HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.05.1994•
EY.p. lzlrz_
• *PIP
Sib Feb 23, lcKft4
BOCC 7/5/94 F,oM
GDOtt
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan Review of
Arnold's Meadow Subvision
ID$044srP- SOBPtu is }r
APPLICANT: Bob Arnold/Don Byers
PLANNER/ENGINEER: Isom and Associates/High County
Engineering
LOCATION:
A parcel of land located in Section
33, T7S, R87W, more practically
described as a tract of land adjacent
to SH 82, at the Eagle/Garfield
County Line.
SITE DATA: 28.571 acres
WATER: Mid -Valley Metro District
SEWER: Mid -Valley Metro District
ACCESS: Improved Access from New SH 82
EXISTING ZONING: R/L/SD and R/G/UD
ADJACENT ZONING:
North - A/R/RD
South - A/R/RD
East - A/R/RD
West - (Blue Lake)
I_ RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The tract of land is located in District C, Rural Areas, Minor Environmental
Constraints and District D, Rural Areas, Moderate Environmental Constraints.
II_ DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject parcel is primarily historic agricultural land, which
has been divided by the State Highway 82 right-of-way. The current alignment
of SH 82 has created two geographically separate parcels: an 11.761 acre parcel
on the south side of the new four -lane; and a 28.331 acre parcel to the north of
the new four -lane. The 28.331 acre parcel is the subject of the Preliminary Plan.
The parcel slopes gently to the north, and is bisected by Blue Creek. An existing
dwelling is located in the northeast corner of the site, beyond the Eagle County
Line. A vicinity map is included in the Preliminary Plan packet (attached).
rz/(2C 01 —1-0
rz_li-isp 2-0,000
1
B.
Request. The applicant are proposing a total of 64 dwelling units on the
property. The proposed land use mix is shown on Table 1.
TABLE 1
ARNOLD'S MEADOW PRELIMINARY PLAN
PROPOSED LAND USE
Single -Family
Duplex
To wnhomes
Open Space
TOTAL AREA
9.5 ac.
0.5 ac.
10.57 ac.
8.0 ac.
28.57 ac.
14
1
1
16
14
2
48
64
The general design approach of the project located larger lots along the hillside on the northern
portion of the parcel, cluster multi -family units in the lower meadows, and provides ample open
space between clusters and along Blue Creek.
Since the time of preliminary plan submittal, the applicant has had a formal wetlands
delination, and the location of wetlands has modified the plan somewhat. Staff and the
applicant will present the modifications at the public hearing.
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Colorado Geologic Survey. The Colorado Geologic Survey has reviewed the
project at sketch plan, and had the following comments (see letter on pages
):
CR1-1 Mi A
1. The only serious geologic constraint to the project is the possibility of
sinkhole development caused by collapse of underground voids in the
Eagle Valley Evaporite Formation. The Geologic Survey recommends
a shallow geophysical survey to locate any voids on the property.
2. Lots 8 through 14 (single-family along hillside) may have adverse
drainage impacts due to the adjacent slope. Recommendations include
drainage engineering prior to siting structures.
3. During higher runoff years, the flatter portions of the parcel may
experience water rising above normal foundation depths.
Recommendations included that no basements or crawl spaces be
allowed under the proposed townhomes.
Chen -Northern conducted a subsurface investigation of the site, and concluded
the following (see geotech report in Preliminary Plan packet):
1. No sinkholes are evident on the site, and the risk of future ground
subsidence is "relatively low";
2
• •
2. The potential for debris flow does not appear to constrain the
development of the northern (hillside) lots, although staff
confirmed with Chen -Northern that a final analysis has not been
completed. Stan Helenschmidt (Chen -Northern) indicated that
a final report regarding debris flow hazards should be completed
prior to the hearing before the Planning Commission;
3. Due the high permeability of the soil and the high groundwater
levels in the flatter portions of the site, it is recommended that full
basements not be considered.
Staff submitted the Chen -Northern report for CGS survey review, and James
Soule's June 9th, 1994 letter is attached on pages el' �O . Concern on the
part of CGS staff still include the risk of surface ground failure due to the
collapse of Eagle Valley Evaporate underlying the project.
B. Colorado Department of Health. Dwain Watson has reviewed the project, and
has endorsed the proposed tie-in to the Metro District (see letter on page ).
C. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Randy Cote from the Division of Wildlife
previously commented on the project during the sketch plan phase, and
suggested that dog restrictions be considered during the approval process.
D. Mid -Valley Metro District. Lee Leavenworth, attorney for the Metro District
has reviewed the Preliminary Plan, and had the following comments:
1. A raw water irrigation plan has not been submitted to the District, and
should be a condition of approval prior to Final Plat.
