Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Reportr• • • RIFLE CREEK RANCH SUBDIVISION (PRELIMINARY PLAN) OWNER: Ann Catherine (Kay) Robinson ENGINEER: Solar Country LOCATION: Portion of Section 19, Township 5 South, Range 92 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The property is located adjacent to County Road 325 approximately 2 miles north of Rifle. SITE DATA: The request is to divide 48.2 acres into 16 residential lots and two common areas. WATER: A central distribution system supplied by two wells. SEWER: Individual sewage disposal system ZONE DISTRICT: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is located in management District b-2. The sketch plan was approved on April 12, 1982. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Site Description: The property stradles Colorado Highway 325. Physically, the property ranges from steep, high ground to lower gently sloping areas. The vegetation consists of native vegetation and pasture grasses. Project Description: The proposal is to develop 48 acres into 16 residential lots. III. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES: A. Reviewing Agency Comments: 1. The Colorado Geological Survey made several comments: a. No conventional septic system should be constructed in the northeastern portion of the property. b. Basement construction should be avoided in the northeastern portion of the property. c. Special attention must be used during construction to prevent excessive erosion or slope failures. d. Areas of disturbed low density fill must be recompacted and engineered properly to prevent settlement or hydrocompaction problems. See letter, page 10 2. The Division of Water Resources made several comments: a. Operation, maintenance, and ownership of the water system should be clarified. b. Evapotranspiration sewage disposal systems are not authorized by the augmentation plan. c. The well permits should be amended to show their current use. d. The subdivision will not alter the hazard rating of the Rifle Gap Reservoir dam. The State Engineer does not recommend residential construction within the floodplain defined by the spilling flood. e. The State Engineer does not object to the subdivision provided evapotranspir- ation sewage disposal systems are prohibited. See letter, pages 11, 12, 13 B. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The Environmental Health Department recommends approval of individual sewage disposal systems for the subdivision with the provision that the system be designed by a registered professional engineer to accommodate the physical constraints of the site. See letter, page 14 2. The sketch plan was approved with 5 conditions: a. That each lot have at least 1 acre of buildable area when shown on preliminary plat. Page 4 a • b. That all of the roads in the subdivision be constructed to county standards and specifications. c. That the county receive a copy of an approved augmentation plan at pre- liminary plat. d. That the requirements of the State Highway Department for access to Road 325 be complied with at preliminary plat. e. That building envelopes be designated on Lots 1, 2 and 10 east of Highway 325. 3. The building envelopes for lots 1, 2 and 10 still need to be noted on the plats. 4. The county has received a copy of the augmentation plan which is referred to by the Division of Water Resources (page 13 ). 5. The developer has agreed to develop roads to county standards. However, some sections of the road still exceed 8% requirement. This needs to be approved by the County Road Supervisor prior to Final Plat approval. 6. The State Department of Highways has not yet given final approval of the access points but will establish improvement crteria as part of the approval. Any improvements required should be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agree- ment. See letter, pagel5 7. The applicant has indicated that lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11, Block 1 "have approximately 3/4 acre of buildable area when applying 20 percent side slopes. Using 30 percent side slopes, the area increases to about one acre or more." 8. The developer should address the concerns of the City of Rifle, see letter pages 16 IV. FINDINGS: 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. 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. 3. That the proposed subdivision of laid 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 required by the 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 Regulations. 5. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. A note be placed on the plat that all lots will access off of internal subdivision roads and not directly off the the State Highway. 2. A note be placed on the plat that all sewage disposal systems will be designed by a registered professional engineer. 3. A note be placed on the plat indicating that evapotranspiration sewage disposal systems are not permitted due to the conditions of the water augmentation plan. 4. The developer address the floodplain situation with the State Engineer prior to Final Plat. 5. The well permits be amended and water system details be clarified per the State Engineer's letter prior to Final Plat approval. 6. Building envelopes be designated as the Final Plat. 7. Utility easements be approved by the utility companies prior to Final Plat. Page 5 • • PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On August 11, 1982, the Garfield County Planning Conmiission recommended approval of the Rifle Creek Ranch Preliminary Plan to the Board of County Commissioners with the following conditions: 1. A note be placed on the plat that all lots will access off of internal subdivision roads and not directly off the State Highway. 