HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 08.10.1993P/P
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
E=6116 APPLIciart
FE ST�+r F Q�Lt
�,A 61
A.5 D►Am►D i
E — WELL
Rzrb✓11T
PC 8/10/93
REQUEST: Christeleit Views Subdivision Preliminary
Plan
OWNER: Peter and Linda Christeleit
LOCATION: A tract of land situated in Section 30, T6S,
R88W, 6th P.M.; located approximately 2.5
miles east of Highway 82 off County Road
119.-1Zac C ANWorA
SITE DATA: 39.511 acres.
WATER: Domestic well with water system
SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems
(LS.D.S.)
ACCESS:
Access from C.R. 119 to lots via previously
approved subdivision road.
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District D, Rural Areas with Moderate
Environmental Constraints on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is located at the northwest end of Spring
Valley in an area of single family residences and ranches. The subject property
consists primarily of hill slopes, a portion of a basaltic ridge which forms the
west side of the valley. A portion of the property is non -irrigated cropland.
Vegetation consists of oak, sagebrush and grasses. 'The parcel is located
immediately adjacent to the Christeleit Subdivision approved in October of 1991.
B. Project Description: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 39.511 acre
parcel into seven parcels, ranging in size from 2.275 acres to 7.891 acres. It is
proposed to develop a central water system using a domestic well as the source.
Each lot will have an ISDS system.
• •
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Colorado State Forest Service: Sketch Plan comments noted that wildfire
hazard is low to moderate. Concerns about a single access to the development
and distance to the nearest fire protection were noted. Recommendations for
fire protection were made (See letter on pages S4" (.2 ). No comments have
been received regarding the Preliminary Plan submittal.
B. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: Dee Blue recommended that any cuts
be revegetated, and recommended a reclamation plan to address soil
disturbance. In addition, the District recommended that animal control
regulations be adopted and enforced through covenants (see letter on page
).
No other agencies that received the application have commented at the time of
writing.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: A review of the Comprehensive Plan
indicates that the proposal is generally consistent with the exception of issues
surrounding Red Canyon Road. Objective 2 states that development should
"ensure that roads that are considered inadequate to serve additional
development are upgraded as development occurs". Policy 2B states that "a road
which is already at or above its design capacity and due to terrain or geology of
the area, cannot be further improved to safely accommodate additional traffic
volumes may be a basis for denial of a development proposal". Red Canyon
Road, due to topography and roadway width, is considered to be in need of
significant improvements to accommodate future development.
B. Soils/Topography: The 39.551 acre tract subject to this subdivision application
was originally included in the original Christeliet subdivision, but was removed
prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners in 1991. The original
geologic report for the 1991 subdivision included an analysis of geologic and soil
conditions for the 39+ tract.
The geologic report, conducted by Nicholas Lampiris, Phd., is included in the
applicant's submittal package. Mr. Lampiris identified several constraints on
the property, including limitations imposed by the soils on the property for home
foundations and conventional septic systems based on SCS soils information for
the site. Dr. Lampiris noted that engineered foundations and ISDS may be
necessary. Some of the proposed parcels have portions too steep to develop,
however a building site can be found on each parcel. Areas of particular concern
include areas of significant slope on lots 1, 5, and 6. These areas are shown on
the preliminary plan.
C. Road Design: No road plans or profiles have been submitted with the
application. Primary access is via an extension of the existing roadway from the
previously approved subdivision from County Road 119 (Red Canyon Road).
The access easement graduates from a 60 foot right-of-way through lots 1 and
2, and then is reduced to a 40 foot right-bf-way providing access to the
remaining parcels. This is consistent with a previous approval (Wooden Deer
•
Subdivision), where the applicant was allowed to reduce the right-of-way as the
access road provides access to a reduced number of parcels. Current standards
allow a 40 foot right-of-way when accessing 2 to 10 lots. No road profiles have
been submitted with the application to determine if the roadway stays below the
10 percent required grade standard, although a review of the topographic data
on the preliminary plan does not appear to present a problem.
An additional issue surrounds the extension of the previously approved
subdivision road to access this project. The previous subdivision created only
five (5) lots, which, under current roadway standards, would require only a 40'
right-of-way. With this proposal, the portion of the roadway extending through
the previous subdivision actually serves a total of 12 lots, which would require
a 50' right-of-way and a chip and seal or gravel surface. The previously
approved road is a 60' gravel roadway with 12 foot lane width. This meets the
current road standards.
