HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.05.1995•
BOCC 9/5/95
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
RI QUEST: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
APPI,ICANTS: Barton Porter
ENGINEERS/PLANNERS: High Country Engineers
LOCATION: 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 THE 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 THE 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
III_ REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Division of Water Resources: The Division has not responded to the
application.G h
2. ----firTurrif Soil Conservation District: The District has responded to the
application, and has concerns regarding revegetation and animal control (see
letter on pag2 j3).'
3. Colorado Department of Health: The Department of Health has not responded
to the application.
4. Division of Wildlife: The DOW h s reviewed the project and had the following
comments (see letter on page 5 ).
(A) The project is located in critical deer winter range, and development in
the area has a high potential to impact wintering deer herds;
(13) 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 Stale 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
2
• •
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 Itr. pgs�J)
IV_ MAJOR ISSUES ANI) 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 paAne to ` ).
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 Serve 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 of the 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
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.
L I,ot 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. A ijacent Property Owners: Three letters of opposition are attached on pages 40445,.
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 Ilomeowners Association and shall be
incorporated in accordance with the requirements of Colorado Revised Statutes.
The I lomeowner'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
• S
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.
n c.1 - 41Le. Pi/ /,.Ni
9. The(following plat notes
, C. V.- /c as. d s
1 cz.dsi
/ 00_ir F /f-QJ'a/n
GG'-t.trS 0�'1
of no "pkia,
aeX15
(37e-uf, /0,xs .
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.
11.
64-4 / r'ijL/AJC" 12.
"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
w tlands."
IL. �.,F'6� /?T /"A.) Tri/� 51feiP c'i5/e)/-1
G,:,$c-lei!' 0--r 7D O/L/P
AIC
£Seri-% /.✓O -'tt M) 1? c)7>i e A)
The location oldie augmentation ponds shall be shown on the final plat, 7f/ '/2°
including easements for the ponds as well as discharge paths to Dry /91 -
Hollow
I -follow Creek.y`
The actual floodfringe and floodway lines shall be shown on the final
plat.
That the plat show a access easement to the augmentation pond for fire
righting 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.
14. That a deed restriction be developed that prohibits further subdivision of
the lots in this subdivision.
15. That a ;000 gallon water storage tank be provided for the subdivision.
16. That , ett- r, signe .y all parties i : ved, be p : •' . ed to the ' ann g
partment pr' . r to final p1• appr val at the boun . ry di ute
between h- inneota -:t es lot o n s and the ap ant h been
resolved.
/6, /h4,/>✓ pot/6.-r- -c.;/57/6/77 //67` 7z/ 1/ /1-
i -d
7.e--PP-e--
i' %772-4
/2-d 7 /02"/1.'7' 7/0 5 67?? ?TSG/ Qf /4---7.1a1 )P/ii
r._,Z),o,"o rad cA)2 r 64"-L 4-7. nye e r��-
• •
PItl,.1.I1\1!NARY PIAN Sutinll l'i' 1.
SIVIZ RA I'INYONS SEJUIUVISION
Site Description
Sierra I'inyans is located South of Silt, in the lower reaches of Dry 11ollow Creek, south of
Weihlc Peak. Idcvatiuns rank front S6U0 lo 5800 feet. Dry 11ollow Creek runs along the
Westerly boundary of the subdivision and traverses lots I, 6, 7, 8 and 14. The Site is
currently undeveloped, and in native vegetation (Please sec attached soils report). A vicinity
map has been included on the cover slice! of the construclian plans.
1'rojt (l 1►csc•riplinn
I'Itc propnsecl subdivision is a "r&snhdIVISiall" of lois 17, 1 ti, and 19 of Sierra Vista
Subdivision, approved ut 19811, and ;oleo vied in 198.i. 'I'Ite amendment did not affect this
portion of the Sierra Vista Ranch subdivision. Alt parcels created in 1980 exceeded 35 acres
111 size, and did not require ;my subdivision review.
The sketch plan for Sierra I'inyotts was submitted for review to the Planning Commission in
September of I')'t-I. Sierra I'iuyons was previously submitted as a Preliminary Plan to the
planning commission by Stathuc!: Engineering, Inc. That submittal was later withdrawn due
to changes to the site plan.
The subdivision plan ptopose>; splitting the 1'29.15 ;tares into ISI (fnnrtccn) single-family lots
ranging in size hoot ().5 to 1.1.11 acrd:; in site. Average Int sin: will be approximately 9.2
acres.
