The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 BOCC Staff Report 03.21.1983PROJECT NAME: OWNER/APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: LOCATION: • • X13 PCG c m men -IS PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Laura Lee Subdivision Sketch Plan Bill and Laura Smith Tim Callahan Approximately 2 miles Northwest of Silt off County Roads 237 and 266 SITE DATA: 32.60 acres to be subdivided into 6 single family lots. WATER: Proposed shared domestic wells SEWER: Proposed individual septic systems ACCESS: From County Roads 237 and 266 EXISTING ZONING: ARRD ADJACENT ZONING: North: ARRD South: ARRD East: ARRD West: ARRD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property lies within the "Subdivision Classification" of the County Compre- hensive Plan. The following are a listing of quotes taken directly from the various sections of the Comprehensive Plan: Much of the area surrounding Silt is agrarian. New development should minimize impact 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. Page 58. Productive agricultural lands need to be preserved and allowed to continue as long as possible. Page 3. Adequate provision of technical services (i.e. water, sewer, roads) to new and existing development needs to be ensured by the County. Page 4. New development should be compatible with existing adjacent land uses. Page 5. Utilize the cluster development technique as an incentive for less expensive housing, especially in areas where it is desirable to preserve agricultural land use or where scenic attributes should be maintained. Page 8. Utilize cluster development and Planned Unit Development in agricultural areas. Page 17. Encourage non-agricultural development in agricultural areas to locate on non-productive farm land. Page 18. Provide a minimum number of access points on through streets and highways. Page 20. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: A. Site Description: The site is gently sloping, and used for agricultural purposes. There are several existing homes in the area. B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 32.60 acre tract into six parcels of 2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 4.2 and 18.4 acres each. • III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS: A. Previous History: In 1978, the applicant received a Senate Bill 35 Exemption to split a 40 acre tract into two tracts of 37.64 and 2.36 acres. In 1979, the applicant received another SB 35 Exemption to split the 37.64 acres into three parcels of 32.68, 2.36 and 2.42 acres. In 1981, the applicant requested another SB 35 Exemption to create three more parcels. However, at that time, the Board of County Commissioners indicated that the applicant would need to proceed through the full subdivision procedures, since the Senate Bill 35 Exemption process only allows for three new lots to be created by exemption. The applicant has therefore submitted this request for County Subdivision review. B. 1. The applicant proposes to serve parcels 1 and 6 (2.5 and 18.5 acres, respectively) from one existing domestic (10 gpm) well. Parcel 2 (2.5 acres) will be served by a household use only well. Parcels 3 and 4 (2.5 acres each) will be served by an existing domestic (15 gpm) well which is located on a lot outside the development, and parcel 5 (4.2 acres) will also be served by an existing domestic well which is located outside of this development. If the Division of Water Resources approves the shared use of these wells, the applicant must provide evidence of authorization from the landowners outside the development that joint usage of the wells will be allowed. The applicant must also provide evidence of well maintenance easements from the wells to each parcel served by those wells. Joint ownership and maintenance of all pumping facilities, etc., must also be addressed. 2. The County Road Supervisor has indicated that the shared access points onto County Roads 237 and 266, as presented in the sketch plan, will present no problems. These stretches of road have a good line -of -sight in the vicinity of the proposed access points; and the road surface is generally in good condition. Culvert sizes, lengths, and construction will need to be addressed in the preliminary plan drainage study. In addition, the Road Supervisor noted that the narrow bridge on First Street just outside of Silt will be replaced within the next month, and widened from 16 to 24 feet in width. (See circle on attached map, page 10 .) 