HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.14.1995• •
BOCC 8/14/95
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Sierra Pinyon. Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
APPLICANTS: Barton Porter
ENG INBER S/P L ANNIRS: High Country Engineers
LOCA'T'ION: Located in a portion of Section 15
and 22 T6S. R92W; located
approximately two (2) miles south
of the Town of Silt.
SITE DATA: 129.35 acres
WATER: Wells (2)
SEWER: I.S.D.S.
ACCESS: County Road 331
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO TIIE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located partially in District C - Rural Areas/Minor
Environmental Constraints as shown on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
Management Districts Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF TIIE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is located south of Silt, in the lower reaches of
Dry Hollow Creek, south of Weible Peak. Elevations range from 5600 to 5800
feet. Dry Hollow traverses lots 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14. The site is undeveloped, and
in native vegetation. A vicinity map is shown on the attached blueline.
B. Project Description: The proposed subdivision is a "resubdivision" of Lots 17,
18, and 19 of the Sierra Vista Subdivision, approved in 1980, and amended in
1983. The 1983 amendments did not affect this portion of Sierra Vista Ranch
subdivision. All parcels created in 1980 exceeded 35 acres in size, and did not
require any subdivision review. A copy of the previously subdivided lots will be
available at the public meeting. A sketch plan was submitted to the Planning
Commission in September of 1994.
1
It is proposed to split the 129.35 acre site into 14 (fourteen) ) single-family lots
ranging in size from 6.5 to 13.8 acres in size. Average lot size is approximately
9.2 acres per dwelling unit. An existing well located on Lot 13 would be used
as a community system, with an existing well on Lot 14 to serve as a backup.
A blue -line of the Preliminary Plan of the proposed subdivision is attached to the
staff report, as well as the application on pages "' 1 2.0 .
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMM I:NI'S
1. Division of Water Resources: The Division has not responded to the
application.
2. 13ookcliff Soil Conservation District: The District has responded to the
application, and has concerns regarding revegetation and animal control (see
letter on pag2
3. Colorado Department of Health: The Department of Health has not responded
to the application.
4. Division of Wildlife: The DOW his revid the project and had the following
comments (see letter on page �•�i, ew ).
(A) The project is located in critical deer winter range, and development in
the area has a high potential to impact wintering deer herds;
(B) The DOW has discussed concerns with Mr. Porter and agreed upon the
following mitigation measures:
1. Dog kennels will be required prior to final CO;
2. Fencing will be consistent with DOW standards and restrictions
on fencing of acreages will be enforced;
3. Covenants will state that lot owners are responsible for providing
fencing around stacked hay and ornamental vegetation.
5. Colorado State Geologist: The State Geologist has reviewed the project and had
the following comments:
A. The Wasatch Formation, which underlays the entire site, is highly
erodible, and, on steeper slopes, subject to mass slope movements (i.e.
landslides, slumps and rockfalls);
B. Each lot should have an engineering geologist review and prepare
recommendations prior to construction. Engineered ISDS may also be
necessary.
Jim Soule's March 8, 1995 letter is attached on pages At 11
2
• 1
6. BLM : The BLM has noted a number of issues related to the impacts associated
with living on property adjacent to public land and that the property in question
has public mineral rights underlying it and that there is an active oil and gas
lease on the property. (See ltr. pg')
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The 1984 Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan gives little guidance regarding subdivision design in rural areas. The
proposed layout includes large -lot design, consistent with the rural character of
the area and the absence of central water and sewer. Staff notes that the average
lot size (9+ acres per dwelling unit), surpasses the minimum lot size allowed
under existing zoning by a factor of four. Assuming that building envelopes are
designated to avoid encroachment of Dry Hollow Creek and existing rockfall
hazards, the proposed design is consistent with policies regarding natural
hazards and floodplain development .
B. Soils/Topography: The Soil Conservation Service has provided a summary of
geologic constraints in the site, including "steep slopes, expansive soils and
structurally weak soils" (page 4). The preliminary plat has indicated "Building
Restrictive Area", consisting of rockfall hazards and the floodplain of Dry
Hollow Creek.
In addition, the applicant has suggested the following plat note:
"A site specific geotechnical report, prepared by a registered
engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, is required for all
structures, including sewage disposal systems, prior to the issuance
of a building permit or an individual sewage disposal permit".
Staff would suggest that this be a condition of approval.
