HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.12.1996• •
BOCC 11/12/96
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
1
• •
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 U 8 •
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);
• •
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. 4-0V )
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. Staffsuggests 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. /S• Jai )
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. % / )
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.' %S ' )
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.
Li OP
•
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);
8} The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet State
guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates.
7930
28
`,--....-". -‘,.. -.--z
1
1
fl
/
loo. -7
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEE ING, INC.
92: CCCPc=, AVENUE
GLENWCCC SPRINGS. CO 31601
(9701 3.49-3676 • -3X (970) 315-25E3
r G W
k/ r1 /571 f'\A P
:
- - —
Lu
4
Y
0
PROPOSED PROPERTY
2.3 ACRE PARCEL
0
O
cc
}
2
8 8
•
1
1
•
IIAZARDS MAP
E -
z
c
Job No. CS -1848A
r_+
�f Z
Z
• C
o
u_
0
0
W
0
b
rn m
C Q,
m
N c
c •�
u E
y m
O 0.
O 0
4
.2
a,c
c
s." T
m
•D c
c m
n 0_
1
0
11
2
2
ui
J
U]
•
tot, 1lo. GS -1848A
• •
ci ,q
A O
o v
H
T7•
DeoLh Ln Feet
1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lj 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
:1
C.2 :/
0 1
... c
1— r1 n
\ \ \ • \ • \ \ • \• \• \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \J
N
n
cl
n
c
C
n
•f _e dr OF
,c:
1 I !
II
aj
!11I!I
a1 q,(ta(I
1 1 1
1'ettn Tercel
Depth In Feet
Illilt1lil)
J
�:.•.\. \• \. \•.\• \'.\••
1.
c �n
c
�I!11�!I11�
la'3 TIT q-•,da(1
SUMMARY IOOS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
No. RS -1848A
a
1.1
c ,...
c .
.r ...i.
11.1 1 I N
UJ N
8 _
r- Lt Cr
I- .1
4 11.1
9
0 tY
E0 ,
1.:.J
0
--
•
2.3 ACRE PARCEL
0
ce
>-
c§
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 1 EST RESULTS
HOLE
NUM6ER
DEPTH
(INCHES)
TIME AT
START OF
INTERVAL
TIME
INTERVAL
(MINUTES)
DEPTH TO WATER
CHANGE
IN WATER
DEPTH
(INCHES)
FERCOLA-
T1CN 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.E
15.E
1.0
20
10:55
20
15.5
16.25
0.75
25
11:15
I 20
16.25
17.25
1.0
20
11:25
20
17.25
17.75
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
18.75
19.25 0.5
10
P-2
20.5
1C:15
20
7.25
7.75 0.5
40
`
I 1 C: ; 20
7.75
8.75 1.0 20
10:55
20
8T5
8.75
20
8.75
9.25
0.5 40
1 1. ,355
.. ..
20
..5
9.2_
r. 75 n 5 40
9. �...
:55 20
9.75 10.0
0.25 50
12:15
20
13.0
10.25
0.25 ?C
122:29
20
10.25
10.5
0.25 5C
7-3
19.5
1C:'5
20
5.25 3.75
2.5 8
1035
20
8.75 10.0
I 1.25
16
10:55
20
10.0
11.0 1.0
20
11:15 20
11.0
11.75 0.75
26
11:355
20
11.75
12.25
0.5
40
11:55 20
12.25 12.75
0.5
40
12 5
G^. 12.7E
13.25 0.5
40
12:35
20 13.2E
13.75
0.5
40
cc Nc. CS -184-8A
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
NUMEER
DEPTH
(INCHES)
TIME AT
START OF
INTERVAL
TIME
INTERVAL
(MINUTES)
DEPTH TO WATER
CHANGE
IN WATER
DEPTH
(INCHES)
PERCCLA-
TION RATE
(MIN/INCH)
START CF
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
4:45
30
15.5
16.75
1.25 24
5:15
30
16.75 18.0
1.25
24
40.75
2:15
120
17.75 .. 5
22.5
4.75
25
4:15
30
22.5
23.5
1.0
30
4:».,C
3C
I 23.5
24.75
1.25
24
3C
24.,5
25.75
1.0
30
33.75
2.15
13.0 17.0
4.0
30
1: 13C 17
18.25
1.25
24
4'4E
18.25
19.75
.5C
20
c
3C 19.75
21.25
1.50
20
GS -1S:.5
•-/e/
Fac. 6
STAT7_ or COLORA
C)
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 966-2611
FAX (303) 8b6-2461
August 8, 1996
Garfield County Department Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs. CO S1601
GA -97-0002
AUG 1 2 1996
RE: Pests/Holmes Subdivision Land Use Review
Dear Countv Planner:
DEPARTMENT OF
I� ATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Rome,
Governor
lames 5. Locnneaci
E.ecunve Director
., cn..,e, 5 Lon;
�i�n or Ovr; ;ur
c. Cossarr
,7rc: Due'_'tor
At your request and. in accordance to Senate Bill 3-;' (191'l this of ce has re. sewed the
materials sub.rr ned for this procosed subdivision and conducted a site inspection on August 1.1996.
located a� acent to Count Road =1 1 within ShipDees Draw on the border with Lame
The sit,, is oc .... _ _
County. Proposed are two lots: Lot =1 is 2.3 acres. west of CR 7113. and on the ridceiine: Lot =_
is 37.5 acres. east of CR =:113. and occupies the bosom land of ShiDpees Draw. Lot contains
active subsidence features :0 the west of the creek. one of whit:: has been fenced. They were mos:
likely created by soil and bedrock dissolution from sheet flood irrigation from the roadside ditch :hat
runs from :1.e pond on ...e procerry. The lanced is currently being used as Pasture.
