Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report PC 05.08.91REOUEST: OWNERS: LOCATIONi SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: PC 5/8/9L PROJECT INFORIVIATION AI.ID STAFF COMMENTS Goose Creek Subdivision Preliminary PIan Kent Jones, Priscilla Prohl, Vince Gulino A parcel of land situated in Lots 3 and4, section 35 and Lot 8, Section 34, T7S,R88W of the 6th P.Ir{. ; locatedapproximately L/2 mile northeast of Carbondale at 0183 County Road L00. The site consists of a 5L.29 acre parcel. Individual Wells r.s.D.s. Private access easement off C.R. 100. A/R/RD A/R/RD I.RELATIONSHIP TO THE COII{PREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in the Carbondale Urban Area of Inf luence and ':--- District F, River/rloodplain Severe Environmental Constraints asidentified on the comprehensive pran Management Districts, Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL concern about I.S.D.S. recommended connecting . concern about wetlands/riparian on wildlife (see exhibits on page sit,e Description: The site has gentre sropes and consistsprinariry of low rying land south of, -and adjacent to, the RoaringFork River. Several irrigation ditches and slre.rms cross the site.rmprovements on the site consist of a single family residence. Adjacent land uses include single family residences and ranching.Approlimately 1500 feet northeast of the proposed subdivision aiemunicipar werrs, a portion of the town oi clrbondare,s municipalwater system. B- Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide the siteinto five (5) Iots ranging-j-n size from 7.67 acres to 13.02 acresin size. The overall density would be one residence per 10.25acres. C. Modificatior-rs $in-ce Sketch Plan: The sketch plan contemplated L2lots instead of the current 5 lots. The applilants also iequestedapproval fo_r a quest house and an employEe unit in each frimarysingle family residence. References t-o these accessory uni-ts hav6been omitted from the current application (see minutes fromNovember 8, 1989, Pranning commissibn Meeting page _). ITI. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: A. Mount Sopris SoiI Conservation District: Expressed concernsregarding high water tab1e, soils limitationS, wildtife andIivestock protection and ground water protection (see exhibit page_) . Colorado Department of Hea1th: Expressedcontamination of the Carbondale wells andwith Carbondale water and sewer. Division of Wildlife: Expressedprotection and potential impacts _) . A. B. c. D.Colorado GeoI :al Survey:related probler..- ( see exhibit that here are no geolog-y- RE-l Schoo1 Districtl Requested impact fee and will not providebus service on private roads ( see eihiUit on page _) . - Division of Vf,ater Resources: Can not recommend approval withsubmittar to date (see exhibit on page ). -- subsequentinformation has been submitted, but no wriEten re6ponse has -been received to date. Dan Kerst Letter: Cover letter addressing approval of Basalt WaterConservancy District contract for 1.3 acre feet (see exhibits onpages Stated on page E. P G. ). H. Town of Carbondale: Letter expressingcontamination of well fie1d. Second letterrequest regarding I.S.D.S. approval andconsulting engineer (see exhibits on pages Resource Engineering: ExplainsI.S.D.S. systems and Basalt Water Carbondale Rural Fire protection provide adequate fire protection concern about I.S.D.S. addresses Town specific comments from Town's _) . relationship of non-discharging Conservancy Contract. District: Stating that they canfor the subdivision. I. J. v. rV. ADJACENT LAND OWNER COMMENTSA. Assorted Letters: Expressed concerns about access roadway,groundwater contamination and wetlands protection (see exhibit onPage_) . STAFF COMMENTS fnternal Roads/Access: Access to the proposed subdivision is viaone-third mile long private easement which extends from C.R. 100 tothe Roaring Fork River. The roadway is an unimproved dirt/native ---materiar surface approximately B, to 10, in wiotn. The roadway----falls short of any current roadway design standard. An irrigatioiditch and windbreak parallel the ioad for much of the length. Theapplicant has proposed that a maintenance agreement be established !y aff parties using the roadway. No agreement has been adopted todate. Because the roadway - is external to the subdivisionboundaries, the county has limited authority to requireimprovements. - Practically, the roadway width and- surfacing- mayrender it inadequate for the potential 35 to 40 additional lrip-sper day generated by the subdivision proposal. Concerns have be6nraised over the_ Iegal status of the acceis easement. particularlyof concern is the issue of whether the applicant has the authoritjrto increase the usage of the easement. - Language in the easemenLdocument is vague in its intent. Additional qlestions have beenraised regarding the existence of dedicatea right-of-way from theapplicant's parcel to c.R. 100. rn the past, an-exemptio-n has beengranted relying on this easement for actess. There are two (?) issues regarding access for the pranning commission's consideration, regll and physicar access. Based oitestimony and the advice of the County attorney, the Commissionshould first be satisfied that there is adequite legal access.This determined, ttren the physical adequacy ot- the roaE to handlethe demand of 4 additional ieEidences shbula Ue considered. If thephysical access is inadequate, then the Commission may considerrequiring improvements to the easement surface. Once at the subdivision boundary, access to 4 of the 5 lots will bevia a 2000' rong cur-de-sac. rne proposed roadway meets minimumcounty standards with the exception of tne actual cril-de-sac designand the length exceeding the 6-0O' allowable limit. Waivers of cul-de-sac length may be gritea with the consent of the Carbondale andRural Fire District. Access to Lot 1 wirr be via the privateaccess easement which extends north of the subdivision. Floodplains /Wet Iands :Th" property is traversed by regulatedf loodplains and has regrrlatea we-ttan-ds. The Roaring fork lrossesthe.northern portion and has designated floodtringesftloodway. The f,rooqPral-ns and nas regulated wetlands. The Roaring Fork crossesthe.northern portion and has designated floodtringesftloodway. The A. centrar . - portion of the property is travLrsed by - watercourses/irrigation ditches wh-ich are also designated floddfringe.A 1 to 2 acre pond is rocated on Lot 4. Atr roti appear to have anacceptabre building site outside the regurated tr66aprain. B. c. D. E. Federa]Iy re ated wetlands parallel watercourses on theproperty. Th- Army Corps has been on si-- and have reviewed theproposal. No 404 permit wiII be required for the access road asproposed. Since wetlands exist on each lot, any impact on wetlandson individual rots wirl require approval of the Army corps ofEngineers. Fire Protection: The proposed development is located within theservice boundaries of the Carbondale and Rural Fire District. TheDistrict has indicated that they can provide fire protection.Their consent to the cul-de-sac design is required. No_ _fire protection improvements have been proposed within thesubdivision. Section 9273 requires adequate fire protection vraterstorage approved by the Fire District. Utilities: The applicants are proposing to provide electric andtelephone service to each lot. Existing lines-traverse each of the5 rots. No naturar gas service to the lots is contemprated water: The applicants are proposing to provide water to 4 of the5 lots via a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District.The exislirg residence (proposed Lot #1) is served by ln existingpermitted werr. An approved contract has been submiLted. In- i.ts -original response, the DWR did not recommend approval of thesubdivision. Their concern was based on the absence-of a contractat the initial time of review. Subsequently, inverbal comments tostaff, DwR engineers have indicated that the contract for 1.3 a.f.is adequate for 4 residences. Lingering concerns remain about theadministration of the contract to insuie its long term validity. Because of the potentiar requirements for non-dischargingwastewater systems, a modification to the water contract may berequired to provide sufficient water for the L00 perLentconsumptive use F.wastewater: The proposed subdivision is located in an area ofseasonally high groundwater.Because of the proximity ofgroundwater, conventional septic tank/Ieach field- systemJ areinadequate. !1pi_cally, above-gradient alternate systeris designedby a professional engineer suLh as a Wisconsin riound have Seenrequired in this area. The wastewater disposal situation iffur!!t91 c-omplic-ated by the subdivisions locatio-n up-gradient ( 1500to 2500 feet) from the Town of Carbondale wellfield.