Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 04.12.1995• • PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: APPLICANTS: ENGINEERS/PLANNERS: LOCATION: PC 4/12/95 Sierra Bluffs Subdivision Preliminary Plan Barton Porter/Wayne Cooley, Wanda Cooley Starbuck Surveyors and Engineers Located in a portion of Section 22, T6S. R92W; located approximately three (3) miles south of the Town of Silt. SITE DATA: 75.02 acres WATER: Wells (2) SEWER: I.S.D.S. ACCESS: County Road 331 and private easements platted with Sierra Vista Ranch EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREIiENSIVE 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. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The property is located south of Silt, in the lower reaches of Dry I follow Creek, south of Weible Peak. Elevations range from 5575 to 5880 feet. Dry 1-Iollow traverses lots a portion of Lot 7. 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 10 and 11 of the Siena Vista Subdivision, approved in 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 tine 75.02 acre site into 7 (seven) single-family lots ranging in size from 9.70 to 13.6 acres in size. Average lot size is approximately 10.7 acres per dwelling unit. Two (2) exempt well permits will be used to serve three dwellings each. Sewage disposal will be treated through conventional ISDS. Access will be provided directly from County Road 331, and several easements platted with the 1 Oa • • original Sierra Vista Ranch. A blue -line of the Preliminary Plan of the proposed subdivision is attached to the staff report, as well as the application. 111. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS Division of Water Resources: 'I'Iie Division has reviewed the project, and had the following concerns: (I) That the proposal appears to be consistent with the title page of the application that proposes six (6) units. Staff notes that the proposed preliminary plan shows a total of seven (7) lots. This is also inconsistent with the sketch plan submittal that the Planning Commission reviewed in Septemberof 1994. The State's letter is shown on pages 4 44 + Soil Conseivation District: The Southside Soil Conservation District has reviewed the application, and had concerns regarding revegetation and wildlife impacts (see letter on page • 3. Colorado Department of Health: The Department of Health has not responded to the application. 4. Division of Wildlife: No response at time of writing. 5. Colorado State Geologist: No response at time of writing, although based on the same geologic constraints as the Sierra Pinyon project, the following points are applicable: 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. W. MAJOR ISSUES ANI) 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 (10+ acres per dwelling unit), surpasses the minimum lot size allowed under existing zoning by a factor of five. 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 applicant has provided a summary of geologic constraints in the site, including "steep slopes, expansive soils and structurally weak soils". The preliminary plat does not indicate "Building Restrictive Area", consisting primarily of rockfall hazards. 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". II, VP • • Staff would suggest that this be a condition of approval. C. Road/Access: The project proposes a single point of access from County Road 331, in the firm of easements platted with the original subdivision. All roads 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 7 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 Staff notes that the soils on the property make road access and maintenance difficult on the site. In addition, staff would suggest that the 60' ROW remain, due to the potential for fin-ther re -subdivision of lots that potentially could utilize the same access. Due to the relatively gradual grade as compared to Sierra Pinyon, the roadway network appears to have no constraints, other than the soil characteristics on the site. D. Fire Protection: No letter has been provided by the Burning Mountain Fire Department. Staff would suggest that this be a condition of approval. E. Floodplain: No iloodplain mapping is available for this stretch of Dry Hollow. Only Lot 7 is crossed by Dry Hollow. The proposed building envelope is separated by Dry Hollow by approximately 800 feet. F. Water: The applicant intends on providing domestic water via two (2) wells, which are permitted for three (3) dwelling units each. Staff notes that this assumed six (6) lots, consistent with the sketch plan approval and the application. The Preliminary Plan neap, however, shows seven (7) Tots. No approval can be granted by Garfield County for seven lots, without additional augmentation, and approval by the State Engineer's Office. 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. Physical water supply has been addressed in the application, by evidence of pumping data included in the application. 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. No percolation tests have been performed, although the applicant has indicated that tests "will be available at the public hearing". If evidence is not submitted regarding the feasibility of iSDS, Staff would suggest that the Commission table the preliminary plan. 1 1. Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and development requirements of the Zoning Resolution. • • 1. Lot Design: All building envelopes appear to avoid any known geologic hazard. • J. Adjacent Property Owners: a letter of opposition is attached on page V. RECO MMFNDATION Lithe applicant is willing to reduce the proposal to six (6) lots, staff would recommend approval, with 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 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. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all road, drainage and utility improvements prior to the approval of a final plat. 5. All utilities shall be placed underground. 6. All cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native grasses using certified weed -free seed. 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 constructed 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 lan cage ensuring compliance shall be enforced through the covenants. ,rn nod 10. No perimeter fencing shall be allowed,ur►d fencing shall conform to DOW standards. fhe I)OW shall make specific recommendations prior to the Preliminary Plan hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. ¢� 5 1 1. The following plat notes shall appear on the final p t: kf QI d4 I. No open hearth solid fuel burning device will be allowed within the Sierra Bluffs 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, lirepared 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. • • STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF TME STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1111 Sherman Street, Room 810 Denver, Colorado 110.20 3 I'hune (101) 066-3501 FAX (11)3) 866-350'9 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 James 5. Lochhead 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 /( Mr. Kris Murthy Professional Engineer • • STATE of cOLORADO 1 -ICE Of TILE 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 5. Lochhead Executive Director Hal D. 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) Tots 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. Slrcerely, ater appington sources Engineer attachments cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Bob Klenda, Water Commissioner sierra.sub i • • SOUTH SIDE SOIL CONSERVATION DTSTRICT 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, ItAi L, John Sample, President South Side Soil Conservation District 00 • • March 18, 1995 trl Planning Department of Garfield County 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Sierra Bluffs Subdivision We are not in favor of granting a Preliminary Plan approval for Sierra Bluffs Subdivision. To grant approval for the 75.02 acre tract to be subdivided into 7 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, causing safety issues, driving any of the county roads that are posted for 35 mph .:peed 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 lots is that it would make too much of an impact on underground water, wildlife, and services. We need to have a "t.iine 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, 7IictA- ye - Dene and fary Jane Hangs 3493 331 RD Silt, CO 81652 cc. Cooley, Planning Comm.