Water Service
The project will be served by a community water system. The proposed 7500 gallon lank
located 00 Ilse Northwest corner of 1.n1 12 will he supplied via a 2" poly -ethylene pipe ran
from the two well sites located on Lot 1'.1 and 1.ot 1,1. The well located on Lot 13 and
referred to as Exist. well No. '2 is currently capable of supplying water at approximately 25
(il'Ivt. (Please see attached well test.) 11 is the intention of the wafer system plan to usi: this
well as the primary supply for the water tank and lel the well located on Lot 14 serve as a
backup well in the event that the pi 'unary well should fail.
Water will be provided Io the lots via ;t 'I" C.900 pvc water distribution system. 'lite size of
the distribution line. meets the reeluircinenls set forte by the Gat -held County regulations.
Individual water services will he. provided off of the distribution line.
Enclosed with this packet is a copy of Ile augmentation plan that has been submitted 10 the
State for review. The augmentation plan ic• prepared by Mr. Ray Walker.
• •
Sauilary Sewer Service
Sanitary sewer service will lie provided by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (151)5).
Please line) copies of the pore; lest performed by Skil-buck I ngincering. The her: test
indicate the ISI )S systems will function adequately on the project.
Snits/"Topography,
Attached please find a copy of the pertinent soils information for the project. The site plan
also indicates rock haz;trc' areas and approximate IitrriIS Io the wetland/flood fringe area for
1)ry Ilollow ('reel:. This is N('I' the flood plain for the creek. 11 is an approximation of
wetland / flood Iringe area only and has not hien mapped by any agency. It is the
developers intention to prevent construction within these highlighted areas.
We woulel also suggest that a site specific geotechnical report, prepared by a registered
engineer licensed by the State of ('olnrado be required for all structures, including sewage
disposal systems before issuance of a building permit or an individual sewage disposal system
permit.
Itoad/Ac•cess
The project proposes two (2) !minis of access linin County Road 3.11 (Dry Ilollow). The
distance between the access points is approximately /MO I.1 !loth 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 lots are planned to access directly onto
('R 331. All roads will be designed In meet the (iarlicld County Road Standards for Semi -
Primitive. Roads except for the access road off of Ilio Seco Road That will service. I.ots 9 and
II which will he designed to meet (Iartield County (toad Standards Icor a Primitive
Itesi(Ienlial road. It is my understanding th;tt this road classification can service Iwo lots or
Tess,
1)rainage
/\ separate drainage study has been included with tl►is submittal.
Vied Ile/Telephone
Electric service will he provided by Public Service and phone service will be provided by
11.S. West. Public service currently has a IOU' casement across the property for a high
voltage Iinc. Enclosed is a copy of Ilre Land Rights 1?ncroachment Application sent to Public
Service In allow encroachment upon tliis easement by the proposed water line and Rio Bravo
Road.
• •
Division of 11'ilillilc
A u►I►y nl llic Irtin llic Division of. \Vildlifc is included.
Ituulu'liff Soil ('unse►'vnliun llislric I
A copy of thi icsl►nnsi. lent!' is inc lilccl.
• •
:;otl'I'II SIDE SOIL :;I:ItVA'I' I l)I.I DISTRICT
P. O. 110n 1101!
1.I:l1tJDc)I) S Icltll1;.;, c'c) llI601
August ,cl 1994
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County
Planning Department
109 lith :; l-. l e e l: , Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 111601
Dear S i r,
AL the regular Inonl h 1 y meeting or. the South Side Soil
Conservation District., Lhe Iloa rcl reviewed t:he application and
plan for the sierra Pinyon Subdivision and have the following
comments and concerns about the project.
Any cuts tor roads or construction should be revegeLaLed to
prevent: erosion. Weed free seed and mulct) should be used for any
reseeding or the area. M 11iLorinc.j of all seeding should be done
to see i r the clras:s i s L.ah l i sh i ng or it heeds are becoming a
problem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be
implemented it a problem is noticed.
The board is always concerned about: animal control in an area
where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or
domestic I i vestock and dogs from the :subdivision. Dogs running
in tacks or two of more can maim ur kill domestic livestock and
w1 ldl i te. The I)i:1L.t ir:t. lec(Jmmel)el:; animal control regulations be
adopted in the covenants :s Lor the subdivision and that: they be
dn.tc,rcuci.