2. The covenants must be amended to reflect agreements consistent with the
raw water irrigation plan. Staff suggests that this also be considered a
condition of approval.
3. A landscape plan must also be submitted, consistent with the Pre -
Inclusion Agreement.
4. A line extension agreement must also be executed prior to the Final Plat.
A copy of Mr. Leavenworth's May 17, 1994 letter is attached on pages 11,17---.
E. Eagle County. Eagle County has reviewed the project, and Paul Clarkson's May
18th, 1994 letter is attached on page 13 . In short, the applicant is
currently pursuing 1041 approval to allow for the expansion of the Metro
District facilities. Phone conversations with the County indicate that approval
is expected by the Eagle County Commissioners.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Soils/Topograp4: Chen -Northern has recommended mitigation of all issues
regarding geological constraints on the property.
3
• •
B. Roads/Access: As proposed, the project would utilize a single point of access
from State Highway 82. Improvements associated with the widening of SH 82
included the construction of access/egress lanes and a left-hand turn pocket, at
the applicant's expense, from the entrance of the project.
Rich Persky, District Engineer for the Colorado Department of Transportation,
indicated by phone that all access issues have been addressed the permitting
process undertaken at the time the additional lanes were established.
Garfield County Road standards (Section 9.35) use a sliding scale to determine
Right -of -Way requirements and lane widths. For projects proposing units
between 40 and 250 units, a 60' ROW with 12' lanes. As shown on the
Preliminary Plan, both Arnold Loop and Arnold Drive are proposed with 50'
ROW with 11' lanes. This configuration is not consistent with the standards
described in Section 9.35, and no variance procedure is currently in place to
reduce ROW or lane width requirements.
The Board of County Commissioners has in the past allowed for a reduction in
ROW and land width requirements if the expected traffic load of a particular
portion of a subdivision road is less than the total number of dwelling units
associated with the project. For example, if a road "tapers" into accessing fewer
dwelling units, a specific section of road can be reduced to the appropriate
template design for that particular roadway segment. Staff suggests that the
applicant address this issue at the Preliminary Plan hearing before the Planning
Commission.
C. Fire Protection: No letter of approval has been submitted from the appropriate
fire district. Staff suggests that this be a condition or approval, and be obtained
prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
D.
Lot Design: The lot design is identical to the configuration presented to the
Planning Commission during the rezoning and sketch plan review. Staff notes
that each multi -family lot, as shown on Sheet 3, would preclude separate title to
each unit, but would allow conveyance of individual 4 and 5 -unit buildings. If
the applicant intends on conveying title to each multi -family unit, each separate
lot would have to appear on the final plat. In addition, variances would have to
be requested to allow a zero lot -line setback. A solution to the same issue was
handled in the following fashion for the Aspen Glen multi -family lots:
1. A plat note would be used to confirm that the developer reserves the right
to request subsequent subdivision for the multi -family lots at a future
date, without returning to a Preliminary Plan hearing.
2. Following the construction of the foundation for the multi -family lots,
a surveyor would "shoot in" the common walls for each unit.
3. A variance request, requiring Board of Adjustment Approval and a
public hearing, would be made for all lots requiring encroachment into
the required side yard setback. This would not be necessary if the
applicant had pursued a PUD.
4
•
4. Each lot containing multi -family units would then be amended
("Amended Final Plat for Lots A, B, etc...") to reflect the re -subdivision.
In concept, staff supports the development as a high-quality residential
development that includes a mix of housing types, ample open space, significant
protection of the integrity of Blue Creek, and integrated recreational
opportunities with the adjacent Blue Lake project. In addition, the site presents
significant opportunities for solar access (four of the nine multi -family pods have
southern exposure).
E. Comprehensive Plan Compliance. During the rezoning and sketch plan
processes, significant discussion centered on Comprehensive Plan compliance.
In short, -high-density residential projects were never envisioned for the site.
Staff notes that current zoning and the 1984 Comprehensive Plan did not
consider the possibility of extending Mid -Valley Metro District infrastructure
into Garfield County. In staff's opinion, the approval of the service district
expansion reflects a change in circumstance, and the project is in substantial
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
F.
Potential Wetlands Impacts. The applicant proposes to modify the Blue Creek
drainage similar to the channel improvements associated with the adjacent Blue
Lake filings. These improvements are necessary to ensure that Blue Creek is
capable of handling 100 -year flood waters within the channel. Some wetland
impacts are unavoidable, and may require a Nationwide Permit from the Army
Corps of Engineers. To date, no documentation has been received from the
Corps. Staff suggests Corps of Engineers approval be a condition of approval.
