HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 6.11.14PC 6/LL/84
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAEF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
OWNER:
PLANNER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
Deer Creek Estates Subdivision
Sketch Plan
Landco Inc.
Landmark SurveYing
Sec. 2, T5S, R92W; Iocated
approximately 3/4 of a mile
Rifle, north of HighwaY 6 &
Davis Pt. )
east of24 (on
L22 acres to be divided into 22
single family lots ranging in size
from 2.5 acres to 19 acres. The
proposal also request that further
subdivision be considered at such
time a central wastewaLer disposal
system is feasible. Further
subdivision is described as 44
t.otal lots on L22 acres.
Proposed central
Town of SiIt
water from the
EXISTING ZONING:A/R/RD Zone District
ADJACENT ZONING:A/R/RD in all directions
I RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
s te esw n e Urban Area o Influence of the town of Silt.
The following is from the Comprehensive Plan:
BuildabililI - Much of the Iand included in the Silt Urban Area of
Influence is already su bdivided. Additional development should be
viewed in relation to these existing platsr ds well as to the town.
Much of the area surounding Silt is agrarian. New development should
minimize impacts on the agrarian character of the area. Additional
development which is not adjacent to the town will detract from the
agricultural areas currently separating the existing subdivisions.
Provisions should be made for the continued opportunity for
agricultural activity. (Silt. Urban Area of Influence..Page 58)
The following standards aPply to those aspect,s of the natural
environment that require specialized site-planning or design
consideration in Garfield County.
I. Slopes 252 and over shall be restrict,ed from development.
2. Areas of disturbance or clearing.on slopes 252 or greater shall
be stabilized and revegetated to pre-disturbance levels with
appropriate, rapidly established vegetation.
On moderate slopes (168 - 24Zl
designed to fit the contours o
The levelingr ot "benching", opermitted.
'5--
Proposed individual sePtic
Proposed off of CountY Rd. zLB
only those structures that aref the land shall be considered.f these slopes shall not be
3
4
5
6.
7
The grading
and fiII are
site.
of all new develoPment
kept to a minimum and
shall be designed so that cut
can balance within the Project
Development construction shaII minimize the disturbance of the
existing vegetative cover.
No vegetation shall be removed on slopes 25* or over unless
otherwise approved by the County Commissioners.
Vegetation stands along creeks and rivers should be retained
where these corridors have noted wildlife habitats.
The following are policies taken from the Comprehensive PIan Technical
Services section:
POLICIES:(page 271
The County shall encourage development which locates in proximity
to areas with existing technical servicesr and taps onto these
services. New development shall contribute to the costs of
improvements needed to maintain adequate levels of service.
Development within Urban Areas of Influence shall be encouraged
to locate where extension of service lines is cost-effective and
will not lead to non-contigious development. Service line
extensions up to 1/4 mite are considered most cost-effective and
Ieast 1ikely to allow non-contiguous development, with extensions
up to one mile considered feasible, but less desirable.
1.
2.
rI. DESCRIPTION OF'THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The site sits to the north of Highway 6 & 24
and County Rd. 2L8.The site consists of an open field area
currently being used for livestock. The majority of the site
consists of sparsely vegetated hillsides ranging in degrees of
slopes. Approximately 50t of the total acreage has slopes above
15r.
B. Project DescripLion: The applicants wish to divide 122 acres
into 22 lots. These lots are proposed to be between 2.5 acres
and 19 acres. Access to the property would be by way of an
existing road off of Co. Rd.2L8. The proposal is to upgrade the
existing access to County standards. The existing road is a
maintenance road used for the maintenance of the SiIt Canal.
Water is proposed to be provided by the Town of Si1t. Individual
sewage disposal systems are proposed until such time that sewer
lines from the Town can be extended to the subdivision.
Land Use Breakdown:
Existing zoning and proposed zoning A/R/RD.Total development area z L22 acresTotal number of lots proposed z 22Total number of dwelling units proposed z 22
Tota1 area of proposed non-residental floor space: 0TotaI number of individual dwelling units proposed
for each structure: ITotal proposed density: .18 DU/AC.
III.SKETCH PLAN COMII{ENTS
Zonlng /Comprehensive PIan :
a.The proposal lies within the Town of Silt,rs Master PIan
boundaries which indicate a desired rural residentialdensity of one dwelling unit per 2 L/2 acres.
