The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 PC Staff Report 11.13.1991• PC 11/13/91 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REOUEST: Los Adobes Sketch Plan OWNER: Los Adobes Joint Venture/Robert Rivers LOCATION: A parcel of land known as Tract #1 through #5 of the Sunnyside Subdivision located in Section 17, T7N, R88W in the 6th P.M.; located on the north side of Highway 82 1/2 mile east of the intersection with Highway 133. SUE DATA: The site consists of 23 acres. WA TER: Wells SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems ACCESS: Proposed roadway from Highway 82. EXISTING AND ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD 1. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is located in the Carbondale Urban Area of Influence as designated on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management District's map. I . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Descri tp ion: The subject property is located on the north side of Highway 82. The property is steeply sloped with occasional red rock outcrops, with a relatively flat area adjacent to the highway. The area is primarily vegetated with pinon-juniper type vegetation. There is currently a residence on the property which is accessed by a switchbacki ng driveway. In addition, the proposed access road is currently under construct ion. B. Project Description: The applicants are proposing an eight (8) lot resubdivision of a 23 acre tract. The lots average slightly larger than two (2) acres in size. In addition to the 8 lots is a four (4) acre open space parcel. C. Background: The subject property was previously divided through the exemption process into 4 lots, known as the Sunnyside Subdivision Exemption. The current proposal would vacate the existing lots and resubdivide the property. • III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMME IT A. Comments at Sketch Plan Stage (Not Included) 1. Roaring Fork School District: Bus service would not be available. 2. Holy Cross Electric: Electric is available for the project. Adequate perimeter easements will be required. 3. Colorado Department of I Iealth: Concerned about the impact of steep slopes and shallow bedrock on the I.S.D.S. siting. 4. Colorado Division of Wildlife: Limited wildlife usage on the site due to lack of forage. Recommend ten acre lot size, no livestock grazing and restriction of dogs. B. Comments Received in Response to Preliminary Plan 1. Division of Water Resources: Insufficient information to comment on the proposal. Until receipt of further information, recommend proposal be held in obeyance (see letter on page q ). 2. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: Concerned about erosion on road cuts. Recommend a revegetation plan. Concern about animal control. Also, concerned about physical and legal protection of the irrigation ditch which crosses the site (see letter page I 0 ). 3. Town of Carbondale: Application referred by town staff to Planning Commission for comment. Concerned about lack of terrain consideration in road placement (see letter on page l 1 ). 4. Barbara Tunnicliffe: Neighboring landowner concerned about continued damage from stormwater runoff and debris flows. Concerned about impact on wildlife. Concern about difficulty in revegetating road cut/fill slopes. IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Soils/Terrain: The subject property is steeply sloped, in excess of 50 percent on portions of the property. The property has approximately 225 feet of relief over its length. Identified building sites have slopes of roughly 15 to 35 percent. Average slopes range in the 25 to 40 percent per lot. According to the Soil Conservation Service, the proposed subdivision site is dominated by 2 soil types. Both soil types are poorly suited for homesite development, limited by steep slopes, shallow depth to bedrock and erosion potential. B. Water: The applicants are proposing to service the 8 lots via 4 wells, each well to be shared by 2 residences. The proposed location of each of the wells has not been identified to date. One of the 4 wells has been constructed and services the existing residence on Lot #4. No well sites or water line easements have been identified on the plat. 5 IIP s • A commitment from the Division of Water Resources for 4 wells was granted in 1979 for the Sunnyside exemption. Some questions remain about their applicability in a new subdivision. In addition, the applicants