IV. Recommendation
On June 14, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval, subject to 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 all requirements and
agreements associated with the Mid -Valley District, 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.
5
•
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.
All construction shall be consistent with the recommendations of the applicant's
geologist, described in "Summary Report of Geotechnical Conditions and
Preliminary Recommendations", dated April 18, 1994 by Chen Northern, Inc.
All recommendations made by Chen -Northern steal also be
followed.
10. If the applicant intends on resubdividing the multi -family lots, provisions (i.e.
plat note) shall be made at the time of Preliminary Plan approval, and
subsequent variances and amended plats shall be submitted and approved
consistent with Garfield County zoning and subdivision regulations in affect at
that time.
11.
All requirements associated with agreements with the Mid -Valley Metro District,
described in a May 17, 1994er from Lee Leavenworth, are considered
conditions of approval.
Dog restrictions, limiting dogs to t\ per dwelling units, shall be included in
the covenants submitted at the time of Final Plat.
pli
adess cone,
thedololog
Plat.
ai - d i t1
er,gar q'g nkhe de
tter r
prior Fin
14. Fireplace restrictions shall be included within the covenants submitted at the
time of Final Plat. These restrictions shall prohibit open-hearth fire places,
require conformance to EPA Phase II standards, and shall allow an unlimited
number of gas fireplaces.
15. Engineered foundations shall be required for all dwelling units prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
of A-f'a •Fizo lam+ a►- R /)11'11-4 '-1
Staff had recommen e that t e ollowing conaition,which was eliminated from the motion
of approval from the Planning Commission, be an additional condition of approval:
The applicant shall submit approval of Army Corps
modifications to the Blue Creek channel prior to
Staff still suggests that a letter or approval from the Corp of E
form of an approved Nationwide Permit or evidence that no 4
is appropriate.
of Engineers for al
441 Go -rte—nc.4
gineers, either in the
tting is necessary,
-1911.P51 --teNeP..-14‘taINItT"
6
LUGICIIL_SURVEY
TEL 1Io 8662461
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Goolr,gy
ptr ,,�r(mrtnt of Nalura) Resnllr,:cs
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 715
Denver, COlor9trn 110203
Thune 0031866-2611
FAX (30:n 1166-2,161
February 21, 1994
Mr, Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 lith Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81(i01
I eh 24 lu:56 I,Iu.U10
STATE 01= COLORADO
DEPART MErn or
NATURAL
RESOURCES
CA -94-0010
Rny Romer
Governor
Nen Salazar
Cxccullve DIrerlor
Mlchacl P. Long
Division Ulrvt hn
VIA? Cowart
Slatr Gcologlst
nntl tshcc rrrr
Re: Arnold'S Meadows Sketch Plart -- Proposed Subdivision oil the Eagle CountylGarlicld
County Boundary North of (new) 5.11. 82, Nr. El Jebel
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have reviewed the materials
submitted for and made a field inspection on February 14, 1994, of the site of the proposed
residential subdivision indicated alcove. At the tine of site visit, there was show cover over
much of the parcel and so some of our comments are based on prior experiences in the
area. The following comments summarize our findings.
(1) The only serious geologic constraint to development of this parcel as planned is the
possibility of ground lowering (sinkhole development) caused by collapse of underground
voids in the Eagle Valley Evaporite [Formation] which underlies the older alluvial gravels
of the Roaring Fork River and younger gravels of Blue Creek. 'These gravels are found at
the surface over most. of the parcel, Otherwise, these gravels present. few serious foundation -
engineering or other geologic problems, except as noted in (3), fur this or any other typical
residential development. Because of this possibility, we recommend that the proponent have
a shallow geophysical survey made to determine if any such voids are present:! You will
recall that WC have made similar recommendations in the past for ether similar wets and
subdivision proposals where the Eagle Valley Formation is at or near the surface.
(2) The overall drainage across the parcel is excellent except for places iimnediately.
.adjacent to the steeper slopes on il.s north side. It will be advisable for the developer and/or
lot purchasers of lots 8 to 14 (in Garfield County) to have a drainage engincell evaluate
drainage across these lots before siting buildings and other improvements,
•
(3) It is possible that during wetter years or spring snowrnel1 runoff times that the water
table in the lower flatter parts of this parcel could rise above normal foundation depths for
structures with basements. For this reason, we recommend that the townhouses not have
]L0G1CIL_SURVEY TEL Hu 38662161 Feb 2. LI 10:56 Ido.U1U P.u2
Mr. Dave Michaelson
February 24, .1994
Page 2
any below -grade space other than crawl spaces.
