Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 03.12.1997PC 3/12/97 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Four Mile Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan APPLICANTS: Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture LOCATION: A tract of land located in a portion of Section 34, T6S. R89W; located south of Glenwood Springs off of CR 117. SITE DATA: 138.773 acres WATER: Central water from on site wells SEWER: City of Glenwood Springs ACCESS: County Road 117 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD, City of Glenwood Springs I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is designated High Density Residential (2 or less ac./du) and Low Density Residential (10+ ac/du) as shown on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I, Proposed Land Use Districts , Glenwood Springs Quadrangle map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The property is located south of Glenwood Springs on a terrace above the Roaring Fork river. The majority of the property slopes gently from the northeast to the southwest and is used for grazing and crop land. The southeastern portion of the property is a steep hill side adjacent to the Roaring Fork river with 1 slopes in excess of 40% grade. There is an old farm house and a few other agricultural buildings. B. Project Description: It is proposed to split the 138.773 acre site into 59 single- family lots averaging just over two acres in size. The developers are proposing to serve the developments water needs by a central water system supplied by a well or wells and pumped to a 300,000 gallon storage tank. Sewage will be treated by the connection with the City of Glenwood Springs sewage treatment system. Primary access will be provided from County Road 117 via a looped road system with two cul-de-sacs off of the loop, with a 20' wide emergency access easement to one cul-de- sac on the north side of the development. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: Each of the lots proposed meets the two (2) acre minimum lot size required for lots in the A/R/RD zone district. All of the proposed lots do not contain any of the proposed internal street access system, as it was proposed in the Sketch Plan. The lots do contain a proposed "open space" that will restrict the building area of each lot, since each lot owner will be prohibited from placing structures in the open space easement. The plan map identifies this open space as "common open space" in the legend, which is defined in the Subdivision Regulations as follows: "A parcel of land, an area of water, or a combination of land and water within a subdivision designated and intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of the residents, occupants and owners of the subdivision and which is not individually owned or dedicated for public use." At this time there is no indication that there will be a homeowners association or other similar entity created to own and/or maintain the open space and any common amenities placed on the property in question. As this is proposed, it is not consistent with the subdivision regulation definitions and would not be allowed as a part of a standard subdivision. This appears to be an attempt to create a common area similar to that in a PUD, without going through the PUD process. There is a zoning requirement that each lot have at least one (1) acre o f lot area, less than 40% slope. Lots 15 to 20 appear to have substantial portions of the lot area with slopes over 40% and there is no document that allows the staff to review this issue. The applicant needs to provide verification that each lot has a contiguous building envelope with slopes less than 40% slope. B. Comprehensive Plan: As noted previously, the area proposed for development is designated as a high density area due to the proximity to the City of Glenwood Springs water, sewer and road systems. High density growth is encouraged in areas 2 that have central water and sewer systems available or potentially able to annex to a municipality. Until recently, the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan were only advisory and carried no legal weight as a basis for a decision in a standard subdivision that meets the zoning resolution requirements. Don DeFord, County Attorney has advised staff that in Larimer County vs. Conder, the court determined that the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan can be used as a basis for approving or denying a subdivision, even if the zoning resolution supports the application. One of the requirements noted in the decision is that the Subdivision regulations must include language requiring compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Garfield County Subdivision regulations in Section 4:33 does require "conformity or compatibility" with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I, contains a number of goals, policies and objectives applicable to the proposed subdivision. The following discussion focuses on the applicable sections of the plan: HOUSING: Goal: To ensure the availability of housing including affordable housing in the County where in short supply, subject to regulations, which ensure safety, appropriate site design, compatibility and protection of the natural environment. Policies: 2.1 The County, through the development of regulations, shall provide for low and moderate income housing types by allowing for mixed multi -family and single-family housing to appropriate areas throughout the County. Staff Comment: As proposed, the single family dwellings on this property will all fall within the existing rural lot market with acreage. This market at best is an upper middle to upper income market. TRANSPORTATION: Objectives: 3.3 3.6 Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the ability of County roads to adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposal. Development proposals will be required to mitigate traffic impacts on County roads proportional to the development's contribution to the those impacts. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to the following: A. Physical roadway improvements; B. Intersection improvements; C. Transit amenities; D. Signage requirements; E. Alternative traffic flow designs; F. Funding mechanism to implement necessary mitigation. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed to mitigate off-site road impacts based on the road impact fee formula recently adopted by the County. There is no identification of the road impacts in terms of projected traffic from the development. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE: Goal: Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLM/USFS policies and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual corridors. Objective 5.2 5.3 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision and PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance open space uses. If physically possible, subdivisions and PUDs will be encouraged to design open space areas to become contiguous with existing and proposed open spaces adjacent to the project. Staff Comment: There is "dedicated" open space adjacent to the Roaring Fork river, proposed as a part of the subdivision. There is a "typical open space" area throughout the subdivision that is not well defined, except by a legal description and that no structures will be allowed. There is a document submitted with the application that is titled "Perimeter Landscape Concepts" that has sketches of some kind of landscape, bike path and recreational amenities. These are only drawings, with no written documents or other form of specification for these improvements. At this point, they are only nice pictures, with no substance. AGRICULTURE: Goal To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review. Objective 6.1 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches. Staff Comment: There is a proposed open space easement on each lot, that would create some physical separation with the active farming operation to the south of the proposed subdivision. In addition to the open space easement, any plat approved should have a note that recognizes the priority of agricultural uses and the potential for odors, noise and dust that may be offensive to residence uses adjacent and nearby the agricultural operation. URBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE Goal Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. Objective: 10.1 County land use policies will be consistent with local land use policies and objectives. 10.3 Development in an Urban Area of Influence will have street patterns that are compatible with the affected municipality. Policies 10.2 Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities that require urban services will be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction. 10.3 Development will be expected to design a street system that will meet the affected municipality's street standards for construction and right- of-way width Staff Comment: The applicant has chosen not to submit an application to the City of Glenwood Springs due to a previous application for annexation being unacceptable as it was submitted. The applicant has not submitted any information or drawings to verify that the proposed road system will meet the Glenwood Springs standards. A development with two acre lots, is not consistent with the nearby urban development in Glenwood Springs. In summary, it can be argued that the proposed subdivision does not generally comply with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan due to the lack of consistency with the recommended density in the Plan and policies that would encourage annexation or development of higher density projects in areas that have water and sewer infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed street system, open space layout and lot design does not appear to be consistent with either the City or County Comprehensive Plans. This is a very standard design for a subdivision, with very little creativity in the approach to laying out the lots. The area is designated as a high density area with densities greater than one dwelling for each two acres. All of the lots contained in this development are at least two acres each, in compliance with the zoning resolution. C. Soils/Topography: Included in the application is a 1979 geology and soils study done for the previously proposed Four Mile Ranch PUD.(See Section 4 application) It was recommended at Sketch Plan that the applicant update the report to be consistent with the proposed development plans. The geologic information submitted at Sketch Plan, it was note that the bedrock beneath the site is the Eagle Valley Evaporite, overlaid by a river deposits of rounded cobbles, gravels and sands. The river deposits are further overlaid by basalt cobbles and boulders. As a result of core drilling on the site, the geotechnical engineer identified four different soil types for the project area. All of the soil types indicated the potential need for site specific structural design. The recommendations contained in the Preliminary Plan submittal are "somewhat general in nature". The geotechnical engineers made a number of different recommendations based upon certain observed soil types noted in the analysis that had no bearing on the proposed subdivision design . A recommendation in the study is for "bearing capacity values for any given structure should be established by inspection of the open foundation excavation prior to construction." D. Road/Access: The road system for the development consists of single loop, directly serving 25 sites, with two cul-de-sacs off of the loop serving 10 sites in one and 23 sites in the other. The remaining lot will access directly off of an emergency access road for the longer cul-de-sac on the northern portion of the subdivision. Based on the County Subdivision Regulations, a roadway serving at least 20 single family dwellings and not more than 40 units is classified as a secondary access roadway and is required to have at a minimum of a 50 ft. ROW, with eleven (11) ft. driving lanes and six (6) ft. shoulders and a chip seal driving surface. Roads B -D meet and exceed these standards. The proposed entrance, Road A will be classified as a Minor Collector and have a right-of-way has to be 60 ft., with twelve (12) ft. hard surfaced driving lanes and six (6) ft. shoulders. These roadways will have to be dedicated to the public for use, but be maintained by a homeowners association. Access to the site is off of County Road 117, which has been identified as needing improvement to accommodate increased development demands. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to "improve CR 117 from just south of the Midland Avenue intersection to the main entrance into the project to current county standard to the 6 extent that the existing R/W. will allow in lieu of paying county roadway impact fees." The maximum contribution will be the equivalent to the amount that the County would impose as a road impact fee. There is a 40' right-of-way shown for County Road 163, which is not an adequate amount of right-of-way to allow for the proposed CR 117 relocation. E. Water: The applicant has drilled a test well to determine the quantity and quality of the water supply for a central water supply. An additional well is proposed to meet the total needs of the subdivision. The applicant's attorney has provided a copy of a signed contract for 36 acre feet of Reudi Reservoir augmentation water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District, for the project. Additional irrigation water will be provided from water rights owned by the applicant in the Four Mile ditch. Based on calculations by the applicant's engineer, the development will require 33.14 acre/ft. of water annually. The engineer has reviewed pump test data and determined that the test well can provide sufficient water for the development, if the proposed 300,000 gallon storage tank is built to meet instantaneous demand. To meet dry year requirements of the development, a second well is recommended. As a part of the analysis, the engineer