HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 01.09.2002PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
ENGINEER:
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
PC 01/09/02
Sketch Plan review of the River Oaks Subdivision
Gail and Gary Schultz
High Country Engineering, Inc.
2859 County Road 335
Wells
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)
CR 335
A/I (Agricultural Industrial)
AIR/RD (Agricultural, Residential, Rural Density),
A/I (Agricultural Industrial)
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
According to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, this site is identified as
having potential for site specific use limitations such as flood plain, slope hazards, soil
hazards, septic constraints, and surficial geology (mud flow, debris fan). The
Comprehensive Plan recommends that these elements be evaluated during plan review.
Some relevant goals of the comp plan follow:
Section III -2.0 Housing: " To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future
residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient
residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment".
Section III -7.0 Water & Sewer Services: "To ensure the provision of legal, adequate,
dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new
development."
"The proliferation of I.S.D.S on individual sites should be carefully reviewed in terms of
soil constraints and drainage characteristics on each site."
"Projects proposing the use of ISDS will be required to assess the site's capability to
accommodate these systems prior to project approval."
1
1 •
Section I1I-8.0 Natural Environment: "Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern
that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical
capacity of the land, and is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of Garfield
County."
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Site Description: The subject property is located approximately three and a half (3.5) miles
west of the City of New Castle, directly off of County Road 355. The entire property has
frontage on the Colorado River. The existing conditions on the site include a single-family
home on what would become Lot 1 if the application is approved as proposed. As seen on
the plat provided, the boundary of the 100 year floodplain cover significantly large portions
of Lots 2 & 3.
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into a
total of 3 lots. This would constitute a total of 3 dwelling units within a total development
area of 15.04 acres. Thus, a total density of one (1) dwelling unit per approximately 5 acres.
Lot acreages range in size from 2.3 to 8.6 acres. Water is to be supplied to each lot by
individual wells. Individual sewage disposal systems are also proposed for each lot. As
access to all lots is proposed to be directly off of County Road 355, the applicant should
note that driveway permits for Lots 2 and 3 will need to be obtained from Garfield County
Road and Bridge by the time of Preliminary Plan.
III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS:
The site plan was sent to the following agencies:
A. Town of Silt: The Town of Silt Planning Commission reviewed the application and had
the following comments:
The Town of Silt is concerned with the amount of potential pollution that could be
caused by ISDS units along the river. The Town believes that, should these ISDS units
leak, ground water could be contaminated, as well as water that Silt may draw out of
the river. We would recommend that Garfield County mandate that these septic
systems be places no closer than 150 feet to the river.
B. Town of New Castle: The Town of New Castle Planning Commission reviewed the
sketch plan and had the following comments:
1. The County Commissioners should complete the established agreement with the Town
of New Castle for joint maintenance of CR 335 adjacent to Town boundaries.
2. The County is reminded that each additional area subdivision, even though small,
adds traffic use to CR 335, which is already inadequate in condition and repair.
3. The opportunity to review and comment on this proposal is appreciated.
C. Holy Cross Electric: no comments received
D. Colorado Division of Wildlife: The Division of Wildlife had several comments
concerning wildlife habitat. Please see attached letter dated 11/26/01.
E. Qwest Communications: no comment received
F. Sheriff Department, Jim Sears: no comments received
2
• •
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan: At this time, the Planning Staff cannot make a determination
concerning Comprehensive Plan compliance. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area
as having several environmental concerns, and Sketch Plan requirements do not require the
applicant to investigate environmental issues to great depths. The applicant should be aware
of the submittal requirements called out in Section 4:40 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations for the Preliminary Plan. Of essential concern at this location is the presence of
the 100 year floodplain, potential slope hazards, soils constraints, surficial geology, and
future plans for the proposed ISDS systems considering that this property is located in an
area with a high water table.
B. Zoning: A single-family dwelling is a use by right in the A/I zone district. The applicant
should be aware of the following zone standards called out in Section 3:01 of the Garfield
County Zoning Regulations:
Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%).
Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet
from front lot line, whichever is greater;
The front setback currently provided for on the plat is 30', measured from the centerline of
County Road 355. As evidenced in the regulation above, this does not conform to Garfield
County regulations. This item will need to be addressed by the time of Preliminary Plat.
