HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.03.1995•
E tL -
E1b *IP
Ex C 5.R .
e-tD
•
Cuero Sug V-Arat,i,of
11814 A4, akeia
� q. E ac. V �•
BDWS
of 1980
PROJECT INFORMATION ANi) STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANTS:
ENGINEERS/PLANNERS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
BOCC 7/3/95
Sierra Bluffs Filing #1 Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Barton Porter
High Country Engineering
Located in a portion of Section 22,
T6S. R92W; located approximately
three (3) miles south of the Town of
Silt.
36.436 acres
Community System
I. S. D. S.
Access road from an un -named road
easement originated from CR 331
A/R/RD
A/R/RD
1. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located partially in District C - Rural Areas/Minor Enviromnental
Constraints as shown on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts
Map.
11. 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 5575 to 5880 feet. 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 Lot 10 of the
Sierra Vista Subdivision, approved in 1980, and amended in 1983. The 1983
amendments did not impact 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 1980 subdivision 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 36.436 acre site into 3 single-family lots ranging in size
from 9.9 to 14.3 acres in size. Average lot size is approximately 12.1 acres per
dwelling unit. A site plan is attached to the staff report. The project proposes one
point of access from . ' :::, which was platted as a portion of the 1980
subdivision. All roads w uld be designed to meet the Garfield County Road
Standards for Semi-Primiti e Roads, which assumes access to 2 to 10 units.
•
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Division of Water Resources: The Division had previously reviewed thejcoro e t
when Filing #1 and #2 were a combined subdivision (see response on pages 6 •.
Staffnotes that no reference to physical supply is included in the State's response.
2. Soil Conservation District: The Southside Soil Conservation District has reviewed the
application, and had concerns regarding revegetation and wildlife impacts (see letter
on page • t • ).
3. Colorado Department of Health: The Department of Health has not responded to the
application.
4. Division of Wildlife: The Division has not commented on the project.
5. Colorado State Geologist: The State Geologist had the following comments:
A. The Wasatch Formation, which underlies 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.. el
9 •
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. Staffnotes that the average lot size (9+ acres per
dwelling unit), surpasses the minimum lot size allowed under existing zoning by a
factor of five.
B. Soils/Topography: The applicant has provided a summary of geologic constraints in
the site, including "steep slopes, expansive soils and structurally weak soils".
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 utilizes a single point of access from an un -named road
easement that traverses Lot 15 of Sierra Vista Ranch. The applicants do not appear
to use Alta Mesa Road, which was platted in 1980, and is adjacent to Lots 2 and 3.
Road profiles call for a 20+ ROW for the access road. Staffnotes that the subdivision
•�y� regulations require the following road profile for the access road:
o
�4t.��ss Dwelling Units: 2-10
Road Classification: Semi -Primitive
ROW: 40'
Lane Width: 8'
Surface: Gravel
•
•
• •
The portion of right-of-way platted in 1980 serving the proposed lots from CR 331
also provides access to Lot 15 of Sierra Vista Ranch. Although no subdivision
application has been proposed for Lot 15, fiiture subdivision is possible. A significant
issue before the Board in the past has been potential for further subdivision of plat lots
and the inability of the County to impose sufficient road requirements that may be
needed when adjacent lots subdivide.
Staffnotes that the soils on the property make road access and maintenance difficult
on the site. Grades shown on the road profiles are range from -2.74% to +7.94%
(northbound).
D. Fire Protection: No letter has been provided by the Burning Mountain Fire
Department. Staffwould suggest that this be a condition of approval.
F. Water: The applicants are proposing to serve the project from a single well located
on Lot 1, which has not been pump tested . An augmentation plan has been submitted
by the applicant. A 6000 gallon storage tank would be located on Lot 3, with
distribution lines to Lots 1 and 2. Typical engineering practices for domestic water
storage assumes 350 gallons per day per house (3.5 persons per residence, 100
gallons per day per person). The Board in the past has required that at least seven (7)
days of storage be available for domestic purposes, although this has never been
codified in the subdivision regulations. Based on these past decisions, storage
requirements for three (3) lots would require a storage tank of at least 7,500 gallons.
The applicant's engineer has indicated that Mr. Porter is considering a 25,000 gallon
tank, although nothing has been submitted to the Planning Department.
Section 4.91 of the 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.
No extensive pump test (i.e. 24 hour drawdown) has been conducted for the well, and
staffhas significant conceris regarding long-term water availability in the lower Dry
Hollow drainage.
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".
The original application included percolation tests which indicated that engineered systems
will be required. Staffwould suggest a plat note requiring engineered ISDS for all lots.
H. Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and development
requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
I. Lot Design: Based on geologic constraints on and near the property, the State Geologist is
suggesting that all structures be engineered. Staffwould suggest a plat note to address this
constraint.
