Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report 05.11.1983PROJECT NAME: OWNER/APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: • • Po *70g PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS The Cedars Sketch Plan Carl Pitts Shale Country Surveying A parcel of land located approximately 4 miles east of Parachute on County Road 301. A 79.8 acre parcel to be subdivided into 16 single family lots and one condominium lot. Central water Individual septic A/R/RD North: A/R/RD South: A/R/RD East: A/R/RD West: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The development is located in District E (Rural Areas/Severe-Moderate Environmental Constraints). It is the policy of the County to consider this area to have poor suitability for growth. Other relevant policies are: 1. Non-agricultural areas and non-productive cropland found in this area shall be considered best able to absorb growth. (page 72) 2. Road access and conditions shall be used to evaluate the relative ability of areas within District E to absorb growth. (Page 72) 3. Areas outside a one (1) mile radius of District A (Urban Area of Influence) shall have a density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. (Page 74) 4. Slopes 25% and over shall be restricted from Development. These slopes may be: a. Maintained as permanent open space; b. Platted as a part of an approved building lot, with an open space easement; c. Platted as a portion of a building lot which has adequate useable building space available other than steep slopes; d. Platted as a portion of a subdivision and dedicated as permanent open space; Developed with special design consideration and engineering. e. (Page 77) 5. On moderate slopes (16%-24%) only those structures that are designed to fit the contours of the land shall be considered. The leveling or "benching" of these slopes shall not be permitted. (Page 78) II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is split by County Road 301, sloping to the north vertically 535 feet in 2631 horizontal feet, or an average slope of just over 20%. The vegetation consists of pinyon, juniper and native grasses. B. Project Description: It is proposed to split the 79.8 acre parcel into 16 single family lots ranging in size from 2.089 acres to 2.81 acres. There is also a 3.007 acre condonminium site, which is proposed to have 8 dwelling units, with 33.85 acres of Green Belt. Access to 12 lots south of County Road 301 is provided by a 50 foot right-of-way that winds up the hillside and dead ends roughly 2100 feet beyond the access point. Off of the 50 foot right-of-way there are four 25 foot access/utility rights-of-way of up to 800 feet in length. There are four lots north of the county road that are served by a 750 foot long 25 foot wide access road. i • III. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES A. Staff Comments: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal has an average density of one dwelling unit per 3.25 acres. The District E policy tor density is no densities in excess of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Additionally the Comprehensive Plan identifies slopes in excess of 25% as being restricted from development. Lots 7, 14, 15 and 16 all appear to have no buildable area with a slope less than 25%. Lots 2, 3 and 9 have slopes in excess of 16%, with limited building potential without extensive site grading. 2. Zoning: The A/R/RD zoning does allow single family lots of no less than two acres in size. There is no allowance for condominium or multi -family development. 3. The minimum right-of-way width allowed in the subdivision standards is 50 feet. The proposed 25 foot rights-of-way are not consistent with the County's subdivision standards. 4. The 25 foot rights-of-way are inadequate for use as both utility and access easements. 5. The County Road supervisor has stated that the County will not accept the presently designed roads for maintenance and repair. 6. County Environmental Health has stated that it appears as though many of the lots will require specially engineered on-site sewage disposal systems. 7. All of the soil types identified indicate severe restrictions for roads, dwellings and septic systems. IV. FINDINGS 1. The sketch plan conforms to Section 4.01, sketch plan requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The lot sizes proposed in the Sketch Plan are smaller than the Comprehensive Plan policy size for District E developments. 3. The Sketch Plan proposes development of areas with slopes in excess of 25%, which is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policy and performance standards. 4. The sketch plan does not conform to the requirements of the Garfield County subdivision standards in that the road widths are less than the minimum. 5. That for the above stated and other reasons, the sketch plan appears not to qualify for approval by this Commission. V. RECOMMENDATION Denial. Small lot development in this area is restricted due to severe physical constraints and the development is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and performance standards and Garfield County Subdivision standards.