Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 06.04.1984It BOCC 6/4/84 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS For a S.B. 35 Exemption Request Henry Dietz, IV Sec. 25, T5S, R91W; located NW New Castle along the entrance tthe Elk Creek Subdivision. of o REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA ACCESS: SEWER: WATEB: ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: Division of approximately 9.2 acresinto 4 lots. Off County Rd. 245 up an existingprivate access road. Proposed individual septic disposal systems. Town of New Castle A/R/RD Nor th South East West R - MH/c/Uo L/R/so R - MH/G/UD L/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANThe site I ies within District A urban Areas of rnfluence for theTown of New Castle. The following is taken from the Garfield County Comprehensive plan NaturalEnvironment Section (pg. 77-79): The following standards apply to those aspects of the natural environmentthat require specialized site-planning or design consideration in GarfieldCounty I Ste 51o CS 258 and over and Moderate o ES r-24 Potential problems 1. Erosion.2. Sedimentation.3. Rapid runoff.4. Revegetation difficulty.5. Excessive cut and fill.6. Landslide potential.7. Subsidence.8. Increased potential of hazardous areas suchas rockfal1, mud flow or unstable s1ope. A 1 o? B. Performance Standards Slopes 25* and over shall be restricted from development. These sloPes maY be: Maintained as permanent open sPace. Platted as a portion of an aPproved building 1ot, with an open space ease- ment.Platted as a portion of a building lot which has adequate usable building space available other than steep slopes. Plattetl as a portion of a subdivision and dedicated as permanent open space. Developed with special design considera- tions and engineering. Areas of disturbance or clearitrg on slopes 252 greater sha1l be stabilized and revegetated to disturbance levels with appropriate, rapidly established vegetation. 3 c. 5 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALA;- -SiEe Descriation: rhe 1 a b c d e 2 or pr e- a b c Native or apt plant materials shal1 be used. Method of stabilization used shal1 blend with or enhance the existing surrounding environment. Stabilization methods shal1 be completed before any lots or homes are sold unless otherwise approved by the Coirnty Commissioners. On moderate slopes (16t 24*) only those structures that are designed to fit the contours of the land sha1l be considered. The leve1ing, ornbenchingn, of these slopes sha11 not be permitted. Construction measures which moderate slope hazards are: may be used to mitigate4 a b The disturbance of the natural vegetation sl:a11 be kept to a minimum during the construction of any development. Dust and wind erosion shall be kept to a minimum during construction by the use of temporary soil stabil ization measures. Erosion and runoff control measures which demonstrate the control of storm water and water-born soil during and after constructionshall be provided for all development activities. The grading of all new development shalI be designed so that cut and fill are kept to a minimum and can balance within the project site. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2zl efficient stabilization methods are utilized. The proposed development shal1 be designed in a manner which demonstrates a nfitn with the existing topography of the 1and. a b along both sides of anSubdivision. The siteCoryell Ditch and the site sits to the north of County Rd. 245existing access road used by the Elk Creekis mainly steep hillsides and contains the City of New Castle Waterworks. acres intothe four andone B. Project Description: The proposal is to divide the 9+4 lots of approximately 2, 2, 2, and 3 acres.Three oflots would sit to the west of the existing access road would sit to the east. b o Hretqty: In 1983, a 12 + acre parcel was divided by exemption inEo-7:tracts leaving this 9 acre parcel. At that time the applicant requested to be able to come in later for further review to possibly get additiolal exemptions on the 9 acre tract. Thus nesoluiion # 9L:!19. does not contain any restrictive wording regarding f urther exempEions. (See pageifu19) On 3/11/84 the goard of County Commissioners referred this proposal to the Planning Commission for review. On May 9, L9B4 Lfre- ptanning Commission recommended denial of the proposal. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS ? A. Review Agencies: The Town of New Castle noted in a letter to the ) that they would be haPPY to work water taps for the lots and that a land exchange with regards to In another l-etter dated May 4, 1984 tates that the Town of New Castle mined that their present ProPertY aFplicant (see letter Pagewith the applicant to Provthey were willing to negot the city's water works are ( see page.Jk_) the apPl ica has reconsidered and has d lines are more feasible fo exchange boundar ies. cl l' r ' l i ,' ' e town than the ProPosed Janl8. .,,"i, i, lir d r' , , ,'' {'ll r : 1 .',i; tt I d"t'-l' ' r ic I ' : ' tltii t '"i" a__ide iate a. nts eter r tlr It t r t.. ta !itr +, ,/ \tBStaf f Comment-s: 2 3. t-..ri,,j i 1 The applicant plans to leave the current boundary lines as they are concerning the New Castle Water Works facilities. The County Environmental Health office has noted that it may be necessary for any septic systems on these lots to be designed by a registered professional engineer. The soils report from the Soil Conservation Service indicated Lhat all soils types found on this site have severe ljmitations rvith regards to development due to steep slopes, rock exposures and shallow soils. There is a sma11 portion of proposed lot #4 (.03 acres) that has been encroached upon by 10t #7 in Block 4 0f the Elk Creek Subdivision. The applicant wishes