Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.14.1996• • BOCC 10/14/96 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Preliminary Plan for the Petts/Holmes subdivision APPLICANT: Robert F. Petts & Cathleen E. Holmes LOCATION: A tract of land located in Section 4, T7S R87W and Section 33, T6S R87W of the 6th PM; located approximately seven (7) miles northeast of Carbondale, off of County Road 113. SITE DATA: 39.8 acres WATER: Wells SEWER: ISDS ACCESS: CR 113 EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in the Medium and Low Density Land Use Districts in the Carbondale Area Map in the Area I Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is located along the Eagle County/Garfield County Line, south of Coulter Creek. The parcel has historically been used for agricultural uses, and no residential are located on the site. The parcel is bounded on the west side of the larger parcel by County Road 113 and the road splits the smaller parcel from the • • larger parcel. Shipees Draw runs through the larger parcel.. A vicinity map is shown on page • • B. Project Description: The applicant is proposing split the 39.8 acre parcel into two (2) parcels of approximately 37.5 and 2.3 acres in size. The two parcels will share a well and utilize individual sewage disposal systems. Access is from CR 113. A plan submitted with the application is shown on page B • III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning. All of the parcels are consistent with the required two (2) acres minimum lot size for the A/R/RD zone district. B. Legal Access. Both parcels access directly from County Road 113. The road splits the proposed lots. The access to each lot needs to be approved by the County Road and Bridge Department prior to approval of a final plat and the portion of the road within the property be dedicated to the County at the time of Final Plat. C. Water and Sewer. The applicant will serve the parcels with a well permit that allows for a total of three (3) dwelling units and up to one acre foot of outside irrigation. It will be necessary to put a water line under the road, which will also require approval of the County Road and Bridge Department. Prior to the approval of a final plat, the applicant should drill the well and demonstrate the following: 1) A well be drilled and a 24 hour pump test shall be performed; 2) The applicant supply, to the Planning Department, the well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; 3) The results of the 24 hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge shall be submitted to the Planning Department; 4) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well would be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots and be submitted to the Planning Department; 5) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; 6) If the well is to be shared, the provision for individual water storage tanks of no less than 1000 gallons for each proposed lot (required at time of building permit application); 7) A legal, well sharing agreement which discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made (for shared well systems); 21 • • 8) The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates. D. Sewage Disposal: Sewer will be provided by ISDS. Soils on the site include five separate soil types (acree, arle, ansari, grotte, jerry, and torriorthents), all which are considered to have severe constraints for conventional septic tanks and leach fields due to slow perc rates and depth to bedrock. The applicant's engineer performed percolation tests on each site and found areas that perc within the limits allowed by the State ISDS regulations. (See map and tests pgs. 44V ) E. State and Local Health Standards. No State or Local health standards are applicable to the application, with the exception of Colorado Department of Health ISDS setback standards, which should be verified by an engineer. F. Drainage. No drainage easements appear to be necessary due to the physical separation of the sites by the county road. G. Fire Protection. The site is not located within any fire protection district. This needs to be noted on the final plat as a plat note. H. Easements. Any required easements (drainage, access, utilities, etc..) will be required to be shown on the final plat. I. School Impact Fees The applicant will be required to pay the $200.00 per lot impact fee prior to the approval of the final plat. J. Natural Hazards.. The applicant's geotechnical engineer has established parameters for constructing a building on each lot within specific areas of each lot. There are specific recommendations for compaction of the structural fill under basements and/or footings for a structure. They also recommend that all drainage slope away from the buildings. Staff suggests that these be noted by a plat note requiring that all buildings submit engineered plans for the footers/basements consistent with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared by CTL/Thompson, Inc., dated 6/3/96. K. Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses: Staff noted during a subdivision exemption request made by the applicants, that the majority of parcels in the area within Garfield County are in the 60 to 100 acre range. The fact that the proposed subdivision is consistent with underlying zoning noted earlier is a significant issue. Even though the smaller lot represents a dramatic change in the character of the adjacent land uses, it cannot be used as a basis to deny an application for a standard subdivision. In the interest of recognizing the agricultural character of the properties in the area, a plat note stating "that the area surrounding the properties in this subdivision is agricultural . 3 - • • in nature and some agricultural practices may not be compatible with rural residential land uses, but the agricultural use has priority over the residential use." L. Agency Comments: The following comments have been received: Colorado Geologic Survey: The State geologist generally concurs with the recommendations of the applicant's engineers. (See letter pgs. /G ) Colorado Division of Water Resources: The State engineers note that the well permit issued to the applicant can legally supply domestic water to both lots. Tey cannot comment on the physical capacity to serve the lots. (See letter pg. /7 ) M. Neigbors Comments: Enclosed is a lette from a neighbor, expressing his concern about the smaller lot of 2.3 acres is inconsistent with the lots in the area that are much larger. (See pg'' ) IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission; and B. That the hearing before the 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 conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and D. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, 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. VII. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed subdivision subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise state by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval of the Final Plat. I LI or • • 3. A Final Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the property, dimension and area of the proposed lot, access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities, including the dedication of a 60 ft. wide right-of-way for County Road 113 and include the following plat notes: 1. "Soil conditions on the site may require engineered septic systems. Specific ISDS needs on the site will be based on percolation rates at the time of building permit." 2. "All buildings shall submit engineered plans for the footers/basements consistent with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared by CTL/Thompson, Inc., dated 6/3/96." 3. "The area surrounding the properties in this subdivision is agricultural in nature and some agricultural practices may not be compatible with rural residential land uses, but the agricultural use has priority over the residential use." 4. "The property in this subdivision are not within any fire district and should expect to pay for any services provided by district." 5. "Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner." 6. "All construction shall be consistent with USFS Wildfire Prevention Guidelines." 7. "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed; each dwelling unit will be allowed one(1) new wood -burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-407, et. seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and there will be no restriction on the number of natural gas burning fireplaces or appliances included in the protective covenants." 8. "One dog will be allowed in each residential dwelling unit in the PUD This requirement will be included in the protective covenants, and will be enforced by the homeowners association." 4. Prior to the approval of a final plat, the applicant drill the well and demonstrate the following: 1) A well be drilled and a 24 hour pump test shall be performed; 2) The applicant supply, to the Planning Department, the well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level; 3) The results of the 24 hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and recharge shall be submitted to the Planning Department; 4) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well would be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots and be submitted to the Planning Department; 5) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; 6) If the well is to be shared, the provision for individual water storage tanks of no less than 1000 gallons for each proposed lot (required at time of building permit application); 7) A legal, well sharing agreement which discusses all easements and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made (for shared well systems); g} The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates. 28� Q'?' c :- ---�. Draw 7/(30--N .I HIGH CCUNTRY ENGINEERING. INC. 923 CCCPER AVENUE GLENWCCO SPRINGS, CC 31601 (970) 945-3676 • Fax (970) 945-2555 f VrcrA/r \/ 1\'i)kp C7 z 0 ca 0 0 ca 0 z 0 F: C APPROXIMATE OXIMATF "f. • • 1 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAP lob No. GS--I(S4(lA c O E `o c L.L. O c )o o E _ _ O O 0) d 0 0) 01 C Q1 C a) C c E .N m m — N E N .5 N c •.7 o U U 2 o O W 0 7 O a Ne ti Q N U U a U 'U •D:..7,..a O O O` c N a) N O 0) O 0) y C d o a m a m n .2m 0 0 c c mE c ip - j, .5..4: U a) U a) al [ © C t t m a c v c )n0 (1)0 Da_ =a. J J > 1 C7 d a Q. 1 w tip p U Q: C l C U : i • INTERPRETED GEOLOGIC UNITS MAP Job No. GS -1848A • W 0 O U U 1. El El El 111 .q 0 CD m .Ci q q 'fl U I \.