The proposal suggests further subdivision of the proposed
Iots at such time a central sewage system is feasible. This
request should be in accordance with Section 7 of the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations regarding
Resubdivision. (See page /l )
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
b.
-(
2. Access
b.
c
d.
6
I
h.
3. Water
b.
4. Sewer
a The aPplicants propose to upgrade County Rd
presenlly, this is a non-maintained County
will need considerable work to meet County
terms of width and grade.
The road along the southerly boundary of the property
continues ."st from the county Road. (The county Road is
oniy L/3 of a mile in length.) At one time, this was the
old 6 & 24 R.O.W., however, it iS unknown as to whether or
not the St,ate stiil o$rns the R.O.W. there. It is possible
that the R.o.w. was abandoned and went to the surrounding
landowners. Determination of the R.O.W. ownership wiIl need
to be made prior to Preliminary Plan submittal'
In a letter dated March I, 1984 received from t,he Town of
silt, the Town tlanager maile the following comment: "The road
of principal access (Grand Avenue) must be hard surfaced to
Cit,y stanlards." (See letter page /f I
A letter received from the Town of Silt, dated Ivlarch I,
makes the following comment regarding internal roads for
pi"pos.f . ,,This aiea shares many hazardous slopes and
lraaes. No road grades should exceed 7Z oue to need for
fire and ambulanc6 services." (See letter Page E )
Road intersections with less than perpendicular alignment
should be redesigned to provide near perpendicular
alignment,.
Building envelopes requiring road cuts on slopes of 252 or
greater should be eliminated.
AIl ditch and drainage facilities should be located outside
of road right-of-wayi, except for short perpendicular spans'
the internal roads
be effectivelYThe County Road Supervisor has noted that
within the proposed subdivision could not
maintained through County maintenance'
. 2L8.
Road and
Road standards in
1984
the
f
a Town of SiIt - A letter
the Town of Silt notes
by town annexation and
on May 2L, 1984, BilI Crepeaur Acting Town l',lanager for the
fown -of SiIt indicated in a phone conversation, that Deer
creek estates would not be serviced by city water without
annexing to the town.
Prior to submittal of Preliminary Plat agreements for water
suppiy shaIl be finalized.
County Environmental Health Officer (Memo Pag? /fu =).note:ifr" c-alculations for water and wastewater maximum daily
flows do not coincide in the applicat,ion. A I.5 factor for
wastewater calculations was nol-used as required by 4.01C of
the Garfield county Individual sewage Disposal system
Regulations.
The county Environmental Health officer feels that the cost'
differenc6 involved in the sharing of a septic system and
each lot having it's own system is negligible. In.addition,
The Environmen[,at Heatth Oificer noted that some kind of
assurance should be made that the abandonment of septic
systems take place when central collection facilities are
fiovided. (sie memo :aseLlT*
dated March l, 1984 received from
that "This area would be best served
aevefopment. " (See letter page /f I
d
a
The County Environmental Health Officer has noted that if
development occurs on this parcel there may be a need to
have individual septic disposal systems designed by a
Colorado registered professional engineer due to slow oilpercolation slopes and bedrock.
Colorado Department of HeaIth (see Ietter pag e/3
Thi s letter indicates that if the intent of the suis ultimately to have higher density, then it makes
sense for central sewer to be put in place at thisnot Ieft open-ended.
ivision
more
time and
5. SoiIs/To pography
The SoiI Conservation Service information submitted with the
Sketch Plan indicates moderate/severe limitations onportions of the property. The soils report indicatedbasically 3 classes of soils in the project area. TheIimitations sect,ion of the soils report Iisted somepotential problems concerning septic t,ank absorption fields,dwelling and local roads and streets. Part,icular soils alsolimit development by having a high content of stones andhaving steep slopes. The report also indicates that thesoils are easily eroded and run-off diversion structures are
needed for any roads constructed on these soiIs.
There is evidence of erosion within the proposed suodivisionas seen on site review. This should be evaluated further atPreliminary PIan.
c. The Soil Conservation Service (see letter page
a.
b.
d
a
comment noting thatare being caused byditches. The Ietter
before construction
the erosion problems in the subdivwater running over the sides of th
suggests that this problem be add
begins.
made a
is ion
e
ressed
The following is taken from Section 5.0I of the GarfieldCounty Subdivision Regulations:
SUITABILITY OF LAND FOR SUBDIVISION
Land subject to natural hazards such as flooding, fallingrock, land slides, snow slides, or other natural hazardsshall not be platted for any use which might endanger thehealth, safety or welfare of the inhabitants. Such landsshall be reserved for other uses which will not presentthese hazards.