to give this sma1l parcel to the owners of the lol in the Elk Creek Subdivision. The Board of County Commissioners has already given conditional approval for a boundary line adjustment for this situation. The existing access road used by the Elk Creek Subdivision and which is to serve the proposed lots is not a part of the E1k Creel< Subdivision and is not legally a public access road. The applicants propose to provide a 60' wide public access and utility easement to the proposed parcels. The applicant should also consider preparing a lega1 easement document for the Elk Creek Subdivision with regards to the existing road. This could be done through oh/nership and appropr iate easements. Since the applicant had one exempted parcel created in 1983, the proposed number of additional lots (4), if approved, would mean that the applicant has had a total of 5 lots created by exemption from one original parcel. The surrounding property includes the Elk Creek Subdivision which has approximately l/4 acre lots. The site review of the parcel indicated that areas of the parcel could be in excess of 252 slopes. 4 5 6 7 B IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1 The hearing before the Board extensive and complete, that and issues were submitted. That for the above stated and other should go through the ful1 Garfield review process. _7 -I of County Commissioners was all pertinent facts, matters 2 3 That further review is required prior to the granting of the proposeC new 1ots. r easons CountY the proposal subd ivi s ion o? V. REC OMMENDATION For reasons }isteil in the staff comments with regards to soils and the number of potential lots proposed to. q9 created through thd exemption process, it "p;;;;; Lnat -a!"'iurl subdivision review process would address the concerns regardilg the soil-s and more specificalIy determine whether or not "u"rr-rot could provide a uuitaing site and is capable of tunJiing-inaividuir-septic di-sposal systems without causing ;;:;;;-to-aajacent Iand o*n"il or-creating a public health hazard' If this s.B. 35 application is approved, the following minimum conditions should be imPosed. a plat recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's1That there be office includ a) A legal d the apProthe exist ditch and ing the following: escription of each 1o pr iate access easemen ing access road. It powerline easements ch includesth regards to also include he propertY. t whits wi shallfor t 2 -.J DeveloPment for the Sch aPProvaI. On May 9t 1984, the Planning Commissi exemption for the reason that the pro r eview . b) That a Plat note be may be subject to b systems. engineerefl .)^f,ffss:1,'f;t?- $200.00 Per lot sha1l b ( t,.-t, | 71t' ', L''''c '-'n't J /. {:}'r P.-{ -gLt* $("- c \\ I rr'-c 11t1 y 1{'tt d (1, ri'-t^--a-ltu ' \ ^ lr ''o r-a*[' utc"f w-c-L'r.J'j included stating that each lot oth engineered foundations and septic by a Colorado registered professional JLt't fr ffi': tffii J#*ff##,ir.ffi ooi rmpact Fee prior to fina, *io t#L\ on recommended DeniaI of the posal warrants ful1 subdivision i( 1 ? l:t[ 4 l:t- 3.'-\ 1..r. t cj-,r r i g {///-. b I\) r ',f,".r:} {'r i) ,\ \rr i.r""-i (, * i. i.--t-. ,-.,,1=;-L[t I i, t,-1, i..-,', ,.,ri r 1" 4 , 1'r"*",\ (r,,, , 't l-i-"-vi'Lt''\- 4brk;Jt C-l {:{ i L.rt -L\ t,", \'" i (.' ,lil r' , ,: i ' ;.:i'"''t L- *..t-J i r5.,r'r J Le- 8- ta Menbere abeent: None 3 Motlon was made by Smlth, seconded by Browne, approvlng theMinutes of Jaa. 22, 1984, as presented. Motlon carrted. 4. Member Intervlews chalrman vasllakls asked those members other than the one toto be interviewed for the PlannLng & Zonlng appoinEment, toplease leave the room durlng the intervlews. Autunn Basham was the flrst to be intervlewed. She has 1lvedln New Castle for l8 months, worked ln construction for atlme, and ls presently employed by social services. Her hus- band works an solar energy development. she seems very inter-ested ln the development of the Townaod plans t,o make NewCastle their perrnanent residence. I'I,ary Ann Taylor was the second applicant to be lnt,erviewed.Her hueband works for Glenwood Springs. She has a degreeln educatlon and is lnterested ln the development of the New Castle area. , Dana Yerian was the thlrd appllcant lntervlewed. He hasllved ln New cast,le for 3 years. Lived in the colorado RiverValley for 8 years. He is a general cont,ractor in the buslness of remodeling, repalr and cement work. Has done some surveying and has a degree in archlEecture. Does notbelieve lu otaer butldlng. skip Heiney was the last appllcant intervlewed to flll the vacancy on the Planning & Zonlng Board. She has llved in New castle the past 2 years but has ltved in the area for 14years. She is more interest,ed ln the planning & ZonLng commisslon than serving on the Board of AdJustment. she ls anElfl on the New Castle Ambulance Servi.ce, belongs to the Buslnessman I s Assoclation. 5 Zorre Req ueat - Schmueser Property at I-70 Interchanqe l'1r. schmueaer was not lnteresEed Ln annexing to the Town of New Castle at thls tlme. Hearry construcElon 1s hls malnbuslness. cormerical Generar zoning would arrow him to placehis malntenance fac1llty on the property. After ext.enslvediscusslon, It. seems that a compromlse could be worked out. 6. SB-35 Dietz Exemption Proposal A discusslon on the Dletz proposal was held. Motlon was made by Smlth, seconded by Browne, that the pranning ai'rd Zonlng Commtssion recommend the 1and in the Dtetz sub-dlvlslon request for sB 35 exemptlon be approved provlded rhatthe New casLre wat,er system ls not arlversely ef fected. t'k,,tlorr carrLed. I'lotlon was made by Dawson, seconded by Smit.h, to request the county to requlre a plat note on the flnal plat which requires revlew of all- uses on the lots of the Dletz SB 35 exemptl_onby the Town of New Castl_e.