HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 05.15.1995BOCC 5/15/95
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Cedars PUD Zone District Text and
Platt Amendment and sketch plan
APPLICANTS: Richard & Maty Jolley
LOCATION: A parcel of land located in a portion of
Section 25, T5S. R91W; located
approximately one (1) mile north of
the Town of New Castle.
SITE DATA: 17.96 acres
WATER: Town of New Castle
SEWER: 1. S.D. S.
ACCESS: County Road 245
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD, R-MHIG/UD
L RELATIONSIIIPTO'I'IIE COMPREFIENSiVE PLAN
The subject property is located in District A, New Castle Urban Area of Influence as shown
on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts Map.
11. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is adjacent to the south side of the Elk Creek and
Three Elk Run subdivisions. The property slopes from the north to south, with slopes
in the lower third of the property adjacent to CR, 245 ranging in grade from 15% to
over 40%. The upper section of the property has slopes that are gentler, with a range
between 5% to 30%, and an average of l0% to 15%. The predominant vegetation
is pinion and juniper trees, with wheatgrass and sagebrush the main ground cover.
B. Project Description: It is proposed to create a PUD on the 17.96 acre site, which
would allow 10 single-family lots ranging in size from 1.1 acres to 1.4 acres in size,
with 4.5 acres of common open space. The lots will have water supplied by the Town
of New Castle. Sewage will be treated by the use of individual sewage disposal
systems. Access will be provided from Comity Road 245 via a 40 ft. wide access and
utility easement that ends in a cul-de-sac with a 70 ft radius. The proposed design
of the subdivision is shown on the attached blueline.
C. Background: The applicants had previously submitted a sketch plan for the project
which proposed a conventional subdivision of 8 single-family lots of approximately
2.5 acres each. Based on comments from the Planning Commission, the applicants
have decreased lot size to approximately 1.1 to 1.4 acres per DU, and are requesting
PUD zoning. Approximately 4.5 acres of the site is proposed as open space.
• 1
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: As a zone district amendment, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is
required to comply with Section 4.0 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations:
1. To provide for necessary commercial, recreational, and educational facilities
conveniently located to housing;
To provide for well -located, clear, safe and pleasant industrial sites
involving a nllninzum if strain on transportation facilities;
3. To insure that the provisions of the zoning laws which direct the uniform
treatment of dwelling type, bulk, density, and open space within each zoning
district will not be applied to the improvement of land by other than lot -by -
lot development in a manlier which would distort the objectives of the zoning
laws;
4. To encourage innovations in residential, commercial and industrial
development and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may
be greater variety in type, design and layout of buildings and by the
conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to said
buildings;
5. To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services, or private
services in lieu thereof and to reflect changes in the technology of land
development so that the resulting economies may inure to the benefit of those
who need homes;
6. To lessen the burden of traffic on streets and highways;
7. To conserve the value of the land;
8. To provide a procedure which can relate the type, design and layout of
residential, commercial, and industrial development to the particular site,
thereby encouraging preservations of the site 's natural characteristics; or
9. To encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the purposes and
objectives of development.
Staff comments on compliance of on each of the objectives are as follows:
1. Project Complies. The 25 percent PUD open space requirement does create
adjacent passive recreation opportunities adjacent to the proposed units. The open
space is directly adjacent to Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5. No proposed easements are shown
on the sketch plan to provide access for Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
2. Not Applicable.
3. Not Applicable.
4. Project Complies. The proposed design would "cluster" the development to include
the most easily developable portions of the project, and the areas under more
significant topographic constraints are shown as open space.
5. Project Complies. One justification for reducing lot size was the provision for New
Castle water, which allows for a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre and the use of ISDS.
The project is more efficient (more dwelling units with disturbance of less land) than
the original proposal, and includes 4.5 acres of open space.
• •
Project Complies. Although the project does generate additional traffic on CR 245,
the project does provide housing in close proximity to New Castle, and within a
reasonable commute to Glenwood Springs.