Based on findings by a qualified engineer or engineeringgeologist or other professionarr no land sharr be subdividedwhich is herd by the planning commission to be unsuitabrefor subdivision by reason of floodingr bad drainage, rock orsoil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snow slide,steep topography or any other potential natural hazard,feature of condition likely to be harmful to the health,safety or welfare of the future residents in the proposedsubdivision or of the County.
The application represents that geologic, soils and designisues can be adequately addressed at preliminary plat.
The applicants propose to eliminate erosion and unstableslopes, where possible, through proper construction of theroadways and the planting of vegetative cover.
f.
--r-
6. VisuaI
a.A portion of
theS&24andsignificant roquite some dis
the west. Bui
cuts should be
7 Drainage
El .SoiI Conservaletter indicatditch for dit
The proposal s
retention. Th
method be esta
after the subd
8.Easements
a.The SiIt Cana1
proposed parce
the developerauthorities c
of Preliminarshall be defi
the appropria
10. Genera I Desiqn
a.A portion of
shall not be
shall be legplats that no
area.
b.Cons iderationL6, L9, ro a
thus eliminat
e development would be highly visible
I-70 transportation corridors. Any
d and driveway cuts would be visible
ance when approaching the development
ding envelopes requiring significant
eliminated.
from
for
from
road
between
s u bm I t t a I
ion Service - (see letter pug" ly' l - This
s the need t,o keep a right'-of-way along the
companies to make repairs to this system.
ggests that Ponds be used for water
Soil Conservation Service suggests that some
Iished to make sure the ponds are maintained
vision is completed.
and the Ware and Hinds Ditch run through the
No agreements have been reached
the appropriate canal and ditch
ning the easements. Prior tond
e tPlat, all ditch, utility and access easements
d and agreed uPon between the developer and
entity.
t L7, south of the proposed road easement
Iowed to have a building site. This area
y defined and it shatl be noted on subsequent
uifAing permits shall be issued for this
I
1
should
2L to
ng the
be given to the redesign of Lots 15,
access off of the main subdivision road
need for a cul-de-sac.
7"
7 :00
/: l0
7 :20
7 230
IlESUBDIVI SIO}
The redivision irrto separate interests of any 1ot, b1ock,
parcel or muftiple-dwetli;g unit, or the major. r-elocation of
or addition to any .ou5s within a subdivision, shall be
considered a resubdivision and shaIl be governed by the
Subdivision Regulations.
The redivision into seParate interests of large tracts or
blocks of tana, designed with the intention of redivision
and so indicated on a recorded subdivision PIat, mal- n9t.be
required to comply with those Provisions oi the Subdivision
Regulations whiLn- the Board determines are satisfied by
reference to Preliminary Plan or FinaI Plat approval for the
original subdivision.
The redivision, through conversion into condominiums,
apartments or other muitipte-dwe1llng units. '1y, not be
required to conrply with thoie provisions of the Subdivision
n"gulations whicil- the Board determines are satisfied by
reference to preliminary plan and/or FinaI Ptat aPproval for
the original subdivision, provided_ the proposed conversion
wilt not substantial1y increase land use density'
7-l
-//
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945'8212
Cindy Houben, Planner
Ed Feld, Environmental Health 0fficer'*
Deer Creek Estates Sketch Plan
June 1, 1984
After review of the above referenced subiect, I present the
f o I I ow'i ng commen ts :
Page 5 and 8 i ncl ude cal cul ati ons of water and wastewater
max'imum daily flow, which do not cojncide. The reason it does
not coincide is a 1.5 factor for wastewater calculation that was
used, although required by Sectjon 4.01C of the Garfield County
Individual Sewage D'i sposal System Regulation. This is not an
uncommon misunderstanding and should be easiiy remedied.
Page 8 includes a proposal to have two or more houses share
one system. I would recommend against this situation as it will
have no effect on the size of the system(s) and any cost
djfference would be negf igible. I recommend the applicant
propot. an i ndj vi dual iewige di sposal system be provi ded for
every lot (residence).
TO:
F ROM:
RE:
DATE:
A wri tten
abandonment of
f aci l i t'ies are
not
Although the aPPlicant considers
i nterim method of wastewater di sposal
time and any property owner shoul d be
and any repai r of thei r "own system".
