Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 11.13.1996• • PC l 1/13/96 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Four Mile Ranch Subdivision Sketch 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 acres WATER: Central water from on site wells SEWER: I.SD.S. 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 gentlely 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 acre site into 62 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 two proposed wells. Sewage will be treated by the use of individual sewage disposal systems. Access will be provided from County Road 117 via a 50 ft. wide looped road system. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: On the surface, each of the lots proposed meets the two (2) acre minimum lot size required for lots in the A/R/RD zone district. What is subject to interpretation is the definition of a lot and whether or not a lot can include street right-of-way as a part of the lot size calculation. Staffs position is that the minimum lot size calculation cannot include street right-of-way to meet the minimum. The Garfield County Zoning Resolution has the following definitions: Lot Line: The total horizontal land area within the boundaries of a lot. Lot Line: The external boundary of a lot: (1) Lot line, front: the boundary of a lot dividing it from the adjacent street: Staff contends that a lot does not include a "street", since it is supposed to be adjacent to the front lot line. By including the street right-of-way in the lots proposed there is no front lot line adjacent to a street, as a result the proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot size of two (2) acres and cannot be found to meet the zone district requirements. 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 that have central water and sewer systems available or potentially able to annex to a municipality. To develop this property at a rural density of 2 acres or larger is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. But, it should also be noted that the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan are only advisory and carry no legal weight as a basis for a decision in a standard subdivision, if it meets the zoning resolution requirements. • • B. Soils/Topography: Included in the application is a 1979 geology and soils study done for the previously proposed Four Mile Ranch PUD.(See Section 2 application) The study was based on the use of central sewage treatment as opposed to the presently proposed individual sewage disposal systems. Any further proposals utilizing IDS systems will require a much more in depth review of the soils capability to utilize such systems. The existing study indicates potential problems due to the introduction of water to the soils. 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 developed four different soil types for the project area. All of the soil types indicated the potential need for site specific structural design. At preliminary plan, the required geologic analysis needs to be more site specific and based on the design submitted at that time. C. Road/Access: The road system for the development consists of two large loops serving 30 sites in one and 32 sites in the other. 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. The proposed road will be classified as a Minor Collector from the intersection with County Road 117 to the point approximately 1000 ft. from the intersection at a point that the two loops reconnect again. As a Minor Collector, the right-of-way has to be 60 ft., with twelve (12) ft. hard surfaced driving lanes and six (6) ft. shoulders. The proposed roadway centerline is the common lot lines of the proposed lots. This roadway 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 development demands. The Planning Commission is working on an amendment to the subdivision regulations to establish a formula for road impact fees. This development will be expected to be subject to any road impact fees established for County Road 117. The applicant has made no indication that they will voluntarily contribute to any off-site road improvements. Water: The applicant proposes to drill two wells to supply a central water supply. The applicant's attorney has indicated that the applicant should be able to acquire augmentation water for the project. It does not make a lot of sense to develop another central water supply system for this development, when the City of Glenwood Springs has previously committed to provide water to the development. If the City declines to provide water, then any central water supply system will have to be designed to meet the State of Colorado drinking water supply requirements. • • E. Sewer: The Colorado Department of Health and Environment will be sent a copy of any preliminary plan submitted for this project. It is required by State statute that a preliminary plan receive a "favorable recommendation regarding the proposed method of sewage disposal." When there is a central sewage disposal system within reasonable distance, the use of ISDS has not been given a favorable recommendation. The applicant needs to consider connecting to the City of Glenwood Springs. D. Fire Protection: No comment has been received from the Glenwood Springs and Rural Fire Protection District. E. Lot Layout: As noted previously, the use of right-of-way as a part of the minimum lot size calculation is not consistent with staffs interpretation of a lot based on the Zoning resolution definitions. Since there are no calculations of the lot sizes, it is difficult to determine how many lots would need to be redesigned to meet the two (2) acre minimum lot size. Lots 23-27 appear to have a substantial portion of the lot with slopes over 40%. The County Zoning resolution requires that each lot have at least one (1) contiguous acre of the lot with slopes less than 40%. This issue needs to be addressed at Preliminary Plan. F. Additional Comments: 1. City of Glenwood Springs: Enclosed is a letter from the City Planning Commission Chair. (See pgs. 2 2 County Attorney: Enclosed is a memo from the County Attorney, noting a number of issues related to roads, ISDS and lot design.