Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 05.10.89PROJECT INFORMAT]ON PC 5/t0/89 AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: OWNER: Pinyon Preliminary Carbondal e Corporation Peaks Plan Land subdivision Development 1. II LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENS]VE PLAN The site is located in Districts D Severe nnvironmental Constraints,Plant Management Districts Map. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL appfoximately 39 lots proposal- was disapproved Sketch P1an. A t r act of land si tuated i n Sections 11 & L4, T7S, RBBW; approximately 5 miles northeast of Carbondale, off County Rd. 712. The site consists of 797 acres. Two individual wells and one central well f or L7 1ot.s. rndividual Sewage Disposal Systems nxisting and proposed private access easements off County Rd. lt2. A/R/RD A/R/RD and F, Ruraf Areas with Moderate to as designated in the Comprehensive of the fami 1y formed Cou nt y pinyon, fied on A.Site Description: The site is located in a rural portion ffises in the vicinity being mainly single residential, ranching and open space. Steeper slopes are along the northern portion of the development and alongRd. ll2. Vegetation consist.s mainly of sagebrush,juniper and meadow grasses. No improvements are identithe site with the exception of access roads. B.Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 197 ffie f amily residential lots r rdnging f rom 4,2 acres to 16.6 acres in size with a gross density of approximately 10.4 acres. The Sketch Plan proposed 1B 1ots, but after furtherreview, the applicant is requesting approval of 79 l-ots. Twolots (#f and #17) will have individual well-s and driveways comingdirectly off of County Road Il2. The remaining l7 l-ots will beserved by a central water distribution system with a 30,000 galJon water storage tank and 10r000 ga11on cistern. The 10r000 ga11on cist.ern is intended to provide waLer for fire protectionpurposes. Access to all of these lots will be from the subdivision's internal- road system.individual sewage disposal systems. A11 lots will have C. History:In 1979, the site was proposed for subdivision intoas "The Compound" subdivision. This by the Board of County Commissioners at -t" t) III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A Agency Comments Roar the dwe l pa9e ing For k propo sedling in School District RE-1 has no concerns regarding subdivision. They have requesEed $ZOO per lieu of any lan<l cledication . (See enclosed ? Colorado Department of Health has noted that the central- water system will be subject to design approval prior to construction and that ttre high iron concentration coul-d cause staining of plumbing fixtures and laundry. (see letter, page /0 ) Colorado Geological Survey has stated that the subdivision is entirely feasible, proVided certain precautions are taken to avoid sleep slopes; have individual soils and foundation studies done for each lot; proper drainage; and forewarn lot purchaSers that engineered septic syst.ems may be necessary. (See pages ll r. t2) Colorado Division of Water Resources has verbally expressed concerns about the fact that Lheir comments from the Sketch Plan had not been addressed.Specifically, theY are concerned that the Park Ditch water may not be available for augmentation and that the location of the main well is not wi!nin 2OO ft. of the proposed location in the augmentation plan which will require a change in the augmentation p]an. ihere is no well location within 200 ft. of Lot I , which will have an inclividual well on it also. That the water augmentation plan shouLd be turned over to the Homeownerrs Association for rnanagement of, and ownership of , the water rights. A11 of these comments have resulted in the Division noi being able to recommend approval of tl.re subdivision. (See pagestS . tf 1 Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District noted that their concerns regarding the water system and waste disposal had been adequately met. The urged that the developer follow all of the engineering guidelines identified in the study. (see pase /f ) Staff Comments The applicant's engineer has noted that the iron content of the water is higher than the recommended 1evel of 0-3 ng/I. Both the applicant's engineer and the State HeaIbh Department engineer note that the high iron content will stain plumbing fixtures. The State gealth Department notes that high iron content may stain laundry too. The iron may also present a slight detectabLe taste to perSons not accustomed to higher than normal iron content in the water. While this does not present a health threat to anyone drinking or using the water, it is something potential purchasers should be made aware of at the time of purchase. A plat note should be placed on the Final Plat noting that 'without