J. Adjacent Property Owners: a letter of opposition is attached on page iQ • .
K. Town of Silt: The Town of Silt has responded to the application, and had concerns regarding
the County's plans regarding road conditions (see letter on page • / / am ).
V. RECOMMENDATION
The resubdivision of previously platted lots presents significant issues regarding water availability
and road impacts. The roads within the subdivision were platted in 1980, and were recorded as part
3-
• •
of a 35 acre subdivision with no review. The further subdivision of these lots creates serious
difficulties regarding future traffic levels and any road improvement requirements to handle future
subdivisions.
The issue regarding water availability in the Dry Hollow area is well known, and additional units in
the area may not be feasible without the use of cisterns if the proposed wells decline in production.
During review of two adjacent projects not yet in front of the Board, the Planning Commission
recommended certification from an engineer regarding the water supply as a condition of approval.
Ifthe Board feels that the water and road issues, including impacts to CR 331 have been addressed,
staff would suggest the following conditions of approval:
1. All representations of the applicants, either within the application or stated at the
public hewing with the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners,
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 well maintenance, road
maintenance and snow removal. The articles of incorporation and restrictive
covenants shall be reviewed by County Staff prior 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. All new utilities shall be placed underground.
6. All cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native grasses
using certified weed -free seed. The SIA shall include security for necessary
revegetation.
7. The applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school impact fees prior to approval of the
final plat.
8. All roadways shall be designed and constricted in conformance with design standards
set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at the time of final plat.
9. 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.
10. No perimeter fencing shall be allowed, and fencing shall conform to DOW standards.
The DOW shall make specific recommendations prior to the Preliminary Plan hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners.
11. The following plat notes shall appear on the final plat:
1. No open hearth solid fiiel burning devices will be allowed within the Sierra
Bluffs Filing #1 Subdivision;
2. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural-gas
burning fireplaces or appliances;
3. 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.
4. A site specific geotechnical report, prepared by a registered engineer licensed
by the State of Colorado, is required for all structures, including sewage
12.
13.
disposal systems, prior to the issuance of a building permit or an individual
sewage disposal permit.
Prior to approval of a final plat, the applicants
documentation to the planning department:
Evidence,
of
propos
repared at
lorado hat a Lori
lots.
stamped by a
teen water
shall submit the following
stered eng eer licet ed in the State
)ply is aval le for a three (3)
4a'.
Evidence, by a recorded easement, thatttaccess has been obtained through lot
15 of the Sierra Vista Subdivision.
Weed control is the responsibility of the property owner.
Tve Pa2T&'J (O.+N2L't14!'1
1 �-I . I� r fa Cr. z3,
5 ` E "^E�tS o f lis ►� T 1 S ,_._ sswa! S t ri ti
1S:
t? pep 114+�
ZSo00
1.41K 5 (Is slb J�.� dna Pc." --"c As Ar; F.As ,i b, 114. /iDa-r
e.
e ASEh6 TAIS
Pearc 0,
L I ...‘„c o r hs
,.A GVR IUB {Z
LEA) 1
R�R.�c�1�D �•� p SoN�I"'�1 THE � IILU4Pcfio�
� P` e:. 9`V I.E. T�2 i' 9-6`n
A'c.e.
l7.
"met, t��'� I,� Sl�ncc / ( hl
ot-v pep
�$. �O�.IST2 `�cwp 0.4 �"�FFS Fcu -i� QEEtarn�.i�
!G • �v�ilrs
Lt c M lis Co n44146-72 DC S r4c4 t awl
L.D(J 1' 1,,., � ��, W A �(�_ Ll �IQ.a7 M amu,.{ Gv� it*� '1'� ,
1-S � > I12_€4v Z,CD
NLL � N 6.14yo w ��
Aa 1`Aewi,C
0.0 Pw...1(o,c... 5'-430(‘Af
1-1-16
u1LL, l (2egv11Z
F� Qr�cLPeI-T�,
jO D 11^1 e1e-)vG kE*' 1
M r I c.rl 4A'
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF TI -IE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Willer Resources
Department of Natural fZesourc es
1 11 1 Sherman Street, Room 1118
Denver, C:uIie e u 11(121) 3
Ilium' 11(13) t3L) -i5t11
FAX I ill 1) 861,- )')))'J
March 16, 1995
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Sierra Bluffs Subdivision Sketch Plan
Section 22, T.6 S, R.92 W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 45
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
Roy Romer
Governor
lames S. 1ochheadl
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
We are in receipt of your subdivision referral for Sierra Bluffs Subdivision, a resubdivison
of Lots 10 and 11, Sierra Vista Ranch located approximately two miles south of the Town of Silt.
The applicant is proposing to split two 35+ acre parcels into 3 lots each. The proposed water
supply source for the lots will be one well for each 3 acre lots.
Please refer to our comments dated September 6, 1994, from Ms. Judy Sappington of our
office. A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith. Those comments still hold good.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office or
Mr. Orlyn Bell of our Division office in Glenwood Springs at 945-5665.
