Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.03.19834 PROJECT_NAME: REQUEST: OWNER: PLANNER: LOCATION: SITE DATA: • • BOCC 10/3/83 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision Sketch Plan Gailen Smith Sundesigns Architects A parcel located in the NE 1/4 SE 1/4, Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Generally located 5.2 miles up County Road 113 (Cattle Creek) from the State Highway 32 intersection. A 72.427 acre parcel to be split into single family lots. WATER: Individual wells Individual septic systems SEWER: EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ----- -- ADJACENT ZONING: North: O/SSouth: A/R/RD East:• O/S West: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed subdivision is located tprimarily s) yfin nhDie stricmprtnhensive Plan. t E (Severe -Moderate Environmental Some relevant policies are: 1. It is the policy of the County to consider this area to have poor suitability for growth. (Page 72) 2. The County shall require the developer to conduct a study which will define a factor of safety for the proposed site and the limitations which should be imposed on development or measures required, if any, to mitigate the constraints. (Page 72) 3. Non-agricultural areas and non-productive cropland found within this District shall be considered best able to absorb growth. (Page 72) Road access and conditions shall be used to evaluate the relative ability of areas within District E to absorb growth. 5. Areas outside a one mile radius of District A shall have a density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. G. Slopes 25% and over shall be restricted from development. These slopes may be: A. Maintained as permanent open space; B. Platted as a portion of an approved building lot, with an open space easement; C. Platted as a portion of a buiding lot which has adequate usable building space available other than steep slopes; D. Platted as a portion of a subdivision and dedicated as permanent E. Developed with special design considerations and engineering. open space; (Page 77, B 1) 7. The grading of all new development shall be designed so that cut and fill are kept to a minimum and can balance within the project site. A. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 unless efficient stablization methods are utilized. B. The proposed development shall be designed in a manner which demonstrates a "fit" with the existing topography of the land. 4. -9- • • II.. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: A. Site Description: The site lies within the Cattle Creek drainage. Cattle Creek runs through the property from the east to the west, with the land sloping upward away from the creek bottom. County Road No. 113 runs through the property in an east/west direction, separating roughly 11.3 acres from the rest of the parcel. The vegetation is varied throughout the site, with cottonwoods, pinion, juniper and oak brush in various locations. Presently, there are two houses, a mobile home, barn and four sheds on the property. B. Project Description: It is proposed to split the existing 72.43 acre site into 13 single family lots, ranging in size from 2.62 acres to 5.90 acres. Four of the lots will access directly onto County Road 113, with the remaining lots being served by an approximately 1200 foot long cul-de-sac. The sketch plan reviewed on August 10, 1983 had 14 single family lots, with six (6) of the 14 lots accessing directly onto County Road 113. The previous plan had lots ranging in size from 2.62 acres to 5.9 acres. The revised plan has lots ranging in size from 5.0 acres to 6.58 acres. Presently, the parcel has two existing houses, which will each be on separate parcels resulting in a net increase of 11 dwelling units. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS: A. Previous staff comments centered around the following: 1. Significant number of t1 -e lots having slopes in excess of 25%. 2. Soils and geologic information note some serious geologic hazards. 3. Concerns about the possible need for engineered individual sewage disposal systems which might conflict with the approval augmentation plan. 4. The possible health hazard of the pond. 5. The number of direct accesses to the County road. 6. The number of building sites on the north side of the road. 7. Fire protection. The applicant feels these issues can be addressed at the Preliminary Plan stage, with a more technical analysis. B. In addition to staff comments, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. That there are too many lots along the creek. The applicant has reduced the number of lots and moved the building envelopes away from the creek bottom lands and reduced the size of the envelopes. 2. Too many lots. The applicant contends that the proposed configuration meets the A/R/RD zone district requirements and now all lots meet the 5 acre density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the original plan were lined up together, with what appeared to be very little real buildable land. The revised plan has only two lots in this area now, with smaller building envelopes in a larger area. 4. Concerns about the County Road being marginal access. The applicant is willing to contribute to off-site road improvements on an equitable basis. 5. Overall concerns about the geologic conditions that may effect many sites. The applicant feels that the Preliminary Plan studies will resolve those issues. 