Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 03.14.1984PROJECT NAME: REQUEST: OWNER: PLANNER: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: r • PC 3/14/84 5(4/41' PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision Preliminary 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 82 intersection. A 72.427 acre parcel to be split into single family lots. Individual wells Individual septic systems A/R/RD North: O/S South: A/R/RD East: 0/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 District shall be considered best able to absorb growth. 4. Road access and conditions shall be used to evaluate the ability of areas within District E to absorb growth. 5. Areas outside a one mile radius of District A shall have one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. 6. Slopes 25% and over shall be restricted from development 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) within (Page this 72) relative a density of . These • • 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. 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 3.1 acres to 7.0 acres. Five of the lots will access directly onto County Road 113, with the remaining lots being served by an approximately 980 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. Previous plans had lots ranging in size from 2.62 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 in the area. III MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS: A. Review Agency Comments: 1. The Colorado Division of Water Resources cannot recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan for the following reasons (See letter pages,7/-25 _): a. Concerns about the McVey Reservoir leaking excessively, resulting in the level of the reservoir not remaining constant. b. They suggest that a depth -area -capacity curve be developed by survey to establish the measurement needed for administration. c. They are concerned that the actual capacity of the reservoir may be less than the decreed amount. d. They recommend that the protective covenants reflect the requirements of the augmentation plan as approved. 2. Holy Cross Electric requested that 12.5 foot utility easements be granted along the interior of all lot lines and that the language in the protective convenants be clarified as to whether overhead power lines will be constructed. (See letter page$o?6 ---) 3. The Colorado Department of Health had the following comments: (See letter page 27 ) a. Suggest a thorough soils investigation to insure that each lot can accommodate a ISDS system. b. Suggest yearly inspections, with pumping if necessary. c. Recommend that soils report should address whether each lot has suitable space for an ISDS system and backup space for another. d. Drainage and flood hazard report should address ISDS location. ,y' 4. The Colorado Geologic Survey recommended that all of the recommendations of Lincoln-Devore be followed and made a condition of approval. (See letter page_ .27' ) 5. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation Service representatives recommend that all disturbed areas be put into permanent vegetation as soon as possible to control soil erosion. They note the need for special designs on steep and unstable slopes. See letter page_2Z___) 6. The Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District has verbally noted that they are willing to annex the proposed subdivision but do not want to annex it as an island. They want to annex three sections of land in the area at the same time. The applicant has been given the option of paying for this election or waiting until the district an afford to hold the election themselves. 7. The Colorado State Forest Service reviewed the application and r ccomjended that wildfire hazards be mitigated. (See letter pg. B. Staff Comments: 1. On October 24, 1983, the Sketch Plan for the Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision was approved by Resolution #83-331 with the following conditions: a. 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 other recommendations of the Carbondale Fire Protection District be incorporated into a fire protection plan at Preliminary Plan. b. 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. 30-28-135(h)(II)(i). c. 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. d. That if geologic/soils studies show that lots 12 and 13 have unmitigatable geologic hazards, said lots will be combined into a single lot. e. That at Preliminary Plan, the location and type of individual sewage disposal systems and well sites be noted, with estimated dimensions of individual sewage systems also noted. f. 