(2) Rear yard:: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1/2) the height of the principal
building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Height of Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet.
Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5
(Supplementary Regulations).
C. Subdivision: Some applicable general site standards (from section 9:00 of GarCo Sub. Regs)
which the applicant should be aware of are as follows:
9:12 Land subject to identified natural hazards, such as falling rock, land slides, snow
slides, mud flows, radiation, flooding or high water tables, shall not be platted for any use
other than open space or an uninhabitable portion of a lot over two (2) acres, unless
mitigation is proposed by a Colorado registered professional engineer qualified to do such
design.
9:13: Development plans shall preserve, to the maximum extent possible, natural features
such as unusual rock formations, lakes, rivers, streams and trees. Where appropriate, the
subdivider may be required to dedicate lands to lot owners to preserve these features. In no
case shall lots be designed such that a dwelling unit will be located closer than thirty feet
3
• •
(30) to a live stream, lake or pond, regardless of the fact that floodplain regulations may
allow dwelling units located closer in some instances.
9:15: One (1) dog shall be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision; and the
dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries. The
requirement shall be included in the protective covenants for the subdivision, with
enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a dog from the subdivision as a final
remedy in worst cases. (99-096)
9:16: No open hearth, solid fuel fireplaces are allowed anywhere within a subdivision.
One (1) new solid fuel burning stove, as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401,etseq., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling
units shall be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances.
(99-096)
9:17: Each subdivision shall have covenants requiring that all exterior lighting shall be
directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision. (99-096)
9:18: No further subdivision of a recorded subdivision shall be allowed, except where it is
provided for in an approved Preliminary Plan. (99-096)
D. Soils/Geology: The applicant should be aware that, at the time of Preliminary Plan, the new
zoning regulations and requirements recently adopted on Geologic Hazard areas will apply
to this application. The new regulations require, but are limited to, a full geologic report
with considerations for avalanche areas, landslide areas, rockfall areas, debris fan or
mudflow areas, unstable slopes, radioactive hazard areas, and ground subsidence areas.
The soils found on the subject property are (58) Potts-lldefonso complex, 12 to 25 percent
slopes, are found by the U.S. Soil Survey to have severe constraints for the following
elements: dwellings with basements, dwellings without basements, septic tank absorption
fields, and sewage lagoon areas.
All of these constraint concerns should be taken into consideration by the applicant and used
to review the proposed subdivision. Further, with the potential presence of steep slopes, the
applicant should be aware that Section 5.04.02(2) of the Zoning Resolution states:
Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum building envelope of 1
acre in an area that has less than forty percent (40%) slopes; however, a smaller
building envelope may be approved by the Board after review of the following which
shall be submitted by the applicant:
(A) A soil land foundation investigation prepared by a registered, professional
engineer.
(B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet.
(C) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered, professional
engineer.
(D) A detailed site plan of retaining walls or cuts, and fills in excess offive (5)
feet.
4
• •
(E) A detailed revegetation plan.
All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot and
shall provide evidence that all structures and facilities can be built within such
building envelope area so as not to disturb any forty percent (40%) slope area. The
following shall be conditions of any approval:
(A) Foundations shall be designed by and bear the seal of a registered,
professional engineer.
(B) All final plans required to be submitted by a professional engineer shall be
approved in their final form and shall bear the seal of such registered,
professional engineer.
The applicant must demonstrate compliance with this regulation for all proposed
lots. The applicant will be required to show suitable building envelopes for all of
the lots along with the location of the individual sewage disposal systems in any
Preliminary Plan submittaL If the applicant cannot demonstrate an ability to meet
the provisions of 5.04.02 and the required A/R/RD setbacks, any future application
may be denied.
E. Road/Access/ Parking: Access to the subdivision is to be directly off of County Road 355.
Driveway permits will have to be obtained from Road and Bridge for Lots 2 and 3 by the
time of Preliminary Plat. Section 5.01.02 of the Zoning Resolution requires off-street
parking for residential use (except group quarters) at one (1) space per six hundred (600)
square feet of floor area or one (1) space per dwelling unit, whichever is greater.
F. Fire Protection: A fire protection plan will need to be part of any water supply plan as
required for Preliminary Plan per Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations.
In addition, the following standards will apply to the preliminary plan application:
9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire
protection district to ensure that all lots have primary and secondary access points
to escape fire entrapment.