C. Road/Access: The project proposes two (2) points of access from County Road
331 (Dry Hollow), spaced approximately 800' north and south. Both access
points were existing access points platted in 1980. No individual lots will access
directly onto CR 331. Due to the topography of Lots 9 and 11 frontage to Rio
Seco Road, an additional access is necessary around the eastern boundary of Lot
10. All roads, with the exception of the access road for lots 9 and 11, will be
designed to Garfield County Road Standards for a Semi -Primitive Road
Standards.
Garfield County road standards require the following configuration:
Number of Lots 12
Minimum ROW 40'
Lane Widths 8'
Shoulder Widths 2'
Ditch Width 4'
Cross Slope 2% (Chip/Seal), 3% (Gravel)
Shoulder Slope 5%
Maximum Grade 10%
3
•
Surface Gravel
A portion of Rio Bravo road crosses underneath a Public Service easement, which has
granted approval for the encroachment.
Grades for Rio Seco Road range from -4.93% to 10%, with the steepest portion along
the northern edge of Lot 9. Grades for Harmony Road range from 1.0% to 2.3%, and
Rio Bravo Road range from -7.4% to 8.8 %.
D. Fire Protection: The Burning Mountain Fire Department has reviewed the project, and
does not appear to have any objections with the plan (see letter on page i . • ).
E. Floodplain: The Dry Hollow drainage floodplain has been mapped by the Soil
Conservation Service (Floodplain Management Study - Colorado River Tributaries,
July 1986). Sheets 3 and 4 of the Preliminary Plan does not indicate the floodplain of
the creek, but an approximation of wetland/floodfringe area. Due to the significant
liability associated with development in the floodplain, staff would suggest that the
Planning Commission require the applicant to digitize the actual mapped floodplain on
the final plat. In addition, the following plat note should appear on the plat:
'Areas within Lots 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14 includes areas within the regulated
floodplain of Dry Hollow Creek (Floodplain Management Study - Colorado
River Tributaries in Garfield County Colorado, U.S. Department ofAgriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, July 1986, Sheet 10 of 29). Any encroachment into the
regulated floodplain will require a Special Use Permit from Garfield County.
In addition, these lots may also include regulated wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as amended. These areas of potential
wetlands have not been formally delineated. Respective lot owners should
contact the Army Corps of Engineers before any construction in areas having
potential wetlands."
F. Water: The proposed water supply will require an approved augmentation plan to
support the proposed wells. In addition, the augmentation plan calls for two ponds,
which appear to be located south ofthe proposed subdivision. Augmentation ponds are
considered to be a part of the overall water system for the subdivision, under the
control of the homeowners association. As such, easements should be shown on the
plat for both the ponds and easements for the discharge path to Dry Hollow Creek.
This is identical to the condition placed on Springridge Phase I. In addition, the
location of the ponds should also be shown on the plat.
Section 4.91 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations requires "evidence that a
water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability, shall be
available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision". In
addition, evidence must be submitted concerns the potability of the proposed water
supply for the subdivision.
The applicant has submitted evidence of both potability and yield for Well No. 2
located on Lot 13, which is capable of 25 GPM. Staff notes that the well log indicates
a pumping rate of only 15 GPM. Staff would suggest that the Commission require the
applicant to address this discrepancy.
4
1 •
G. Wastewater: Sewage disposal will be handled by ISDS. Section 4.92 requires that
"evidence of the result of soil percolation tests and produce excavations to determine
maximum seasonal ground water level and depth to bedrock shall be provided".
Several soil types on the site include significant constraints to ISDS, including slow
percolation rates and rock outcroppings. Percolation tests on Lots 6, 8 and 11 have been
conducted, and range from 101 to 128 minutes, all outside of accepted levels for
conventional ISDS. Engineered systems will be required, and a plat note should appear
on the final plat.
H. Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and
development requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
I. Lot Design: The applicants have modified the general design to address lot design
constraints, including relocating portions of Rio Bravo Road. In addition, Rockfall
Hazard areas and floodplain/wetlands areas have been conceptually identified. Staff
would suggest that "buildable areas" be shown on the final plat to prevent severe
driveway cuts in areas inappropriate for access points. Staff will graphically depict
possible building envelopes at the hearing before the Commission.
J. Adjacent Property Owners: Three letters of opposition are attached on pages 01049.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval on June 19, 1995, with the following
conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearing with the Planning Commission, be considered conditions of
approval.
2. The applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association and shall be
incorporated in accordance with the requirements of Colorado Revised Statutes.
The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the augmentation plan,
well maintenance, road maintenance and snow removal. The articles of
incorporation and restrictive covenants shall be reviewed by County Staff prior
to the approval of a Final Plat.