-4 ..0 -.-I �.. A -.4 .d u u m CD [U�yy �Uy O •,.Cyd ic, cd .... N w. N u LL b o T1 O 00Cq 7:1, . O0 0 ., °e. m " q .n '13 .a mC]m .b IV ••••• d co d D CO 4TP mU~lJ 03 M aElO H p0 o c o o qqqqmu °.`1 FA 8 61 ¢) N N u m u v, ° N q'4 O a 1. L Pi al 1.0 PNq 5yV m 2r,,01 ,, -2.."' t-79 ° O q o0^ q u my g 0 m" ..,.0 °_o ., w...0 m CII PO m m la uogal uuqu $8.C~layi u pqa .tbey q 1.a t, q HA u o`" m� u o A•:J a.=O fa .,a p,p0 ej'm a O 7 O N o ami C33 G m zpo u° 1. cii - CV of _It__ n 0 Depth In Feet I I I I 1 111111111111111111111 N N Ct - N n n n \\\\--N,\\\s\\\\\\\\\ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ \- \ \ \ \ \ \ C! N N c r- • V.•V •‘ \.• -•\•.v.\\•.v .\• V.S. y.1• y..•. v.\1- .V.1•.\ O C n li!!Til11 z Pette Parcel U U C. a. O 7440 1. a Depth In Feet 111111IIII II co v.4'.y...•\•. \• \'.\• \•,\. `i.•'.\•.\•.\•. \. a. I 0. L N Ci a. C 07 C O v) L N N a. IIIIIIIIIIIll11I -pal aI q- daa \• .\• .\ • N. 0 O u7 I I I! H I! I l l Zaa3 111 gZdaQ IOOS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 124 C/l Job No. GS -1848A 0 z Li U 0 COUNTY kOAC 1 1 3 0 0 W a H1G-rWAY 82 • 1 F'ETIS PROPERTY N i 2.3 ACRE PARCEL APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS SATURATION AND PREPARATION DATE: 05-29-96 TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 6:00 PERCOLATION TEST DATE: 05-30-96 WATER IN BORING AFTER 24 HOURS YES x NO PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS HOLE NUMBER DEPTH (INCHES) TIME AT START OF INTERVAL TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) DEPTH TO WATER CHANGE IN WATER DEPTH (INCHES) PERCOLA- TION RATE (MIN/INCH) START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) P-1 27.0 10:15 20 12.75 14.5 1.75 11 10:35 20 14.5 15.5 1.0 20 10:55 20 15.5 16.25 0.75 26 11:15 20 16.25 17.25 1.0 20 11:35 20 17.25 17.75 I 0.5 40 11:55 20 17.75 18.25 0.5 40 12:15 20 18.25 18.75 0.5 40 12:35 20 1 18.75 19.25 0.5 30 P-2 20.5 I 10:15 20 7.25 7.75 0.5 40 10:35 20 7.75 8.75 1.0 20 10:55 20 8.75 8.75 11:15 20 8.75 9.25 0.5 40 11:355 20 9.25 1 9.75 I 0.5 40 11:55 20 9.75 10.0 0.25 80 12:15 20 10.0 10.25 0.25 80 12:35 20 ( 10.25 10.5 0.25 80 P-3 19.5 10:15 20 6.25 8.75 2.5 8 10:35 20 8.75 10.0 1.25 16 10:55 20 10.0 11.0 1.0 20 11:15 20 11.0 11.75 0.75 26 11:35 20 11.75 12.25 0.5 40 11:55 20 12.25 12.75 0.5 40 12:15 20 12.75 13.25 0.5 40 12:35 20 13.25 13.75 0.5 40 Jcb No. GS -1848A -/3- Fig. 5 SATURATION AND PREPARATION DATE: 05-29-96 TIME AT START OF SATURATION: PERCOLATION TEST DATE: 05-29-96 WATER IN BORING AFTER 24 HOURS YES x NO PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS HOLE NUMBER DEPTH (INCHES) TIME AT START OF INTERVAL TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) DEPTH TO WATER CHANGE IN WATER DEPTH (INCHES) PERCOLA- TION RATE (MIN/INCH) START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) P-4 42.0 2:15 120 11.0 14.5 3.5 34 4:15 30 14.5 I 15.5 1.0 30 I4:45 30 15.5 16.75 1.25 24 5:15 30 16.75 1 18.0 1.25 24 I P-5 40.75 2:15 120 17.75 22.5 4.75 25 I4:15 30 22.5 23.5 1.0 30 4:45 ( 30 23.5 24.75 1.25 24 5:15 30 24.75 25.75 1.0 30 I I P-6 33.75 2:15 120 13.0 17.0 4.0 30 4:15 ( 30 I 17.0 18.25 1.25 24 4:45 30 I 18.25 19.75 1.50 20 5:15 30 19.75 21.25 1.50 20 .;cc No. GS -184.8A -II • Fig. 6 • STATE or COLOIDO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 August 8, 1996 Garfield County Department Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL GA -97-0002 RESOURCES 1 r`' --i.. _. ._.._ l AUG "' . 1 2 1956 :d 'i, RE: Petts/Holmes Subdivision Land Use Review Dear County Planner; Rov Romer Governor lames 5. Lochhead Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cosxart State Geologist and Director At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials submitted for this proposed subdivision and conducted a site inspection on August 1.1996. The site is located adjacent to County Road 4113 within Shippees Draw on the border with Eagle County. Proposed are two lots: Lot 41 is 2.3 acres, west of CR 4113, and on the ridgeline: Lot 42 is 37.5 acres. east of CR 4113, and occupies the bottom land of Shippees Draw. Lot 42 contains active subsidence features to the west of the creek, one of which has been fenced. They were most likely created by soil and bedrock dissolution from sheet flood irrigation from the roadside ditch that runs from the pond on the property. The land is currently being used as pasture. This office has reviewed the Geologic Hazards Evaluation and Soils and Foundation Investigation reports by CTL Thompson. Inc. and the Drainage Plan by High Country Engineering and generally concurs with the conclusions and recommendations that they contain. We agree that there is no inherent geologic ha7nrd that would impact the development of Lot 41. The consultant has reported ground subsidence. potentially