D. Water: Applicants have applied to the Basalt Water Conservancy District for
water for the proposed 7 lots. The application has been approved. No site
specific well tests have been performed to date. The geologic report states that
"water will been to be obtained via wells...with a projected depth of 180 to 300
feet, although it could be less." Information from existing wells in the vicinity
of the project, including the adjacent subdivision indicate that sufficient
groundwater appears to be available to serve the subdivision. The State
Engineer's comments are attached on page -
E. Wastewater: Sewage disposal will be by ISDS. Percolation tests were conducted
at two locations within the project area, and indicated that the average perc rate
was 18 minute per inch. This rate is acceptable and consistent with Garfield
County standards.
F. Fire Protection: Fire Water storage may need to be increased for fire protection
purposes. As was the case with the adjacent subdivision, the subject property is
CAS -tars 01.4 not located within the boundaries of a fire protection district. Therefore, no
fin-+ LOT response is guaranteed in event of an emergency by either Carbondale or
1. -EAC -_ Glenwood Springs rural districts. Section 9.73 states that "where there is no
Me ri LI central water system, a centrally located fire protection tank shall be designed
NNRA-r1Q V to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision." No such facilities have
N -T F' been proposed with the Preliminary Plan submittal, although discussion did take
D�s-re, e—r
place regarding cisterns on each lot during the sketch plan submittal. Staff
suggests that some form of fire protection be a condition of approval.
G. Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and
development requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
H. Homeowner's Association: Given the common access needs of the two
subdivisions, it may be appropriate to combine the groups together for road
maintenance purposes. The Christeleit View homeowners will need a separate
homeowners association to deal with the ownership, maintenance and use of the
water system.
•
3
I
• •
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the application, based on 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 the
Basalt Water Conservation District water contract and for 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. The applicant shall modify the existing
Homeowner's Association to include a joint roadway maintenance
agreement.
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 $200 per lot in school impact fees prior to
approval of the final plat.
8. All roadways shall be designed and constructed in conformance with
design standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at
the time of final plat.
9. The following plat notes shall be included on the final plat:
($DO
P1 -1(L._
A) USFS and State Forestry wildfire prevention guidelines, per Kelly
Roger's letter dated April 20, 1993, shall be incorporated into
residential site planning and design.
B) A site specific soils report shall be conducted for each residence
prepared by a registered professional engineer.
C) Engineered foundations and wastewater systems may be required
by the Building Official.
D) This subdivision is not located within a fire protection district.
E) A\ C` C--7 L -4A4( ii tA_,
t (5t7zEcavi Pepez,
LzyT S.)FFuctatT FR.r J\
410
PIs-�Qw M
• �" W\E- oarlOrl
:i- 1S¼)0F 1\ C3') U) wi . \
1HS-riLad�
lc> • .pw,z,- I Ma+its) i,n , ; pCs-02c C T 15 Fo4-N, O
Dee-(ciEriA _9( .4 LP,P.(14 , `oeD
41OM T PUp2�3s
SU(�O.v�S�o J W l L.- Ua✓ P-tA`)T4'E
\ Ltd Tcs o ,.) S u cvl P 1D i S I L1 CT
(APR 2 1 1993 ;
C+ F F1ELD COU(\fl Y
ate
April 20, 1993
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Christeleit Views Subdivision
Dear Mr. Michaelson,
FOREST
SERVICE
State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
"I"elcphone (303) 248-7325
Wildfire Hazard Review
I have reviewed the Sketch Plan Report for the Christeleit Views
Subdivision, submitted by Peter and Linda Christeleit, and
visited the site on April 16th. I have the following comments in
regard to wildfire hazard for this proposal.
Vegetation in the proposed subdivision is primarily sagebrush and
non -irrigated cropland. There are some scattered patches of
oakbrush, the most extensive patch being in the southwest corner
of the subdivision in parcel one. Slopes are 10 to 20%.
Overall risk of wildfire in the area covered by this proposal is
low to moderate. Sagebrush fires are of relatively low intensity,
and are usually controlled easily. The cultivated fields in and
surrounding this parcel would act as effective firebreaks. Of
primary concern are the small areas covered with oakbrush, mostly
on parcel one.
In regards to access, it was noted that the proposal does not
provide for dual ingress/egress to the subdivision as recommended
in CSFS standards. In addition, the area is presently about five
miles from the nearest fire station, and response time would
likely be lengthy due to the winding gravel roads involved.
Several measures are being taken to help mitigate the potential
fire danger in this proposal. The applicant has stated that a
1500 gallon cistern will be provided for water storage, and will
be accessible to fire trucks. In addition, the covenants for this
subdivision will specify non-flammable roofing materials. Ron
Leach of the Carbondale Fire Protection District has examined and
approved the proposed road system, which is being built to county
specifications.
My specific recommendations to further mitigate wildfire hazard
for this proposed subdivision are:
-Remove all vegetation within ten feet of structures. This
area should be maintained in the future as low groundcover
such as mowed grass.
