Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 07.08.1998. r REQUEST: APPLICANT: PC 7/8/98 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Preliminary Plan for the Lacy Park subdivision Lacy Park LLC, Dave Johnson LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Sections 13,14 and 24, T6S R94W of the 6th PM; located approximately southwest side of the West Rifle I-70 Interchange. SITE DATA: 21.777 acres WATER: Shared well SEWER: ISDS ACCESS: I-70 Frontage Road EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: R/L - gentle slopes and lower valley floor I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in District C - Rural Areas/Minor Environmental Constraints, as designated on the 1984 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Management Districts Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is located approximately three miles west of Rifle and south of the West Rifle I-70 Interchange. The property is bounded on the south by the D&RG railroad and on the north by the I-70 frontage road. There is a small gulch toward the middle of the property and the proposed Lot 3. The remainder of the property is relatively flat and has sage and natural grasses, with applicant's contractors yard on the proposed Lot 2. 1 B. Project Description: The applicant is proposing split the 21.77 acre parcel into five (5) parcels ranging in size from 3.315 to 6.260 acres in size. The parcels will share a well located on Lot 2 and utilize individual sewage disposal systems. Access is from the I-70 frontage road. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning. All of the parcels are consistent with the required two (2) acres minimum lot size for the R/L - Gentle slopes and lower valley floor zone district. The existing Lacy Park construction head quarters were approved as a special use permit. The application includes building envelopes for the various uses that may occur on the property. An application was made for a church on one of the lots, but it had to be returned since, no more than one principal use can be on one lot. Until a subdivision is approved, only the existing contractors yard can be on the lot. Additionally, the existing zoning only allows residential and agricultural uses as a use by right. Any commercial or industrial uses will be subject to special or conditional use permit approval. This needs to be noted on any plat approved as a part of this subdivision. There is a question as to whether or not the proposed water supply is consistent with the proposed uses, given that it is a commercial well. B. Legal Access. Included in the application are two CDOT highway access permits for a single tenant office building of 6000 sq. ft. and a church. There are no other access permits for the other lots. There is no evidence in the application that any of the other lots have legal access to the I-70 frontage road. Access permits will need to be acquired for the other lots or an expanded access permit for all of the lots will need to be obtained prior to any approval of the County for further subdivision. If the additional access permits cannot be acquired, it will be necessary to develop an internal road system for the lots without direct access and the need for road designs as a part of the submittal requirements. C. Water:. The applicant proposes to serve the parcels with a well permit, augmented by West Divide Water Conservation District augmentation water. The proposed use is for commercial purposes on four of the lots, with the fifth lot being for a church. It is noted on the third sheet of the plan maps, that each lot will have to have a reverse osmosis treatment system installed at the connection with the water system. What is not explained is the reason for the RO system being needed. It staff's understanding that it is necessary to have an RO system to meet the requirements of UMTRA and deal with the potential for water contaminated by radioactivity in the groundwater as a result of the Mill Tailings sites up stream of the site. This fact should be noted on any plat approved for this subdivision and there need to be a homeowners association developed to deal with the ownership, maintenance and repair of the water system. 2 Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations requires "in all instances, evidence that a water supply , sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision." As noted previously, the applicant has only provided documentation regarding the legality of the supply and a pump test of the proposed water source. Technically, this is a central water supply system, which requires a design of the system and it is necessary to provide evidence regarding the dependability and potability of the water supply. There is a rough calculation of the projected water demand for the subdivision, based on one known and projected uses. In a review of the Sketch Plan submittal, there is a water quality test that shows the proposed water exceeds a number of parameters, in addition to the previously noted radioactivity parameters. (See pgs. 6 - 7 ) Since this is a central water supply system, it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate how the system will be designed and to have the engineer design a water treatment design for the subdivision. Based on a note on the third page of the plan maps, it is proposed to have RO treatment at each building. This needs to go further by the defining the type of systems that will remove the contaminants noted in the water quality test and a management system to ensure that the systems are maintained. As submitted, the application does not meet the requirements of Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations in terms of the detail necessary