6. Concerns about the potential road cuts. The revised plan has reduced the road cuts into the south hillside from four to two. The County Road Supervisor has reviewed, on-site, the application and suggested revision to allow for the two road cuts on the north side. -10- • • 7. Central water and sewer. The applicant states that central water and sewer will make the cost of the lots prohibitive, thus unmarketable. Staff concurs that this cost is prohibitive for this type of development. If individual systems will not work, the density of the development should be decreased. IV. FINDINGS: 1. That the Sketch Plan conforms to Section 4.01, Sketch Plan requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1979, as amended. 2. That the Sketch Plan conforms with the zone district regulations. 3. That the Planning Commission has recommended approval of said Sketch Plan with conditions. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant petition the Carbondale Fire District for annexation prior to Preliminary Plan submittal. Further, that a 2000 gallon cistern be put on the north side of the County Road in an accessible location, exclusively for fire protection. A 4000 gallon cistern be located in easily accessible and central location on the south side of the county road exclusively for fire protection purposes. The cisterns and/or any other recommendations of the Carbondale Fire Protection District be incorporated into a fire protection plan at Preliminary Plan. 2. That a site specific geologic/soils report be provided at Preliminary Plan that has specific recommendations for building foundations, road and driveway construction and individual sewage disposal systems. Further, that the applicant include a $275.00 check payable to the Colorado Geological Survey for the subdivision review required by C.R.S. 30-28-136(h)(1I)(i). 3. That an incorporated homeowners association be created that will require septic maintenance inspection and pumping at least every four (4) years and insure that any nuisances created by the still water be dealt with on an annual basis or another legal means acceptable to the County Environmental Health Officer. 4. That if geologic/soils sutdies show that lots 12 and 13 have unmitigatable geologic hazards, said lots will be combined into a single lot. 5. That at Preliminary Plan, the location and type of individual sewage disposal systems and well sites be noted, with estimated dimensions of individual sewage disposal systems also noted. 6. That if it is determined that any lot cannot utilize an individual sewage disposal system, that lot shall be eliminated or the building envelopes within proposed lots can be moved to meet concerns identified in the geologic/soils report. 7. Consider redesign of drive to lots #7 and #8 with regard to health and safety issues. 8. That the applicant participate in an area road plan or be prepared to address specific offsite road improvements at preliminary plan. DATE:__ vt, Ilt>/a 1 kt i.) CCZ1AENTS: /ele._6ace. r/ wiPt ,th,") 4.5 d Wed 4r Z;; e d 51'q re -.Fr, „ear /6- z g3 'N Ri.CORD l_kg2 1 ON OUTGOING: INCMING: CONTACT: a 'FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED: SIGNED: 14b 411 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJECT NAME: Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision REQUEST: Sketch Plan OWNER: Gailen Smith PLANNER: Sundesigns Architects LOCATION: A parcel located in the NE 1/4 SE 1/4, Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Generally located 5.2 miles up County Road 113 (Cattle Creek) from the State Highway 82 intersection. SITE DATA: A 72.427 acre parcel to be split into single family lots. WATER: Individual wells SEWER: Individual septic systems EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: North: O/S South: A/R/RD East: O/S West: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed subdivision is located primarily in District E (Severe -Moderate Environmental Constraints) of the Comprenhensive Plan. Some relevant policies are: 1. It is the policy of the County to consider this area to have poor suitability for growth. (Page 72) 2. The County shall require the developer to conduct a study which will define a factor of safety for the proposed site and the limitations which should be imposed on development or measures required, if any, to mitigate the constraints. (Page 72) 3. Non-agricultural areas and non-productive cropland found within this District shall be considered best able to absorb growth. (Page 72) 4. Road access and conditions shall be used to evaluate the relative ability of areas within District E to absorb growth. 5. Areas outside a one mile radius of District A shall have a density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. 6. Slopes 25% and over shall be restricted from development. These slopes may be: A. Maintained as permanent open space; B. Platted as a portion of an approved building lot, with an open space easement; C. Platted as a portion of a buiding lot which has adequate usable building space available other than steep slopes; D. Platted as a portion of a subdivision and dedicated as permanent open space; E. Developed with special design considerations and engineering. (Page 77, B 1) 7. The grading of all new development shall be designed so that cut and fill are kept to a minimum and can balance within the project site. A. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 unless efficient stablization methods are utilized. B. The proposed development shall be designed in a manner which demonstrates a "fit" with the existing topography of the land. (4) 1 6 -A. Site Description: The site lies within the Cattle Creek drainage. Cattle Creek runs through the property from the east to the west, with the land sloping upward away from the creek bottom. County Road No. 113 runs through the property in an east/west direction, separating roughly 11.3 acres from the rest of the parcel. The vegetation is varied throughout the site, with cottonwoods, pinion, juniper and oak brush in various locations. Presently, there are two houses, a mobile home, barn and four sheds on the property. B. Project Description: It is proposed to split the existing 72.43 acre site into 13 single family lots, ranging in size from 2.62 acres to 5.90 acres. Four of the lots will access directly onto County Road 113, with the remaining lots being served by an approximately 1200 foot long cul-de-sac. The sketch plan reviewed on August 10, 1983 had 14 single family lots, with six (6) of the 14 lots accessing directly onto County Road 113. The previous plan had lots ranging in size from 2.62 acres to 5.9 acres. The revised plan has lots ranging in size from 5.0 acres to 6.58 acres. Presently, the parcel has two existing houses, which will each be on separate parcels resulting in a net increase of 11 dwelling units. II. DESCRIPTION OF THOROPOSAL: • III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS: A. Previous staff comments centered around the following: 1. Significant number of the lots having slopes in excess of 25%. 2. Soils and geologic information note some serious geologic hazards. 3. Concerns about the possible need for engineered individual sewage disposal systems which might conflict with the approval augmentation plan. 4. The possible health hazard of the pond. 5. The number of direct accesses to the County road. 6. The number of building sites on the north side of the road. 7. Fire protection. The applicant feels these issues can be addressed at the Preliminary Plan stage, with a more technical analysis. B. In addition to staff comments, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. That there are too many lots along the creek. The applicant has reduced the number of lots and moved the building envelopes away from the creek bottom lands and reduced the size of the envelopes. 2. Too many lots. The applicant contends that the proposed configuration meets the A/R/RD zone district requirements and now all lots meet the 5 acre density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the original plan were lined up together, with what appeared to be very little real buildable land. The revised plan has only two lots in this area now, with smaller building envelopes in a larger area. 4. Concerns about the County Road being marginal access. The applicant is willing to contribute to off-site road improvements on an equitable basis. 5. Overall concerns about the geologic conditions that may effect many sites. The applicant feels that the Preliminary Plan studies will resolve those issues. 6. Concerns about the potential road cuts. The revised plan has reduced the road cuts into the south hillside from four to two. 7. Central water and sewer. The applicant states that central water and sewer will make the cost of the lots prohibitive, thus unmarketable. Staff concurs that this cost is prohibitive for this type of development. If individual systems will not work, the density of the development should be decreased. • IV. FINDINGS: 1. That the Sketch Plan conforms to Section 4.01, Sketch Plan requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1979, as amended. 2. That the Sketch Plan conforms with the zone district regulations. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant petition the Carbondale Fire District for annexation prior to Preliminary Plan submittal. Further, that a 2000 gallon cistern be put on the north side of the County Road in an accessible location, exclusively for fire protection. A 4000 gallon cistern be located in easily accessible and central location on the south side of the county road exclusively for fire protection purposes. The cisterns and any other recommendations of the Carbondale Fire Protection District be incorporated into a fire protection plan at Preliminary Plan. 2. That a site specific geologic/soils report be provided at Preliminary Plan that has specific recommendations for building foundations, road and driveway construction and individual sewage disposal systems. Further, that the applicant include a $275.00 cneck payable to the Colorado Geological Survey for the subdivision review required by C.R.S. 30-28-136(h) (II) (i) . 3. That an incorporated homeowners association be created that will require septic maintenance inspection and pumping at least every four (4) years and insure that any nuisances created by the still water be dealt with on an annual basis. 4. That a joint access be created for lots 12 and 13 directly across County Road 113 from the main access to the subdivision. Further, that if geologic/soils studies show that lots 12 and 13 have unmitigatable geologic hazards, said lots will be combined into a single lot. 5. That atPreliminary Plan, the location and type of individual sewage disposal systems and well sites be noted, with estimated dimensions of individual sewage disposal systems also noted. 6. That if it is determined that any lot cannot utilize an individual sewage disposal system, that lot shall be eliminated. (6)