individual treatment in-house, the higher than recommended level of iron in the water may cause staining of plumt-ring f ixture and laundry, as well as having deLectable taste.' The Colorado Division of Water Resources concerns should be resolved prior to Final- Plat approval. The subdivision regulations require nthe representation that all necessary water rights have been obtained or witl be obtained or ad jutiicated, prior to submission of ttre f inal pIat. " Representations have been made that the applicant does have all necessary water rights, but the Oivision of Water Resources Seems to differ in opinion. There should be a letter from the Oivision of Water Resources recommending approval of the subdivision, prior to approval of a final plab . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. B. 1. 2. Other Sketch Plan following manner: 1. That all rePresentations application or stated CountY Comnissioners sha unless stated otherwi-se comments have been addressed in the3. IV a. legality of access from the adjoining property h?= been researched to show that the carbondale Land Development Corporatiorrhasmaintainedtitletoa60ft.wide easement -useA by adjoining property owners ' A proposed grant of easement to uOloining property owners is included, which exc.]-udes Carbondale Land DeVelopment from any obligations for maintenance, snow removal and other issue. If this easement is in effectr dnY lot in the Pinyon Peaks subdivision using this easement for access srrourd bear thei r proportionate responsibility formaintenance,snowremovalandotherobligations. b.Itisproposedtohaveallroadsbuilttoa26ft.widedriving iurface that includes two 11 ft. driving lanes withtwo(2)ft.shoulders.Tlreright-of_waywillbe 60 ft. ,ia". The subdivision Regulations require a 28 ft.widedrivingsurfacewhichistoincludeat]easttwo (2) ft. stroulders. The driving surface can be expanded by increasing the driving l-anes or the shoulder by one (1) ft. on each side' c. Topographic information was submitted PretiminarY Plan requirements' d. Soils/Geology studies were submitted requesb of the Sketch Plan comments ' e. There is no proposed phasing of the project' was provided he Planning SUGGESTED FINDINGS l.Thatproperpublication,publicnoticeandpostingas requi reo- by 1aw ior the hear ing before t Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were subnitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County ' 4. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are reguired by bhe state of Colorado and Garfield county have been submitted, reviewed, and found to meet all sound planning and engineering requirements of the Garfield County subdivision Regulat ions . 5. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield county zoning Resolution. thab met the that met the reasons, the ProPosedof the health, safetY, , and welfare of the V. 6. That for the above-stated and other subdivision is in the best interest morals, convenience , oLder , prosperity ciEizens of Garfield CountY. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions being met: of the aPPlicant, either within the at the public hearing before the Board of 11 be "-on"idered conditions of approval 'by the Board of County Commissioners ' 2. 3. That prior to final plat approval, an approvedplan be submitted along with a letter from theWaLer Resources confirming that the augmentatthe water rights needs of the subdivision. water augmentation State Division ofion plan will meet That the approved water augmentation plan be turned over to the homeowner's association at such time that 10 lots are owned byparties other than the applicant. The Final Plat shoul-d include a plat note that states: a. In-house treatment of water is recommended due to higherthan recommended l-evels of iron, which may resul_t in anunusual taste and staining of plumbing fixtures if notproperly treated. 5. Final Plat road profiles shall include asurface that meets County Road standards asand Bridge Department. b. Engineered foundations systems may be required and individualfor residential sewage disposal construction. 28 ft. wide driving approved by the Road -/- 4. Roaring ,.,.i*,0'''t'-- t'urr-iili Glenwood 811,602-0820 ,-, .. -.,,.'.