(See pgs. i — /7 ) The Sketch Plan process is purely informational. Completion of the Sketch Plan process does not constitute approval of the proposed plan. The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year form the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Division for review and comparison with the original application. 4 • • November 4, 1996 Mark Bean, Director, Planning and Building Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Four Mile Ranch Sketch Plan The Four Mile Ranch Sketch Plan will be reviewed at the November 13, 1996, meeting of the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission. Please make available to your commissioners the following comments from the Glenwood Springs Planning and Zoning Commission. • As proposed, the sketch plan is the epitome of the sprawling, suburban, auto -oriented planning which will ultimately destroy our community. This approach to subdivision design promotes the destruction of natural resources - ranch lands, ridge lines, wildlife corridors, visual corridors, clean water, clean air - and encourages inefficient infrastructure - more pavement, more plumbing, more vehicle miles traveled, and more light, air and water pollution. • There are goal and policy statements within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and Glenwood Springs Land Use Plan which provide guidance to the commission as they review this sketch plan. See attached summaries. Planning tools and concepts exist to guide the development of rural lands in order to preserve open space and achieve efficient, non-destructive design which is compatible with the area. Please use them to guide your decision-making. Sincerely, Glenwood Springs Planning and Zoning Commission Martha ochran, Chair Michael Blair Dick McKinley Arrel Black Sam Skramstad Bob Wo !. rth Bruce Baier Roger Garing 806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970/945-257.5 FAX: 945-2597 Sketch Plan 4Four Mile Ranch October, 1996 Sketch Plan Elements Land Area 138 Acres. Number of Units 62 Single Unit Houses. Density 1 unit per 2.23 acres. .45 units per acre. Water System Central system owned by Home Owners Association, supplied by wells. Storage tank on Lot 15 - the most visually prominent point in the subdivision from the lower valley. Possible independent raw water irrigation system. Wastewater System ISDS. Road System Privately maintained improvements in 50 foot easement. Dedicated Open Space None Dedicated Park lands None Wildlife Corridor None Visual Corridor None Attainable Housing None Trail and Connections None Sketch Plan amour Mile Ranch. October, 1996 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Elements 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 the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. Objectives: County land use policies will be consistent with local land sue policies and objectives. Development that requires urban services will be encouraged to locate in areas where these are available. Water and Sewer Services Goal: Ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound water and sewer services for new development. Objectives: Development located adjacent to municipalities ... will be strongly encouraged to tie into these systems. Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer systems. Natural Environment Goal: Encourage a land use pattern the recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land. Objectives: Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic, and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected. Housing Goal: Ensure the availability of housing including affordable housing in the County where in short supply. Transportation Goal: Ensure the County transportation system is safe, functional, appropriately designed ... and includes options for the use of modes other than the single occupant vehicle. Recreation and Open Space Goal: Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for County residents, ensure access to public lands ... and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual corridors. Sketch Plan "four Mile Ranch* October, 1996 Glenwood Springs Comp Plan Elements Development rather than Growth. Development improves the quality of our place by helping to achieve community goals. Growth extends the infrastructure and depletes our resources without achieving community goals. Maintain Small Town Character Sprawl is the enemy! Its destructive and inefficient. Create an edge to the City by establishing an urban development boundary. Encourage urban densities within and rural densities outside the boundary. Preserve Cultural Resources Compact urban area within a rural setting. Preserve natural resources. Preserve ridge lines, visual corridors, wildlife corridors. Encourage cluster development. Preserve open space. Achieve Directed