3. The applicants shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, addressing all improvements, prior to recording a final plat.
4. All new utilities shall be placed underground.
5. All cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses using certified weed -free seed. The SIA shall include security for all
revegetation.
6. The applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school impact fees prior to approval of
the final plat.
5
•
7. All roadways shall be designed and constructed in conformance with design
standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at the time of
final plat.
8. Only one (1) dog will be allowed for each dwelling unit to protect adjacent
agricultural uses. Kennels shall be required, and language ensuring compliance
shall be enforced through the covenants.
9. The following plat notes shall appear on the final plat:
A. No open hearth solid fuel burning devices will be allowed within the
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision;
B. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural-gas
burning fireplaces or appliances;
C. All dwelling units will be allowed not more than one (1) new wood
burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq. and the regulations
promulgated thereunder.
D. A site specific geotechnical report, prepared by a registered engineer
licensed by the State of Colorado, is required for all structures, including
sewage disposal systems, prior to the issuance of a building permit or an
individual sewage disposal permit.
E. "Areas within Lots 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14 includes areas within the regulated
floodplain of Dry Hollow Creek (Floodplain Management Study -
Colorado River Tributaries in Garfield County Colorado, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, July 1986, Sheet
10 of 29). Any encroachment into the regulated floodplain will require
a Special Use Permit from Garfield County. In addition, these lots may
also include regulated wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act as amended. These areas of potential wetlands have not been
formally delineated. Respective lot owners should contact the Army
Corps of Engineers before any construction in areas having potential
wetlands."
10. The location of the augmentation ponds shall be shown on the final plat,
including easements for the ponds as well as discharge paths to Dry
Hollow Creek.
11. The actual floodfringe and Cloodway lines shall be shown on the final
plat.
12. That the plat show a access easement to the augmentation pond for fire
fighting purposes.
13. That a 24 hour well pump test be preformed by a registered professional
engineer, certifying the flows from the well as adequate to meet the
subdivision water requirements.
6
• •
14. That a deed restriction be developed that prohibits further subdivision of
the lots in this subdivision.
15. That a 25,000 gallon water storage tank be provided for the subdivision.
16. That a letter, signed by all parties involved, be provided to the Planning
Department prior to final plat approval that the boundary dispute
between the Minneota Estates lot owners and the applicant has been
resolved.
I'REI.1(VIINAItY PIAN SUItI\'117"TAT.
SIERRA I'INYONS SUBDIVISION
Site Description
Sierra Pinyons is located South of Sill, in the lower reaches of I)ry Ilollow Creek, south of
Weil)le Peak. Elevations range from 5600 to 580( feet. Dry Hollow Creek runs along the
Westerly boundary of the subdivision and traverses Tots I, 6, 7, 8 and 14. The Site is
currently undeveloped, and in native vegetation (Please see attached soils report). A vicinity
map has been included on the cover sheet of the construction plans.
I'rojecl Description
The proposed subdivision is a "resubdivision" of lots 17, 18, and 19 of Sierra Vista
Subdivision, approved in 1980, and amended in 1983. The amendment did not affect this
• portion of the Sierra Vista Ranch subdivision. All parcels created in 1980 exceeded 35 acres
in size, and slid not require any subdivision review.
The sketch plan for Sierra I'inyons was submitted for review to the Planning Commission in
September of 1194. Sierra I'inyons was previously subn►iltcd as a Preliminary Plan to the
planning commission by Slarbuck Engineering, Inc. That submittal was later withdrawn due
to changes to Ilse silo plan.
The subdivision plan proposes splitting the 129.35 acres into 14 (fourteen) single-family lots
ranging in sire Iwin (1.5 10 13.8 acres in size. Average lot SILL: will be approximately 9.2
acres.
Water Service
The project will be served by a community water system. The proposed 7500 gallon tank
located on the Northwest corner of 1.nt 12 will he supplied via a 2" poly -ethylene pipe ran
from the Iwo well sites located 011 I.ot 13 and Lot 14. The well located on Lot 13 and
referred to as Exist. well No. 2 is currently capable of supplying water at approximately 25
(UPM. (Please sec attached well lest.) It is the intention of the water system plan to use this
well as the primary supply for the water tank and let the well located on Lot 14 serve as a
backup well in the event that the primary well should fail.
Water will be provided In the lois via a 4" ('900 pvc water distribution system. The size of
the distribution Zine meets the requirements set forth by the Garfield County regulations.
Individual water services will be provided off of the distribution line.