-".]" l.,lr?g e ( 303 ) 9 4 5 - 6 5 5 9,',,,,,'" .,,,, ., .. . ,. !::::t:::j::,:"' ":.;: Apr1l 25, 1989 Mr, Mark Bean carfleld County Dept. of Bulldlng sanltatlon and P1annlng 109 8th Street Glenwood Sprlngs, Co 81601 P.U. D. Dear Mark: The Roarlng Fork SchooI Dlstrlct Re-1 has no concerns regardlng the above-referenced. subdlvlslon and would ask for a - d,onatlon of $2oo per dwe1llng ln lleu of the land d,edlcatlon. Thls |s ln l1ne wlth our recent request of other P.U.D.s. We should arrange to get together some tlme soon to dlscuss updatlng our present land dedlcatlon pollcy. If you have any ldeas or concerns, I would }1ke to hear them. I wlII contact you 1n the near future DLH/ )ct Iy,Slncere ,'(lwlght uperl, D s { Herm - 7- .i APR 26 1989 endent STATE OI 'OLOIIADOCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OI HEATTH 222 So.6th SL, Room 232 Crand Junction, Colorado 8'l 501 Aprtl 25, 1989 3. Individual sewage dlsposal systems unless they reach a deslgn flow of If you have any questlons, please call Slncerely, John R. Blair, P.E Distrlct Engineer llater Quallty Control Divislon JRB/mb ec: Carbondale Land Development Company Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Fleld Support, Denver F11e 2929W 'i APP. 26 tgEg must be handled aE the CountY leve1 21000 gpd or greater. me at 248-7L50. Roy Romer Covernot Thomar M. Vetnon, M.f Erecutive Director Mark Bean Garfleld County 109 Bth Street, Sulte 303 Glenwood Springs C0 81601 RE: Pl-nyon Peaks Subdivlslon, Garfield County Dear Mark: I have revlewed the prelimLnary plan for Plnyon Peaks Subdlvlsion and have the followlng comments: 1. The well system that w111 serve Bore the 15 lots w111 be cousLdered a Public Water System by the Colorado Prlnary Drinklng Water RigulatlonP i therefore,thedes1gnforcffintofthewatermusEbe submltted for revLew prlor to constructlon. 2. The lron concentratLon from the above well- was above the 0.3 mg/l secondary standard.. Secondary standards are non-enforeeable, but each potentlal home buyer should be warned that tron 1evels above 0.3 mg/l ean cause stalning of plumblng flxtures and laundry. -/o - (I gfl/effi\ur* GA-89-0003 ROY R. HOMER GOVEBNOR JOHN W. ROLD OIFECTOF COLOHADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILOING _ 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-261 1 Apri l '1 3, l 9B9 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Department of Building, Sanitation and Pl anni ng 109 Sth.Street, Suite 30J Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8"l60.l RE: PINYON PEAKS SUBDIVISION Dear I'lr. Bean: At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 we have revierved the mat-erials for the proposed residential subdivision referenced above. From a geotechnical standpoint the subdivision is entirely feasible i.f certain irecautions relateh to slope stability, drainage, and sewage disposal afe follorved. These are addressed in the accompanying Lincoln DeVore report and the letter of March ,l8,1969, to Scott hlriter from Nicholas Lampiris, Consul ti ng Geo'logi st. area are potentiallY unstable and si tes. Suffi ci ent setbacks shoul d where possible, roads, to minimize maintenance costs and occasional 2't Because of the variable bedrock and soil conditions across the project area, it will be absolutely critical for individual soils and foundation investigations to be conducted for each building_ site. Similariy drainige plans should consider the locations of buildings and roads and on overall integrated drainage p'lan should 5e devised that will seek to minimize erosion and related damages. 3) Percolation tests indicate that some lots will most 'likely have conditions where engineered septic systems wi'11 be necessary f91 proper leach-field performance. Potential 1ot purchasers should be advised of this by appropriate plat notes. GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTUBE 1 ) Steeper parts of the proiect should be avoided as building be made for utility lines and the possibility of excessive I loss of service. - //^ fiOY ROMER Governor JEBIS A. OANIELSON State Engineer May 2, 1989 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. Garfield .County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, C0 81601 Re: P'inyon Peaks Subdivision Prel imjnary P1 an Sec. ll & 14, T7S, RBBhl Dear Mr. Bean: We have revjewed the above referenced preliminary plan for a proposed l9 unit subdivisjon on 197 acres. hle commented on the sketch plan in a letter dated February 7, 1989. At that t'ime 18 lots were proposed on 240 acres. Some of our concerns were answered in this preliminary plan submittal. The water supply is proposed to be a well system. The wells are to be augmented'in accordance with Case No. 79CW97 using stock in the Park Ditch and Reservojr. In our previous letter, we asked for a detailed breakdown of the augmentat'ion water from Case No. 79CW97 for this and other developments andproof of ownership of sufficient shares of the Park Ditch stock. Thjsjnformation was not submitted. He cannot recommend approva'l of this proposal until we receive this information. OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES '1313 Sherman Street-Floom 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3s81 1989 decreed in Case No. 79CW96 are to be decreed in Case No. 79CW96 must be decreed 'iocatrons in accordance with It appears that some of the wells used for this subdivision. All the wells