1f the recommendations inudc above arc followed turd made conditions of <<pprot1a1 of this
subdivision, then we have no geology -related objection to R.
Sincerely,
It nes M. Soule
Engineering Geologist
cc: Eagle County Planning 1)cpartntent.
GEOLOGICRL_SURVEY TEL No.3038662461 Jun 9,94 13:51 No.006 F'.u1
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) Hbb•2611
FAX (303) 8&6.24b1
June 9, 1994 GA -94-0016
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
117"irt
1EPARrMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Rny Runner
(;vvei nur
l•1na.$ S, lochhpail
Ekpr olive Dir pr Ira
Mir hart N. Lonµ
Divisum DIIet or
Vicki Cnw i,i
Stale (;NdriRlsi
and Dirn,t�n
Re: Arnold's Meadows Subdivision Preliminary Plan -- Proposed Subdivision on the Eagle
County -Garfield County Boundary North of (new) S.H, 82, Nr, El Jebel
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
At your request we have re -reviewed the materials submitted previously and commented on
in our letter to you of February 24, 1994 (copy attached), as well as the newly submitted
materials submitted recently. In addition, 1 visited the site again as previously there was
significant snow cover which made all but very generalized field study of the area
impossible. The following comments summarize our findings.
(1) Our most serious geology -related concern about development of this parcel as planned
remains the possibility of surface ground failure caused by collapse of underground solution
cavities, Le, sinkhole formation, The newly submitted Summary Report of Ceotechnical
Conditions and Preliminary Recommendations prepared by Chen Northern, Inc., and dated
April 18, 1994, indicates that, "Sinkholes were not noted in the area of the proposed
development. The exploratory borings [12 in number] did not penetrate the bedrock and an
evaluation of sinkhole -related subsidence potential is beyond the scope of this investigation_ In
our opinion, the risk of ground subsidence within the development is relatively low.". Our chief
concern about these continents and their validity insofar as related potential hazards for this
development, as currently proposed, is that there is no standard for potential hazards
indicated in the Chen Northern statement and, as a result, their value of "relatively low" is
therefore meaningless. Their final statement in the same paragraph indicates that they can
evaluate this hazard if their client (Isom and Associates) desires to do so. Our opinion is
that this hazard should be evaluated by valid geotechnical and/or geophysical methods prior
to approval of this subdivision proposal and appropriate hazard -mitigation measures if any
are deemed to he needed or possible should be indicated in the consultant's (Chen Northern
or another) report.
GEOLOGICAL_SURVEY
(
TEL No.3038662461 Jun 9,94 13:51 No.006 P.02
Mr. Dave Michaelson
June 9, 1994
Page 2
(2) The other comments made in the Chen Northern report and their observations and
recommendations are valid and should be followed. Especially important are their continents
about debris -flow potential, site-specific investigations, and ground -water conditions.
Sincerely,
1'. mes M. Soule
Engineering Geologist
cc: Eagle County Community Development Department
LEAVENWORI'II & CALOIA, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
SHERRY A. CALOIA
HAYDN WINSTON
SAMUEL J. LIGHT
JEFFERSON V. HOUPT
Mr. David Michaelson
Garfield County Planning
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
May 17, 1994
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261
FAX: (303) 945-7336
Re: Arnold Meadows Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Dear Dave:
I received the preliminary plan submittal for the Arnold Meadows Subdivision dated April
20, 1994. I have the following continents:
1. Article X1 of the Rules and Regulations of the District require the submission of
a raw water irrigation plan. A copy of these regulations is enclosed. Paragraph 12 of the Pre-
Inclusion'Agreement, a copy of which is enclosed, requires compliance with Article XI as part
of the preliminary plat submittal to both Eagle and Garfield Counties. Therefore, the developers
need to comply with this provision as soon as possible, although I do not believe it is necessary
to hold up the processing of the preliminary plat. The District would like any preliminary plat
approval to be contingent upon submission to the District, and approval by the District, of a raw
water irrigation plan as required by Article XI and by the Pre -Inclusion Agreement.
2. The District will also require extensive covenants, of which the District is the
third -party beneficiary, to ensure that the raw water irrigation plan that is adopted, and provides
the basis for reduction in tap fees, is enforceable by the District and enforced as the primary
enforcement entity by the property owners association. The covenants submitted as part of this
package are not adequate for the District's purposes.
3. The Pre -Inclusion Agreement also provides for certain landscaping to occur at the
developer's expense, as more fully set forth in paragraph 17. This landscape plan also should
be submitted simultaneously with the raw water irrigation plan.
4. Finally, prior to final plat, the District will require the execution of a line
extension agreement concerning utility construction.