Enclosed with this packet is a copy of the augmentation plan that has been submitted to the
State for review. 'I•hc augmentation plan k h, prepared by Mr. Ray Walker.
• •
Sanitary Sewer Service
Sanitary sewer service will be provided by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS).
Please line1 copies of the perc lest performed by Sta buck Engineering. The perc test
indicate the ISDS systems will function adequately on the project.
So1Is/'I'npog aptly
Attached please Ilnd a copy of the pertinent soils inlOrn►ation for the project. The site plan
also indicates rock hazard areas and approximate limits to the wetland/flood fringe area for
1)ry 1lollow ('reek. This is N(YI' the flood plain for the creek. It is an approximation of
wetland / flood fringe area only and has not been mapped by any agency. It is the
developers intention to prevent construction within these highlighted areas.
We would also suggest that a site specific geotechnical report, prepared by a registered
engineer licensee) by the State of ('oloraclo be required for all structures, including sewage
disposal systems before issuance of a building permit or an individual sewage disposal system
permit.
Rnacl/Access
The project proposes two (2) points of access from ('ounty Road 331 (Dry I follow). The
distance between the access points is approximately ti(IO I.f. 110111 access points were
existing prior to this resubdivision, and the 60' easements they will utilize were platted with
the Sierra Vista subdivision. None of the individual Tots are planned to access directly onto
CR 331. All roads will be designed to meet the Garfield County Road Standards for Semi -
Primitive Roads except for the access road off of Rio Seco Road that will service Lots 9 and
I 1 which will be designed to meet Garfield County Road Standards for a Primitive
Residential road. It is nay understanding that this road classilication can service two lots or
less.
Drainage
A separate drainage study has been included with this submittal.
Icct ric/'I'elephoue
Electric service will be provided by Public Service and phone service will be provided by
U.S. West. Public service currently has a 100' easement across the property for a high
voltage Zine. [inclosed is a copy of the Land Rights Encroachment Application sent to Public
Service to allow encroachment upon this easement by the proposed water line and Rio Bravo
Road.
• 1
I)ivisinn of 11'ilillifc
A copy of the letter Irian II►c Division of Wildlife is included.
Ituukcliff Soil Conservation 1)islricl
A copy of II►c response letter is included.
SOUTH SIDE SOIL c'O,•,SEI VA'I'[011 Dt STR C'I'
P.O. BOX 1 102
G 1.ENWOOD I'It 1110S , CO I1 1 601.
August 29, 1994
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County
Planning Department
1.09 11th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 01601
Dear Sir,
AL the regular monthly meeting of the South Side Soil
Conservation District, t:he hoard reviewed the application and
plan or the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision and have the following
continents and concerns about the project.
Any crit:s for roads or construction should be revegetated to
prevent: erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any
reseeding of the area. Monitoring of all seeding should he done
to see if the grass is establishing or .if weeds are becoming a
problem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be
implemented if a problem is noticed.
'1'he board is always concer-ned about: animal control in an area
where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or
domestic livestock atnd dogs from the subdivision. Dogs running
in packs of two or more can maim or kill domestic livestock and
wi ldl i te. The District recommends animal control regulations be
adopted in Vile covenant:_; for the subdivision and that they be
elrfowced.
Sincerely
L-Tt— 41,. Il,L
John Sample, President
South Side Soil Conservation District
S -TATE OF COLORADO
floy Boller, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NIA rlJ18AL IIES01.1110ES it.; ; '
.gym �ex,A� uil•crn u,�,u r �e.e.
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Parry D. Olson, Director
606 Ilroaclway
Donver, Colorar10 110216
Telephone: (30:1) 29/ 1192
January 20, 1995
Garfield County Planning
Dave Michaelson
1119 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, Colorado Z1 1 60 1
Dear Dave,
JAN 2 0 1995
1.-01‘1 1t=lr_.l-.0 C l �(if 11Y
f 1EFERTO
For Wildlife -
For People
concerning Lhe Sierra f'inyon) Suhd i v i s i (fin, 1 have reviewed the
sketch plan and have talked to Barton Porter about the proposed
development and wi Idl ife concerns associated with this area.
Development in this area has a high potent:ial to greatly impact
wintering deer herds. Sierra Pinyon is in critical deer winter
range and could have a significant impact: on population density.
Marton Porter is also concerned about: negatively impacting
w i 1d 1 i re populations in this area and endorses the following
subdivision r-estl-tctlolls. - --.--.
Division of Wildlife requests that dog kennels be built
before the certificate of occupancy is issued.