2. A note be placed on the plat that all sewage disposal systems will be designed by a registered professional engineer. 3. A note be placed on the plat indicating that evapotranspiration sewage disposal systems are not permitted due to the conditions of the water augmentation plan. 4. The developer address the floodplain situation with the State Engineer prior to Final Plat. 5. The well permits be amended and water system details be clarified per the State Engineer's letter prior to Final Plat approval. 6. Building envelopes be designated on the Final Plat. 7. Utility easements be approved by the utility companies prior to Final Plat. 8. The construction costs of the acceleration/deceleration lanes, as required by the State Highway Department, shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 9. The results of the water quality tests for the wells shall be provided at Final Plat together with attendant recommendations for, the State Health Department to alleviate any adverse water quality concerns. The costs of any water improvements required to implement the mitigation provision shall be included in the Sub- division Improvements Agreement. 10. The applicant shall provide detailed design and site survey information for that portion of Ridge Road that exceeds 8% grade. The applicant shall present 2 alternatives at the Final Plat showing the design and environmental impacts of the road as proposed on the Preliminary Plat and a road design not exceeding 8%. Page 6 f_ 'S I";LSCNT: [Ilan D. wles John Tripp DaTe McPherson Dale Albertson Arnold Mackley, Chairman Barbara Lorah Evelyn McKay Laverne Starbuck • MARCH 8, 1982 COUNTY OFFICIALS PRFSLNT: Amik e Merkel, Energy Impact Co�rd. :_rry Bowman, Planner Davis Farrar, Planner Dennis Stranger, Planning Director Steve 7wick, Asst. Cty. Attorney Lisa Williams, Recording Sec. The meeting was called to order at 7:15 P.M. by Chairman Mackley. Roll call was taken by the recording secretary with Dick Martin absent for this meeting. There were no minutes to approve from the last Planning Commission meeting, so the chairman proceeded with the old business from February 22. SIGN CODE FOR GARFIELD COUNTY Ms. Bowman reviewed the final changes incorporated in the sign code since the last Planning Commission meetina. She stated temporary signs were exempt from the permitting process and that a time frame for this type of sign may be discriminatory to, for example, a real estate firm because it would limit them to a length of time to sell the property without obtaining *a permit. It was also difficult to state a time frame for each specific example of a temporary sign, therefore, the staff elected not to specify time frames for temporary signs. Barbara Lorah moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Garfield County sign code with the amendments indicated; specifically, deleting the words "on-site" from 5.07.06 (o) of the proposed code. Dale Albertson seconded the motion. A poll was taken of the voting members with the following results: Albertson: yes; McPherson: yes; Tripp: yes; Mackley: yes; Lorah: yes. Motion carried unanimously. RIFLE CREEK RANCH Davis Farrar reviewed the subdivision sketch plan request for 16 single family lots on 47.94 acres located approximately 2 miles north of Rifle on State Highway 325. The applicant is Kay Robinson. A site review was completed on March 8. Terry Bowman was on that site review with the Planning Commission. She mentioned that discussion with the members on the review indicated Questionable building sites on Lots 1, 2, and 10. Ms. Bowman also stated that the building site on Lot 10 was shown on the lower portion of the lot. The Planning Commission felt it was better to have it on the upper portion because of poor drainage, as was also suggested by Terry Howard, the sanitarian for Garfield County. Ms. Bowman said that the road grade exceeds or is close to 10% in some areas, and that the driveways accessing some of the areas were very steep. Dennis Bradley, representing the Rifle Creek Ranch, replied that some of the steepness could be cut to an adequate grade. Mr. Farrar asked if any of the roads or driveways exceeded 12%. Mr. Bradley said no, not 12%. Mrs. Lorah asked if the main road would be a county road. Mr. Bradley replied that it would. Mrs. Lorah requested that the parcels have specific building envelopes situated on them, especially Lot 10. Ms. Robinson had a problem with this suggestion, as her intent on some of the lots was to have the possibility of "earth homes", or have the homes shaded by the cottonwoods existing on the lots. Mrs. Lorah suggested that if the building envelope was to be on the lower half of Lot 10, then an engineered septic system would be required. Mr. Bradley replied that a detailed soils report (in the process of being completed) would include the limitations on septic systems. Mrs. Lorah asked Mr. Bradley if having 8% grade on 60' roads would cause him a problem. Mr. Bradley replied that a lot of engineering would be required. Mr. Farrar mentioned that he had not been able to have the county road supervisor go out to review the project, as he was on vacation. This would be accomplished by preliminary plat. He doubted if Leonard Bowlby would accept 10% grades and 50' right-of-ways for the county. Mr. Farrar then read through the concerns and recommendation. Discussion followed on the "buildable sites" in the parcel. Dale McPherson aggreed with the developer that the roads should be kept at 50' and the county giving an exception to Rifle Creek Ranch from the normal 60'. Mr. Farrar read a letter from the City of Rifle. They are concerned with the steepness of the grade and the resulting run-off; wildlife; parcel sizes; etc. Dale Albertson moved to recommenetapproval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Rifle Creek Ranch with the following conditions: 1. That each lot have at least 1 acre of buildable area when shown on preliminary plat. 2. That all of the roads in the subdivision be constructed to county standards and specifications. 