to evaluate the adequacy of the system and the ability to maintain a system. It appears that the "contractor" is responsible for the placement of all utilities to the various lots. If the "contractor" is not the applicant, then the applicant needs to understand that he is responsible for installing all of the utilities to each property line as a part of the fmal plat, subdivision improvements agreement. D. Sewage Disposal: Sewer is proposed to be provided by ISDS. The applicant's engineer performed percolation tests on each site and found areas that perc within the limits allowed by the State ISDS regulations and other areas that do not perc at all. On one of the plan maps, it is stated that each lot will have an engineered system and the other puts the responsibility on the individual lot owner. Staff suggests that it is appropriate to have an engineers design for any lot. It also needs to be noted that an ISDS can only be used for domestic waste and cannot exceed 2000 gpd design capacity on any individual lot. E. State and Local Health Standards. No State or Local health standards are applicable to the application, with the exception of Colorado Department of Health ISDS setback standards, which should be verified by an engineer. F. Drainage. It appears that a drainage easements may be necessary on lot 3, to accommodate the off site and I-70 drainage. It is also noted in the geologic report that it is necessary to have positive drainage away from any building and that no ISDS leach field be located near any building to avoid any potential subsidence possibility. 3 G. Fire Protection. There is a letter in the application from the Rifle Fire District in the application stating that a proposed storage pond for fire protection is adequate, even though it is not the ideal. Prior to final plat approval, the Fire District needs to approve the proposed plans and final installation of the pond. H. Easements. Any required easements (drainage, access, utilities, etc..) will be required to be shown on the final plat. I. School Impact Fees The applicant will not be required to pay the $200.00 per lot impact fee prior to the approval of the final plat, provided none of the lots are to be used for residential purposes. . J. Natural Hazards.. The applicant's geotechnical engineer has established parameters for constructing a buildings on each lot. Staff suggests that it be noted by a plat note requiring that all buildings submit engineered plans for the footers/basements consistent with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared by CTL/Thompson, Inc., dated 4/30/98. K. Agency Comments: The following comments have been received: Colorado Geologic Survey: The State geologist generally concurs with the ) recommendations of the applicant's engineers. (See letter pgs. Colorado Division of Water Resources: The State engineers note that the well permit issued to the applicant can legally supply water to the lots, provided it is demonstrated that the well is put to beneficial use by June 9, 1999 and the contract is maintained for the West Divide Water Conservancy district. They did not comment on the physical capacity to serve the lots. (See letter pg. 9 ) IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission; and B. That the hearing 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 hearing; and C. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and 4 D. That all data, surveys, analysis, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of Colorado, and Garfield County, have been submitted and, in addition, have been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. VII. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend a continuance of the application due to a lack of information regarding the legal access to all lots, the internal road system design, the lack of design information and proven capacity of the proposed water supply and a homeowners association to manage the common elements of the project. 5 Received from: Customer Hu. JOHN C. KEPIIART & CO. GRANDGARAV AJULABORATORItS none ANALYTICAL REPORT GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO •11101 Samuelson Pump Co., Raun Samuelson Glenwood Springs, CO Date Keceired 1/13/9S Lab number Sample ID L$bo*atoIY No._ 66 13 6613 Johnson Well Arsenic(As) Barium(Ba) Cadmium(Cd) Chromium(Cr) Fluoride(F) Lead(Pb) Mcrcury(Hg) Nitrate(N) Selenium(Se) Silver(Ag) Color(Co/Pt unit) PH Conductivity®25 dog. C Sodium(Na) Calcium(Ca) Magneeium(Mg) Potassium (K) Chloride(C1) Sul f aL1. (504) Phenol. Alkalinity(CaCO3) Total Alkalinity(CaCO3) Bi carbonate; t14CO3) Carbonato(CO3) Disso1ved Solids Hardness (CaCO3) Turbidity(NTU) Boron (D) Copper (Cu) Iran (Fe) Manganese(Mn) Molybdenum(Mo) Ammonia(N) Phosphate(P) Zinc (Zn) Page 1 0+ 2 0.000 0.07 0_0000 0. 000 0.13 0.000 0.00000 0.70 0.000 0.0000 0.5 7.40 4330 714 363 156 10.6 351 ) 1920 0 460 557 0 3620 1550 7.1 0.453 0.000 0.70 0.074 0.004 0.00 1.01 0.033 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 umhos/cm mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mq/1 mo/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mo/1 mg/1 mg/1 mrd/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 water Simple Dela Reported 2/2/98 Limits for Drinking Suggested by Coln. Dept_ Health 0.05 mg/1 1.0 mg/1 0.01 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 4 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 0.002 mg/1 10.0 mg/1 0.01 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 none none none 70 mg/1 none 125 me/1 none 250 mg/1 7<0 mg/1 none none none none 500 ma/1 200 mg/1 1 nnnoi 1.0 mg/1 0.3 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 none none none 5.0 mg/1 Lab Dir.! 6r i an S. Bauer 100 'd Received from: JOHN