The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Staff Reports110 • �� GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9, GLENWc1JD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 E3LAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8212 PANORAMA RANCHES SUBDIVISION SITE REVIEW (Sketch Plan) January 31, 1975 Those in attendance were:(see attached attendance sheet) At the on-site review the following comments were made: Mr. Adams of the Division of Wildlife stated that this was an intermediate game range with some summer residents and the Game and Zish would probably state the same objections to this development as they did to the King's Row Subdivision Development. Mr.Allan Koester of the Soil Conservation Service stated that 75% of the soil in this development is unsuitable for residential uses. There is a shrink -swell problem along with,a pollution potential. Mr. Koester agrees with the recommendations made by this office to the County Commissioners dated January 24, 1975. Mr. Lamont Kinkade of the Sanitation Department stated that there is no problem in regard to the on -lot sewage disposal systems and did not agree with the Soil Conservation report whatsoever. Mr. Dick Martin stated that there is definitely a need for this type of development in the County.but would be against county road improvements until fully developed. Mr. Deyoe Green was in agreement with Mr. Martin's comments. Mr. John Wix implied that this development will be no impact to the county and will have information to prove that there will be no cost to the existing tax payers. Larry Schmueser of the Planning Department stated that he still felt the same as he had stated in his letter to the commissioners on January 24, 1975. Mr. Flaven Cerise was present and listened to all persons and stated no opinion at this time. .tlo /7zsvi3..o/C /d tc.i g /-/97.5 .4/57- /1), 4/5T /PPk-1i /k�- s c f c f 1' 4 d GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENW❑❑D SPRINGS, C❑L❑RAD❑ 816❑1 2❑14 BLAKE AVENUE PH❑NE 945-8212 January 28, 1975 RE: PANORAMA RANCHES SUBDIVISION MEMO TO FILE: A meeting with the County Commissioners was held on January 27, 1975. It was decided at this meeting that further review was necessary. An extension of the review of this subidivision was agreed to by the developer John Wix and an on-site review was set for January 31, 1975 at 1:00 P.M. • • GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, C❑LORAD❑ 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8212 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PANORAMA RANCHES January 24, 1975 Section 4.01 - Sketch Plan Requirements C. Existing development of proposed subdivision is not shown. F. There is some erosion problems created by irrigation ditches through proposed development. Section 4.01.02 - Information Information submitted does meet requirements of this Section. - I - • GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-B212 Section 3.02.03 - Sketch Plan Check List A. The zoning il9 this area is 2 acre lots, the proposed development is 5 acre or larger lots. Therefore, it is in compliance with zoning. B. The preliminary soil report from the Soil Conservation Service would indicate that there are some limitations to this land being developed as a subdivision. C. The proposed development is surrounded by large acreage of land used primarily for agricultural purposes. There is no development of this size and density presently in the area. D. Main access to the property being developed is County Road 100. This road and other county road linking to it would definitely have to be upgraded to safely support the vehicular traffic that will be generated by this development. E. The water supply to be supplied by deep well to be drilled upon the property. This water supply is expected to be augmented by the Basalt Project. The status of the Basalt Project is not known to this office at this time. F. The means of sewage treatment is by individual disposal system. The S.C.S. Soil Report does place some limitations on this type of sewage disposal. - 2 - 1 GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, C❑LORAD❑ 816❑1 2❑14 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8212 PANORMA RANCHES Impact to County 65 LotS X (3.5 persons per Dwelling Unit) = Population of 227 Persons at Full Development Colorado State Highways Traffic Generation from this type of Development is 4.5 Vehicle trips per day Per Unit Traffic Generation - 4.5 (65) = 292.50 trips per day Review of Soil Conservation Service Report (1) Most soils in the proposed development have limitation as septic tank filter fields. (2) There is a shrink -swell potential - 3 41110 GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENW❑❑D SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8212 STAFF COMMENTS It is the opinion of this office that a development of this density is too high due to the remoteness and to the services available in the areas. Also the report of the S.C.S.C., existing roads, must be taken into consideration. Therefore, we recommend that this sketch plan be rejected as allowed for under Section 3.03 B of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulation. LRS/kay Respectfully submitted, e- ry R. Schmueser Planning Director - 4 - at Little Nell Ski Lift 2. Present Roadway Capacity The traffic capacity of a street or roadway is defined as the number of vehicles that can be carried by the roadway in a given time period (per hour or per day) under a given set of operational conditions (i. e. "level of service"). Broadly speaking, the capacity is a function of location (urban, rural), design (design speed, alignment, horizontal and verticle curves, etc.), width and number of lanes, roadway surface and condition, and regulatory signs and devices (signs and signals). For example, the capacity of a paved two-lane, two-way roadway under ideal conditions is 2, 000 passenger vehicles per hour, total. The capa- city of a multi -lane highway under ideal conditions is 2, 000 passenger vehicles per hour per lane. The capacity of any roadway can be determined given sufficient inventory data, but it is a major, time con - sunning _task to determine the exact capacities of a 131 en large road network. In Aspen, the range of capae values for all major roadways in the urbanized ar•. and all roadways in the outlying portions of Pitkin County were estimated. The results of this anal,. • are shown in Figure 2-2. An inspection of this tration compared to Figure 2-1, the 1971 traffic volume map indicates the degree to which present roadways are utilized. For example Route 82 bet . Main Street and Sardy Airport operates at a level ceeding its practical capacity during peak period. the year. This means that during these periods. traffic congestion is common at many locations fo, one or more hours of the day. The "practical" capacity of a roadway is not an abs value but a relative one based upon a level of corn!, and convenience. Capacity does not become an abs,::• value until "Level of Service D" is reachedwherul. traffic flow is so great as to be nearly unstable, drivers have little freedom to manuever and coma. and convenience are low. When traffic volumes attempt to exceed this level, traffic flow becomer: unstable. stoppages occur, and volumes actually below capacity. The practical capacity of roadways may be consi.l. to be one factor governing the practical limits of ! use development. Thus, when a roadway is opera•: at or near its capacity for a given land use situati• it is obvious that additional development dependerr upon that roadway for access will cause traffic fl., along it to break down unless improvements are n. to increase its capacity. In the Aspen area, nearly all of the paved two-lan• highways connecting activity centers have peak -p.: traffic volumes which either exceed. meet, or ne.•. meet their practical capacity. As a result, majo, decisions must be made relative to (1) land use w' generates the travel, (2) roadway improvements to increase the capacity or (3) means of achieving n:•• efficient use of existing roadways through such an as: (a) increasing car-pooling and decreasing the frequency of travel (b) use of alternative travel modes such as tra;r bicycle and walking. B. Future Travel In order to make reasonable and effective plans fe. future transportation facilities in the Roaring For Valley. it is necessary to have the best possible mates of future travel and trip making requiremel As mentioned previously. the magnitude of travel + a function of the land use pattern and the trip mat. habits of people. To enable an estimate of possil, future (1980) travel in the Roaring Fork Valley. ventional traffic forecasting techniques were foll, utilizing estimates of future land use. Briefly sun