unstable slopes. and hvdrocompactive soil hazards for lots 42 and has made the appropriate engineering recommendations to mitigate the hazards. At the time of our inspection an access road (?) was stripped of vegetation through the subsidence hazard zone to the wet bottom lands where it terminates in severe ruts. Across the creek from CR 4113 there are two sites where vegetation has been stripped and lot grading has apparently begun. One is within the proposed building envelope for the lot, the other is to the north partially within the mapped Potentially Unstable Slopes Hazards Area. The site within the mapped slope hazard area was not investigated by the consultant with drill borings and will need to be is that is to be a home site. Provided the owner abides by the recommendation of the geotechnical consultant this office has no undue concerns with the subdivision as planned. We reiterate that a on-site inspection be completed of the final building pad excavation prior to the placement of structural fill so the consultant can verify soil conditions. Because of the moisture sensitive soils we recommend that • • Petu/Holmcs Sub., Page 2 the infiltration septic system be located a sufficient distance down slope from the building pad so if moisture induced ground subsidence or settlement occurs it will not impact the residence or any other structures. If you have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866-2645. Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Engineering Geologist • • STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 Mr. Eric McCafferty, Planner Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. McCafferty: July 17, 1996 JUL 2 2 1596 t- f"';7: QLD CC IN 1 7 RE: Robert Petts & Cathleen Holmes SE 1/4 Sec.33, Twp.6 S, Rng.87 W, 6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 38 Roy Romer Governor lames 5. Lochhead Executive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer We are in receipt of your subdivision referral to subdivide approximately 39 acres into 2 single family homesites, located about twelve miles southeast of the Town of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The proposed water supply will be a common well for the two lots. The applicant has obtained a well permit, no. 188850, from our office. The permit was approved on July 27, 1995 on a condition that it shall be the only well on the tract of 39.11 acres. The permit expires on July 27, 1997, unless the well is constructed prior to that date. The use of the well is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than three single family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one acre of home gardens and lawns and the watering of poultry, domestic animals. Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to senior water rights. Our office has no information if the well is constructed. The applicant has not provided information about the adequacy of the water supply. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Kris Murthy of this office or Mr. Orlyn Bell of our Division office in Glenwood Springs at 945-5665. SPL/km cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe L. Bergquist, Water Commissioner holmes.sub .10/70- Sincerely, Steve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer September 1 1 , 1996 Garlick! County Planning Commission 109 Eight Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Pitts/Holmes Subdivision Application Dear Commissioners: Two years ago the above applicants attempted to create the 7,3 acre lot in proposed this application under an exempt subdivision application. The applicants property is adjacent to our 2100 acre ranch. At that time we were part of nine other property owners (approximately U)0 total acres) within a mile radius of the subject property, who opposed that application primarily based on Section 8,52E of the Garfield County Land Use codes which .States "Compatibility of the proposed exemption with existing land uses in the Surrounding area" should be considered when evaluating that application. It is surprising and of great concern that the above provision is not part of the' criteria for evaluating the current application for subdividing this property. if YOU approve this application, you are creating a non-e\empt parcel of 2.3 acres within ari iar' ai of the county characterized b\' large agricultural parcels and a half hours drive from Glenwood Springs where a 2.3 acre lot Size is more cotllilleil, Gartrcld County tax paves should be cnncerncd with the cost of subsidiring7 the extension of tire and police protection, as well as school bus service to a small, rcitiolc 2.3 acre loot which will not have the tax basis to support its share of these cost. Tt seems that a reasonable person would not apptove such an rpplication as it does not support good land use planning. If it is not within your power to deny this r. application, then its about time the rules are changed t0 pr::vcnt it li'olil llrll)hl(llll�? y I a3aiL1. Sincerely, General Partner Coulter Creek. Valley hanr.h Ltd. 1654 County Road 121 Carbondale, Colorado S1623