2 .
Pesti- iut. fencing of acreages, and require fencing to
comply with Division of Wildlife standards as to height
and spacing.
Adopt: a subdivision covenant stating that .lot owners
are responsihle for providing their own fencing for
protection of stacked hay and ornamental vegetation
used in landscaping.
Developments such as this, in and of itself, have minimal effect
on populations as a whole. however, the cumulative impact of
subdivisions in the country does have an overall degrading effect
on wildlife habitat. With adoption o1.' the above requested
•
restrictions, the integrity of the area as winter range would be
minimally retained.
Sincerely,
Perry (Wilt
1)istr'lct: 1Ji ldi re Manager
I)l:l'Alll-MEN I OF NATIJIIAI. 1-1ESOIMCES, James S. 1 ochheacl, Executive Direclor
WII 1)l IFE COMMISSION, I honras M Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Sw11t, Vico-Chairman • Amok] Salazar, Secretary
JeSSu 1 :u ylslun Ik ryr llr.. Mundror • L•Irlon W. Cooper. Mandrer • nebecca L. Frank Member
William fl I la(t)er(. Member • tvlailt I.OValley, tvtenlber
-/L/
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
An LQUAI CJ lOnlnftrIY [NII OYFn
Perry D. Olson, Director
(0 3 Broadway
Denvt r, Colorado 130210
I ulephone: (303) 297-1192
April 1 3 , 1995
Garfield County Planning
Dave Michaelson
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Dave:
I
REFER TO
For Wildlife -
For People
I would like Lo clarify a comment reference my letter to you on
January 20, 1995 concerning the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision. In my
previous 1eLLer regarding subdivision restrictions I stated that
Division of Wildlife would like to restrict fencing off acreages,
and require fencing to comply with the Division of Wildlife
standards. 1 apologize for this being misinterpreted and the
manner in which I: stated it. What 1 meant to request was to have
the fencing of acreages comply with D.O.W. standards as to height
and spacing. l was not: requesting no fencing of lot acreages.
Therefore Marton Porter and D.O.W. are requesting the following
subdivision restrictions.
1) Division of Wildlife requests that dog kennels be built
before certificate of occupancy is issued.
2)
Fencing of acreages comply with D.O.W. standards as to
height and spacing.
3 Adopt a subdivision covenant stating that lot owners are
responsible for providing their own fencing for protection
of stacked hay and ornamental vegetation used in
landscaping.
Sorry, Dave for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Sincepe` /
l
P r y W i lel'
D.istri/t` Wild] i Ue Manager-
-
DEPAfTMEN F OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swill, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary
.Iesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Mernber • Rebecca L. Frank, Member
William R. Hogberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member
%,
/5=
( ()I OItAI)O (,1OI0G1( AI Sl11tVI Y
1 )1,r,lut 11 6\11111,11•. ,1111 l ,11141!O'
h11.1111.11 411 fJ.ii .i1 I61,1u11,
1 1 .111111.11 .1111•,•1. 161,111 ! 1'1
1 )11 v19, l 4111 11.11 Iu ttl I !11 1
I'h111c ({II 41 611,11 .!I,I I
ASI Hill 111,1..' 11,1
5TATEO F COLORADO
1 /1 Y. 1
H A , 11 oS iV),'t
-- AL)
,_2 .tiJ W'l :::t_D COMITY
March 8, 1995 GA -95-0008
Mr. Dave IVlichaelsoll
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood S111111gs, Color ado 1`S i (t)1
)EI)A10IAENT C;
NATURAE
RESOURCE
kily 16 1 111 111
(.11b1r11111
Re: Proposed Sierra I'inon Subdivision -- Ca. 1/2 Mi South of the Intersection of C.R. 311
and C.R. and 331, Nr. Silt, Garfield County
Dear Mr. IVlichaelson:
At your request and in accordance with S.13. 35 (1972), we have reviewed the materials
submitted for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision
indicated above. The following comments summarize our findings.
(I) The bedrock underlying this site is entirely the Wasatch Formation; the Wasatch
primarily of sandstones and shales which are highly erodible and, on steeper slopes, subject
to mass slope movements such as translational landslides, slumps, an(1 rockfalls.. In place
exposures of the Wasatch are best seen on Weigle Peak immediately to the northeast of this
parcel. On gentler slopes, deposits consisting of materials eroded from the Wasatch occur
and have much 1I)e same properties as the bedrock. Some of the more gently sloping areas
are immediately underlain by thin remnants of a loess sheet (wind -deposited silt) and
remnant alluvial -gravel clasts which originated in the ancestral Colorado River drainage
occur somewhat randomly over the parcel.
