The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.7.83o PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOC1 ttlT /83 Amichaux Subdivision Sketch Plan with exemPtion from ir.rir subdivision review' PauI Amichaux Eldorado Engineering Co' Landmark SurveYirlg Co' A tract of lancl located-in the NE iti- r'rr,l-r74 section 6, T6s1 RB9w' *fi" PtacticallY described as a iii"t'oi lartd iocated in !'lest 6i."n*ooa at lr'" intersection of u.S.HighwaY ;"; 24 and CountY Road L32. A I.66 acre tract to be divided into residental lots' !.iest Glenwood Water Distric! West Glenwood Sanitation District Via U. S. HighwaY 6 & 24 and CountY Road L32 commer cial/Limited (c/L) North z n/t/Soa;;ahi r-zo Risht-or-way East z C/L West z R/L/So o PROJECT NAME: REOUEST:-- OWNER: ENG INEER: SURVEYOR: LO CATION: SITE DATA w}!ER: qgEEn: ACCESS: ZONING: ADJ ACENT ZONING: I. REL ATIONSHIP The ProPosedcentral water II.DESCRIP TION OF PROPOSAL A TO TIIE COMPREH ENSIV E PLAN subdivision is Iocated in District IB' areas with and sewer. H:-3?H=ffi:3 rrom-the lol:h,::-tl:^south' with a rs root drop in a di;;;.;;-or so i."i- rro* the countv road to the lots. The average slope on-tf'u east property line is 14Br with gent}er slopes being-on-Lno south.=iou ito.,g Ilighway 6 & 24. The vegetation on t;; ptop"tty is varied with some fruit and oak trees' Bt9r99!=?=5er#t= ro clivide the 1'66 acre parcer in f ive 1!; ;::::i3:":;;lin'lq-i i1: :::l^i:'.":":o.fl;'?"fi:i:='Three of tn. iolu w6uld r,ave duplexes lnd the remaining two lots would be single faniiyl -Ti,; si'gle family lots and cne of rhe duprex rots wourd ;'";" ..""*i'"ii"g single access off of U. S. Highway 6 & 24' "il; iu*uining iwo duplex lots B -5- oo would have a common access off of County road 180. There isa house presently located on one of the parcels that isproposed as a duplex lot. III. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES A. Zo0ing: The parcel is zoned C/L, which allows a minimum lotsize of 7500 sg. ft. Single family dwellings and duplexes are a use by right. Staff has calculated that the proposed lots do have building area to accommodate the proposed usesr but withconfigurations that may limit the type of structure. The C/L zone also allows a wide range of cornmercial uses that could beplaced on the property if a new landowner desired to do so. B. Revi e wAq ency Comments: I. The City of Glenwood Springs has expressed concerns abouL access and points of ingress and egress, need for fire hydrants, new water main and low water pressure. Ingeneral, the City Planning Commission and staff feel thereare enough questlons to be answered that merit fullsubdivision review. (See letters pag 2. There has been no confirmation from the West Glenwood Water District or West Glenwood Sanitation District as to whether or not they will service the lots in question. There are both sewer and water lines to the property. C. STAFF COMI'IENTS: 1. The proposed plan indicates that parts of the Countyroad driving surface are within the property boundaries.This land would have to be dedicated to the County. This,in turn, will decrease the actual size of the affected lots. 2. Staff concurs with the CiLy regarding the access to thelots off of County Road L32 being less than desirable. Access from a single internal road off of Highway 6 & 24 would be more appropriate and which may reguire one lot tobe el iminated. 3. SCS soils information indicates that structures may belocated on the property without any major problems. Giventhe problems the West Glenwood area has had with debris flow and unstable slopes, staff wouid guestion whether anapproval could be given without a site specific soils andgeology report, since SCS soils information is so general. IV. FINDINGS 1. The application meets the reguirements of Section 3.02 and 4.01 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1978 r Ers amended. es 8- 9- 10 ). 2. The proposed lots meetfor the Commercial/Limited the minimum Iot sizes Zone district.r equ ir ed 3. That there appears to be possible problems associatedwith the intensive use of the land that need furtherconsideration. -6- o V. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended that the Sketch Plan be approved, Uut the subdivision not to be exempted from full suLOivision review. That the following issues be addressed at Preliminary Plan. - 1. A geologic,/soils investigation adequate to alleviate any concerns about potential hazards. - 2. A revised access plan be developed with a single cul-de-sac accessing from Highway 6 & 24. rl. Confirmation of utility services availability. o 4. That the applicant consider down zoning to zone to eliminate concerns about non-residentia the land. at1u es ident ial seage of E*/rnq ,rafu)e-f 'Vz-'dr4 1. a)^s/ se 2' A)a/et 4t la ad/, /ro--,a/ /r)/4 J 4 D/#., Z2//, eLltanl ryu?<t'6. a4'D4 annty -7- ri c'L 1"3s3October 6, l9B3 0ul *\.i:;iai) 0il- Pijt#.& Mr. Ilark Bean Senlor Planner Garfield County 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8 1601 RE: Amichaux Subdivision Exemption Dear Mark: Planning staff comments on the referenced subdivision center on the matter of access, and points of ingress and egress. It appears unwise to allow creatl,on of two new duplex lots whose sole access is frou Co. Rd. 132. The road surface adjacent to lots 4 and 5 ls about 15 feet wide with very poor sight distances resulting from horizontal and vertlcal curves, embankment and vegetation. If constructed as proposed, cars would exit on to the county road at the crest of a hlll where, in inclement weather, north-bound vehicles would be passing at relatively high speed l-n order to avoid slipping on the incline. Staff would recommend that all access be from a single point on Hwy. 6 by means of a cul-de-sac (probably private). While necessitating cooperatlon among future neighbors, it would be safer and a more effi- cient use of 1and. 0ther staff comments are attached. Planning Commission comments w111 be forwarded after the P&Zts review on October 12. Sincerely yours, ta U,(u 6t\/t John M. Fernandez Planning Director J"IF/CP (o {j 806 COOI'I_R.A.\'ENUE GLEN\\OOD SpRINGS, COLORADO8I60t 3031915-2575 -B- o tj REVIEWINC AGENCY CO}'OIENTS FOR PEZ IO/TZ ITEM /I51-83 - AMICHAIJX SUBDIVISTON EXEI.,IPTION Clty Attorn ey Clty Man aget Will concur with planning and utility people. Police Department Public Safety Concerns would be; sufficiency unit for fire, police and arnbulance vehicles; away from corners, lntersections and curves iingress and egress. of access to each dwelling and the location of drives n order to insure safe Flre Department This subdlvlsj-on will require installation of flre hydrants. City Engineer Ci El-ect ric There are existing electric lines crossing the property. These and associated easements are to remain urrless the developer paystotar cost of any relocation. rn addition GSES requests that 15utility easements be established at all property lines including1ot lines. f" Water,/Wastewater A11 comments concerning sewer should be directed to the westGlenwood Santtation District. A water maln extension will be necessary for this proposeddevelopment. A11 cosrs sharl be the responsibility oi thedeveloper. lines the foot front 1 2 3 4 Low water usage. pressures have been noted in this area during peak demand rf possible vould like to request a more detailed map concerningutllities (utility easements ghould always be maintained). -9- a- 1-;.t ir: r/ 1 13E3i, : - \ proposed and City P&Z o October I4, 1983 Mr. Jim Drinkhouse Chairman, Garfield County Commissioners P. O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado , No new access points Rd. 132. be located at the front ofthe rear of the parcel these recorrurrendations. i.1l 8r602 The Glenwood springs planning commission recommends that theAmichaux subdivision ExernptiJn in llest Glenwood be classifiedreviewed as a ful1 subdivision. This recommendation folr.ovrsrevier,r at its regular meeting October 12, 19g3. Dear l{r. Drinkhouse: I appreciate your consideration of Sincerely yours, The recomnendation results from concerns about certain aspects of sitedesign as werl as our belief that a proposal such as thi s r,rerits apublic trearing. The site desig., "o.,"".rs incrude the following: -vehiculat: access should be from Iir^ry. 6should be created at this "rrrr" in Co. -the p?oposed multi-famil.r lots shouldthe parcel rather tian as profosed, atadjacent to the county road. Gregory Durrett, Glenwood Springs cc: Mark Bean cD/j p Cha i rr.ran PJanning Commission - : r' - 10-