for a high voltage line. Enclosed is a copy of the Land Rights Encroachment Application sent to Public Service to allow encroachment upon this easement by the proposed water line and Rio Bravo Road. • • • Division of Wildlife A copy of the letter from the Division of Wildlife is included. Hookeliff Soil Conservation District A copy of the response letter is included. SOUTH SIDE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 August 29, 1994 Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir, At the regular monthly meeting of the South Side Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan for the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision and have the following comments and concerns about the project. Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated to prevent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any reseeding of the area. Monitoring of all seeding should be done to see if the grass is establishing or if weeds are becoming a problem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be implemented if a problem is noticed. The board is always concerned about animal control in an area where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or domestic livestock and dogs from the subdivision. Dogs running in packs of two or more can maim or kill domestic livestock and wildlife. The District recommends animal control regulations be adopted in the covenants for the subdivision and that they be enforced. Sincerely John Sample, President South Side Soil Conservation District • • S -"ATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPOR I UNI rY EMPLOY E I Perry 0. Olson, Director 606 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297- 1192 January 20, 1995 Garfield County Planning Dave Michaelson 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Dave, JAN 2;t1995 QA1 * k.. L. D C OUht t y OFFER TO For Wildlife - For People Concerning the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision, I have reviewed the sketch plan and have talked to Barton Porter about the proposed development and wildlife concerns associated with this area. Development in this area has a high potential to greatly impact wintering deer herds. Sierra Pinyon is in critical deer winter range and could have a significant impact on population density. Barton Porter is also concerned about negatively impacting wildlife populations in this area and endorses the following subdivision restrictions: -----_-.- - __ 1. Division of Wildlife requests that dog kennels be built before the certificate of occupancy is issued. 2. Restrict fencing of acreages, and require fencing to comply with Division of Wildlife standards as to height and spacing. 3. Adopt a subdivision covenant stating that lot owners are responsible for providing their own fencing for protection of stacked hay and ornamental vegetation used in Landscaping. Developments such as this, in and of itself, have minimal effect on populations as a whole. However, the cumulative impact of subdivisions in the county does have an overall degrading effect on wildlife habitat. With adoption of the above requested • restrictions, the integrity of the area as winter range would be minimally retained. Sincer yr P'erry ek i' 11 District W.ildife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Jaynes S. Loclthead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swill, Vice•Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member William R. I-iegberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member o • • • STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPI OYER Perry D. Olson, Director 606 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 April 13, 1995 Garfield County Planning Dave Michaelson 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Dave:' 4 REFER TO t For Wildlife — For People I would like to clarify a comment reference my letter to you on January 20, 1995 concerning the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision. In my previous letter regarding subdivision restrictions I stated that Division of Wildlife would like to restrict fencing off acreages, and require fencing to comply with the Division of Wildlife standards. I apologize for this being misinterpreted and the manner in which I stated it. What I meant to request was to have the fencing of acreages comply with D.O.W. standards as to height and spacing. I was not requesting no fencing of lot acreages. Therefore Barton Porter and D.O.W. are requesting the following subdivision restrictions. 1) Division of Wildlife requests that dog kennels be built before certificate of occupancy is issued. 2) Fencing of acreages comply with D.O.W. standards as to height and spacing. 3) Adopt a subdivision covenant stating that lot owners are responsible for providing their own fencing for protection of stacked hay and ornamental vegetation used in landscaping. Sorry, Dave for any inconvenience that this may have caused. Since P:' ry Wi Distri -t Wildlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swift, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member William R. Hegberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 3)ivisiun ul Minerals and (;eulogy I)epartnent of Ndhjr iI Resourc es 1 31 3 Sherman Stie 1, kaon, 715 Denver, Colt gat 1)112(13 I'I,one (3(3 3) 866-2611 FAX ( 10 11 866.2.161 STATE OF COLORA[ )0 1995 =► , n COUNTY March 8, 1995 GA -95-0008 Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 pplorNir )EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor James S. Lochhead Executive