• •
-Brush or trees within 30 feet of homes should be thinned,
if necessary, so that remaining clumps are no more than 10
feet wide. This may be necessary on parcel 2, depending on
exact location of the building envelope.
The above recommendations are covered in more detail in the CSFS
publication "Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface"
which was given to Mr. Christeleit at the time of my site visit.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. Should you
have any questions regarding the above comments, please call me
at 248-7325.
Sincerely,
Kelly Rogers
Asst. District Forester
cc: Carbondale FPD
Peter Christeleit
MOUNT SOPRIS SOIZDNSERVATION DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 1302
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
JULY 22, 1993
Mark Bean, Planner
Garfield Cty. Planning Department
109 8th St. Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Sir,
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil
Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application
and plan for the Christeleit Views 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.
Perhaps a reclamation plan should be proposed for any soil
disturbance.
The board is always concerned about animal control in all
areas 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.
Of prime concern to the Board is the proper maintenance and
protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site.
New landowner should be informed the ditch owners have right
of way easement to maintain the irrigation system. And that
they will be cleaning and working on the ditch and that this
work may be in their yards.
The district would like to know what the impact will be on
the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be
protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible.
Sincerely,
edLe -- Com_
Dee Blue, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
I'honc (303) 866-35111
FAX (303) 866-3589 •
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. McGregor:
May 4, 1993
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
rlal D. Simpson
State Engineer
Re: Christeleit Views Subdivision, Sketch Plan
Sec. 30, T6S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 39.511 acre parcel into 7
single family dwelling lots. No information was given on proposed water requirements. The source
of water supply is indicated to be "Domestic Shared Well Agreement" on the application form.
However submittal materials indicate that the source will be individual on lot wells operating under
a Basalt Water Conservancy District contract.
Because Basalt contracts are available, we have no objection to this proposal at this sketch
plan stage, if individual wells operating under a Basalt contract are to be the supply. Prior to any
subsequent approvals we recommend that the applicant provide details of the anticipated water use
including the amount of lawn irrigation for each lot and any watering of domestic animals that
might be anticipated. Based on these uses a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District
should be provided. Plat notes should be included to specify the limitations on well use and to
indicate the homeowners association's responsibilities in maintaining the Basalt contract.
If you have any questions in this matter, please contact John Schurer of this office.
Sincertly,\
Purus ttam Dass, P.E.
Supervising Water Resource Engineer
PD/JS/christy
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Bruce DeBrine
Form -NO. OFFICE OF THE STA _. -r-= ENGINEER
Gwsw �� COLORADO DIVISIWOF WATER RESOURCES •
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
APPLICANT
C
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 0412574
DIV. 5 CNTY. 23 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD
Lot: B Block: Filing: Subdiv: CHRISTELEIT
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 30
Twp 6 S RANGE 88 W 6th P.M.
CHRISTELEIT HOMEOWNERS ASSCC
% 4954 214 ROAD
NEW CASTLE CO 81647
( 303)984-2265
PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING WELL
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
4300 Ft. from South Section Line
0100 Ft. from East Section Line
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DO'5S NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDTO'S OF APPROVAL.
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does
not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right
from seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Rules 2 CCR 402-2,
unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump
Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 17.
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) for the use of an existing well, constructed under permit no. 41375-F (MH -18217),
appropriating ground water tributary to the Roaring Fork River, as an alternate point cf diversion to the Basalt Conduit on the
condition that the well shall be operated on when a water a!I^tment cnniract between the well owner and the Basalt Water
Conservancy District for the release of replacement water from Ruedi Reservoir is in effect, or under an approved plan for
augmentation.
4) The use of ground water from this well, combined with all ether wells operating under(asa!t Water Conservancy Distrigt)water
allotment contract nos. 3.3.5.127 and 3.3.5.205, is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside 12 single family
dwellings, the irrigation of not more than 34,000 square feet of home lawns and gardens, and the watering of domestic animals,
All use of this well will be curtailed unless the water allotment contract cr a plan for augmentation is in effect.
5) This well must be included in a pian for augmentation submitted by the Basalt Waiter Conservancy District and approved by the
Division 5 Water Court.
6) The maximum pumping rate shall not exceed 25 GPM.
7) The combined average annual amount of ;round water to be appropriated by this well and all other wells operating under Basalt
Water Conservancy District water allotment contract nos. 3.3.5.127 and 3.3.5.205, shall not exceed 6.6 acre-feet.
8) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions
must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request.
9) The well must be located not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit.
10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number(s)
as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings.
_9 -
APPROVED
JD2
(
State Engineer
Receipt No. 0350791
DATE ISSUED J 199 EXPIRATION DATE
f