DJF/km
sierrabluffs
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Bob Klenda, Water Commissioner
sincerely
«.(17.1d)-•
Mr. Kris Murthy
Professional Engineer
1 •
STATE OF COLORAI )O
?ICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
September 6, 1994
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Sierra Bluffs Subdivision Sketch Plan
Section 22, T6S, R92W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 45
Dear Dave:
Roy Romer
Governor
lames S. lochhead
Executive Director
Hal O. Simpson
State Engineer
Thank you for referral for the Sierra Bluffs Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11,
Sierra Vista Ranch located approximately two miles south of the Town of Silt. The applicant is
requesting to split two 35 or more acre parcels into six lots. The proposed source of water is one
common well per three lots.
A review of our records indicates that permits 178786 and 178787, copies attached, were
issued for domestic use on parcels 10 and 11, respectively. Each permit allows water from the well
to be used for up to three single family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of
home gardens and lawns and the watering of domestic animals. The applicant proposes to divide
Lots 10 and 11 into three (3) lots each.
Pursuant to §30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., the State Engineer's Office offers the following
opinion for your consideration regarding material injury to decreed water rights and the adequacy
of the proposed water supply:
Since valid permits are in place for use at up to six (6) single family dwellings, there appears
to be an adequate water supply plan for the development.
Should you have further questions or comments regarding the water supply for this project,
please contact me at the above address.
cerely,
jf�7 Tappington
ater ources Engineer
attachments
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Bob Klenda, Water Commissioner
sierra.sub
• r,
• •
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 Bluffs 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
•
1 •
STATE OF COLO[tAD0
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and (•eulogy
1)ttarlment uI Natural Resuunes
1 1 1 1 Sherman Street, Room 7 1
Denver, Colorado 111121l1
I'hone (3(11) )lhh- 1,1 1
FAX (31) I) 866-2461 •
March 31, 1995 GA -95-0009
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
oho i" F
)EPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Ropier
Governor
lames 5. Lochheacl
Executive Director
Michael B. long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
Re: Proposed Sierra Bluffs Subdivision -- Ca. 3/4 Mi South of the Intersection of C.R. 311
and C.R. 331, Nr. Silt, Garfield County
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
At your request and in accordance witgh 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 geologic conditions in this subdivision area are essentially identical to those in the
Sierra Pinon subdivision to the north of this one, the proposal for which we reviewed in our
correspondence of March 8 (copy attached). The recommendations made in the earlier
review apply equally to this parcel as the lot sizes are comparable as are the geologic
constraints to development.
(2) The significant geology -related differences between this proposed subdivision and the
comparison case are mostly related to slope and slope (in)stability. Parts of proposed Lots
5, 6, and 7, are very steep and will present difficult access and/or construction problems for
these lots. Construction costs are apt to be relatively high for these lots compared to those
for other lots in this subdivision or the comparison case.
We recommend that you approve this subdivision only if the recommendations made in the
referenced prior correspondence are made conditions of approval of it.
cerely,
(J mes M. Soule
ngineering Geologist
encl.
• •
March 18, 1995
Planning Department of Garfield County
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Sierra Bluffs Subdivision
4t. I
We are not in favor of granting a Preliminary Plan approval for
Sierra Bluff:_ Subdivision. To grant approval for the 75.02 acre
tract to be subdivided into 7 single fancily 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 talking 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, causing
safety issues, 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 Bluffs
Subdivision of 7 single family Tots 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 that housing does not pay enough taxes to support
the services they require/want.
Sincerely,
Dene and fary Jane Hangs
3493 331 RI)
Silt, CO 81652
cc. Cooley, Planning Comm.
• /0
•
TOWN of SILT
May 26, 1995
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
In regards to both the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision a i ihr .sierra 13:uffs Suhdi%'isiun, the
Town of Silt has the following comments:
The Town of Silt is concerned with the road situation leading to the subdivisions from the
1-70 interchange and the roads within the proposed subdivisions. As the unincorporated
area around Silt continues to grow and be subdivided, it is important that the county roads
leading to these homesites be upgraded or at the very least have plans in place for future
upgrades. Continued growth both north and south of Silt should require road plans that
will address current and future growth in those areas. Development fees for road
improvements or special taxing districts might possibly be a couple of methods that could
he utilized to help defray the cost of future improvements and continued maintenance of
what appears to be substandard roads already.
The Town would also hope that the County encourage road development within the
subdivisions that will be within, if not better than, the current county road standards as to
percent of grade. Emergency access to rural homesites is of utmost importance to our fire,
police and ambulance departments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these matters.
Randy Cor'4y (/
Chairman, Silt Planning & Zoning Commission
4. / IMP
1/'-
II)'lI O I I I I I: S I I. 'I I I I S I O It I (. A I. NI ti S I: II NI