9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a central located fire
protection storage tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the
subdivision and be approved by the appropriate fire district.
9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water
and may be from a source separate from the domestic supply.
G. Water: The application states that the domestic water supply will be sourced via individual
wells for each lot. The applicant should be aware that the Preliminary Plan phase will
require the water source be evidenced to be sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and
dependability (see section 4:90 of the Sub. Regs.).
5
• •
The application does not discuss specifically how irrigation water will be delivered to the
lots. The applicant should be aware of the following standards (from section 9:50 of the
Subdivision Regulations):
9:51 An adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to all lots
within a subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to service total
development population, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements
in accordance with recognized and customary engineering standards.
9:52 Individual wells may be used as the water supply, provided the applicant has
submitted the required documentation to the appropriate water court, and the
Colorado Division of Water Resources will approve well drilling permits for all lots
within the development.
9:54 Water supply stems, on -lot or otherwise located in a floodplain, shall be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration and avoid impairment during or
subsequent to flooding.
9:55 All water mains shall be a minimum diameter of four inches (4'9, provided
storage facilities adequate for fire protection are available.
H. Waste Disposal: Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are proposed for each lot.
Testing will have to be conducted to ensure that ISDS systems can be installed on the
proposed lots. The applicant should be aware of the State Department of Health
requirements for separation of ISDS systems and wells.
Drainage/Floodplain Issues: A drainage plan will be required as part of any Preliminary
Plan submittal. With steep slopes on the site, drainage concerns are raised. The applicant
should examine any and all impacts these steep slopes may have on the proposed
subdivision.
Due to the close nature of the 100 -year floodplain boundary to the proposed building
footprints, the applicant will be required to have a certified surveyor verify the exact
boundary of the 100 -year floodplain boundary.
The applicant should be aware of the following subdivision standards as the application
proceeds to preliminary plan:
9:41 Drainage easements, channels, culverts and required bridges shall be
designed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
9:42 All drainage facilities shall be designed based on a twenty-five (25) year
frequency storm.
9:43 Where new developments create run-off in excess of historic site levels, the
use of detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to a one hundred
(100) year storm.
6
• •
9:44 All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by
encasement in concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (39 beyond the driving
surface on each side. Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load.
J. Wildlife: The application does not contain any analysis of wildlife impacts or propose any
mitigation. The Division of Wildlife has responded to this application with a number of
comments concerning the predominant presence of wildlife in this area with the following
subsequent suggestions (for the entire letter, see attached document dated 11/26/01):
• When creating a landscape plan, tree species that will provide ample habitat for
nesting songbirds should be selected.
• During build -out, noxious weeds should be monitored and managed to prevent
establishment and infestation in planned open space areas.
• Open space areas should be prepared and seeded with native vegetation in order to
maximize their value to wildlife.
K. Assessment / Fees: Road Impact Fees will be based on Traffic Study Area 3, pursuant to
Resolution 97-111. This Study Area requires $226 per determined ADT, or roughly
$2,226.00 per residential unit minus the appropriate discounts. This determined amount will
be paid at the time of Final Plat. School fees, as to be determined, will also have to be paid
as a condition of any Final Plat.
L. Other Issues: The proposed name for the subdivision, River Oaks, is quite similar to the
name of an existing subdivision with the City limits of Glenwood Springs which is River
Oak Subdivision. The name should be changed to avoid potential future confusion to local
emergency and safety authorities.
The applicant should consider a possible alternative concerning the subdivision design that
would still meet the overall objectives of the subdivision and the stated intentions of the
applicant. Instead of creating three (3) lots, the applicant could possibly create just two (2)
lots and have the second lot large enough to handle two (2) residences. The subdivision
covenants would then allow one principal residence with the provision of an accessory
dwelling unit. Staff has not looked into the technical feasibility of this option, but would
just like to make it a suggestion.
M. Recommended Plat Notes/ Covenants: The following are typically included on plats and/or
in covenants:
1) Indicate the maintenance responsibilities of subdivision roads.
2) One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be
confined within the owners property boundaries.
3) No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision.
One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling
7
• •
units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and
appliances.
4) All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will
be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may
be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
5) No further divisions of land within the Subdivision will be allowed.
6) Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells
of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living
in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be
prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on
public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the
application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments,
herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a
legal and non -negligent agricultural operations.
7) All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents
and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as
good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such
information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the
Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County.
The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of
the Planning Commission review (valid until 1/07/03). If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed
subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission by 1/07/03, the applicant
will have to submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review and
comparison with the original application.
8
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Russell George, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
Area 7
711 Independent Ave.
Grand Junction, CO 81505
Brett A. Ackerman
District Wildlife Manager, Rifle South
(970) 625-2876
Kim Schlagel
Staff Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: RIVER OAKS SUBDIVISION
Dear Ms. Schlagel:
SOF `t'/
Tor W iln'life-
i'nr People
November 26, 2001
I have had the opportunity to review the materials associated with this project as provided in the referral
packet. In addition, I have visited and evaluated the proposed site.
The proposed site is predominantly pastureland with negligible native vegetation. It is currently in
agricultural use, and provides habitat for various wildlife species, such as mammals and snakes, as well as
many avian species. It is in close proximity to the Colorado River, which also supports several wildlife
species.
The site currently contains elk and deer winter range, and is utilized by Canada geese. In addition, it is in
close proximity to wild turkey habitat. It also contains a section of the Colorado River known to support a
number of native fish species, including mountain whitefish, speckled dace, roundtail chub, mottled
sculpin, flannelmouth sucker and bluehead sucker.
The potential wildlife habitat section (Table 12) of the soil survey included in the referral packet is based
on a general evaluation of different types of soils, and should not be mistaken for a site-specific wildlife
habitat analysis. The Potts-Ildefonso soil complex, which comprises the majority of this site, is classified
as having only fair rangeland wildlife habitat value as a soil type. However, the fact that this site is in
close proximity to the Colorado River at a relatively low altitude with nearby abundant available pinyon -
juniper cover increases its habitat value, particularly for wintering mule deer, which frequent the site.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Rick Enstrom, Chair • Robert Shoemaker, Vice -Chair • Marianna Raltopoulos, Secretary
Members, Bernard Black • Tom Burke • Philip James • Brad Phelps • Olive Valdez
Ex -Officio Members, Greg E. Walcher and Don Ament
The following federally threatened and endangered species have suitable habitat within the project area,
but have not necessarily been observed at the site: Bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow
flycatcher, whooping crane.
In addition, the following state threatened and endangered species have suitable habitat within the project
area, but likewise have not necessarily been observed at the site: Kit fox, northern river otter, western
burrowing owl.
Development of the proposed area will restrict large mammal utilization, and negate any habitat value the
site may have had for the species listed.
An increase in domestic animals is likely to accompany this development. Domestic pets, especially cats,
can be detrimental to waterfowl species. As the area is near Canada goose brood concentration areas,
domestic pets should be closely monitored, and cats should be excluded from the area in the protective
covenants.
The proposed area is periodically used by black bear. In low forage years, bears have been known to
frequent lowland urban areas with accessible refuse storage facilities. In order to minimize negative
human -bear interactions, refuse storage facilities should be designed to be bear -proof. Please be advised
of a regulation recently passed by the Wildlife Commission which makes it unlawful to fail to clean up bear
attractants such as, but not limited to, refuse, pet food, and barbecue grills.
Of particular concern is the feeding of wild waterfowl. Residents of the proposed subdivision should be
educated regarding the detrimental effects of feeding wild waterfowl. In addition, the development should
post and maintain interpretive signs at any common area frequented by waterfowl educating the public
about brood areas, and requesting that the public not feed wildlife. Signage should also be posted
educating the public about native fish species, particularly those that are threatened or endangered.
In order to further enhance the plan's benefits to wildlife, I would like to submit the following suggestions:
• When creating a landscape plan, tree species that will provide ample habitat for nesting migratory
songbirds should be selected.
• During build -out, noxious weeds should be monitored and managed to prevent establishment and
infestation in planned open space areas.
• Open space areas should be prepared and seeded with native vegetation in order to maximize their
value to wildlife.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife would welcome the opportunity to provide necessary information and
expertise in planning and implementing any of the above suggestions.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important land use issue in Garfield County. Please feel
free to contact me regarding this or any other wildlife concern.
Sincerely,
Br tt A. Ackerman
District Wildlife Manager
Rifle South