7 Project Complies. The project does not represent a type or intensity of development
that would threaten or reduce adjacent property values, and may in fact enhance the
market price of adjacent property.
8. Project Complies. The strongest attributes of the project include a density
appropriate for the available services, the open space dedication of areas unsuitable
for residential development, and proposed building envelopes that represent minimal
visual impact to adjacent properties.
9. Project Complies. The project complies with all applicable PUD standards.
B. Soils/Topography: Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., reviewed the site for geologic concerns. The
site has soils with development limitations due to shrink -swell potential and steep slopes.
He suggests that all lots should have a " soils investigation for proper foundation design" and
that the soils engineer needs to address how close a foundation can be to steeper slopes.
The SCS soils information indicated that there may be ISDS limitations due to soils and
slopes. The applicant's geologist noted that there should not be any problems for ISD
systems, except in areas of steep slopes (See report pages ). SGM has also
provided additional information regarding the feasibility of ISDS on the site (see letter on
pages ).
C. Road/Access: The road is proposed to have some grades of up to 1 2%, which the applicant
is requesting a variance to the requirements of the subdivision regulations. A roadway
serving ten (10) lots is classified as a semi -primitive roadway and is required to have at a
minimum of a 40 ft. ROW, with eight (8) ft. driving lanes and two (2) ft. shoulders and a
gravel driving surface. The proposed roadway centerline is the common lot lines of the
proposed lots. This roadway will have to be dedicated to the public for use, but it will be
maintained by a homeowners association. The procedure for a grade variance is set up for
Preliminary Plan, at which the applicant's engineer will have to demonstrate that the design
variance is justified based on the criteria contained in Section 9:37 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations.
Cul-de-sacs may be permitted, provided they are not over 600 ft. in length. The proposed
cul-de-sac is approximately 1500 ft. long. The Board may approve longer cul-de-sacs " for
topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection and emergency egress and
access is provided as a part of the longer design." The applicant has a favorable
recommendation from the Burning Mountain Fire District (see page ).
D. Fire Protection: Favorable comment has been received from the Burning Mountain Fire
Protection District. The Colorado State Forest Service noted some concerns about the Three
Elk Run development, due to wild fire potential create by steep slopes. This property has
similar vegetation profiles and topographic constraints as adjacent properties. At the time
of Preliminary Plan, staff will refer the application to the State Forest Service for comments.
Generally the State Forest Service feels wildfire problems can be minimized by following the
recommendations for construction of homes contained in the CSFS publication "Wildfire
Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface" and "Model Regulations for protecting People
and Homes in Subdivisions and Developments".
E. Proposed Zoning Text: The zoning text for the proposed PUD are attached on pages
. The zone text treats the entire project was one zone district, allowing residential
uses as a use by right, home occupation and day nursery as conditional uses, and a studio for
the conduct of arts and crafts as a special use.
• •
Staff would suggest that the Open Space portion be zoned as "open space", to ensure that the
property is not subsequently subdivided or sold as a separate parcel. In addition, the
minimum lot area should be shown only as "one (1) acre" in the text.
The reference to road standards is not necessary, due to the variance request.
F. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The project is in clear compliance with the
following portions of the 1984 Comprehensive Plan:
1. Recreation and Open Space: Objective 2 which supports the creation of
Open Space areas that will remain natural in perpetuity, particularly the
transportation corridors between communities.
2. Water and Sewer Services: Objective 2 encourages development located
adjacent to existing subdivisions or municipalities with available capacity in
their central water and/or sewer services to become a part of the existing
system. Policy 2 requires that areas where a logical and economic extension
of sewer lines can occur enter into appropriate agreements to receive service.
3. Environment: Objective 1 discourages development of areas with severe
environmental constraints. The proposed Open Space area is considered to
have server constraints due to slope.
E. Additional Agency Comments:
1. Division of Wildlife: The Division has reviewed the project, and is very
supportive of the design changes since the previous sketch plan (see letter on
page ).
2. Town ofNew Castle: The Town has approved the water taps for the project
(see letter on page ).
No other agencies have commented on the project.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners
2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard
at the hearing.