:; 1 ►le:t_ re: 1 y
1
John Sample, President
South aide Soil Conseryat ion District
, A I I OF l:Ol-011Anl )
Hoy Ilunlc:r, (;uvoinul
UI_I'All IMO! I 01- IIA 111IIAI- IIL_SOIIIICL';
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
All t JL1AL (Jl'i'11111111111! (.1.11'1 ll.l:l l
fairy l) olsuu. I)ue :Ii
1i9ti 1110Hclw,ty
1)ulwur, (;tAulallo 110214
I clulliumu: (:111.1) 2:)/ 119.!
January 20,
Garfield County Planning
Dave Michaelson
109 111:11 `street, :suit -i' 101
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 1orado 11161)1
Hear Dave,
II 1
I IIIFEFI TO
1 �
I Yl ll _
JAN 2 (; 149
CC X.:14IY
For Wildlife -
For People
concerning the sierra Pinyon Subdivision, 1 have reviewed the
sketch plan and have talked to Ilarl:on Porter ghoul: the proposed
development and wildlife concerns associated with th i.s area.
Development in this area tea ha:; a high potential to greatly impact
wintering deer herds. Sierra Pinyon is in critical deer winter
Fantle and could have a significant impact: on population density.
Harlon Ilc)1 ) t:l is also t:t)In(:t:l'llet1 about negatively impacting
wi Id1 i Ie pupilI t1 silly; in this area and endorses the Following
sllhtlivisi(111 restrictions:
ions: -
Divi:;ion of Wildlife requests that (lo(] kennels he built:
before the certificate of occupancy is issued.
f enc i n1) dr acreages and regll i re Fencing to
comply wit Il Division (o- 1)i Idl ire standards as to height
and spacing.
1
Adopt a s11oIivi:;ion covenant stating that_ Int: owners
ctri: responsible for providing their own Fencing for
protection of :stacked hay and ornamental vegetation
used in l anll:,cap i ng .
Developments S1ndl as this, in and of itself, have minimal effect:
on populations as a whole. However, the cumulative impact of
subdivisions in the county does have an overa l I degrading effect
on wildlife h i t:a t. With a(loptinrt of the above requested
•
restrictions, the integrity of I:he area as winter rancge would he
minimally retained.
ini:eL�±1y
i -r- --%
Z.-- a
Il.rry l -1I 1 1
Dist -A. -Act W i I tt i l't. fia11a(le1
l>10 A111101:111 t)1 IIA 1111IA1 ICES, J:unus S I cm:lilaa: atl, Fxt:Ctllivtl nlreclor
WII nl IPI: C:( )1,11,IIS:;Ini I. 1l it is M Icvu C:IL.Ilinlarl • Loins F. Swill, Vic.u-Cn;urnuln • Amok! Salazar, Sectelary
.Ills;,.: I .uu)hlnn 1uyll, Jt , Lluinllur • LI(1un W Cnuluu, tvluinl)er - 110l1et:ca L. 1-ranit, Ivll:nibur
Willlani 11 I1e114019, tvlutul)e(• tvlark 1 tValley, 1v1e1111)ur
_,y
• •
STATE OF COI 011ADO
Itoy 1tottler, Govclnul
IEPAI I !MEN! 01= t'JATUllAI_ IIFSOl1nCl_S
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AI11-( LIAI (11 .1', lfl1 11111'f 11.11'1 ,lfl II
I'eny 1) OI ,JI 1 f)uuclol
tit)6 13ruadwny
Denver, Cululado 1102 Ill
1 elophof le: (30;3) 29/, I I :1:'
Apr i I 1 1 , 1'1k.)'>
Garfield County 1'Iflnning
Dave M I c:hile 1 Sall
109) 11th Street, :;n i Le iU i
(i1 enwood Springs, CO 11 1(1(1 1
Delle Dove:
REFER TO
For Wildlife -
For People
1 would I i fe Lo c: I o I i f y a comment reference my letter to you on
.January 20, 199I) (:oneurll I lig the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision. In my
previous 1 L Ler regarding subdivision restrictions 1 stated that
Division or Wi Idl i fe would tike 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 1n whic:h 1 sLaLed iL. What 1 meant to request was to have
the tent: i n,i of ,lc:rerlge:; comply with D.O.W. standards as to height
and Si1)c i ng . 1 was not- requesting no fencing of lot acreages.