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. • • g. Consider redesign of drive to lots #7 and #8 with regard to health and safety issues. h. That the applicant participate in an area road plan or be prepared to address specific offsite road improvements at Preliminary Plan. The Preliminary Plan submittal has the following information: a. A petition for annexation to the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District. b. A geologic/soils report that addresses building foundations and a separate road design. c. Protective covenants for an unincorporated homeowners association. d. The geologic/soils investigation notes serious, but mitigatable construction problems on lots 12 and 13. e. A map outlining the suggested location of wells and ISD systems was provided by the proponent. f. No formal geologic/soils determination of whether or not individual sewage disposal systems could be accommodated on each lot was submitted with the application. g The applicant chose not to redesign the drive to lots #7 and #8 due to excessive cuts and culverting needed. h. The applicant agrees to participate in an area road plan. 2. The County Environmental Health Office notes that the location of ISD systems may dictate the building envelope location. It is noted that there appears to be ample ground for the worst case scenario: an evapotranspiration system with enough area for a backup system. It is also recommended that a plat note be included on the final plat noting the potential for engineered systems. (See memo page 3/ 3. The proposed covenants are for a typical homeowners association not an incorporated homeowners association. Additionally, the proposed maximum building height is proposed to be 30 feet. The A/R/RD zone district allows a maximum of 25 feet for buildings. The covenants allow up to 3 horses per lot except lots 5, 6, 10, 12 and 13 but the water augmentation plan only allows 1 horse per well. This issue needs to be clarified with the Division of Water Resources. The proposed ISD systems inspection and pumping is proposed for every four (4) years, which is longer than the Colorado Department of Health district engineer suggests. The covenants should be corrected to reflect the building height limitation of 25 feet, the number of horses allowed and need for annual inspection of ISD systems. 4. The applicant chose not to realign the access drive to lots #7 and #8. With the five (5) foot contours, the average slope is calculated at 13.9% with the lower section being 14%-15% for approximately 300 feet. The access drive to lots #9 and #10 is even steeper, with an average slope of 18.2% from the bottom of the drive to the top of the drive. • • 5. Lots #9, #10, #12 and #13 all have building envelopes located on slopes over 30% on potentially unstable slopes. The geologic/soils report recommends site specific soils investigation to determine proper design criteria for new foundations and other structures on all lots, with special design consideration on lots #12 and #13 for potential rock fall. In general, all lots are recommended to have site specific subsurface soils exploration to determine the appropriate building design. 6. The proponents engineer has submitted a letter to the Division of Water Resources in response to their letter. It states that upon inspection by himself and Orlyn Bell, Division Enginner, it was determined that McVey Reservoir appears to meet the basic requirements of the augmentation plan and that the applicant will have the requested study done as well as install the appropriate gauge for monitoring. (See letter pgS1_12_33 7. Overall, with the various potential need for mitigation of geologic hazards and/or need for ET sewage disposal systems, the cost of housing is going to probably be fairly expensive. IV. FINDINGS: 1. That proper publication and public notices was provided as required by Section 3.06 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1979, as amended; 2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting; 3. The Preliminary Plan conforms to the Preliminary Plan requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1979, as amended; 4. The Preliminary Plan conforms to the requirements of the zone district in which the development is located; 5. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of tl iealth, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION If the Division of Water Resources concerns are answered and the proposed geologic/soils mitigation proposed is considered adequate, any approval should require the following conditions: 1 That prior to final plat submittal, a depth -area -capacity curve be developed by survey of the McVey Reservoir and that the appropriate staff gauge be included as a part of the subdivision improvements agreement. 2. That plat notes be included on the final plat that state: a. That individual sewage disposal systems may have to be designed by a Colorado registered professional engineer. b. That the design of all foundations and associated drainage shall be subject to individual geologic/soils investigation and design with the geologic/soils report and design submitted with the building permit application. c. That lots 2, 3, 12 and 13 may be subject to rockfall and require special design consideration. 3. That the applicant and the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District reach an agreement on annexation to the District prior to Final Plat submittal. 4. That the 12.5 foot utility easements be included along the interior of all lot lines. 5. That the home owners association be incorporated and the covenants be amended to: a. That Section 2.2 should be changed to read inspection annually and pumping as necessary. b. Limit building -height to 25 feet in Section 8.4 c. That the number of horses allowed on lot be consistent with the augmentation plan limitations. 6. That the developer contribute an agreed upon amount of cash in lieu of land to the RE -1 School District for school impact. 7. That the developer agree to particpate in an area road plan or make specific off-site road improvements acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners.