The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 PC Staff Report 10.11.1995PC 10/11/95 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Levitt Subdivision Sketch Plan Review APPLICANT: Thomas & Molly Levitt PLANNER: Land Design Partnership LOCATION: Portions of Section 28 & Section 29, T7S R87W of the 6th P.M.; approximately 0.5 miles tat7of the Garfield and Eagle County line; 0.5 mile south of CR 102. SITE DATA: 76.4 Acres WATER AND SEWER: Shared well; individual sewage disposal systems. EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD L RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed subdivision lies within District F - Rural Areas/Severe Environmental Constraints and District B - Subdivisions/Rural Serviceable Areas 0.5 to 1 Mile Radius; Minor Environmental Constraints, as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Management Districts Map. H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The property is located on the slopes and crest of a mesa on the east side of the Roaring Fork Valley, in an area that is locally known as Missouri Heights. The property can be thought of as two different physiographic provinces. The first province, consisting chiefly of the southern half and the western sixth (1/6) of the entire property can be described as very steep, where slopes are in excess of 40%, with some slopes in excess of 50%. The second province, where the homesites are proposed to be located, consists of the mesa crest, where slopes are typically gentle, with average slopes being between 10% and 14%. The vegetation varies from pinion -juniper dominating the steeper slopes, to native, shrubs and annual grasses existing on the mesa top. The buildable portion of the property slopes gently east to west, from approximately 7040 feet to 6900 feet, an average slope of 6.0%. See vicinity map attached on page 5 . B. Proposal: To subdivide the 76.4 acre tract into 13 parcels, ranging in size from 4.0 acres to 9.2 acres, with a gross density of 5.9 acres/du. The individual lots are proposed to be served be a shared well system and individual sewage disposal systems. An exaggerated cul-de-sac is planned to access the thirteen (13) individual lotscd provide open space to the residents. See sketch map attached on page C. Adjacent Land Uses: The adjacent land uses are predominantly residential, whereby lot sizes tend to average between one (1) and five (5) acres, with some larger parcels in the vicinity. Some limited agricultural uses exist in the vicinity. IND • • III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS A. Copies of the proposed subdivision were sent to a number of review agencies, soliciting comment. Those comments are as follows: 1. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: Revegetation of affected areas should be accomplished using certified weed -free seed; related water issues. See letter attached on page % 9 2. Eagle County Planning Department: Concerned with access to the subdivision along Harmony Lane; concerns regarding using Eagle County roads to access Garfield County lots; requests the consideration of drafting an Inter -Governmental Agreement to address road impacts; requests, from the developer, a road impact fee; requests approval by the State Engineer's Office; concerned with lot size and effective density. See letter attached on pages 4/. . 3. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: Believes access to the subdivision is adequate via the cul-de-sac off of Harmony Lane; new road should meet County standards; recommends water system designed to meet Insurance Services Office (I. S.O.) requirements; all residences built within 1000 feet of a fire hydrant; suggests mitigation of fire hazard from steep slopes; requires an impact fee of $235 per lot prior to recording of final plat. See letter attached on page_. IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Soils: There are three (3) predominant soil types on-site, each with their own characteristics affecting development potential and the siting of building envelopes and ISD systems. The three (3) soil types and their chief characteristics are as follows: #/13 - Forelle/Brownsto Complex: This soil comprises the top of the ridge, where the homesites are proposed. The soil is generally deep and well -drained, found on slopes between 6 and 12%. Constraints to building site development potential varies from moderate to severe due to slope and the potential for cutbanks to cave in the Brownsto unit. Constraints to location of ISDS facilities is considered moderate to severe because of slope and the Forelle unit is further hindered by slow percolation. #55 - Gypsum land-Gypsiorthids Complex: This soil complex formed from parent material that was high in gypsum content (Eagle Valley Evaporite) and constitutes the lower slopes of the property. This part of the site is not slated for development but, due to its limitations, should be considered holistically as it does underlie the soils comprising the buildable portions of the property. Constraints to building site development are considered severe, chiefly because of depth to rock. Constraints to location of ISDS facilities is considered severe, again due to depth to bedrock. The Eagle Valley Evaporite, which underlies the property and forms the characteristic white and brown slopes on the east side of the Roaring Fork Valley, is susceptible to erosion and subsidence as it readily dissolves in water. Special consideration is needed to determine the severity of this problem in and on this property. #106 - Tridell/Brownsto Complex: This soil complex occupies the upper slopes of the property and tends to be deep and well to excessively -well drained. Constraints to building development are considered to be severe due to slope and the tendency for cutbanks to cave. Constraints to location of ISDS facilities are considered severe due to slope and that the soil tends to be a poor filter. All soils appear to have constraints that could preclude development in some areas. The applicant's geologist will need to take particular care in locating building and ISDS sites on each lot. B. Water: The proposal specifies the use of a shared well(s) to supply water to the subdivision. Although no water permits or well information were submitted indicating that a legal, adequate and physical water supply exists to serve the needs of this development, a letter was included which states that a contract from Basalt Water Conservancy District could probably be obtained for the proposed subdivision. See letter attached on page / . Staff notes all water documentation and plans need to be in place at time of application for a Preliminary Plan. Furthermore, given the high concentration of salts, sulfates and other minerals and compounds in the Eagle Valley Evaporite, water quality could be adversely affected. A water quality analysis should also be performed and results submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. C. Road/Access: The property is located south of CR 102 and west of Harmony Lane and, on the vicinity map, two access easements are shown. One easement is existing, one proposed. No documentation has been presented to staff to determine if these easements are adequate and/or legal. There exists some conjecture as to the legal ability to use Harmony Lane for access to this property. A detailed access plan showing legal right to use all easements and roadways, especially Harmony Lane, needs to be submitted as a part of the Preliminary Plan application. See letter from Eagle County Planning Department regarding the access to Harmony Lane and the le a ty of using it to access property along Harmony Lane, attached on page 3 I . The internal road would be required to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association, but deeded for public use. D. Fire Protection: Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District has responded , as discussed. Staff would also note that, additionally, the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) feels wildfire problems can be minimised by following the recommendations for construction of homes contained in the CSFS publication "Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface" and "Model Regulations for protecting People and Homes in Subdivisions and Developments." E. Natural Hazards: Due to the proximity of the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite, subsidence of overlying ground is a possibility, and potentially aggravated by the plan to use ISD systems. If the infiltrating water percolates deep enough, solution of the underlying Formation can occur, ultimately undermining the overlying strata and possibly creating sinkholes. Slope is another potential hazard, whereby, if building envelopes are too small or poorly designed, oversteepening of slopes could occur creating the potential for slope failure and/or increased incidence of erosion. The applicant's geologist needs to take special care in identifying home and ISDS sites. F. Lot Size: All lots conform to the two (2) acre minimum lot size as stipulated by the A/R/RD zone district. However, the lots on the southern and western portions of the property consist chiefly of steep slopes (>40%) severely restraining the buildable portions of the lots. Subdivision Regulations specify certain requirements regarding setbacks, slope, and minimum size of building envelopes. Building envelopes of one (1) contiguous acre ofless than 40% slope need to be identified at time of Preliminary Plan. Gross estimates indicate that only 40 acres of the entire 76 acre tract are of less than 40% slope. Effective density of the 13 proposed lots is approximately 3 acres/du. G. Open Space Easements: The proposal specifies deeding the open space to the residents of the development; however, it appears that this land will actually be sold as lots. This arrangement could potentially contribute to legal issues at a later date. H. Aesthetics: Although no building envelopes are specified with this Sketch Plan, it is reasonable to assume that lots 1 thru 9 may be developed positioning homes on or very near the ridgeline. Currently, no County guidelines exist regarding setback requirements from ridges, therefore, strict adherence to CSFS guidelines would have two outcomes. First, this placement would help protect homes in the event of a fire moving up the ridge and, second, would decrease the visual impact caused by a line of homes constructed at or near the ridge, which would be quite visible from many points in the valley. The Sketch Plan process is purely informational. Completion of the Sketch Plan process does not constitute approval of the proposed plan. The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review and comparison with the original application. ZIO ilccEssg Aie N ()POI) roKtiC / 6(CISS--WotAL,b tEEDp cf p) S PNE Nor i ?c,ei-IMps S4a: (e6 -rem 4.4/41,Y, E V IC01 AL- /A(PAG7T5 141/614,4e5 ?1A , T CAS Cfil ($s, (, SL ti's FIRctc6 /o6 ealie1Gi,eary IR2664710N p/zb kw. r;ic //L11t ;9. Pnc 4&1))t)U� ES fn/olAL L1 A -s je, c1.a6US (01 o€€ee®vA VD airt >>7 e5 I ti5CO c-4/1,6-. LIJW ' 46 Zk Ce CC 4L ctocc 17 411- IMP 4- 4 .“\ LAA/Ds AIM I II 63Jo �-- 169741 11 J� J I 69,x. 29 X7/93 ::i.� \ Levitt Subdivision `' 600 `-- 116348 32 1164 6460 888 r •, _ \11 ".FS, 6-7348./ �J \ _. _ l 1 %7-,:v. 1 . '4 • 1 L 26\ r--7'i12i /- Leon _ '432 1 VICINITY MAP ) '\ SCALE 1- 2000' ,,':';-'i11`'l f\s. \� 5 SKETCH PLAN Levitt Subdivision I // 4,47/7 Id /4"/ acres • 5 6.2 acres — Nfr 0 +vox 40 GAS < st-of6- 111111=1.1111111.11 8/14/95 PLANNING LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945-2246 • MT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 September 18, 1995 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th ST, STE 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir: { S`P, 91995 At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopr.is Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan for the Levitt Subdivision and have the following comments and concerns about the project. Any cuts 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 be 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. Of prime concern to the Board, is the proper maintenance and protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New landowners should be informed that the ditch owners have right of way easement to maintain the irrigation system, that they will be cleaning and working on the ditch, and that this work may be in their yards. The district would like to know what the impact will be on the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible. The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by the landowners so they are maintained. Their concern is always for soil and water conservation and preservation and plans should consider these concerns. 7 With increased corns about Water Quality, District is concerned about monitoring chemical application for fertilizer, weed control, and other pest management reasons. Their concern is the chemicals that will be used to fertilize grasses and control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should be closely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the soils and run off into the river. Sincerely, Dee Blue, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District (untnnniity 1)cv(21(11)1ncnt 1)cparinicnl (9711) 328-.873O I a' (97(I 11128 7185 T1)I ): 1070) V:8-871)7 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81603-3303 r1 `,_ • i3OC i 0 a 1995 RE: Levitt Subdivision Ger RFEL.D 1t..._ Dear Mark: 1 ,i);Ic ( minty Ruil(lnt� I' ( ) lic)X 179 5O1) 1itoaclwav 1 rt�tic (.01()ncl() 8101-(11,-') October 2, 1995 We very much appreciate your providing us the opportunity to comment on Garfield County proposals that might affect Eagle County. It implies a spirit of cooperativeness that we would wish to foster. Regarding the Levitt Subdivision, I have attached a copy of a letter that I sent to you last March concerning the Barnes Exemption. We believe that the concern outlined in that letter applies in this case as well. An additional concern is now becoming apparent. In the last couple of years, there have been several subdivision exemptions in Garfield County that, in addition to this 13 lot subdivision, do have an effect on Eagle County roads. Specifically, I am speaking about the Adams, Glen and Barnes exemptions. Including the Levitt Subdivision, there will be a total of 21 lots accessing through Eagle County that have impacts to Eagle County roads. We would request that you explore with us the possibility of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) or some other instrument that addresses those road impacts. Currently lacking a better idea, we would request a monetary contribution along the same lines that we require of subdivisions in Eagle County: A Road Impact Fee. In his cover letter, your applicant indicates that access will be through El Jebel and that the road "appears" to have excess capacity to accommodate additional growth. While it is true that the road has been rebuilt, we do not know what the capacity is. We are currently entertaining proposals in Eagle County, which will be referred to you, that impact the El Jebel Road and we will likely be requiring the applicants to provide a traffic study identifying the carrying capacity. Perhaps your applicant should do the same. We strongly suggest that no permits for subdivision be issued without the State Engineer's approval. We are aware of the potential for water shortage problems in the Missouri Heights area and would wish that this issue be fully explored. We would also suggest that building envelopes be placed so that they do not "daylight" structures from the valley floor. • • Mark Bean October 2, 1995 Page 2 As a general comment, we find this proposal to be rather unimaginative. It appears that almost half of this 76 acre parcel should be platted open space (steep slopes). Bear in mind that the effective density will be 1 DU per 3 acres. This density may be somewhat premature. I am at your service if you would wish to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, r Paul E. Clarkson AICP Planner cc: Keith Montag Sid Fox Jim Fritze BoCC chrono • • Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Dr. Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone (970) 963-2491 FAX (970) 963-0569 October 1, 1995 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Levitt Subdivision Sketch Plan *a: fo,. p../ ; , s -p--70, r; ,J__ OCT 1995 I have reviewed the sketch plan for the Levitt subdivision and have visited the site. I would offer the following comments regarding fire protection. Access to the subdivision appears to be adequate via the proposed subdivision road and cul-de-sac off of Harmony Lane. The new subdivision road should meet county road standards. The sketch plan proposes to supply water for fire protection from a common well and storage tank. I would recommend that the water system be designed to meet I.S.O. (Insurance Services Office) requirements for a recognized water supply, allowing future homeowners a significant insurance savings. This generally requires that the system provide for a 250 G.P.M (gallons per minute) flow for a duration of two hours. This usually requires at least a 30,000 gallon storage tank depending upon domestic daily consumption and the capability of the wells. All residences would need to be within 1000 feet of a fire hydrant. I would further recommend that water mains be sized to allow for a minimum of a 1000 G.P.M. flow. Many of the proposed lots contain steep slopes that are heavily vegetated with pinion and juniper. Mitigation of wildfire hazards for these lots may be necessary depending upon the location of the building envelopes. Response time to the subdivision is approximately 10 to 15 minutes with first response coming from Station No.5 located on County Road 100. The District will require the payment of development impact fees in the amount of $235.00 per lot for a total of $3,055.00 as approved by the Garfield County Commissioners. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Please contact me if you have any questions. Bill Gavette Fire Marshal iiiiiRESTDURCE. MIIMENGINEERING I N C. Mr. Ron Liston Land Design Partnership PO Box 517 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: Proposed Levitt Subdivision Dear Ron: August 14, 1995 It is our understanding that Mr. Tom Levitt has proposed a 13 lot subdivision on approximately 80 acres located generally in the SW3/4, SW'/4, Section 28 and the SE1/4, SEV4, Section 29, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. The proposed water supply will be from a well (or wells) and a community water system. As a means of providing a legal water supply the proponent intends to request a water service contract from the Basalt Water Conservancy District (BWCD). The property is located in Area A of the BWCD boundary but is in an area which may be subject to a water right call from Blue Creek. Until recently this call could not be satisfied solely by a BWCD water service contract. However, the BWCD has a pending water court case for a Plan for Augmentation which would allow the BWCD to satisfy the Blue Creek call. A proposed Consent Decree has been submitted to the objectors in this case for their approval. We expect a Court decree will be issued in the Rear future. Approval of the Plan for Augmentation would allow the BWCD to provide a water service contract for Mr. Levitt's property and we expect that a contract could be obtained for the proposed 13 lot subdivision. Sincerely, (RESOUR • E ENGINEE • ING, INC. P.:'S. Bus .ne, P.E. Water Resource Engineer PSB/mmm 401-1.0 rlsub.501 Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 113 (303] 945-8777 It Fax (303) 945-11 37 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (303) 328-8730 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Mark Bean David Michaelson Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81603-3303 RE: Barnes Subdivision Exemption Dear Mark & Dave: 500 BROADWAY P.O. BOX 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 FAX: (303) 328-7185 March 29, 1995 Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the Barnes request for Exemption from the Garfield Subdivision Regulations. Our concern is only that of the Harmony Lane and only in as much as we would suggest that your applicant concern him/herself with use and/or maintenance agreements with other property owners that use that same said private road. Allow me to further explain: - Harmony Lane is a private road and basically came into existence with the subdivision of Harmony View which is largely in Eagle County. A small portion of that property is in Garfield County and that portion contained all of Harmony Lane. In order to proceed with the subdivision of Harmony View, the applicant agreed to improve that private road to a minimum standard. This improvement was collateralized through a Subdivision Improvement Agreement which has since been inspected and released. An intergovernmental agreement was entered into between Garfield and Eagle Counties giving Eagle County the right and responsibilities of subdivision, zoning and improvements to that portion of Harmony View within Garfield County. Subsequently, a proposal for an exemption (Jim Adams?) was received by your office proposing access directly onto the improved portion of Harmony Lane. It is my understanding that Mr. Adams and Harmony View Subdivision (Kip Koski) came to a private agreement concerning the future maintenance of Harmony Lane. Consequently, we would suggest that the current applicant enter into a similar agreement for maintenance with both the Adams Exemption property owners in Garfield County and Harmony View property owners in Eagle County. We would further suggest that the portion of Harmony Lane that will be utilized by the new Barnes Exemption property owners and has not been improved since it is not within the Harmony View Subdivision, be similarly improved to a minimum standard. That standard in Eagle County includes 4' borrow ditches, 2' shoulders, two 10' lanes and 3-4" of compacted aggregate base course. NINO Messrs. Bean and Michaelson March 29, 1995 Page 2 This communication is at the request of one of the Harmony View property owners. As such, and given that Harmony Lane is a private access easement, these remarks are intended as suggestions only. It should probably remain incumbent upon your applicant and the affected property owners to come to appropriate agreements in much the same manner that Adams and Koski arrived at an equitable solution. I am at your service if you would wish to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, 0„e Paul E. Clarkson AICP Planner cc: Keith Montag Sid Fox Jim Fritze BoCC chrono 1 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Dr. Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone (970) 963-2491 FAX (970) 963-0569 October 1, 1995 Mark Bean Garfield County Planner 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Levitt Subdivision Sketch Plan 6ci t 1,995 I have reviewed the sketch plan for the Levitt subdivision and have visited the site. I would offer the following comments regarding fire protection. Access to the subdivision appears to be adequate via the proposed subdivision road and cul-de-sac off of Harmony Lane. The new subdivision road should meet county road standards. The sketch plan proposes to supply water for fire protection from a common well and storage tank. I would recommend that the water system be designed to meet I.S.O. (Insurance Services Office) requirements for a recognized water supply, allowing future homeowners a significant insurance savings. This generally requires that the system provide for a 250 G.P.M (gallons per minute) flow for a duration of two hours. This usually requires at least a 30,000 gallon storage tank depending upon domestic daily consumption and the capability of the wells. All residences would need to be within 1000 feet of a fire hydrant. I would further recommend that water mains be sized to allow for a minimum of a 1000 G.P.M. flow. Many of the proposed lots contain steep slopes that are heavily vegetated with pinion and juniper. Mitigation of wildfire hazards for these lots may be necessary depending upon the location of the building envelopes. Response time to the subdivision is approximately 10 to 15 minutes with first response coming from Station No.5 located on County Road 100. The District will require the payment of development impact fees in the amount of $235.00 per lot for a total of $3,055.00 as approved by the Garfield County Commissioners. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Please contact me if you have any questions. Bill Gavette Fire Marshal • • MT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT ��D ? P.O. BOX 1302 �t 1995 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 LLC44;;;171, September 18, 1995 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th ST, STE 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir: At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan for the Levitt Subdivision and have the following comments and concerns about the project. Any cuts 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 be 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. Of prime concern to the Board, is the proper maintenance and protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New landowners should be informed that the ditch owners have right of way easement to maintain the irrigation system, that they will be cleaning and working on the ditch, and that this work may be in their yards. The district would like to know what the impact will be on the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible. The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by the landowners so they are maintained. Their concern is always for soil and water conservation and preservation and plans should consider these concerns. With increased corns about Water Quality, District is concerned about monitoring chemical application for fertilizer, weed control, and other pest management reasons. Their concern is the chemicals that will be used to fertilize grasses and control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should be closely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the soils and run off into the river. Sincerely, Dee Blue, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District