IF: \FILES \MICI IASL.1 ur
-11
•
LEAVENWORTII & CALOIA, P.C.
Mr. David Michaelson
Page 2
May 17, 1994
I will defer to Louis Meyer, the District's consulting engineer, concerning technical
issues related to the utility plans.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plan.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWOIZTII & CALOIA, P.C.
LEL:fin
Enclosures
cc: Larry Green, Esq.
Ed Podolak
Steve Isom
Louis Meyer, P.E.
F:\FILES\MICHAEL 1LT
tz-
u..YYYF.4wnWwY��YNWWM�.wWM,wYWMw.wWMMW• ��• � -
.ldrwn.Y.1aJw wlri.dnun�xY nb,ii,ur�«x�rw:.x.�r.r.-�_..-i- r.
COMMUNITY DEVLOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
(303) 328-8730
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Mark Bean
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81603-3303
RE: Arnold Meadows Preliminary Plan
Dear Mark and Dave:
500 BROADWAY
P.O. BOX 179
EAGLE, COLORADO 81631
FAX: (303) 328-7185
May 18, 1994
Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on the
referenced proposal. I have taken the liberty of enclosing copies of
the two previous Eagle County staff communications with your office as
well as the staff recommendation of the Arnold Meadows Sketch Plan to
the Eagle Board of County Commissioners. It is our opinion that these
3 items should adequately cover all of the issues as we currently see
them. (The Sketch Plan has been approved by the Board)
Eagle County is now in receipt of the Arnold Meadows Preliminary
Plan as well as the Mid Valley Metro District "1041" application. You
have been referred a copy of the Preliminary Plan and should receive
it shortly. You should know, however, that the Preliminary Plan
cannot be heard by the Board until the "1041" application has been
heard. Typically, they are presented concurrently. however, the
"1041" application cannot be presented to the Board until at least 30
days after the Permit Authority has been determined it to be complete.
Until such determination has been made, we are unable to schedule
these 2 files for hearing before the Uoard. You will be referred a
copy of the application when the Authority finds it complete.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward
to continued cooperation with Garfield County.
Sincerely,
f
Paul E. Clarkson AICP
Planner
CC:
Keith Montag
Sid Fox
SU -318-94-S & P
1041-026-94
Chrono
�3
• •
EAGLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARCH 29, 1994
FILE NO.:
TITLE:
FILE NO.:
TITLE:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
STAFF CONTACT:
SU -318-94-S
Arnold Meadows Subdivision Sketch Plan
ZC-259-94
Arnold Meadows Zone Change
Between the Eagle Garfield County line and Blue Lake V,
North of the Mid Valley Metro District
Robert and Gloria Arnold represented by Isom and
Associates
Paul Clarkson
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to develop his
property which straddles the Eagle/Garfield County line. 45 multi-
family and 14 single family units are proposed on 28+ acres in
Garfield County and 9 single family units on 16+ acres in Eagle
County. Residential Suburban Low Density Zoning (15,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size) is being proposed for that portion of the
development in Eagle County.
II. APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
III. SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning:
East: Single Family / Blue Lake PUD/R-10
West: Garfield County / proposed 45 MF & 14 SF
North: Undeveloped / Resource
South: Mid Valley Metro District Treatment Ponds
Existing Zoning: Resource
Proposed Zoning: Residential Suburban Low Density
Proposed No. of
Dwelling Units: 9
Total Area: 16.355 acres
Minimum Lot Area: 0.50 acre
Maximum Lot Area: 1.93 acres
Percent Open Space: 41.6%
Percent Usable
Open Space:
Gross Density:
Net Density:
Water:
Sewer:
IV. MASTER PLANS:
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
15.3%
1.81 DU's per acre
1.05 DU's per acre
Mid Valley Metro
Mid Valley Metro
Resource
Develop-
ment
I-Iousing
Econ.
Envir.
Open
Space
Rec.
Trans.
E120 Use
Public
Services
Public
Lands
Conformance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non
Conformance
X
Not
Applicable
X
X
Eagle County Board of County Commissioners
SU -318-94-S / ZC-259-94, Arnold Meadows
March 29, 1994
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PIAN
MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN
Land Use
Cooperation
Open Space
Provision
Unique Char.
Preservation
Visual
Quality
Development
Patterns
Hazards
Wildlife
Conformance
Conformance
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non
Conformance
Non
Conformance
X
X
Not
Applicable
X
X
X
MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN
V. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Conformance with Master Plans
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
Objectives
(1) To direct new development of urban and suburban densities to
community centers. These centers should be separated by open
space to enhance community identity.
(2) To reduce development density outside of community centers in a
way which minimizes visual and physical impacts on the scenic and
agricultural lands that characterize Eagle County.