Therefore Horton Porter and 0.0.W. are requesting the following
subdivision restrictions.
t) Division or Wi 1(11 i fe regnesl:s that dog kennels he built
hefo e I:erI i f i>:a1e or occupancy
1J issued.
2) Venc: i Ilg of acreages comply with D_O.W. standards as to
1heighl ,Ind 5pilt: i n(1 .
1) Adopt ,1 51lxt i v i n i (1n covonnnt 51_a (1 i n(J thzl L lot owners are
respoW, i I, I e fol• providing l Ilei 1 own fencing for protection
Or sl ticked hay and 0rllil111e111— 1 vegetation used in
lan(1sscopIng.
Sorry, Dave Vor ally 1 r1(:Olivers rence that this may have caused.
Sincerely,
P cJI r y W i- A
1)i_str:i jtWi Id i le Msni,cl(:I
111 I'AI l 1MII-I I O1- I In I tJl IAL I ILS0t111(a::;, .James S. 1 oc:hhead, F.xeculrve Director
WII 111 I1 -E (11 >MM1:;SI(>1-1, 11lumas M Lvu, Chairman - I outs F. Swill, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary
.1,:t.sl1 1 1l(Jsw1c I1,ryd, .1r., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Mwnber • Rehocca L. Frank, Member
William 11. I Iegbew, Member • Mark Le Valle y, Member
it
/S-
((11 (111,\ 11( (.1 O1 ()(,I( Al til )l(VI
I)nI.uul.dl\Ila i.il..1u.11,tulul;)
Irll.ulnu•nl ..1 11.11.11.11 1 •,uun r.
Ira r1 1 1(l 11.1.1.. 1111 !11 1
l'tuu• (411 11 111 1. 'Id 1
I -1X 11(l 11 111,1,
11,1
STATE E OF COLORADO
d J ,, r �( _
1 tC
1
.
11 196
w-t<'::g_fr CO CIfY
March g{, 11)1)5
GA -95-0008'
Ivlr. 1)ave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning I )epartment
IOC) 8111 Street, Suite 3(13
Glenwood Spl11 gs i'OI )I ado 81(1111
)I_I'AR[I m Ni' C
NATURA]
RESOU1iCE
u.1y .nu•1
(0.P011111
1.un.•a S 11(t hht•.ul
1 ',C. 1.IIv1' 1)11et IUI
Alu h,1ol II 1 unit
1)1V1}1011 I )INA 1(u
VII 1.1 ( 1.\v.111
.111(1 Hurt 1.
1:e: Proposed Sierra Titian Subdivision -- ('a. 1/2 Mi South of the intersection of C.R. 311
and ('.I:. and 33I, Nr. Sill, ( ('oonly
I)ear Ivlr. Michaelson:
Al your request and in accordance villi S.I1. 35 ( I)72), we have reviewed the materials
submitted for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision
indicated above. 'I'Ite following comments tiolnntarize our findings.
(1) 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
10 miss slope movements such as translational landslides, slumps, and rockfalls.. In place
exposures of the Wasatch are hest 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 the 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 (lasts which originated in the ancestral Colorado River drainage
occur somewhat randomly over the parcel.
I
(2) Considering the geologic conditions indicated and the lot sizes proposed this parcel can
be reasonably subdivided as planned. 1 however, we recommend that eget. 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 neat to be yery carefully considered in overall site planning. Moreover, the
physical properties of the Wasatch will necessitate that an individual, site specific soils and
foundation Ile clone 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 11:7(1 on Page '1 of the submitted materials: Supplemental Information:
Geology, Soil, I eget(rtinn, care! JVilille e.
• •
Ivlr. Dave Michaelson
March 8, I')')S
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 summinary, 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
l/.r.
/limes (vi. Sonlc :nl;inecrinl; c ;cologist
L \, (.,;
G L H GLENWOOD ;P6' TEL No . 303-'105-5312 Rug_) 9,95 10:12 N0.004 P.07
August 9, 1995
Mr. Mark Heats
Garfield County P'anning Den._r! mens
109 Elth Street - Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Bean;
1785g
(7-880)
In response to your request for comments regarding the Preliminary Plan
approval Cor the proposed Sierra Pinyon subdivision located 2 miles south of
Silt off Courtly 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 uue of the BI.d4 is wildlife habitat.