3. That the county receive a copy of an approved augmentation plan at preliminary plat. 4. That the requirements of the State Highway Department for access to Road 325 be complied with at preliminary plat. yie 2, V,eutikg 1 ,.i C!l .', 1'22 f 5. That building envelopes be designated on lots 1, 2, and 10 east of Highway 325. Dale McPherson seconded the motion. A poll was taken of the voting members with the following results: Albertson: yes; McPherson: yes; Tripp: yes; Lorah: yes and Mackley: yes. Motion carried unanimously. CORN CONSTRUCTION Ms. Bowman stated that a site review had been done that afternoon (March 8, 1982). SHe reviewed the proposal for the open pit sand and gravel mine, and asphalt and concrete hatch plants 2 mile west of Rifle between 1-70 and Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (west of Union Carbide mill). Dennis Kirtland and Ed Settle, representing Corn Construction presented the modified map of the site. Certain parts of the pit were designed to be more aesthetically pleasing by forming irregularities along the powerline easements. Mr. Kirtland also addressed the tailings issue by stating that no deposits of uranium had been detected in the area. If, however, tailings were found, Union Carbide would take over and store it in their storage area. Terry Bowman read the letter from Mr. Clough stating his support of the gravel pit although his ditch adjoins the proposed pit on the west side. Mr. Clough asked that the ditch right-of-way be protected. The hours of the proposed pit were addressed by Mr. Kirtland. He requested that the 7:00 A.M. to 5 P.M. hours proposed by Ms. Bowman be changed to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and include Saturdays. Lee Merkel questioned why the road is not paved for hauling as a "good neighbor" policy? Mr. Kirtland replied that the main reason for this was because of the cost involved. He felt that his company could control the fugitive dust by calcium chloride usage. If this and other such methods did not work, then he felt that his company could consider paving the road. Getting back to the hours of operation, Chairman Mackley suggested that the hours should be that of the industry the company is serving. He felt limitations should not be set for the proposed gravel pit, as other permits were granted without hour limitations. Mr. Farrar suggested that the limitations were set due to the proximity of residents. George Henry, a Dry Hollow resident, felt the Planning Commission would be unreasonable to have the pit "coincide with industry" as far as hours are concerned. Ms. Bowman read the staff recommendation for approval with conditions. Dale Albertson requested that the irregularity be formed along both sides of the powerline easements, rather than just one side, as Corn Construction had illustrated. Dennis Stranger asked about the safety provisions for the pond, i.e. side slopes. Ed Settle replied this the pond would be sloped down to 3 to 1, according to state law and 5:1 in places according to Division of Wildlife recommendations. Mr. Zwick suggested adding a condition of approval for the State Health Department as far as air pollution control is concerned. Mr. Farrar said that the county does not have any monitoring equipment to enforce such a condition. Mr. Merkel felt strongly that the desire of the Planning Commission be to minimize the impacts of the proposed pit to the residents of Garfield County. He felt that the conditions of approval be to insure air quality, etc. Chairman Mackley suggested the mining and crushing hours have limitations. John Tripp felt that the road should be absolutely dust -proof. Ms. Bowman replied that Corn Construction has indicated that they will take measures to control the dust, which is covered under Condition No. 1 of the staff comments. Don Throm, a Garfield County resident, felt that a gravel pit in a residential area should have restricted hours. Dale McPherson moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Corn Construction/Union Carbide Gravel Pit with the following 10 conditions: 1. All proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hours of crushing and mining shall be restricted to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. 6 days per week, excluding Sundays. 3. The applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with evidence of a State Highway permit for a new access onto Highway 6 & 24, prior to issuance of the special use permit. 4. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with evidence of agreement with the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad for relocation of the crossing, prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The applicant shall screen the batch plants from Highway 6 & 24 and I-70 as much as possible. This can be accomplished by the use of stock piled materials, or by vegetation. 6. The applicant shall reclaim the site to Division of Wildlife standards (items 1-6 on Division of Wildlife letter) 7. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a copy of their approved Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) permit for extractive operations. 8. The applicant shall take all measures necessary to protect the irrigation ditch right-of-way adjacent to the pit site on the west.