have apparently contracted with the Basalt Water Conservancy District for the 4 wells. No contract has been submitted to date. In the absence of a contract, the Division of Water Resources has deferred any recommendation. In recent months, the Board of County Commissioners have voiced concerns over the finality of Reudi-based water district contracts. Aspen and Pitkin County have indicated that they may challenge the validity of Basalt W.C.D. contracts. The challenges would be based on the contention that the District has sold more water than they have allotted currently. C. Geology: The geology report raises a number of lot specific concerns. These concerns include flash -flooding, rock fall and gullies/erosion and identified limitations on all lots but one. In addition, the report states that wastewater disposal may be a problem because of the gullies, near surface bedrock and hillsides, and that a civil engineer will need to design each system (see letter on page ). D. Wastewater: The applicants are proposing individual on-site disposal systems. Both the project geologist and engi neer concur that there are limitations and that each lot will require site-specific assessment. Only one perc test has been conducted on the property, for the existing residence. While this test indicated an adequate perc rate, staff has concerns that perc rates may not be adequate on all lots and that with the abundance of bedrock, effluent surfacing may be a problem. E. Roads: The applicants are proposing to access the 8 subdivision lots via a cul- de-sac off Hwy 82. This roadway has been partially constructed. The roadway has several deficiencies. The slope exceeds design limits for this type of roadway (12% instead of 10%). Modifications to County standards have been proposed in order to lessen this limitation. No action will be taken pending input from an engineering committee, the Planning Commission and County Commissioners. The second deficiency is that the cul-de-sac exceeds the 600 foot allowable limit. This requirement may be waived subject to the review and approval of the Fire District. No response has been received to date. No drainage improvements are proposed with the roadway or to handle the two major gullies crossing the property. The road design has created sizable cut and fill slopes of bare earth. These slopes will be subject to erosion unless revegetation efforts are proposed. The applicants have obtained a highway access permit for ingress/egress onto Hwy 82. No significant improvements are required by the state permit, however, County subdivision regulations require that acceleration/deceleration lanes be installed on State highways. F. Utilities: The site is currently served by electricity from Holy Cross. They have requested perimeter easements around each lot of 10'. G. Common Facilities: No method of ownership and maintenance of common facilities has been proposed to date. • • H. Fire Protection: No fire protection plan has been included in the application. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 4. That all data, surveys, analyses, sti.ndies, 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. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this application be tabled until all the required elements of the preliminary plan application are submitted, including a topo map with five (5) foot contour intervals, a Basalt Water Conservancy District contract(s), fire protection plans, consent from fire district on cul-de-sac and method of ownership and maintenance of common facilities. In addition, staff would encourage the applicant to do additional soils testing to document wastewater disposal issues. ROY ROMER Governor X876, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 FAX [3031866-3589 October 25, 1991 Mr. Andrew McGregor, Planner Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Los Adobes Preliminary Plan Sec. 27, T7S, R88W, 6T11 PM F!iFro/. OCT 311991 i GkI(i LLL) LUUN t Y ON Dear Mr. McGregor: We have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plan to subdivide a 23.2 acre parcel into eight lots and an open space area. No informal ion was provided on projected water requirements or the proposed water supply. Until this information is submitted for review, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the water supply. When we receive the; information on the water requirement and supply we will provide further comments. Until that time, we recommend that this proposal be held in abeyance. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact John Schurer of this office. SPL/JS/losadobes cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Sincerely, k -11\ -1 -NT Steve Lautenschlager, P.E. Assistant State Engineer UrOV 41991 MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DIS QCT .L., P.O. B(:Ix 1302 Gf1Rt ICED COUNTY GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. j 81601 October 31, 1991 Andrew McGregor,Planner 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Dear Sir, The District has the following general comments in regard to the Los Adobes Subdivision. The material received does not contain soils information and other data that normally accompanies subdivision reviews. For a complete review by the District we would appreciate receiving all required data. Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated to prevent erosion and weed free seed and mulch used for reseeding, with monitoring done on the growth and noxious weeds controlled. We feel that a revegetation plan should be prepared for all disturbed areas on this subdivision. The board is always concerned about animal control in an area where there is the potential for wildlife or domestic livestock and recommends animal control within the subdivlision. Of prime concern to the Board is the proper' maintenance and protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. Liability of the ditch owners is always something they question, and the ability to maintain the right —of—way easement for use by the owners of the water rights should continue. Sincerely, Dee Blue President, Mount Sopris SCD NOV 08 '91 12:24 tu* TOWI'I OF CARBOhNDALE 528 P02/02 Town of Carbondale 76 South 2nd St. Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (303) 963-2733 November 8, 1991 Mr. Andrew McGregor Garfield County Department of Regulatory Offices and Personnel 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIMILE Re: Los Adobes Sketch, Plan I\_1(4.11g_ . NOV 8 1991 l,;-.,►:ILLU :;vuNTY Dear Andrew: The Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Los Adobes sketch pl.sn which you Towniiht ttstaf for rtrefd erral at ltatptheir November `7th, 1991 meeting topography, the relatively steep grade!of the road and the geologic conditions which may cause sone concern for providing individual septic systems at the proposed density. The Commission's comments centered around the road and whether the constraints of terrain were carefully considered in relation to road placement. The Commission recommends that the County ty any consider adopting standards fur road construction permits road involving highly visible terrain that would be subject to a 1041 type of review process. The vote; on this recommendation was 6 to 1. The Town of Carbondale would like to thank Garfield County for this referral and the ability to review and comment on projects in the vicinity of the Town. Please call me at 963-2733 if you have any questions. Sincerely, /41 .( C Mark Chain Town Planner MC/sd J3 'Lt a'C1 ( �I L1212LCL L jrE ,26,Q41 `1l„ y. s I III / ,,.. Cil1(��acfclle, / ��( �. b•li_i '3014- 90 ;-: ,6; Planning Department Garfield County County Courthouse Glenwood Springs. Colo 81601 ki!'EXT,53 NOV 7 1991 �� I f. t.. GARFIELD CUujV} y November 6th 1991 Dear Sirs, In response to the certified letter pf Public Notice withmenth regardintohis the Los Adobes Joint Venture, I would like to make my regard. I do have serious concerns with extending the original 5 lots to 8 lots. My first and most serious concern, is with regard to the water run off into my two properties which sit below the subdivision and Stutzman This property was purchased by Mr Gerbas, Findholm, Grangeseveral years ago, when it was originally subdivided. They proceeded to widen the last switch back at that time, which changed the entire flood flow. More water was funneled into the natural ditch, and the first big storm brought down tuns of mud which washed into the house at 12644Hwy 82, which at the time belonged to Mr Luttrell. The force of the water broke the basement windows and flooded his basement with at least six inches of mud causinlJ lots of damage. I now own this l,o1us,e $ before Mr Luttrell sold the house he built a temporary wall to protect his property. The next cloud burst brought down more mud and trees which ran to the wall and shot it over my property at 1269` Hwy 82, taking out half my lawn half acre) but my house was not in