1_ Ownership of land adjacent. to DUI -administered public land does not grant
the adjacent landowner(o) any special rights or privileges for the use of the
public lands,
2. The adjacent public land in not currently pnrmittnd fnr 1ivaratnnk 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/E1LL1 buundacy, Lhe fence utandardu should allow
for easy passage by big game. This office can provide additional information
regarding fence standard° upon request.
3. Any roads, trails, paths, or utilities (water, electric, i.horre or
otherwise) crossing HLM would require right-oE-way (ROW) permits from this
office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of the
ROW permitting process.
4. The adjac.u.ni 40 auxu nt.M hdre:ul hats ) t rt duuignaLud as SLW Disposal Parcel
442. This office may conuider- disposing of this parcel in the future.
5. The County and the subdivision proponent should be aware that all minerals
underlying Lho proposed uubdiviuiori ern rusurvad Lo Liao United States. In the
future, mining claim° could be located and mineral leases or permits could be
issued. Use of building stone, gravel, or any olher mineral material from the
subject property would require a permit from the ELM.
Additionally, the entire 129.J5 acre parcel is currently under an active oil
and gas lease (C-15976). This lease is communitized with adjacent leases and
is consideree to be held in production due to producing wells within the
adjacent conuuunitized 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 es the wells within the lease are
producing. The proponent and any future landowners should be advised that the
potential for continued oil and Jac development within the lease area is high
given the level of drilling activity in Lhe local region. The lessee has the
right to construct roads, wells pads, productiion facilities, and pipelines
within the leaue,
6. The proposed subdivision 11es within deer critical winter range.
Encroachment of hotnesites and people on hlg game winter ranges can have a
profound effect on sante herd populations and health.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. if there are any questions, please
contact Jint Byers or Dan Sokal of this office at 945-2341.
Sincerely,
)(3(1111:-(>I
Musa Talbott - Chulnuuu
WI llluw Atoutovci-
Scutt Atcllu
"foul Vol�ht
Gordon WItzki
Burning Mountains
Fire Protection District
Box 236
gilt, CO 81.652
10. I'IiI_)
\\ 1")111 It \I,ly ('un",;111:
I:I `;ieli l Pinyon Stindi vision
Dou Zordel - Chief
Stu Cerise - Assist. Ch
.\Iles reviewing IIIc: Sicrr,l Pinyon .SI )(livision plans and driving over the area, I have no objections to this
subdivision. Roads is planned should he aelca;uatc for Iire tucks. 'I'Ihe, distance from the: lire: station will have a
direct illieet OL respt)It nlnt:. 11 I)I)S5II)IC some storage ul \V IICF for lire suppression would he appreciated.
Thank you,
I )Ilial"" I.. le)reit:l-
I )1,tricl ('Incl
t
a
%•4
• •
Gareie1(1 County 1'1annincl Commission
Gar f i e l d County cow- [house
109 8Lli Steal , (;u i Le 30.1
Glenwood Stu-incls, Co 1o. 8 165
RE 13arlon I'cir t.c'_r
sierra nyon SuIRIivisioii
1L has conte Lo my aLLen l i on [hat l.Iie proposed subdivision is to
have about 12 one lam i. 1 y homes. The homes are 1:0 be furnished wi.I:1
water w i ill a OOOO cid Ion I nl:, 1.11 i :s i S not F(ccacluaLe for L:he homes
or any type OL 1 1 rc pro [eel ion.
1 ive in Mi neo( (e 1:_;l dies whore t•ie have a 25, 000 gal ton water Lank,
and we are 1) 1 ann 1 tel on I,n i 111 i ncl a 51) , 000 cla 1 1 on with t:he old one
Lor a spare. Vurl:hecnu)re we have one of the best wells in Lhis area
i.L pumps more l:han 20 clic I Ions tc tui pule and in Lhe summer. Lhe pump
runs mos L of the L i ucc .
'Phis area I. not named Dry llo11ow for noLh.ing, the fire danger is
very high i the summer and a 1ac:-cle supply of water is a must! If
a su f f.i c i 011 auu)unL- of waLer cannot. be insured, l:hen [he subdivision
shoo Id not: I)e approved.
The county has sa ic1 [hey have no more funds for Lhe improvement of
Lhe roads, these roads area c;arcy i ng more 1:ra f f is than Lhey were
011i1.L Lor. Any more 1:raITfie will rescc11. i.n more a cc idents.
tin[ i 1 snc:1 1 i enc: as 1 he 1 Oa1 i dud 011a11c:e can be asscured, building
must slowed clown or s1 ol)I,ed.