(2) Considering the geologic conditions indicated and the lot sizes proposed this parcel can
be reasonably subdivided as planned. However, we recommend that eaclh lot purchaser have
his lot investigated by a qualified engineering geologist prior to siting of improvements. The
factors of amount of slope, slope instability, drainage and erosion and deposition of
sediment will need to be very carefully considered in overall site planning. Moreover, the
physical properties of the Wasatch will necessitate that an individual, site specific soils and
foundation be done for each structure. This applies to manufactured housing units such as
those which are common in nearby subdivisions as well as conventional, heavier and more
complicated on -site -built structures. "These recommendations are supported also in
statements made in 4:70 on Page 4 of the submitted materials: Supplemental Information:
Geology, Soil, Vegetation, and 11�i!(llife.
/4•-
• •
Mr. Dave Michaelson
March 8, 1995
Page 2
(3) The individual sewage -disposal systems proposed should be specifically designed for each
lot and this opinion is also supported in the documents submitted as referenced above.
In sunuumary, we believe that this is a reasonable subdivision proposal only if the
recommendations made above are followed and made conditions of your approval of it.
Sincerely
`//__ _ Z/-/1tes M. Soule
:nginecring i;cologist
• •
B L P9 GLENWOOD SPG` TEL No.303-945-531 Aug 9,95 10:12 No.004 P.02
August 9, 1995
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield Counts' Planning Department
109 eth Street - Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Bean
1785g
(7-880)
In response to your request for continents regarding the Preliminary Plan
approval tor the proposed Sierra Pinyon Subdivision located 2 miles south of
Silt off County Road 331, I offer the following statements for your scheduled
August 14, 1995, public meeting. The 129.35 acre tract lies adjacent to a 40
acre parcel of public land along the northern edge of the proposed
subdivision. The primary use of the BLM is wildlife habitat.
1. ownership of land adjacent to BLM-administered public land does not grant
the adjacent landowner(s) any special rights or privileges for the use of the
public lands.
2. The adjacent public land is not nurrent.ly permitter) fnr livestock grazing.
The proponent should be aware of the location of property boundaries to ensure
no encroachment occurs on public land. Should any fence construction be
considered along the private/ELM buundary, the fence standards should allow
for easy passage by big game. This office can provide additional information
regarding fence standards upon request.
3. Any roads, trails, paths, or uLlllties (water, electric, phone or
otherwise) crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this
office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of the
ROW permitting process,
4. The adjacent 40 sore 5LM parcel has been designated as ELM Disposal Parcel
#42. This office may consider disposing of this parcel in the future.
5. The County and the subdivision proponent should be aware that all minerals
underlying the proposed subdivision aro reserved to the United States. In the
future, mining claims could be located and mineral leases or permits could be
issued. Use of building stone, gravel, or any other mineral material from the
subject property would require a permit from the BLM.
Additionally, the entire 129.35 acre parcel is currently under an active oil
and gas lease (C-15976). This lease is communitized with adjacent leases and
is considered to be held in production due to producing wells within the
adjacent communitized leases. The lease is held by Devon Energy Corporation
with Timberline Energy holding the operating rights. The lease is held by
these companies in perpetuity as long as the wells within the lease are
producing. The proponent and any future landowners should be advised that the
potential for continued oil and gas development within the lease area is high
given the level of drilling activity in the local region. The lessee has the
right to construct roads, wells pads, productiion facilities, and pipelines
within the lease.
6. The proposed subdivision lies within deer critical winter range.
Encroachment of homesites and people on big game winter ranges can have a
profound effect on game herd populations and health.
Thank you for the opportunity to continent. If there are any questions, please
contact Jing Byers or Dan Sokal of this office at 945-2341.
Sincerely,
Boal d
Ilona Talbott - Chulruruu
Wlllluru Moutover
Sean Mello
Tom Vu1ght
Gordon Wltzke
Burning 1VIonntains
Fire Protection District
Box 236
Silt, CO 81652
Don Zordel - Chief
Stu Cerise - Assist. Chip
\I�r11 10. I rt.h-3
\ti hunt 11 \-lay ('unccrn:
I.i:: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Alter reviewing the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision plans and driving over the area, I have no objections to this
subdivision. !Roads is planned should be adclluate for lire tracks. The distance from the lire station will have a
direct affect on response nine. IF possible some storage of water for tire suppression would be appreciated.