3. That the application submitted met the requirements of Section 4.08.05 of the Garfield
County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended.
4. That the PUD is general conformity with the 1984 Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with
the Purposes and Objectives (Section 4.02) and Standards and Requirements (Section 4.07)
of the PUD Regulations.
5. That the Garfield County Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
PUD, with conditions.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
On May 10, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed PUD (7-0), with
the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant are considered conditions of approval.
• •
2. That the variance request for the road grade in excess of 12 percent shall be presented at the
time of Preliminary Plan submittal.
3. That the zone text shall be modified to include the open space as a separate district,
precluding any development or fiirther subdivision.
4. That the preliminary plan show an appropriate easement for access to the ditch for
maintenance purposes.
5. That the covenants shall reflect wood burning restrictions identical to Aspen Glen and
subsequent subdivision approvals.
•
Nicholas Lamiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
p/].BOX c
SILT, COLORADO 81652
(303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS)
March 21, 1995
Kent Jolley
1288 Co. Rd. 245
New Castle CO 81647
RE: Jolley Subdivision, Elk Creek Valley
Dear Mr. Jolley:
As per your request, I have comp1eted my geolnqic sL/by of the
referenced prJperty. This is
'� ~'p --are z� �|r �rr��eas� si�e of the Elk Creek Valley, ahnut
orc mi1e northwrst of New Castic^ Garfield Count;, Colorado, T! -Ie
sites are on the nearly flat I�rd at the top of a pinion covered
bench along t:e county road' There are two irrigation ditches,
one through the property and one just to the north of it.
There are two significant gullies passing on either side of the
property as shown, that will not affect the sites. There is onlv
one lot not above the irrigation ditch through the parcel;
therefore the remaininglots are not subject to the drainage
concerns of a potential ditch problem. The site for Lot 1 is the
exception but it is on a knoll which water cannot easily reach.
The other sites are also or high, level ground but landscaping
around the rear of the homes as protection from normal slope wash
is recommended. The small swales through portions of the
property should be avoided for tha actual construction of homes.
The area is underlain by the Cretaceous age Mancos Shale, which
typically has variable dids due to its incompetency as a
structural bedrock unit. No evidence of subsidence could be
seen` and the soils, consisting of sands and gravels. are
excellent at all sites. This is typical of terrace deposits in
excess of ten feet in thickness' as in this case'
There is the potent�al for ��'c' �yorocom�ac��on ut ��rs� si�'`s
so that s�'/� irvestio�� -�� -• - pro:pr ^o�'ncat�on �csign js
soils engineer should address
�.cw close to steeper portions of any given lot the foundation can
be placed.
• •
Driveways to each new home are readily buildable from the
existing driveway once it has reached the area of the homes from
the County. Road. Some modification is planned to reduce the
initial steepness of this access road by entering the property
just to the north of the present entry. Water will be available
from the adjoining subdivision, and waste disposal will be
possible in the permeable soils of the bench for each lot but
the steeper sections of the lots must be avoided for this use.
The homes should be designed to. preclude the accumulation of
radon gas. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are
further questions.
Sincerely,
AN
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
_
}
• •
(303) 945-1004
SCI MUESER
410111111111111
ENGINE RS
SU17VEYORS
118 West 6th, Suite 200
FAX (303) 945-5948 G01100/4 MEYER Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
March 27, 1995
Mr. Kent Jolley
532 Traver Trail
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
RE: Jolley Subdivision, New Castle Sketch Plan, Utility and Drainage Report
Dear Kent:
This letter is intended to discuss the various utility provisions as well as drainage considerations for the
Jolley Subdivision which is a proposed 10 unit residential PUD. This letter is intended to meet the
submittal requirements of Section 4.08.05.(7).(e) of the Garfield County Land Use Code. This section
of the code requires the statement by a licensed engineer providing evidence of the following:
(i) The proposed water source adequate to serve the PUD
(ii) The proposed method of sewage treatment
(iii) The general manner in which the drainage will be handled
(iv) The general manner in which provision will be made for any potential natural hazards
in the area, such as avalanche areas, landslide areas, floodplain areas and unstable
soils.