Thank pm I or ymi ((!
Yours truly
Marvin M! Meyers
0831 Mit eoLa Drive
:; i 1 4 , `Colo. 81652
ri;'rn„I rib 1 ,l
i •
i.ir •I '•I in ,.,
March 6, 1995
it I, 'I•'I I I- III, ; I';;GE 11'2
NORMAN b CONNIE 00E
0171 U ft WAY
JILT CO 01652
(303)076.-5404
Garfield County Planning Commission
Garf i ea l d County Courthouse
109 8th Street_ 5ui t a 30:)
Glenwood Springs CO 01601
RE Barton Pnr•tor
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Attention PIanrrinu ('nuunlc9rrioo rind County Comntissionern:
Wo aro of tho understanding there is n sovoro water shortage
problaru in this protrorrncl -.trbclivislon, which would be a problem for
domestic use, aa we11 an ea fires hazard for all Lha surrounding area.
the proponocl 6000 cies 1 l on water tank in not suff is font by far. We
hevo used 40,000 gallon par month for our home and lawn during the
peak months_
1 have [mitred fight fire two tl.lnon in the 1RFJt couple of years on
this particular land. I believe each lot should have a fire
hydrant- along with -1ufflcient water storage and pipe size to supply
it sufficiently_
I have counted as hioh as 200 clear in ,just one of LIu, hay fields at
VAlloy Farms juc►t_ to tho north of this farnpOPJed subdivision_ Thede
dear have to &pond their days in this subdivision along with the
upper part of Mineotn Ejt.atas; which hnn now just about. built out
and has ea 1 r oady forood mora of t•hono door into thin area_ I can
imLUinu how tlroy wi11 fair with n dn9 every Lon acres. Tho elle
1►avaa oleo used thin land_
Tho last toads built_ by Hr_ Porton in the draw to tyro South of this
Proposed subdivision wore so bad 9 fire department 4 wheal drive
pickup got. Ili-cent.ororl trying to got: to a lightning fire_ Any
roads built. should be to count:y Opeclfications and taken over by
the county_
Tho county roadrl in thin area aro narrow and dangerous to travel on
a5 woll as in noecl of mailnLonancu_ f(omembor, , there aro no funds
for improvomonts_
As you aro undoubt_ably all aworo, the ronr•.con this smell area is
known as Ory Hollow is because of t.ho small amount of
Precipitation rocoivod_ Ibis, along with the frrcoi.lo and delicato
nature of fire not 1 , does not bocja well for the ftrrt_hor zlulxlividl ng
of thin land_
Thanks for Laking thin into considoro1..ton_
t/ix
ai
February
27$
11)1J5
Planning Peparlmen1 of (fill Uounly
11/) dlh Slieet, Soile
(Henwood Springs, 1:olor1Ido 33I601
.Sieila Pinyon
1771r171(17;.r.", -...1,..di:if.
i ! 1 1 , . ,, . • • . •:, , -•-• 1 ( 1
I' ' 1:i 1 I i c•f• i., 1.)".,''. :.1; ;
(..itAl::011: ilii_.•11 I.) t.'4...(.34'q !'y
We are Ilk)! favor of granting a Preliminary Plan approval for
Sierra Pinyon .uhdivision. To grant approval for the 129.35 acre
Iract to he subdivided nlo 12 single family residential lots would
caoLie loo 33o3:11 impact:
1)11 lhe undergroond water supply, on the south side of the
c3)1orado 11 hos never huen easy Lo find good water
The area is yea' loond space for many species of wild
I i deei , hohca mounta n ions, and coyotes and etc.,
when people slail laking their space they are going to look
for lit -JW homes and adapn
tig so hteycan survive - so they
3 )r 1 1 )IIH J 11111,1111:..-2".
:S. the olint' roads are not engineered for heavy traffic, and the
planning of where drive ways Lake off of the county roads is
very pool causing safety issues. Two drive ways that go Lo
i V 1::1 a kanch Lire, ,:_? :•.: amp] es of poor p 1 El il n ing, and driving
any oi ( lit; (1)11111 y 1 ii-Jii: 1 hal iiir1,-: pi):.; i ed for 35 mph speed limit
any morning or evening will show the concern of the roads
capahilities to handel more traffic. Also the county is
having hudgeI prohlems providing services without. further
iowlh.