Director Michael 13. Long Division Director Vic ki Cowart Slue Geologist and Director Re: Proposed Sierra Pifion Subdivision -- Ca. 1/2 Mi South of the Intersection of C.R. 311 and C.R. and 331, Nr. Silt, Garfield County Dear Mr. Michaelson: At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have reviewed the materials submitted for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision indicated above. The following comments summarize our findings. (1) The bedrock underlying this site is entirely the Wasatch Formation; the Wasatch primarily of sandstones and shales which are highly erodible and, on steeper slopes, subject to mass slope movements such as translational landslides, slumps, and rockfalls.. In place exposures of the Wasatch are best seen on Weible Peak immediately to the northeast of this parcel. On gentler slopes, deposits consisting of materials eroded from the Wasatch occur and have much the same properties as the bedrock. Some of the more gently sloping areas are immediately underlain by thin remnants of a loess sheet (wind -deposited silt) and remnant alluvial -gravel clasts which originated in the ancestral Colorado River drainage occur somewhat randomly over the parcel. (2) Considering the geologic conditions indicated and the lot sizes proposed this parcel can be reasonably subdivided as planned. T-Iowever, we recommend that each lot purchaser have his lot investigated by a qualified engineering geologist prior to siting of improvements. The factors of amount of slope, slope instability, drainage and erosion and deposition of sediment will need to be very carefully considered in overall site planning. Moreover, the physical properties of the Wasatch will necessitate that an individual, site specific soils and foundation be done for each structure. This applies to manufactured housing units such as those which are common in nearby subdivisions as well as conventional, heavier and more complicated on -site -built structures. These recommendations are supported also in statements made in 4:70 on Page 4 of the submitted materials: Supplemental Information: Geology, Soil, Vegetation, and Wildlife. . • • Mr. Dave Michaelson March 8, 1995 Page 2 (3) The individual sewage -disposal systems proposed should be specifically designed for each lot and this opinion is also supported in the documents submitted as referenced above. In summmary, we believe that this is a reasonable subdivision proposal only if the recommendations made above are followed and made conditions of your approval of it. Sincerely Zi . n(L_ mes M. Soule engineering Geologist Board Rasa Talbott - Chairman William Montover Sean Mello Tom Vol& Gordon WItzke Burning Mountains Fire Protection District Box 236 Silt, CO 81652 \pri1 10, 1 99 1 ,, \Vhunt It May Concern: RE: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision Don Zordel - Chief Stu Cerise - Assist, Chle Atter reviewing the Siena Pinyon Subdivision plans and driving over the area, I have no objections to this subdivision. Roads as planned should be adequate for fire trucks. The distance from the tire station will have a direct affect on response time. If possible some storage of water for fire suppression would be appreciated. "Thank you, Donald L. Zorn District Chief • • Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Sreet, Guite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81652 RE Barton Porter Sierra Pinyon Subdivision It has come to my attention that the proposed subdivision is to have about 12 one family homes. The homes are to be furnished with water with a 6000 gallon tank, this is not adaquate for the homes or any type of fire protection. I live in Mineota Estates where we have a 25,000 gallon water tank, and we are planning on building a 50,000 gallon with the old one for a spare. Furthermore we have one of the best wells in this area it pumps more than 20 gallons a minute and in the summer the pump runs most of the time. This area is not named Dry Hollow for nothing, the fire danger is very high in the summer and a large supply of water is a must! If a sufficient amount of water cannot be insured, then the subdivision should not be approved. The County has said they have no more funds for the improvement of the roads, these roads are carrying more traffic than they were built for. Any more traffic will result in more accidents. Until such time as the roads and maintenance can be assured, building must be slowed down or stopped. Thank you for your time I Yours truly Marvin M Meyers 0834 M,Y eota Drive Silt, 'Colo. 81652 • • 03l06/1995 100:51 b024243829 March 6, 1995 BCE CONCRETE INC NORMAN & CONNIE BOE 0171 UTE WAY SILT CO 81652 (303 )876-5404 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE Barton Porter Sierra Pinyon Subdivision PAGE 02 Attention Planning Commission and County Commissioners: We are of the understanding there is a severe water shortage problem in this proposed subdivision, which would be a problem for domestic use as well as a fire hazard for all the surrounding area. The proposed 6000 gallon water tank is not sufficient by far. We have used 40,000 gallon per month for our horse and lawn during the peak months_ I have helped fight fire two times in the last couple of years on this particular land. I believe each lot should have a fire hydrant along with sufficient water storage and pipe size to supply it sufficiently_ I have counted as high as 200 deer in just one of the hay fields at Valley Farms just to the north of this proposed subdivision. These deer have to spend their days in this