This office has reviewed the Geologic 1-Iazards Evaluation and Soils and Foundation
Investigation reports by CT: :_ 1 ompscn. Inc. and the Drainage Pt.an. by High Country ,_.n:;neering
rc0 ' ,s. \ e agree. at
and generally .. n.C�._ '•'`�....he conclusions and recommendations :at fifers contain. � �.
thene is no inherent geologic h=ard that would impact the development of Lot =1 . The consultant
has reported ground subsidence potentially unstable slopes. and ?ydrocomcactive soil hazards for
lots =_ and has made the anpr: crate engineering recommendations to mitigate the hazards. At the
time of Our insnectioni an access road (7) was stripped of ve'`etation through the subsidence hazard
zone to the wet bottom lands where it terminates in severe ruts. Across the creek from CR =1 13
there are C.vo sites where vefetation has been strapped and lot gradini. 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 i?eotechnical consultant this office
has no undue coneerns 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 tail so the
consultant can verity 50ii conditions. Because of the moisture sensitive soils \ye recommend that
• •
Petts/Holmes 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. Wnite
Engineering Geologist
•
STATE OF LOLORAiO
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
: - (_.'?r
JUL 2'2 19
_ cLD C &I 1TY
RE: Robert Petts & Cathleen Holmes
SE 1/4 Sec.33, Twp.6 S, Rna.87 W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
'1876_
Rov Romer
Governor
James 5. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Er neer
We are in receipt of ycur subdivision referral to subdivide approximately 39 acres into
2 sincle family homesites, located about twelve miles southeast of the Town cf Glen weed
Spnncs, Colorado. The crcpcsed water supply will be a common well for the two lets. The
applicant has obtained a well permit, nc. 1838E0, from cur office.
The permit was accroved cn July 27, 1 995 cn a condition that it snail be :he only well
on the tract of 29.11 acres. The permit expires cn July 27, 1997, unless the well is
constructed prier to that date. The use cf the we!! is limited to fire protection, ordinary
household purposes inside not more than three sincle family dwellings, the iricatcn cf nct
more than one acre of home gardens and lawns and the watering of poultry, domestic
animals. Pursuant to Section 3C-2-1 3611)(h)(I), C.F.S., it is cur opinion that the proposed
water succiy will not cause material injury to senior water rights. Cur office has no
information if the well Is constructed. The applicant has not provided informat:oh about the
acecuacy cf the water succly.
If you have any Guest :ons regarding this matter, please fee! free to contact Mr. Kris
Mut-thy of this office or Mr. Cn,m, _ell of our Division office in Glenwood Springs a:945 -5.6E5.
SFL.'km
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe L. Eergquist, Water Commissioner
holmes.sub
Sincerely,
_ I
\
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
September 11, 1996
(iari.ield County Planning Commission
109 Eight Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Re:
Pitts/1--lohnes Subdivision Application
Dear Commissioners:
"1-\v.�o years L12.0 the above applicants attempted to create the 2.3 acre lot
proposed in this application under all eNclllpt subdivision application. The iapplicants
prilperty is adjacent to our 2100 acre ranch.
At that time we «•ere part of nine other property owners (approxtmatclyTUU(
total acres) within a mile radius of the subject propel tv, who opposed that applic xtion
p!.imarily based on Section 8:52B of the Garfield County Land j_ _e codcs 1VI11c11 y[lltCs
Compatibility of the proposed e\emption with existing land uses in the StlrrOLind111u
Dred' 511ouid be cOnSi(?Cred when cyalu ti[1` that application.
It IS surprising and of `':eat concern that the above provision is rloc pur, of the;
criteria for evaluating the current application for subdividing this property. It' yo;:
:`17rnve this applica:ion. you are creating' a non-exempt parc.-1 of 2.3 acres v.Ithltl dr'
of the county characterized b: 1 .r c a_ icultural parcels and a hall houi':> drive
Glenwood Snr:r: 'j whre a 2 3 IOC size I11o1.:2 commun.
(;ac!'leH l_tic t'a paver_ SH)111(1 H. c,linC:2rncd v..',I1 lilt cos',
C\t:ii5iot1 c rlre and pc;ice prorcotion. as well a,s sc;lo)oi ii 5111'6H, 1. Ic:tiOtt
_.. 6c.7""C ,•)t v'111C11 71; t have the tax bask to support i:i sacor thcsc cost.
It scents that a rcasOrable: person `.ould rut irprC,.2 suJ ;11-i
•
Ll,)c not support good lard 1 se a'lanntri`2. ii :t is not within vc,ur 1)1i\l,ci to dcny this
ahrlic lii:_il,
thcn it ., ac`,it tinlc a:z rule_ ar.; chan`e:i t( r n; it 1ron1 (ui1)i iiin'�'
lc nes D. Peterson
(i:Iner:il t'ar:ncr
C:)ulte: Creek ``ii!Icy Ltd.
I bf4 Count;! Rodd 121
Colorado ti