"Thank you,
/
/-1(iji7/4/ l
1)unald 1.. "Lurl\cl'
1 )i.,trict (Trier
• •
Garfield County Planning Commission
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Sreet, Guite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81652
RE Barton Porter
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
It has cone Lo my attention that the proposed subdivision is to
have about 12 one family homes. The homes are Lo be furnished with
water with a 6000 gallon L:,mk, this is not aoaguate for the homes
or any type of fire pr.oLecti.on.
I live .in Mineola lstaLes where we have a 25,000 gallon water tank,
and we are planning on building a 50,000 gallon with the old one
for a spare. Furthermore we have one of the best wells in this area
it Dumps more than 20 gallons a minute and in the summer the pump
runs most of the time.
This area is not named Dry Hollow for nothing, the fire danger is
very high in the summer and a large supply of water is a musti If
a sufficient amount of water cannot be insured, then the subdivision
should not be approved.
The Counl:y has said they have no more funds for the improvement of
the roads, these roads are carrying more traffic than they were
built for. Any more traffic will. result in more accidents.
Until. such Lime as the roads and maintenance can be assured, building
must= be stowed clown or stopped.
`flunk you for your time
Yours truly)
Marvin M Meyers
0834 M,ireoLa Drive
Silt, `Colo. 81652
0-3/06/M5 I tl: `d I.u''•I_'•I il)"1
Mauch 6, 1995
Iii i; ill I :(•'I_ I I 1 11-; P:,GC 02
NORMAN & CONNIE F.3OE
0171 UTE WAY
SILT CO 01652
(303)876-5404
Garf iold County Planning Commission
Garfield county Courthouse
109 8th Street_ Suite 303
Glenwood Springs CO 01601
RE Barton Portor
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Attention Planning Commission and County Commissioner -n:
We are of tho understanding there is a sovoro water shortage
problem in this proporsod subdivision, which wol.i1d be a problem for
domestic use as well an a fire hazard for all the surrounding area.
The proposed 6000 gallon water tank is not sufficlont by far_ We
have used 40,000 gallon per month for our home and lawn during the
peak months_
I have helped fight fire two timon in the tart couple of years on
this particular land. I believe each lot should have a fire
hydrant along with sufficient wator storage and pipe size to supply
it sufficiently_
1 have counted as high es 200 deer in just one of the hay fields at
Valley Farms ju-tt to the north of this proposed subdivision_ These
deer have to tspond their days in this subdivision along with the
upper part of Mineola Eotat.es; which has now just about built out
and has a l ready forced more of theno decor into this area_ I can
imagine how thny wi l 1 fair with a dog every ton acres. Tho elk
haves raise used this land_
Tho last roads built by Hr_ Porter in the draw to the South of this
Proposed subdivision wore so bad e fire department 4 wheel drive
pickup got hi-cent.orocl trying to get Lo a lightning fire_ Any
roads built should bo to county specifications and taken over by
the county_
The county roads in this area are narrow and dangerous to travel on
as woll as in noed of maintenance_ Remember, there aro no funds
for improvements_
As you aro undoubLab.ly all aworo, the renrcon this smell area its
known as Dry hollow is bocause of t.ho small amount- of
precipitation rocoived_ This, along with the fragile and delicate
nature of the soil, does not bode well for the further subdividing
of thin land_
Thanks for Lak i no thla i nt_o con01darat_ion _
(.01.47:.
,1‘`/i�
al-
• •
February
1595
Planning Department of Garfield County
1(>:) Iii11 ':.I11 --:e1, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, (;&,I11ra(lo U11301
R1 : Sierra Pinyon Sul,livi: iun
We are nul in favor of granting a Preliminary Plan approval for
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision. To gramt approval for the 129.35 acre
tract. to be :,uhllivi(lell 1n1u 12 single family residential lots would
cause 1.i,r1 much impact:
1. tin the underground water sIII,I-,ly, on the south side of the
Colorado giver it has neer heen easy to find good water
supply.
The area is year round openspace for many species of wild
I i fe it..:: deer, bobcats, mountain I i ons , and coyotes and etc . ,
when people :lar t. taking their space they are going to look
for nelW homes and adapting so they can survive - so they
become a "nuisance".