The water for domestic use will be provided to each site by a community water system or water main
extended from the existing main in County Road 245. The existing main is owned and maintained by
the Town of New Castle. Prior correspondence from the Town of New Castle indicates the Town's
intent to provide water service to this subdivision.
Wastewater treatment for the subdivision will be treated individually for each lot with on-site Individual
Sewage Disposal Systems. Based upon preliminary perc tests results, we anticipate that no unusual
conditions exist that would prohibit the use of on-site sewage disposal systems. We anticipate that
with the preliminary percolation rates being at 30 minutes per inch, the on-site systems would require
standard construction outlined in the County Individual Sewage Disposal System Requirements. An area
of 750 to 1000 square feet is anticipated also. There is no evidence of high ground water nor shallow
depths to bedrock that we anticipate would require engineered Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
Obviously, the County requires (per State requirements) that a site specific percolation test be
performed at the location of the proposed field installation when an individual unit or lot is developed.
Electric service for this area is currently provided by Public Service Company of Colorado. There is an
existing overhead line located along County Road 245 running parallel to the south property line of the
project. Therefore, we anticipate tying into this line and extending service into the subdivision from
County Road 245.
Public Service Company of Colorado is also the natural gas supplier for this area. Again, they have an
existing transmission line located in County Road 245 along the south property line of the project.
Again, we anticipate extending service from County Road 245 into the project.
U.S. West provides telephone service to residents in this area. Again, U.S. West has a main line
located in County Road 245. We anticipate extending service from this main line into the project.
• •
March 27, 1994
Mr. Kent Jolly
Page 2
Finally, TCI Cablevision provides cable television service to residents in this area. They have an
overhead distribution line located along County Road 245 and we anticipate extending service from
County Road 245 into the project.
The project is intended to be served by a single 20 foot wide access, accessing from County Road 245
into the project ending at a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac will be of sufficient diameter to allow
accessibility for emergency vehicles. This 20 foot wide access will be the only item that will provide
an interruption to the existing drainage patterns. Generally, the patterns provide for sheet flow from
a north to south direction across the site. The upper bench of the site consists of an intermixed
disbursement of dense Juniper and Pinon with sage brush and native grasses. Along the south edge
of the property and the west edge of the property, the slopes become steeper and will most likely be
utilized as open space. Minor drainage paths are seen to traverse the site but do not constitute any
major drainage flows. Drainage is intended to be controlled along the road with road side borrow
ditches and with culverting as necessary. To the furthest extent possible, the natural drainage patterns
will be accommodated. Along the upper (or off site) portion of the property, an irrigation ditch which
serves Castle Valley Ranch exists to intercept drainage and direct it easterly of the property.
Accordingly, along the southern portion of the upper bench, another drainage ditch which also serves
Castle Valley Ranch traverses the site from west to east. Other than providing culverting to cross this
irrigation ditch, no special features of construction will be required. At the intersection of the access
road to the project and County Road 245, it is intended to direct drainage from the borrow ditches to
the adjacent culverts already utilized by this property for transmission of runoff past County Road 245.
At that point, all drainage will be re-established to its natural condition.
Finally, no mapped floodplains exist on site nor is the site tributary to avalanche or landslide areas. We
understand that you have rendered the services of a Geologist to further expand discussions on these
natural hazards.
Upon your receipt of this report, if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
i
Je Simonson, P.E.
JSS/ja90131 B
SCIIMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Board
Ross Talbott - Chairman
WUUam Montover
lean Mello
Com Voight
Gordon Wltzke
• •
Burning Mountains
Fire Protection District
Box 236
Silt, CO 81652
I)on Zordel - Chief
Stu Cerise - Assist. Chief
//
/(J-7 , 2 Al -1 1 2-12"e )'-'e(,iL (-4.e
�Iiej- I j C., d ,t1 5, �� , �-► ,2 A/ del , j1) P 0 %, 51)^ 1-L
THF ('I 11 \I S
I'1.:1,NNI•:Ir UNIT Ir YI(LMPM1•NT
I?I•'(;I I I..1'I' I ONS
To the extent. that spec•il•ic: provisions of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution and the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County
conflict with s t.andards con tri i ned in The Cedars Planned Unit
Development as approved by the Iloarcl of County Commissioners, such
zoning resolution and subdivision regulations shall not, he applicable
and the provisions and standards contained in the approved The Cedars
Planned len i t Development sha l I control.