3. The County Environmental Health Officer has indicated that there should be no problems with individual septic disposal systems and standard seepage beds. C. Review Agency Comments 1. Town of Silt - the Town opposes this project due to poor access roads leading to the development, and because it would continue the "urban sprawl" north of Silt, evidenced by the Sunrise, Panoramic, and Asgard Subdivisions. (See letter, page 11 .) IV. FINDINGS: A. The sketch plan conforms to Section 4.01, sketch plan requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. B. The sketch plan conforms to the requirements of the zone district in which the development is located. C. The proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in all directions. D. The sketch plan is in general conformance with the County Comprehensive Plan. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: On March 9, 1983, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Laura Lee Sub- division Sketch Plan with the following conditions: Staff Comments III (B) 1-2 3 .C33fL Re,oi2ou mrru2 l11 F3 l- Z, ,c)e� Page 7 26 CO DITCH oe; 5865 04 •II 0 II q p�. M JII_ 5906 `'-y s ERA u •� rte= _�. II II 11 q — G .p �) _ • II II - II 115889 // 002 $772.' -P 58.45 587 • 0 op I • II 3 • 58 1 !I n 'C. // 0 5657 5655 r • 1p• • (nl ,/�� /11 i/ j1 (:i 58C 5587: 'A. • u 11i• ,II ravel rite - = —WAR _ •__jjS�lt�\ �� _:.� CACT</s 539 WEST, 8ii :;`�,.: .... 5380 ...:::-: • 1 N 1// zr /...iq\ GNA j E. P •o.n n LAST ---..N R1•51N ;... l i378_, II Page 10 5 .n0 `1 TOW]VofSiLi P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 February 17, 1983 Garfield County Department of Development Attention: Terry Bowman 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Laura Lee Subdivision/Sketch Plan Dear Terry, \ , FEB 1 8 9 G,,1,I The Town of Silt opposes this development proposal for several reasons: 1) Should this subdivision be approved it would be a continuation of "urban sprawl" north of Silt which already includes Sun Rise, Panorama, and Asgard subdivisions, 2) Access to these subdivisions are narrow heavily used roads, 3) Miller Lane (one such access) has had a history of bad accidents as it is one of the Forest Service and Harvey Gap major accesses as well as serving subdivisions north of Silt. The Town of Silt has drafted large and small lot zoning regulations and will be holding public hearings in March. Our intent is to encourage those whom wish to develop large parcel varied agricultural uses or small lot,3/4 to 2 1/2 acre,limited agricultural that are feasibly annexable to the Town of Silt. Silt is not asking the County to take a "no -growth" attitude,only suggests that new proposals lie within reasonable distance to the Town of Silt so that future utility hook-ups can be economically accomodated as well as the other expected services, i.e. police and fire protection be provided with adequate response time. Thank you again for the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, Mike Wikoff Planner Page 11 PROJECT NAME: OWNER/APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: LOCATION: PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Laura Lee Subdivision Sketch Plan Bill Smith Tim Callahan Approximately two miles Northwest of Silt on County Roads 237 and 266 SITE DATA: Request for 6 single family lots on 32.6 acres REQUESTED ACTION: Refer to Planning Commission -32- TOWN of SIL'? P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 February 17, 1983 Garfield County Department of Development Attention: Terry Bowman 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Laura Lee Subdivision/Sketch Plan Dear Terry, The Town of Silt opposes this development proposal for several reasons: 1) Should this subdivision be approved it would be a continuation of "urban sprawl" north of Silt which already includes Sun Rise, Panorama, and Asgard subdivisions, 2) Access to these subdivisions are narrow heavily used roads, 3) Miller Lane (one such access) has had a history of bad accidents as it is one of the Forest Service and Harvey Gap major accesses as well as serving subdivisions north of Silt. The Town of Silt has drafted large and small lot zoning regulations and will be holding public hearings in March. Our intent is to encourage those whom wish to develop large parcel varied agricultural uses or small lot,3/4 to 2 1/2 acre,limited agricultural that are feasibly annexable to the Town of Silt. Silt is not asking the County to take a "no -growth" attitude,only suggests that new proposals lie within reasonable distance to the Town of Silt so that future utility hook-ups can be economically accomodated as well as the other expected services, i.e. police and fire protection be provided with adequate response time. Thank you again for the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, Mike Wikoff Planner