3. The county malls are not engineered for heavy traffic, and the
planning of where drive ways Lake off of the county roads is
very poor -- causing safely issues. Two drive ways that go to
Sierra Vista kanch are examples of poor planning, and driving
any of the county roads that are posted for 35 mph speed l imi t
any morning or evening wi I I show the concern of the roads
capal,i I i t ies to hanlle:I more traffic. Also the county is
hiving budget problems providing services without further
growth.
fo r (.,•::l.<, I -- ourreasons n , 1. to give approval .for Sierra Pinyon
`,uI1d i vision o, 1' 1 s i nl; I e tiim i I y lots i s that it would make too much
of an impact on underground water, wildlifs, and services. We need
to have a "limy, 0411" a : far as more subdivisions are concerned , as
it. wl:n,l(1 appear Ilial housing ,toe:; not pay enough taxes to support
l.Ile 5ul'V11;1_t:� I.Ii_:y 1'e(1111 r'e/Wallt..
Sincierely,
`-"-(/'
Deny and l ary Jane W.1411;:l
3/19:1 33 Id)
Silt, (":)
• •
NANCY & J1M BATLEY
(970) 945-9200 (Jim work)
1'. O. 11..x 100/
01 .V.111.10,00 .3I II111G8, COLORADO 81602
A p r it 6, T9-9-5—
Garfi.elcl County Building and Planning
Garfield County Courthouse
109 - 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 860.1
Re: CHANGE IN ZONING - Wayne Cooley & Barton Porter
Hearing April 12, 1995 - 7:00 p.m.
OBJECTOT?S in the natter of Wayne Cooley and Barton Porter on
re: subdivisions.
Concerning many plus -residences in a low density area would
have a damaging impact on:
1) WHEN YOU PURCHASE 87 ACRES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE CHARACTER OF 'I'l1E AREA WILL REMAIN RURAL/AGRICULTURAL, YOU
EXPECT CURRENT ZONING TO REMAIN IN EFFECT. SENATE BILL 35
GUIDELINE FOR DENSITY SHOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT TO MAINTAIN THIS
ZONING. THIS :INCREASE IN DENSITY WOULD HAVE A GREAT EFFECT ON
THE QUALITY OF LIFE DESIRED. NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN
TO PRESENT PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE WANT
'1'O KEEP AND IN RETAINING THE OPEN SPACE.
2) NO SEWAGE PLANT SYSTEM IS IN EXISTENCE. SEWAGE SYSTEMS
WOULD HARM THE ALREADY FRAGILE WATER TABLE IN THIS AREA WITH
THE SOIL TYPE AS BEING OF THE PLASTIC SOILS.
3) NO EXISTING WATER SYSTEM IN PLACE. NO SURFACE WATER
AVAILABLE AND LOW UNDERGROUND WA'T'ER TABLE.
4) INCREASED TRAFFIC WOULD CAUSE AN ALREADY DANGEROUS OR
SUBSTANDARD ROAD TO BECOME MORE DANGEROUS. THE SECONDARY
ROADS ARE NOT BLACK -TOPPED AND ARE NOT UP TO COUNTY
SPECIFICATIONS. [NO UPGRADING IIAS BEEN DONE TO PRESENT
SECONDARY ROAD AND IT IS IN A FAST DETERIORATING CONDITION.
Presently, no regard has been given to gravel road servicing
4 residences, only. Daily traffic has muddied up, rutted up
and spread existing gravel all over. This particular road is
a dead end road with no service area to lower parcels, but has
been used to get to lower area w/no regard to existing
property owners.]
• •
Id AI LEY OW&Alan
Re: COOLiY/PORTER 'LOU JUG C11ARQe
PAG if 2
5) THIS 1.5 A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. THE SIERRA CLUB NEEDS TO BE
NOTIFIED OF TILTS PROPOSED EFFECT ON THE ELK AND DEER WINTER
RANGE. IT WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE
REPRODUCTION OF THE WILDLIFE.
6) WITH GET RICH SCHEMES TN EFFECT, THERE IS NO
CONSIDERATION FOR LXISTTNG OWNERS OR DAMAGES OR ANY UPKEEP.
AT THIS DATE .IN TIME, WE SAY NO TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR THESE
REQUESTS. '!'WERE 1S NO ENFORCEMENT IN GARFIELD COUNTY ON PROPOSED
CHANGES ANI) APPROVALS. COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT
AND APPROVED SINCE THE 1950'S ANI) 1960'S. SENATE BILL 35 NEEDS TO
BE ENFORCED, AND MORE COMPRE'HE'NSIVE PROPOSAL. APPROVALS NEED TO BE
ENFORCED IN GARFIELD COUNTY S'l'AR'('.TNG RTGHT NOW IN 1995.
Sincerely, IA ',)('
Nancy and Ji1�Baiiey, //l