lI its path. With the intention of lots #1 and #2 beiniq anywhere near the natural gully I am very concerned that I inay be harmed and particularly now I own both homes I have more to lose. I would demand that my properties be made harmless from any future water damage caused by any further rearrangement of roads or buildings. At the present time my land has, been contoured to carry water and debri down to the Highway where the side ditch'l,carrie away some. r there has been several occassions when I have been on Highway 82 in a torrential downpoor pulling trees and debti off the highway so as not to endanger motorists. I� (Pa.zga.za _JL1121210E11I E 126(,)4 : /wi/. b1 C1�lR6�lll t,�lll �, Lr. b162 j03 -963-Z 561 Continuation.. My second concern is that the sleeping grounds for the deer have been lost by the subdivision, but I suppose there is nothing that can be done about that. My third concern is that although the intention is there to re - vegetate the ugly scar made by the new road, I don't see how it can be restored to its natural condition! Yourp--f rully , 1'' • C�LI�LtJU't �' / C:G�J Barbara Tunnicliffe. se N � =m I��'o� �n��suoz oq JoTA6 SOD ��/Tse A pesodoAd ~- - � zeds sTq �of uammooe� oTf� eA� Jo+ ubTsep uoTlepunof Ao] supTqep u�~~~~Tl-'-�-u^ ,mous fo uoTqelnmnzze abAel Aue moples sT eAe4t 0� � dx� u�aq�nos pue uoT�eAele aqq fo esneneq ^ pue AqAedoAd e4q ou T aA~il ----`"' �eW qnoqe qv qsewqqAou eqq o� Aeua|� sdTp qzTqw uoTqemAoj up ebe ueTmAa6 ueTuexl�suu�6 ' e s� ee�e eq� 4noq�no�q� pe+Ans - `uTb��o lexnlloz fo (sauogsp ues e4� �eeu JO �e �Tun pa� Tue selqqoz ^spues pue seuoqsllTs PeA Al ) sAapinoqo�dpaq� fo ��oloe� aql *sqlTs peqepTlosuozun fo s'�sTsuoz xqAao � ! � .4Aed sow eqq Aril! semoq fo uoTlznAlsuoz aqq Jof pePTo«e e sedolexue pe��em aq wogs pue peTllnb Jo deaqs Ae4qTe eJuemu��le eqq fin apTslno seeAe e4l ^\imoqs se ^eqeldmoz AlAeeu sT qmeq� � t Aalleq buoqe peoA uoTsT«Tpqns meu ��uemdol ^�`�ep sTx Aw fo =�� eq� qbno�' ' pe ' � qv Aeqem buTuunA ou pauTequoz qnq aeu`- ba Ant y ^punoqe sAepinoq o4spugs :uoqsT-1 ^AW AeeO uoTsTxTpqnS seqopy sol :38 T09T8 03 ^sbuTAdS poomuelB dTqsAauqAe6 ubTseO puel uoqsT1 uoU 166' ^5;3 AeqmeqdeS (suooHVZ) m09C-C96 (COO Z99/8O0vU0103'11|S awvlllonuaaN|sn|n ^o/9010399Huioxwoo ` \ ' ., � Lot by lot, my specific recommendations are as follows: Lot 1- The home must be sited on the ridge between the two gullies where flash -flooding is a potential. The sitev as shown, is acceptable. Lot 2- There is presently a diversion ditch trending toward the homesite which definitely needs to be re -directed so as to carry water away from any structure. Slight rockfall potential from the new road down can be mitigated by removing loose boulders prior to construction. Also the lower three feet of f tob b the home should be strong enough a sor forces of 200 pounds � | per square foot. Lot 3- This site is on a southwest facing gentle slope above a gully to the east. The home needs to be site far enough above the gully to not, be affected by floods or mudflows in the gully. | Lot 4- This is the existing home site. It is well located on a flat, safe knoll. Lot 5- This site needs to evaluate rockfal1 mitigation as for Lot 2. Lot 6- This site is very similar to the one where the existing home is and, therefore, needs no special comment due to absence of hazards. f Lot 7- This is part of the same knoll as or sites 4 and 6 but drainage control is more important for this site. Lot 8- This site is located safely between two potentially troublesome gullies but the only spetial concern is in the - Culvert i 1n is - f �h eastern bullysizing g driveway design crossing the of the gully. fte^ -' -- important but occasional replacing o culvert � ' mudor debris flows may be necessary. Open Space- There is a buildqug site in the northwest corner of this parcel an the ridge between the two gullies should it be necessary. Should this site be Lonsidered it is important to avoid bath gullies and anticipate i requent problems with the gully crossing along the driveway to the site. � . It is my understanding that water will be available from the Subdivision but that waste disposal mutt be on site. I believe this may be a problem because of the gullies, near surface that i bedrock, and hillsides, anda civil vil engineer will need to be retained to design systems to fit the donditions. Along the new subdivision road good horrow ditches and' culverting are important and must be maintained aver time. wm-