Locating urban density residential and commercial development in
areas that are not in community centers promotes the "stripping out"
of the Roaring Fork Valley. The extension of infrastructure
facilities when such facilities are already available elsewhere also
promotes further "sprawl".
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
It is the policy of Eagle County to encourage development to occur in
and around existing communities in order to enhance open space values
in the outlying areas.
2
Housing
Transport.
Community
Facilities
Environ.
El Jebel/
Basalt
Lower
Frying I'an
Ruedi
Missouri
Heights
Conformance
X
X
X
X
Non
Conformance
X
Not
Applicable
X
X
X
V. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Conformance with Master Plans
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
Objectives
(1) To direct new development of urban and suburban densities to
community centers. These centers should be separated by open
space to enhance community identity.
(2) To reduce development density outside of community centers in a
way which minimizes visual and physical impacts on the scenic and
agricultural lands that characterize Eagle County.
Locating urban density residential and commercial development in
areas that are not in community centers promotes the "stripping out"
of the Roaring Fork Valley. The extension of infrastructure
facilities when such facilities are already available elsewhere also
promotes further "sprawl".
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
It is the policy of Eagle County to encourage development to occur in
and around existing communities in order to enhance open space values
in the outlying areas.
2
• •
Eagle County Board of County Commissioners
SU -318-94-S / ZC-259-94, Arnold Meadows
March 29, 1994
While it may be argued that this proposal is occurring "around" an
existing community, the availability of developable land within the
El Jebel community should preclude development outside it.
MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN
This site is identified for potential low density residential. This
designation is similar to that of the Resource Zone District.
Therefore, the recommended allowance for the 16+ acres in Eagle
County would be 1 dwelling unit.
2. 1041
The application includes statements that the Mid Valley
Metropolitan District will provide water and sewer services. Such
extensions will be subject to the "Guidelines and Regulations for
Areas and Activities of State Interest of the County of Eagle, State
of Colorado." It has been the policy of the County that such
applications can only be considered prior to or during the
Preliminary Plan process. This is the "1041" process as designated
in Section 6.04 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, "Major
Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Sewage Treatment Systems."
3. Zoning Potential
The Residential Suburban Low Density Zone designation could
conceivably allow for up to 47 dwelling units on the 16+ acre site.
Staff would suggest that the file continue as a PUD for the 9 single
family lots.
4. Garfield County
It is difficult to consider the proposed 9 lots without also
considering the proposed development in Garfield County. The Mid
Valley Community Master Plan recommends against this proposal but
that Plan does not consider the development potential in the
neighboring county. It is probably not good planning practice to
strictly adhere to the Community Plan in spite of all that may be
going on around the site. Therefore, Staff feels that 9 single
family lots and open space is appropriate if and only if the Arnold
proposal in Garfield County receives approval. The residential zone
change proposal was heard and approved by the Garfield County Board
of County Commissioners on March 14.
5. Mid Valley Treatment Ponds
The proposed development is within a few hundred feet of the
existing sewage treatment ponds. The possibility of odor complaints
is high. The pre -inclusion agreement between the developer and Mid
Valley contains language concerning the potential of this issue.
Language to the same effect should be included in the covenants and
final plats. Increasing the amount of platted private open space
would increase the buffer from any future expansions of the treatment
ponds. Platted building envelopes towards the north end of lots 7, 8
and 9 would have the same effect.
3
• •
Eagle County Board of County Commissioners
SU -318-94-S / ZC-259-94, Arnold Meadows
March 29, 1994
6. Open Space Connection
The possibility of connecting the open space improvements of Arnold
Meadows and Blue Lake along Blue Creek is high. Staff would request
that this possibility be thoroughly investigated. Connecting these
amenities would create a "sum greater than the parts".
7. Parcel Ownership
The Eagle County Surveyor has indicated that the 16.355 acre parcel
is actually 2 separate parcels with two separate owners: Arnold and
Nagel. The Nagle property was recently bought by Don Byers who has
been behind the development proposal, however, the applicants are
Robert and Gloria Arnold. This issue needs clarification.
8. Eagle County Engineer
An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) should be entered into between
Eagle and Garfield Counties for infrastructure maintenance by
Garfield County. The reasoning is that the only way to enter the
subdivision is through Garfield County. This, of course, will be
unnecessary should the infrastructure be private.
An extensive and detailed geologic and engineering investigation
should be performed. Also, the school district should be consulted
concerning school bus circulation.
9. Colorado Geological Survey
(1) There are some concerns for sinkhole development. A shallow
geophysical survey should be made.
(2) Drainage appears to be good except for places immediately
adjacent to the steeper slopes on the north side of the development.