To retaie oor reasoic, nol to give approval for Sierra Pinyon
Skih,li 1 1 3) u 1 ingle fami 1 y lots is that i kmoit Id make t 00 much
of an impact on undergroond water, wildlife, and services. We need
to have 1)10" as far as more suhdivisions are concerned, as
it 1h,31 hoosing does not pay enough taxes lo support
the L.iiJrV1,:,!:, they reuire/want.
SinQerely,
/
el
Oene and 1 1 , Jane Hangs
3/19:i ...s:J1M)
min1)11.
S i I I , Li )
• •
NANCY & JIM BATLEY
(910) 94.5-9200 (Jim work)
_
April
pr11 6 79.9_5
ul.lnlw,x,u m...111034 COILNtn Ix] tl1002
Garfield County Building and Planning
Garfield County Courthouse
Tog - 8th Street.
Glenwood Springs, c'U 111601
Re: CHANGE IN ZONING - Wayne Cooley & Barton Porter
Hearing April 12, 1995 - 1:00 p.m.
L)1JC_"1'O10-; in !he malter of Wayne Cooley and Barton Porter on
re: subdivisions.
concerning many plus -residences i n a low density area would
have a dell rg i ng impact on:
I) WHEN YOII Pl1Rc'IIASL' (1% ACRES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE CHARACTER OI'' THE AREA WILL REMAIN RURAL/AGRICULTURAL, YOU
EXPECT CURRENT ZONING '1'O 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
'!'Ills' QUALITY O1'' LIVE ! l)l SIRED. NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN
'!'O PR1s';EN'l' PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE QUALITY OF' LIFE THAT WE WANT
1'O KEEP AND IN RETAINING '1'IIE OPEN SPACE.
2) NO SEWAGE PI,AN'1' SYSTEM IS .IN EXISTENCE. SEWAGE SYSTEMS
!JC)111.1) HARM THE ALREADY 1''RAG1l1:' WATER 'J'A13LE IN THIS AREA WITH
'1'111: 501 L TYPE AS BEING OI'' THE PLASTIC SOILS.
:1) 110 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM IN PLACE. NO SURFACE WATER
AVAILABLE ANI) LOW UNDERGROUND WA'T'ER TABLE.
4) INCREASED '1'RA1'F'TC WOULD CAUSE AN ALREADY DANGEROUS OR
SUBSTANDARD ROAD TO BECOME MORE DANGEROUS. THE SECONDARY
ROADS ARE NOT BLACK -'POPPED AND ARE NOT UP TO COUNTY
SPEC.I!'TCA'1'.TONS. [NO UPGRADING HAS BEEN DONE TO PRESENT
SECONDARY ROAD AND IT IS 1N A FAS'!' 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 re) lower area w/no regard to existing
property owner_..
• •
EAI l !'Y t)lll tt1'11111
WS; C.'Ik)1 AY/1't11r1'[.'!1 .u:ll tit; t'IIA/lt:C
1'Ai:X 2
5) 'Nils IS A I✓ 11.DI, 1PE CORRIDOR. '1'IIIs' SIERRA CLUB NEEDS TO BE
NOT 11 11.'D C)1'' THIS PROPOSED EFFECT ON THE ELK AND DEER WINTER
RANGE. 1'1' WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE
RE'PR01)IJC'I'TON 01'' '1'!!E W 1id)!. PE.
b) WITH CIS'!' RICH C'H .`;('HEP11:':; TN EF I'EC'!', THERE IS NO
('0NS 1 11:'NA'I' l ON VON EXISTING OWNERS OR DAMAGES OR ANY UPKEEP.
AT THIS OATH IN TIME, WV .;AY NO 7'O THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR THESE
REQUESTS. THERE 1:; NO ENFORCEMENT .IN GAUPTELD COUNTY ON PROPOSED
CHANGES AND APPROVALS. COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT
AND APPROVED SINCE THE 1950'S AND 1960'S. SENA'T'E BILL 35 NEEDS TO
BE ENl•'ONCED, AND 1'10RE C01'1P1;1s'HENS1V1.' PROPOSAL APPROVALS NEED TO BE
E'NF'ORCE!) 11') GARP1El i) COUNTY STARTING RIGHT NOW IN 1995.
Sincerely, 1 :,
Wine y, �indl , illt13ai_ley� //l