- In orddr toprotect their wellfield, the Town Trustees have requested that theCounty place ? plat note on the subdivision which would require anyI.S.D.S. built within the subdivision be subjected to approval bythe Town's staff. At this time, the Town i; requesti;d that airr.s.D.s. be a non-discharging system such as an E.T. bed usinghypalon riners in rieu of lor-yethyrene riners. However, iisuperior technolog-y arises then the Town would require its use forf.S.D.S. systems within the subdivision. whire the county is the agency responsibre for issuing r.s.D.s.permits, the Town of Carbondale-appears to have statutory-authorityto protect their wellfield from contamination. The reviEw and vet6authority requested appears compatible with this statutoryauthority. soils: Due to soirs limitations, namery proximity to groundwaterand saturation, staff recommends that -sdifs rep6rts, wastewatersystems and foundations shall be prepared and deslgned for each lotby a regi-stered professional enginelr. VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGSA' That. I\" proper- publication, public notice and posting wereprovided as required by law for- the hearing before -the pfanning Comrnission; and B' That the hea-ring before the Planning Commission tvas extensive andcompleter_ that aII pertinent facts, matters and issues weresubmitted and that att interested parties were heard at thathearing; and c' That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance withthe recommendations set forth in the Compiehensive p-lan for theunincorporated area of the County; and G. D. E. 2. 3. 4. That the prol )d subdivision of land ( County Zoning ..esolution; and to the Garfield shrubs with adequate weed controlweed-free. That arl, datar surveys, anaryses, studies, prans and designs as arerequired by the state of colorado, and Garfierd county, have beensubmitted and, in addition, have been found t; meet allrequirements of the Garfield county Subdivision Regulations. VII. RECOI,IMENDATTONIf the Planning Commission is satisfied with the application, and thatall issues and findings have been adequately addiessed and makes afavorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, thenstaff recommends that approval be subject to the-foltowing conditionsc1-- AII representations of the applicint, either within the applicationor stated at the public hearings before the Planning Commissionshall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise stateby the planning Commission. A11 proposed utilities shall be located underground. All necessaryappurtenances for individual service connection shall be providedby the developer. Utility facilities shall be included in theSubdivision Improvements Agreement. The appricant shall establish a Homeowner,s Association. TheHomeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance withthe Colorado Revised Statutes. The protective covenants, articlesof incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documentsincruding by-Iaws will be submitted for review by the countyAttorney prior to the approval of the Final plat. The water allocation contract shall be transferred from thedeveloper to the Homeowner's Association. The HomeownerrsAssociation shall enforce individual compliance through covenants. AII cut slopes createdwith native grasses andseed shall be certified during construction shall be revegetated5. 5. 7. 8. 9. The applicant strall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior tothe approval of the Final plat. The restrictive covenants shall provide that there will be noresubdivision of the 1ots. Prior to the submittar of the Finar plat, the appricant sha1lprovide adequate written verification from the oivllion of Vf,aterResources documenting approvar of the domestic water suppry. The applicant shall provide documentation from the Carbondale andRural Fire Protection District approving the interior road designand fire protection plan prior to-tne submittal of a Final plat] AII roads including the proposed cuI-de-sac shall be designed andconstructed in accordance with minimum county standards. 11. It: _ applicants shall submit improvement plans for a1l roads,bridges, utilities and drainage structures irior to approval of aFina1 plat. L2. Tfe applicant shatl demonstrate that procedures are established forthe maintenance of all bridges, r6adways etc., including snowremoval, through the Homeownei,s Associat-ion 10. 