A drainage engineer should evaluate the drainage on these lots before
siting buildings and other improvements.
10. Colorado State Forest Service
The proposed subdivision's wildfire hazard rating is "low" and
"moderate." The proposed mitigation is sufficient for the "low"
rating. Further mitigation as outlined in the letter from John
Grieve, dated 2/22/94, will be required for those lots rated
"moderate".
11. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District
(1) Any cuts for roads or constructions should be revegetated.
(2) Weed free seed and mulch should be used and monitored.
(3) Need for dog control in the covenants.
(4) Concern for proper maintenance and protection of irrigation
ditch.
(5) Concern for continued use of irrigation water rights.
12. Irrigation Ditch
It is felt that an irrigation ditch bisecting platted property is
inappropriate. It interferes with proper maintenance and restricts
the buildability of the parcel. Such ditches should be along
property lines and in designated easements.
4
Eagle County Board of County Commissioners
SU -318-94-S / ZC-259-94, Arnold Meadows
March 29, 1994
VI. FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 2.14.04(1) of the Eagle County Land
Use Regulations (Zone District Amendment):
a) The rezoning is not consistent with the Master Plan, however, the
area in question possesses the geological, physical and other
environmental conditions compatible with the characteristics of
the use requested. The advantages of the use do not outweigh the
disadvantages:
b) Conceptual evidence exists that the land has access and can be
serviced with water and sewage disposal systems, however, it has
not been demonstrated that it is appropriate with the zone
district being sought;
c) 1) The area for which rezoning is requested has not changed or
is not changing to such a degree that it is in the public
interest to encourage a new use or density in the area; or
2) The proposed rezoning is not necessary in order to provide
land for a demonstrated need.
Pursuant to Section 2.17.02(3) of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations (Sketch Plan Review), the following have been considered:
a) Conformance with the Master Plan, policies, guidelines, zoning
and other applicable regulations;
b) Suitability of the land for subdivision;
c) Comments and recommendations from the agencies listed in Section
2.17.02(1);
d) Evidence that the parcel of land proposed for subdivision has
access to the state highway system capable of servicing the
development.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Zone District Amendment: Denial
Sketch Plan: Approval
1. The proposal shall proceed to the Preliminary Stage as a Planned
Unit Development for 9 single family units;
2. A "1041" application shall be submitted with the Preliminary Plan
for concurrent review if it is determined to be required;
3. Language similar to the pre -inclusion agreement between the
developer and Mid Valley shall be included in the covenants and
final plats concerning the close proximity to the sewage
treatment ponds. Either the amount of platted private open space
should be increased or building envelopes should be platted
towards the north end of lots 7, 8 and 9 in order to increase the
buffer from the treatment ponds;
5
• •
Eagle County Board of County Commissioners
SU -318-94-S / ZC-259-94, Arnold Meadows
March 29, 1994
4. The applicant shall investigate with the Blue Lake Homeowners
Association the possibility of connecting their respective open
spaces;
5. If any infrastructure maintenance is required that would
ordinarily be provided by the County, an IGA should be
facilitated by the applicant and between the two counties for
such maintenance to be provided by Garfield County;
6. An extensive and detailed geologic and engineering investigation
should be performed particularly on the lots immediately adjacent
to the steeper slopes on the north side of the development.
Drainage on these lots should also be evaluated;
7. The Colorado State Forest Service and the Mt. Sopris Soil
Conservation District concerns should be addressed in the
covenants and/or the PUD Control Document;
8. The lots should be reconfigured or the ditch realigned so that no
lot is being bisected by the ditch. A ditch easement agreement
should be arrived at between the applicant and the ditch owners.
If the ditch is piped underground, then every effort should be
made to position the pipe so that a minimum of public
infrastructure is disturbed should the pipe need repair.
9. The school district and RFTA should be consulted concerning
internal circulation and bus stops.
VIII. APPLICANT RESPONSE:
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT:
At their Public Meeting of March 17, 1994, the Roaring Fork Planning
Commission unanimously recommended approval incorporating the findings and
the Staff recommended conditions adding the language, "If the ditch is
piped underground, then every effort should be made to position the pipe so
that a minimum of public infrastructure is disturbed should the pipe need
repair." to condition No. 8.
6
COMMUNITY DEVLOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
(303) 328-8730
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81603-3303
RE: Arnold Meadows
Dear Dave:
500 BROADWAY
P.O. BOX 179
EAGLE. COLORADO 81631
FAX (303) 328-7185
February 10, 1994
Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on the above
reference proposal. We would like take this opportunity to reiterate
our comments and concerns in the December 30, 1993 letter to your
office concerning the application to re -zone the site.