subdivision along with the upper part of Mineota Estates; which has now just about built out and has already forced more of these deer into this area. I can imagine how they will fair with a dog every ten acres. Tho elk haves also used this land_ The last roads built by Mr. Porter in the draw to the South of this proposed subdivision were so bad a fire department 4 wheel drive pickup got hi -centered trying to get to a lightning fire_ Any roads built should be to county specifications and taken over by the county. The county roads in this area are narrow and dangerous to travel on as woll as in need of maintenance_ Remember, there are no funds for improvements. As you aro undoubtrably all award, the reason this small area is known as Dry Hollow is because of the small amount of precipitation received. This, along with the fragile and delicate nature of the soil, does not bode well for the further subdividing of this land_ Thanks for taking this into consideration_ . go) - • February 27, 1995 Planning Department of Garfield County 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 816C)1 RE: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision R yy j We are not in favor of granting a Preliminary Plan approval for Sierra Pinyon Subdivision. To grant approval for the 129.35 acre tract to be subdivided into 12 single family residential lots would cause too much impact: 1. On the underground water supply, on the south side of the Colorado River it has never been easy to find good water supply. 2. The area is year round open space for many species of wild life ie: deer, bobcats, mountain lions, and coyotes and etc., when people start taking their space they are going to look for new homes and adapting so they can survive - so they become a "nuisance". 3. The county roads are not engineered for heavy traffic, and the planning of where drive ways take off of the county roads is very poor - causing safety issues. Two drive ways that go to Sierra Vista Ranch are examples of poor planning, and driving any of the county roads that are posted for 35 mph speed limit any morning or evening will show the concern of the roads capabilities to handel more traffic. Also the county is having budget problems providing services without further growth. To restate our reasons not to give approval for Sierra Pinyon Subdivision of 12 single family lots is that it would make too much of an impact on underground water, wildlife, and services. We need to have a "time out" as far as more subdivisions are concerned, as it would appear Lha t housing does not pay enough taxes to support the services they require/want. Sit erely, Dene and f a ry Jane Hangs 3493 33 RD Silt, CO 81652 1'1• P. O. Box 1007 NANCY & JIM BAILEY (970) 945-9200 (Jim work) GLENWOOD April 6, 1995 Garfield County Building and Planning Garfield County Courthouse 109 - 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Re: CHANGE IN ZONING - Wayne Cooley & Barton Porter Hearing April 12, 1995 - 7:00 p.m. OBJECTORS in the matter of Wayne Cooley and Barton Porter on re: subdivisions. Concerning many plus -residences in a low density area would have a damaging impact on: 1) WHEN YOU PURCHASE 87 ACRES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA WILL REMAIN RURAL/AGRICULTURAL, YOU EXPECT CURRENT ZONING TO REMAIN IN EFFECT. SENATE BILL 35 GUIDELINE FOR DENSITY SHOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT TO MAINTAIN THIS ZONING. THIS INCREASE IN DENSITY WOULD HAVE A GREAT EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE DESIRED. NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO PRESENT PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE WANT TO KEEP AND IN RETAINING THE OPEN SPACE. 2) NO SEWAGE PLANT SYSTEM IS IN EXISTENCE. WOULD HARM THE ALREADY FRAGILE WATER TABLE IN THE SOIL TYPE AS BEING OF THE PLASTIC SOILS. 3) NO EXISTING WATER SYSTEM IN PLACE. NO AVAILABLE AND LOW UNDERGROUND WATER TABLE. SEWAGE SYSTEMS THIS AREA WITH SURFACE WATER 4) INCREASED TRAFFIC WOULD CAUSE AN ALREADY DANGEROUS OR SUBSTANDARD ROAD TO BECOME MORE DANGEROUS. THE SECONDARY ROADS ARE NOT BLACK -TOPPED AND ARE NOT UP TO COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS. [NO UPGRADING HAS BEEN DONE TO PRESENT SECONDARY ROAD AND IT IS IN A FAST DETERIORATING CONDITION. Presently, no regard has been given to gravel road servicing 4 residences, only. Daily traffic has muddied up, rutted up and spread existing gravel all over. This particular road is a dead end road with no service area to lower parcels, but has been used to get to lower area w/no regard to existing property owners.] • BAILEY OBJECTION RE: COOLEY/PORTER ZONING CHANGE PAGE 2 5) THIS IS A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. THE SIERRA CLUB NEEDS TO BE NOTIFIED OF THIS PROPOSED EFFECT ON THE ELK AND DEER WINTER RANGE. IT WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE REPRODUCTION OF THE WILDLIFE. 6) WITH GET RICH SCHEMES IN EFFECT, THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION FOR EXISTING OWNERS OR DAMAGES OR ANY UPKEEP. AT THIS DATE IN TIME, WE SAY NO TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR THESE REQUESTS. THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT IN GARFIELD COUNTY ON PROPOSED CHANGES AND APPROVALS. COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT AND APPROVED SINCE THE 1950'S AND 1960'S. SENATE BILL 35 NEEDS TO BE ENFORCED, AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL APPROVALS NEED TO BE ENFORCED IN GARFIELD COUNTY STARTING RIGHT NOW IN 1995. Sincerely, i Lede, Nancyand Ji Bailey