noted that the well casing needs to be upgraded to minimize or eliminate the turbidity The proposed water tank is to be located on a common lot line between lots 36 and 37, in the northeast corner of the subdivision. There is an inconsistency between the Preliminary Plat and the Preliminary Master Utility Plan map in terms of the defmition of the building envelope. The area for the water storage tank is shown as a portion of the building envelope on the Preliminary Plat and a part of the open space easement on the Master Utility Plan. It would be more appropriate for the tank to be located in the open space easement with an access and utility easement across the building areas for the lots. The proposed location is also in a high spot on the property and will be very visible. There is no definition of the dimensions of the tank, to be able to evaluate the visual impact of the facility. F. Sewer: It is proposed to serve the development's sewage by connecting to the City of Glenwood Springs system. A letter dated January 17, 1995 from the City Manager was included in the application indicating that the City can provide sewer service, provided the applicants can make certain system upgrades. In a subsequent letter, from the City Engineer and the previously noted letter, it was noted that it will be necessary to receive approval from the City Council. Until the City Council has approved the proposed sewer connections and a contract has been agreed upon, it can not be stated that the City has agreed to provide service. Section 4:92 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations requires the following if sewage treatment is to be provided by an existing sewer system: 7 "Letter from an authorized representative of the facility or system stating that the proposed development can and will be served." The letter enclosed in the application indicates that the City has the capacity to serve the proposed development, but until an agreement is presented to the City Council there is no guarantee that the service will be provided. G. Fire Protection: The 300,000 gallon water storage tank is designed to meet the domestic water needs of the development and provide 1000 gpm for two hours of fire protection water. There is no additional information regarding fire protection provided in the application, other than the above statement. H. Lot Layout: All of the lots are least two acres in size to comply with the A/R/RD zone district requirements. Each lot has a building envelope and an area that appears to be an open space easement. On lots 26-39, the open space is located adjacent to the road and separates the building envelopes from the roadway. This should be reversed to avoid any sky lining of the structures. There is no real defmition of what the open space area is to be used for other than the proposed plat note that prohibits structures in the easement. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan discussion, there are a few sketches of what appears to be some proposed improvements to the open space easement, without any further definition. Section 4:60 (A.) requires the applicant to submit information on the "proposed terms of reservations or dedications of sites for public and/or common facilities or use, if any." The previously noted information is at best the bare minimum necessary to meet this requirement in only a technical sense. If it is the developer's intent to make these improvements, the proposed bike/walking path and other improvements need to be defined in terms of the location of the easement on the easement; proposed dimensions; type of materials to be used for construction and who will be responsible for the maintenance and liability for these improvements. There needs to be additional documentation added to this application to allow the Planning Commission and others reviewing the proposed subdivision to make an informed decision. I. Other Comments: 1. City of Glenwood Springs: Enclosed is a letter from the City Planning Commission, Planning Department, and Engineering staff.. (See pgs. ) There are a number of issues raised with the layout lacking any open space design consistent with City Land Use plans; water and sewer infrastructure concerns and off-site road impacts. 8 2. Colorado Geologic Survey: Based on the documented geologic constraints, the Geologic Survey recommends a lot by lot drilling program by a qualified geotechnical engineer to establish the surface and subsurface conditions in the development. (See letter pgs. ) 3. Division of Wildlife: Enclosed is a letter noting a number of suggested design modifications for the project that will minimize the impact to wildlife in the area. (See pgs. ) 4. Roaring Fork School District RE -1: The enclosed letter requests a $200 per lot site acquisition fee be collected as a part of the subdivision approval. The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Douglas and Boulder County school impact fees did provide for the payment of site acquisition fees as a part of the subdivision review process. (See pg. ) 5. Colorado Department of Health: The Department recommends that the sewage disposal lines be sized to accommodate the future expansion of service further up the valley. Additionally, it was noted that the water system will be subject to the State Drinking Water standards and will require a storm water discharge permit for the property. (See pg. ) 6. Neighbor's Comments : The Morgans and Lucas submitted a letter objecting to the development of the property due to impacts on the County road and wildlife.. ( See pgs. ) IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by law for the hearing before the County Planning Commission; and B. That the hearing before the County 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 is not in general compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County; and D. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and 9 E. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of Colorado, and Garfield County, have not been submitted and, in addition, have not been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. V. RECOMMENDATION At a minimum, the Planning Commission should continue this application to their next meeting to allow for additional information or documentation. The following information is needed: 1. That a letter and/or contract from the City of Glenwood Springs stating that they will provide sewage treatment services to the development. 2. Additional documentation must be provided to define the use of the open space easement, the improvements to be made by the developer, the timing of transfer of ownership the improvements. Another option is to recommend denial of the proposed subdivision due to noncompliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan due primarily to the lack of design creativity to address the compatibility of the proposed development with the adjoining agricultural uses and City development standards. Additionally, there is no indication that the City of Glenwood Springs would not annex the property. 10