The Mid Valley Community Master Plan recommends that development
of urban and suburban densities proceed down valley no further than
Blue Lake. However, it appears that the project has reached a level
of approval and we would therefore, like to make these additional
comments:
1.
We think that it would be appropriate to ask the developer
to contact the Blue Lake Homeowner's Association about the
possibility of connecting their respective private open spaces.
I believe that Blue Lake is proposing a path along Blue Creek and
around Blue Lake. Connecting these amenities would create a "sum
greater than the parts."
2. As you know, Eagle County is considering the development of
some 16 acres of Arnold property between the Garfield County line
and Blue Lake. The Mid Valley Community Master Plan recommends
that this area remain in very low density residential
development. Staff recognizes that continuing to restrict the
development of this 16 acre site in light of urban densities on
either side is tantamount to ignoring reality. Therefore, it is
likely that Staff will be recommending approval of that portion
of Arnold Meadows in Eagle County should the development in
Garfield County proceed to the next step of approval. However,
you should know that if the roads are proposed to be public, it
is likely that Eagle County will be requiring the developer to
facilitate an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the two
• •
afield County Planning Department
ebruary 10, 1994
Page 2
counties concerning the maintenance of the roads. Indications
from the Eagle County Engineering Department as well as Road and
Bridge are that Eagle County should not be responsible for any
such maintenance. This will probably be a condition of approval
for that portion in Eagle County.
For your information, the application received by this
office is for a combined zone change and sketch plan. The zone
change request is for Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL)
which is a 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. We will be
recommending that the file proceed under a PUD approach for 9
units since it is conceivable that such RSL zoning will allow for
up to 46 units. This would be entirely unacceptable.
3. Eagle County has adopted regulations pursuant to HB 1041
which govern major extensions of existing domestic water and
sewage treatment systems. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District
will be required to partake in this process. A new service plan
will also be required. We do this to insure that anticipated
growth and development that may occur as a result of such major
extensions can be accommodated within the financial and
environmental capacity of the new and source development areas to
sustain such growth and development. It is also another tool by
which the planned and orderly development of land can be insured.
4. We also feel that you may want to refer this file to the
Colorado Geological Survey and the local Soil Conservation
District (Mt. Sopris?). Blue Lake has experienced some debris
sliding along the steeper slopes and while we have not yet
experienced it, there has been some expressed concerns for
sinkhole development. Additionally, there have been some
problems concerning a high ground water table during the
irrigation season. The fifth and final filing of Blue Lake has
been required to take certain measures to mitigate the numerous
wet basements and crawl spaces in Filing 4. The proximity of
Blue Creek and the Cerise and Arnold Ditch will likely cause
similar difficulties in Arnold Meadows.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to
continued cooperation with Garfield County.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Clarkson AICP
Planner
cc:
Keith Montag
Sid Fox
SU -318-94-S
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
December 30, 1993
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81603-3303
RE: Arnold Meadows
Dear Mark:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above reference
proposal. The Engineering and Community Development Departments
recently discussed it and have the following comments:
1.
Locating urban density residential and commercial
development in areas that are not in community and
commercial centers promotes the "stripping out" of the
Roaring Fork Valley. New development of urban and suburban
densities and uses should be directed to existing community
centers that are separated by open space which enhances
community identity. Encouraging development of higher
densities and more intense uses outside of the community
centers increases the visual and physical impacts on the
scenic and agricultural lands that characterize the Valley.
The Roaring Fork Valley has been coming under an
increasing amount of development pressure over the years.
It is becoming increasingly important that critical buffer
areas between community centers remain primarily in their
natural state. This proposal only increases the threat to
the open rural character of the Valley.
2. The intent of the CDOT was to convert the old Hwy 82
into a local street accessing the existing homes in this
area. The road was also intended to function as a bikeway.
Encouraging commercial type uses on this road will increase
the truck and passenger vehicle traffic and ultimately have
the effect of defeating the purpose of building the four -
lane highway in the first place.
J
• •
Garfield County Planning Department
December 30, 1993
Page 2
3. The application does not state whether or not direct
access to the C/L will be provided from the new 4 -lane. The
intersection of the new Highway 82 and the old Valley Road
(at Blue Lake) has an extremely short stacking distance and
is considered by the Eagle County Engineering Dept. to be
entirely inadequate as a commercial access point.
The above comments are developed from and are based upon
philosophies, goals, objectives and policies of the various Eagle
County Master Plans utilized by staff in the review of local
development proposals. If you should desire further
clarification, please contact any planner on staff at Eagle
County.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Clarkson AICP
Planner
cc: Keith Montag
Sid Fox