13.The applicants shall provide a modified water allocation contractfrom the Basa1t Watei Cons-ervancy District to provide adequatewater to accommodat,e the lack oi recharge for non-dischafgingwastewater systems prior to review by the BOCC if no modifica[ioito the contract is r:equired, then the applicant shall providesupporting documentation. prior to the pretihinary plan reiiew bythe Board of County Commissioners AII -requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers shall be consideredconditions of approval. A covehant stritf be included to requirethat prior to construction within identified wetlands, appioval fTo* !!g +=*y cgrps of Engineers sharr be provided. r'retraias,. asidentified on the Preliminary Plan and reviewed by the Army Corpsof Engineers, shall be delineated on the rinai plat wittr inappropriate plat note. 14. 4 15. The applicant..rarr provide a 10' wide ac is easement connectinge vvrratsv urrty 3l..1^l:.i t9, thp rroD+h edse of thq ngop"qty ( ie . Roarins E or-kRiver)t ft, +L-. b-,+:[ 7';-;;-^7 Ei";7;: #';;j;:;J;Z 16' The following plat notes shall be included on the Final plat:A' Prior to issuance of a Building Permit the owner of each lotshall prepare and submit a si-te speciii- soils report andfoundation desig_n_ prepared and ceriified by a professionalengineer and aII - improvements shall be constructed inaccordance with such mLasures which shall be a condition ofthe Building permit.B' The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester andU's.F.s. wildlife prevention guidelines shall be followed inthe construction of aII strucfures.c' The subdivision may be subject to prescriptive easements forirrigation ditches-and their maintlnarrce.' D. E. Prior to any development within anregulated wetland, thA lot owner shallCorps of Engineers. Documentation ofprovided to County staff. identified federallyconfer with the Armytheir review shall be Arr r.s.D.s. systems sharr be designed and their instarrationcertified. by a registered profesiionar engineer. prior toconstruction, review and comment by the Town of carbondare L7. ?l:ll l"_"Pliiigtl A non-discha.rgini -".-q. sysrem wirh hlparon l i:: =^ :._ ^t_1"- b"_: I demo n s t r.a t e a e;;1 i;b G - i ; h;" i;;; ;i.it;time of construction sharr be required for the r.s.D.s. found to be private but acceptable tor' aaJiii""ir burdens of .-.---traffic, the roadway shall be improved to the internal standardstraffic, the roadway shall befor the subdivision. Prior to the submittal of a_Final PIat, the applicant shall presenta verified court order declaring the nature and extent of use ofthe access road from the subdivision boundary to c.n. 100. saidcourt order sha1l find that said road is eitlier public or privatein nature but permitting an additional burden of traffic ah"q,riteto- accept the _a_nticipated increase of traffic from the prop'oseasubdivision. rf the loadr or any portion thereof, is found to bepubric, then no-improvements sniri be required. rf the road is._-._ b5 TO: E ROI!: RE: DATE: ![EUO Al.IDRETf, I.ICGREGOR, PLANNER DON K. DEEORD, COUNTY ATTORNEY M STATUS OT GOOSE CREEK SUBDIVISION CONSIDERATION -PI,AI,INING COIOiISSION [Iay 2 , 1991 Pursuant to our discussions of April 30, 1991 with Gerry Hartert,attorney for -the deveroper, and Dan Kerst, attornef for th;obJectors, r have the forlowing comments. rn sum, i l_nformedcounsel for both sides of the pioposed subdl-visl-on that in orderto move Planning Commission consideration to the recommendatlonstage, I would recommend as follows in regard to the questlonableroad. either to our meeting or myyour earliest convenlence. I!, ls my -recommendation that the Planning CommissLon recommend tothe Board of County Commissioners that they condl-tLon approval ofthe preliminary plat upon presentation to Lhe Board of i-verifLedcourt order declaring the extent and nature of the questioned road.I believe such a condition may be attached pursuint to Sectlons !r??; lt 13 ( "): 4 :_33 ()) , 4:33 (l) and 9:30 of the Garf ietd Counrysubdivision Regulations. Fuither, that the Board conditloiapproval of the preliminary plat upon that verified court orderstating that, the questioned road it either publtc in nature orprivate in nature but permitting an additlonil burden of traffLcadequate to accept the anticipated increase of traffic from thissubdivision. If said court oider finds the road to be publlcr dttltis Junc-turer no improvemente may be requLred as part of- the finalolat. If the court finds that the road-is privafe but acceptablefor additional burdens of traffic, the road iust be l-mproved to theinternal standards of the subdivision. Both of- the formerpositions concerning -improvement of roads are contingent upon theCounty's failule t_o adopt standards for external improvenentl priorto the approval of the prelirninary plat. If you have any questions in regardreconmendation, please contact ne at DKDsmle ( : ' :, ' .! . ,,1.