construcied wi t,hi n 200 feet of thei r Water Court rules. Djf igence on the welIsgranted in 88CW282. It appears that onlywill be located on the land jncluded in the proposed subdivjsion. None of these proposed wells are within 200 feet of Lot 1, which according to the submittal js to have its own well. Also, none are wjthin 200 feet of the existing well shown on the uti'lity plan drawing which was submitted. The applicant must obtain a change of water right from Water Court 'in order to move the location of decreed wells. The informat'ion submitted by Mr. Dean Gordon indjcates an adequatephysical supply js ava'ilable for the proposed wells. Mr. Gordon also indicates that the P'inyon Peaks Homeowners Association wi'll own and operate (CLDC t,lells Nos. 2 through 14) was CLDC well nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 foltrlEln(*- lili klAY Lii'. Giiiii-ti - /3' Mr. Mark Bean t{ay 2, l9B9 the water rights used homeownersfuture. The system for the remaining 17 lots. We would like to see the to augment depl etions (Park D'i tch shares ) conveyed to group to guarantee adequate rep'lacement water js available two lot owners for the Lots I and 17 should be included Page 2 water this'in thein the to havehomeowners assoc'iation, even though the submittal states they are individual wel1s, since these lots are also a part of the augmentation p1 an. operate under thei r No repl acement wateryear. Should some 'i n the future, theseof these wel I s by occui"red. Accord'ing to the augmentation p1an, the wells are to own priority between November I and April 30 each year. was provided in the augmentation plan for this period eachof the condjt'ional water rights downstream be perfected wells may be called out. This would cause the curtailment our office. Up to the present time,. no wir:ter cal'ls have Water Court Case No. 79CW97 allows for 69 lots with up to 1000 square feet of lawn and garden and no more than two horses each. This proposal reduces the lots to 19 and increases the lawn and garden to 3632 square feet per 'lot. The total water avajlable for lawn and garden would not jncrease. It is the opinion of Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth, attorney for the applicant, that the existjng decrees can still be utjl jzed. We have some question concerning this opin'ion. In any event, the total amount of irrigation allowed by the augmentat'ion plan is 1.76 acres. This'includes 2500 square foot of lawn and garden on each of three'lots apparently outside this subdivjsion. In summary, we cannot recommend approval of this proposa'l until we can be shown that the applicant st'ill owns sufficient augmentation water to replacethe out-of-priority depletions from this development and all wells will be located wjthjn 200 feet of decreed locations. A change of water right (and perhaps the augmentation plan) will be required if the wells to be constructedfor th'is subdivision are not within 200 feet of the decreed location 'in Case No. 79CW96. S i ncerel y, $er lial D. Deputy 0"*"*elW 5 iiilpsori , F. E. State Engineer HDS/JCM:21941 cc: 0r1yn Be'l'l , Divjsion Engineer Steve Lautenschl ager - /'/- ,a^s --:rG= lvluullL c lr\ oull uull5cl vcltlul I u15Ll tuI April 2I, GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 8160'I 1989 Garfield CounEy Planning Department 109 Bth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CrC 81601 ffiqffi;ll,T,B GA[rrrcr-D cdUilf v-- Dear Planning Staff: At the regular rnonthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District,r the Pinyon Peaks SuMivision Preliminary Plan was reviewed. The Board felt that the concerns they had raised in bheir iniLiaL review had been adequately addressed by the engineering firm regarding waste disposal and the water system. The Board also felt that proper mitigation has been taken for wildlife protection with Ehe plan. They would urge that all engineering guidelines be followed by the developerl and would again state that the proper reclamation of any road disturbance is very important for the prevention of erosion and the preservation of water quality. Again, they feel that weII planned reclamation of a disturbed area will allow less movement of material and proper placement of material during any excavation will result, in reduced costs on the project. The SoiI Conservation Service can be contacLed for infornration on reconrnendations for seeding of disturbed areasr both for species and amounts. The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District Board appreciates the opportunity for input on this developmentr and notes that, soil and water conservation is their prime concern. Sincerelyr 7//r1-/Jim Grange Mount Sopr d-'A/--t*.t r- or President is Soil Conservation DistricL CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SELF.GOVERNMENT -/{-