Ity Night: Single-family and customary
including hn i I d i tir;r; for the shelter or encloc of animalssory s,
or
1,ro11c1.1 y accessory I rr>;,• nl' the lot I'or sin);le- ram ily
res ide nt i a I purposes and fences, hedges, ;es, gardens, wails and
similar landscape features.
Park and open space
I I . lases condi l ionrtl : Day nursery, home occupation.
III. els,,.;, Special: Studio for conclncl or arts and crafts.
IV. M i r1 i mnm LOT :\lfl A: One Acre and as further provided ander
Supplemental Regulations of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution.
Mai: imrini Lot ('overage: Twenty peri:ent (20%)
VI. Minimum Setbac:1:
Prom( Yard: "I'wenly-five feel.(2J 5,
) from access easement
Roar Yard: (Lot number's as shown on Pell) Master Plan)
Lots 1,2,3 & 4 and Lots 9 K 10:)
'I'wcnt.y-feet (20'
from rear lot line
Lot.;; 5,(,7 & R Ten feel (10') f r•om
rear lot Line
fide Yard: Fifteen feel. from side lot line.
l'I I . Ml\innuu Height of Itui Idii: s: 'Twenty-five feet
1'111. Ma.%imum Floor area Ratio: 0.200/1.0 and as further provided
under Supplemental Regulations of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution.
I.X. Frontage: Each lot in separate ownership shall have at least
1wenl.y-five feet. (25') of frontage on the forty root dedicated
4cr.ess easenrerl t which provides access of all lots Lo County
Road 215.
s
•
nes i gii SI andar (Is;.
(•u 1 -d(• ti;r(•:
1. M;(\ianun 1.4'11 11(:
9.
1 , 50O feet
linimum 1(oad Surface Ou Lside lZadius 64 feet
13. IIIm C1•ad1r: T4 '1 per COI ( I0%) wi 1.1, twe.lt'e percent
( 12'X,) grnd(.s, ;(I lowed for diHI tf •('s ()I' 1101. more Phan IWo
h(iu(Ir(:d fool. (200' ) when s(.lraraLed I•r•om other 12% grades
h.V'_'0O feel. and loctIed in straight. sections of road.
I'm! I v(' Iwrcenf (12Z) ) q;r•nd(:s are 1.0 he n L i 1 i zed to reduce
the road grades i n hor i zonl a 1. rond curves of less than 200
f((>I rndiu:;.
('. Mini mum ('i(r•ve Had i u:;: On(' curve n1 1 he entrance t.0
11(. si1r sl(r(1I he r( miaimuni () I' forty fool. (40') rad i us.
&111 ol her ut•Ves slut 11 meter. 1lt ( tr1,ieId county non('
11(:s i gn SI anda r•ds .
• •
w
i y j
A- TOWN OF NEW CASTLE
4.10
"Burning Mountain"
1888
March 27, 1995
Mr. Richard Jolley
1288 245 Road
New Castle, CO 81647
Dear Mr. Jolley,
Telephone (303) 984-2311 Box 90, New Castle, Colorado 8164;
The Board of Trustees of the Town of New Castle have agreed to grant
to you (2) two additional water taps from their newly constructed elk
creek water system.
The total approved number of water taps for your subdivision is ten
(10) taps.
All water taps will be required to pay water tap and recoupment fees
to the Town of New Castle. All users on the system must conform to
Town of New castle water use ordinances and operation and fee
requirements.
Sincerely_,
Steve Rip p( O
Mayor, Town of Now Castle
0 pruned on recycles} paper