"septic systems"
"interim" could
responsjble for
be an
a l ong
maintenance
to
be
the
as surance of some ki nd shoul d be provi ded that
"septic systems" be made when central col lection
provided by Silt after annexation.
Pl ease contact me shoul d you have any questions.
I OO 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 8I5O2
- /2 -
a (\/'n
EEILEtrIAtrlO IfEPAFITMENT Otr HEALTH
Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.
Acting Executive Director
,tRichard D. Lamm
Governor 8'l
nll
i----1'1 :.i _.: -J ,'1tJ :lii?lMay Jt, 1984
.iuii 7'i384 i , ,
':l
Cynthia Houben, Pl-anner AiriiilD 0u' r-Ai'lliEi
Glrfield County Department of Development
P.0. Box 540
Gfenwood Springs, CO 81502
Re: Deer Creek Estates Sxetch Plan
Dear Ms. Houben
Thank you for the
Subdivision.
I am concerned with the request for future re-subdivision of each of the
1ots. If the plan is for ul-timate high density residential, se$ers should be
put in at this time. If septi-c tanks are to be used, the density should stay
at the 5 acres requirement. The plans for the subdivision should be finalized
now, by the subdividor, and not left open ended'
ff you have any questions, please cal-I me'
Si nc ere ly,
FOR DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY CONTROT DIVISION
.l
t
opportunity to review the sketch plan for Deer Creek Estates
(a,/,,*;
erry C. Biberstine, P.E
District Engineer
JCBldd
,222 South Gth Street , Room 2)2, Grand Jrrnction CO 81501 -2768 3OI)248-7L5O
- /3'
;-*1r,iu,United States
Departmenl of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
Starrley Woodyard
District Conservationist
SW/te
2425 Grand Avenue
Glenrvood Springs, Colorado
81601
May 25, 1984
Cynthia M. Houben
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Ms Houben:
I have reviewed the Deer creek Estates Subdivision. It is
stated on page 9 that the Silt Pump Canal Ditch I'uns thlough the
proposed r.rbdiririo.r. It is important to keep a right-of-way for
in"- ait.t company to make repairs to this system. Too many times
we have subdivisions forgetting about the irrigation caaals that
have been in place for manY Years.
on the same page the write-up refers to ponds that will be
used for retention. Some method will need to be established to
make sure the ponds are maintained after the subdivision is com-
p 1eted.
Erosion problems presently being caused by water running over
the sides of the ditches should be addressed before construction
starts.
Sincerely,
--7&tul
p)i;'o'=-r': r,;'rqFr
ji. i.:,!. :(), 1.-,, iiiIi,_ i::;": t!' !':d4,ij
G;;.rr r,. *. urJ. rt,ri,,liiti--
e
/y'-
(.
TOWNcf S/,-,1
P.O. Ilox 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876'2353
iiarch 1, 1934
llrrk =ein
Ccr:::',' il :ruring i'-it.
ril / :'! =t^-o
,-:,'1-eni:ood Spri;:gs, CO E1 501
,'.,a1f l,!,f . ::E':n:
Tne Tc'..,n of SilL cifers the follcwinE co;;enls regarii'-:g the
prcposeci Deer Crcek Estates.
1. Th-i,s cl.--velol>:r,en'. is pr-emaiure oevelopnent. in both tLe Ccr-rnty
i:ti Tot,:l of Silt Ccnp::ehe:-,5'i\re r'ano 'u:se Fl a:r.
2. This ere.t sheros n.n)' lti:za:clous siopes ;nc Eraic-s. llo rcad
,:raie should e>:ceeC 7;!due tc::eei for iire aliC anb'.t1ence s€:n'ices.
?. This ievelopnent- ',.iouIi be best s=rved b',' Tc'".':^, utillties.
{. Tite rord of o::inciple eccess (Gr.:nC r-ve. ) nust be --,erd
s',-i.r-fe.ceci to e tl_ Stander:ds.
5. fne Tor..'r: oppcses any "package p1ent" or private v,rater systems
t.hat .-re not ccn:atable r"iLh future toi'.n ser-vice.
5. This area rvou1C be best served by Tor'":'r .:rlrt;.:aticn a::d
cicvel opinent.
Tne To',."'n thanks you for the cpr-crtr-mitY to cornent.
Sirice.rel-y,:^.t
:!
.! ./ / \
D;vld C. -,'jei
Toirn li.nager
/-
tr-utzel
'l
!
()o
r)
1it
f-ar' iJ tlI
J.
-/{-
irll
;l