Development. Encourage urban densities within and rural densities outside the urban development boundary. Achieve Balanced Development. There should be a balance between developed area and undeveloped area. There should be a balance between density and recreational opportunities. There should be a balance in the type, size and price of housing. Achieve Social Diversity. Diversity of housing will result in social diversity. Address Transportation Problems. Sprawl discourages efficient transit. Encourage alternatives to single occupant vehicle. • GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303 Telephone (970) 945-9150 Fax No. (970) 945-7785 MEMO TO: MARK BEAN, BUILDING, PLANNING DEPT. FROM: DON K. DEFORD RE: DATE: FOUR MILE RANCH'SUBDI ISION SKETCH PLAN OCTOBER 24, 1996 After review of the proposed Four Mile Ranch Subdivision Sketch Plan, I have the following comments: 1. The plat of the proposed subdivision does not properly indicate the existence of County Road 163 as that right-of-way crosses and divides parcels 24 through 30 in the southeast portion of the proposed subdivision. Any plat of this project must demonstrate the existence of that right-of-way. That road not only exists but provides actual access to separately owned parcels. Additionally, the applicant should address the impact of the existence of that road on the affected parcels, from the standpoint of dividing those parcels, reducing acreage, and its use for access to those parcels. 2. The application form would not appear to properly list either the owner of the property subject to subdivision, or the authority of the applicant to make the request for sketch plan review. The records of the Garfield County Assessor appear to demonstrate that the property is owned variously by M -R Colorado Investors, Inc., as well as One And A Quarter Mile Ranch, Inc. 3. The plat fails to note the contiguity of this subdivision with the city limits of Glenwood Springs. 4. The plat apparently fails to note the City of Glenwood Springs as an actual property owner adjacent to the subject property for a small area along the southeast portion of the subdivision. The records of the Garfield County Assessor may not be accurate on this point, but it is an issue which the developer should address. 5. The applicant is proposing ISD systems for sewage disposal. Under the provisions of Section 30-28-136, the Department of Health will review this application at the next stage of the County process. That Department has uniformly recommended Memo To Mark Beall' From Don K. DeFord October 24, 1996 Page 2 connection to central sewage systems for subdivided property lying close to or adjacent to property served by central sewage systems. Obviously, this subdivision lies adjacent to and in close proximity to the City of Glenwood Springs, an entity providing central sewer in an entity that probably is required to extend central sewer to this site. (201 Plan Requirement.) It should be anticipated that the Board of County Commissioners will not be able to approve the project as proposed unless it includes connection to a central sewer system as recommended and required under Section 30-28-136. 6. Site access is proposed from County Road 117. As all parties are aware, that road is currently the subject of an extensive engineering study and impact fee analysis. At the time of submittal of this application, the Board of County Commissioners have not selected an engineering design for that road. The applicant states that all lots will either have access indirectly or directly to that county road. The applicant should state definitely whether or not any access to that road is anticipated from individual lots directly contacting the road right-of-way. 7. The design of the subdivision effectively makes all internal lots a cul de sac. Under the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, the Board must find that a design can be approved only with the provision of adequate fire protection and emergency egress and access. 8. The location of wells, treatment facilities and storage tanks must be identified with some precision. If the storage tank is located on an actual lot, questions arise about whether or not the tank site can be considered part of a lot for lot size purposes, as that site will need to be dedicated to the homeowners' association. 9. If the irrigation rights are proposed to support the use of wells for water supply, approval of that use by the State Engineer's Office and a change of use approval from the Water Court will be necessary. 10. The letter from the City of Glenwood Springs concerning electric service does not adequately state that there is capacity in the system to serve this area. That letter must be clear and unequivocal on that point. 11. The application should be forwarded to the City of Glenwood Springs for review not only as an adjacent property owner but as a municipality lying within the two and three mile zones set forth in our regulations. 411 Memo to Mark Bea From Don K. DeFord October 24, 1996 Page 3 12. The sketch plan does not appear to indicate acreages for lot sizes. Of course, the minimum lot size is two acres for all lots within this subdivision. The developer must consider the provisions of Section 5.04 - lot slope restrictions to properly determine whether a sufficient building site is designated for each lot. The foregoing concludes my comments on the proposed sketch plan for Four Mile Ranch. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. DKD:vlm