The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 PC Staff Report 05.09.1984OtI Pc 5/9/84 PROJECT INFORMATICN AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: ACCESS: SE!{ER: EATER: ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: Eor a S.B. 35 Exemption/referral tothe Plarrning Commission from the Board of County Commissioners Henry Diet.z, IV Sec. 25, T5S, R91W; located NW of New Cast1e along the entrance tothe E1k Creek Subdivision. Divisiorr 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 llest R . MH/G/UD A/R/RD R - MH/G/UD A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site lies within District A Urban Areas of Influence for the Town of New Castle. The following is taken from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan NaturalEnvironment Section (pg. 77-78): The following standards applthat require specialized sit CounLy. those aspects of the natural environmentanniug or design consicleration in Garfield and Mode ate yto e-p1 I. Stee S1 es (252 and over s1 D 16r A. Potential Problems1. Erosion.2. Sedimentation.3. Rapid runoff.4. Revegetation difficulty.5. Excessive cut and fill.6. Landslide potential. 7. Subsidence.8. Increased potential of hazardous - /l- areas such aa B. Performance Standards 1 Slopes 25* and over development. These shaI1 be restricted from slopes may be: 2 a. Maintained as permanent open space.b. Platted as a portion of an approvedbuilding lot, with an open space ease- ment.c. Platted as a portion of a building 1otwhich has adequate usable building spaceavailable other than steep slopes.d. Platted as a portion of a suiJdivision anddedicated as permanent open space.e. Developed with special design considera-tions and engineering. Areas of disturbance or cleariirg on slopes 25*greater sha1l be stabilized and revegetated todisturbance 1evels with appropriater rapidlyestablished vegetation. or pr e- 5 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A Site Description: Thealong both sjdes of anSubdivision. The siteCoryell Ditch and the Native or apt plant materials shall be used. Method of sLal:ilization used shaLl blend withor enhance the existing surrounding environment.Stabilization methods sha1l be completed beforeany lots or homes are sold unless otherwise approved by the County Commissioners. On moderate slopes ( 16t 242) only thosestructures Lhat are designed to fit the contoursof the land shall be considered. The leveling, ornbenchitrg', of these slopes shall not be permitted. Construction measures wtrich rnoder ate slope hazar <1s are: may be used to mitigate The disturbance of the natural vegetation shallbe kept to a minimum during the construction ofany development. Dust and wind erosion shall be kept to a minimumduring construction b1z the use of temporary soilstabilization measures.Erosion and runoff control measures whichdemonstrate the control of storm water andvrater-born soil during and after construction sha11 be provided for all development activiIies. The grading of all ners developrnent sharl be designe<i sothat cut and fill are kept to a minimum and can balancewithln the project site. Cut and fill slopes sha1l not be steeper than 2:Lefficient stabilization methods are utilized.The proposed development shall be designed in amanner which demonstrates a nfitn with the existingtopography of the land. a b c. 3 4 a b c a b site sits to the north of County Rd. 245existing access road used by the EIk Creekis mainly steep hillsides and contains theCity of New Castle Waterworks. B. Project Description:The proposal is to divide the 9+4 lots of approximabely 2,2,2, and 3 acres. Three oflots would sit to the west of the existing access roadi.rould sit Lo the east. acres intothe four and one - /2' oo History: In 1983, a 12 + acre parcel was divided by exemption inEo-Z 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 additional exemptions on the 9 acre tract. Thus Resolution # 83:138 does not contain arly restrictive wor d ing r egar <1ing f ur ther exe-mpt ions . ( See pagelt'zf ) On 3/12/84 the Board of County Commissioners referred this proposal to the Planning Commission for review. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Review Agencies: The appl icarrt ( see l etterwith the applicant to 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 Town of Page ,L0provide they were willing to negotiatethe city's water works area. B. Staff Comments: The City of New Castle and the applicant have reached an agreement with regards to a land exchange. This could be handled through a boundary line adjustment. 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 reporb from the Soil Conservation Serviceindicated that all soils types found on this site have severe limitations with regards to development due to steepslopes, rock exposures and shallow soils. There is a smal1 portion of proposed lot #4 (.03 acres) that has been encroached upon by 1ot #7 ii'r Block 4 of the Elk Creek Subdivision. The applicant wishes to give this smallparcel to the owners of the 1ot in the E1k CreekSubdivision. The Board of County Commissioners has alsogiven conditional approval for a boundary line adjustmentfor this situation. The existing access road used by the EIk Creek Subdivision and which is to serve the proposed lots is not a part of theEIk Creek Subdivision and is not Iegally a public accessroad. The applicants propose to provide a 60' wide public access and utility easement to the proposed parcels. Theapplicant should also consider preparing a 1egal easement document for the E1k Creek Subdivision with regards to theexisting road. This could be done through ownership andappropriate easements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 lotscreated by exemption from one original parcel. The surrounding property includes the E1k Creek Subdivisionwhich has approximately l/4 acre 1ots. The site review of the parcel indicated that areas of theparcel could be in excess of 252 slopes. 7 8. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1 3 The hearing before the Boardextensive and completel that and issues were submitted. of County Commissioners i{asall pertinent facts, matters 2 That further review is required prior to the granting of theproposed new 1ots. That for bhe above stated and othershould bo through the ful1 Garfieldreview process /3- reasons the proposal County subdivision ao V. RECOMMENDATION For reasons listed in the Staff Comments with regards to soils and the number of potential lots proposed to be created through the exemptionprocess, it appears that the fuI1 subdivision review process would address the concerns regarcling the soils and more specifically determine whether or not each lot could provide a building site and is capable of handling individual septic disposal systems without causinginjury to adjacent land olrners or creating a public health hazard. If this S.B. 35 application is approved, the followinE minimum conditions should be imposed. That there be a plat recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's office including the following: a) A legal description of each lot which includesthe appropriate access easements with regards to the existing access road. It shall also includeditch and powerline easements for the property. b) That a plat note be included stating that each lot may be subject to both engineered foundations and septic systems engineered by a Colorado registered professional engineer. I be cho r1rf2$200.00 pe Developmen approval. ot shal1or the S paid to the Department ofoI Impact Fee prior to final //-