C. KEPHART & CO_ GNANO JUNCTION LipiOJEtjAaiiI[S. ANALYTICAL REPORT GRAND JUNCTION. COLORADO 81501 Samuelson Pump Co., Raun Samuelson Glenwood Springs, CO none 6613 water Customer Na Labo atocy No. Sample 1/13/99 2/2/99 Date Received Date Repotted Lab number 6613 Limits for Drinking Suggested Sample ID Johnson Well by Colo. Dept. Health Gross Alpha Gross Beta 68.0 pCi/1 (+/-40 pCi/l) 0.0 pCi /1 (+/-30 pCi/l) Total Coliform Bacteria 0 colonies /IOOml 15 pCi / 1 200 pCi/1 (50 proposed) 0 colonies /10Om1 NOTE: Large margin of error on radiological results due to high salts present in sample. Page 2 of 2 Lab Dir.: Brian S. Bauer 100 'd JUN -22-98 04:41 AM COLO_GEO_SURV. 3038942174 P-01 V STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minrr,ik and Ceolu4y Departmcnl of Natural Rcsourccs 1 .9 111 SI>e•nn.ur 51rccl, RUi>nl Denver, Colorado 110201 Phone (3Q3) 666 2611 FAX (_103)8(1(3-2.161 Juni, 22, 1998 7671 Post -if Fax Note 7671 late 4,2.z flr► // To 44,-- , C tin From -In Cc., k I �tL° Co./Dept. •moi -3 Proud # Pnonc #3c, j 0 '--4., ?v,..... X67 Fax lb.. 7U q y5 - 7.76 j Fax a Mr. Mark Clean Garfield County Department Building arta i•tanning 109 kth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Lacy Park Subdivision Geologic Hazard Review Dear Mr. Bean, DF.F'ARI MENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1uy Romer. I,rn,r, , s (r>r hhcad Mir h,i�•I Cl Long 1),k clan Director VirL Crw, art and Director At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials submitted for this proposed subdivision. The application form included a Geologic !Lazard and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, and a Drainage Report. A site inspection was conducted on June 19, 1998. The site lies on a strip of land between the railroad ROW and the West Rifle Intersection of Interstate 70, Proposed are Live commercial lots. l,ot 2 in currently occupied with a commercial, metal -sided, garage structure on it. A significant drainage passes through the proposed development along the boundary of lots 3 and 4. Overlot grading has already occurred in lots 1 and 5 at the time of our inspection. This office has reviewed the Geotechnical Report by CFL "Thompson, Inc. dated April 30, 1998 and we concur with its content. Moderate collapsing soils occur at this site, as shown 111 the soil testing results. We reiterate CTL/Thompson's report that positive drainage away from the foundation is absolutely necessary. We recommend that no irrigation of Clower beds or grass be allowed immediately adjacent to footing walls. Soil moisture increases below slaps may result in minor settlements and cracking. The site soils earl also be highly erodible. Care is needed in preventing concentrated run-off from gullying or creating piping voids near the natural drainage between lot 3 and 4. Since the Drainage Study has stated that the existing drainage geometry will contain the now from the concrete box culvert below interstate 70, the developer should not alter it without a channel geometry design or opinion from the consultant. As we understand, iSDS are proposed for this development. ISDS infiltration lines should be placed tar enough from the structure so that rnoisture induced ground settlements will not affect foundation support. Also the lot owners must comply with regulations mandating TSUS field distance minimums from the open drainage channel between lots 3 and 4. Provided the developer and lot owners address the concerns and all of the recommendations of the consultants and this office, we have no other concerns with the intended development of this property. If you have any queStions please contact this office at (303) 891-2167, Sincerely, l✓s=ic' onathan L. kite Engineering Geologist s OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 STATE OF COLOFADQ June 12, 1998 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 �-�---� •-� ---�. ; f. CJ2Cietit4TY Re: Lacy Park Subdivision Secs. 13, 14 & 24, T6S, R94W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 45 Roy Romer Governor James 5. Lochhead Executive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer Dear Mr. McCafferty: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 21.777 acres into five commercial lots with 110,000 square feet of floor space. Water is to be provided through the well with permit no. 50032-F. Annual water diversion was estimated as 1.6 acre-feet for lot 1, and 1 acre-foot each for lots 2 through 5, for a total of 5.6 acre-feet. Water is to be provided through a well via a central system. Sewage is to be through individual disposal systems. A copy of an application for the well was included in the submittal. Permit No. 50032-F was issued on June 9, 1998 for the proposed uses pursuant to a Water Allotment Contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District (the District). However, we have not received a Statement of Beneficial Use for this well. If this document is not received prior to June 9, 1999, the well permit will expire and be of no effect. Also, the well may be operated only so long as a valid contract with the District is in effect or the well is included in a court approved plan for augmentation. A well test completed by the Samuelson Pump Co., Inc., indicates that the well produced 15 gallons per minute over a four hour period on January 13, 1997. With adequate storage capacity this well should provide an adequate supply for the proposed use. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains a valid well permit. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, Steve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer SPUCMULacy Park.doc cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Larry Gepfert, Water Commissioner, District 45