HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 04.12.2000DRAFT
For ltevieW y
(}3/ 2?/00
PC 04/12/00
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review of the Cerise Ranch
Subdivision.
APPLICANT: Wintergreen Homes.
ENGINEERS: High Country Engineering.
PLANNERS: The Land Studio, Inc.
LOCATION: A parcel of land located in portions of
Sections 29, 32 and 33, Township 7 South,
Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. Garfield and
Eagle County. Approximately five (5) miles
east of Carbondale on the north side of
Highway 82, directly west and north of the
Dakota subdivision
SITE DATA: 301.520+/- acres.
WA1E;R: Shared Well (Willow well).
SEWER: I. S.T. S. (Individual Sewage Treatment System).
This means secondary treatment will be
supplied.
ACCESS: Highway 82.
ZONING: A/R/RD.
ADJACENT ZONING: East (Northerly portion): A/R/RD.
East (Southerly portion): Dakota
Subdivision.
West: A/R/RD.
North (Westerly portion): PUD.
North (Easterly portion): Subdivision.
South: A/R/RD.
1
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is located approximately five (5) miles east
of Carbondale on the north side of Highway 82, directly west and north of the
Dakota subdivision. The far easterly portion of the property is in Eagle County and
is proposed to be open space.
The southern portion of the property is relatively flat and is crossed by Blue Creek
and a few existing irrigation ditches. A large amount of the southern portion of the
property is within the 100 year flood plain of Blue Creek and is also designated as
wetlands. All of this area except a small area of wetlands will be preserved as open
space. The small area of wetlands not to be preserved as open space will "be
restricted to no development and be avoided through careful design of lots and
driveways." The northern portion of the property is above 40% slope and is subject
to geologic constraints. The great majority of this area will not be developed. Only
the northwest portion of the subject property where there are steep slopes will be
impacted with development. A road is proposed to be built through a portion of the
property above 40% slope to access three (3) lots and a water tank. The three lots
have building envelopes which are less than 40% slope. The location of the water
tank is also in an area of less than 40% slope..Necessafy-mitigation measures -as
detannined-wiltbramditions-af any Final Plat.
The site is currently occupied by a house and other out buildings, some of which,
including the house, will be retained on one of the proposed lots (Lot 66). The site
is currently actively used for grazing of cows and horses.
The existing pond on the property which is dry will be abandoned. A new pond in
the designated Open Space area may be constructed at a later date for aesthetic
purposes only.
Three types of plant communities/ecosystems exist on the subject property. These
are oak/serviceberry shrubland, herbaceous pasture lands, and wetland communities.
B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the tract into a total
of sixty-eight (68) residential lots with 14 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), one (1)
on each of fourteen (14) lots (lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 48, 51, 52,
66). The lots range in size from 2.00 acres to 19.129 acres. Water is to be supplied
by a shared well (Willow well) through a well sharing agreement. Individual Sewage
Treatment Systems (ISTSs) are proposed for each lot. These provide more treatment
of sewage than ISDSs (secondary treatment). Access will be via a single access off
of Highway 82 in the western portion of the subject lot with an additional emergency
access off of Highway 82 in the eastern portion of the subject lot.
2
II. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area 1, 1995 designates the subject
property as Medium Density Residential (6 to less than 10 AC/DU). The proposed
subdivision proposes a density of approximately 3.68 AC/DU. This is in excess of the
designated density for the subject property. However, this proposal is directly adjacent to the
existing Dakota Subdivision which is designated as high density residential and is approved
for higher density than the Cerise Ranch proposal.
Objective 5.2 of the Comprehensive Plan states:
The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the development
and implementation of zoning, subdivision and PUD regulations designed to retain and
enhance existing open space uses.
Cerise Ranch proposes to maintain a significant amount of the subject property as open
space which will promote this objective.
Objective 5.5 of the Comprehensive Plan states:
Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and policies
will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas.
Cerise Ranch is proposing to place the majority of residential lots away from Highway 82
which will allow the homes to blend more into the existing back drop. In addition, the four
(4) proposed lots in the southeast portion of the property which are close to Highway 82 will
be in close proximity to the existing Dakota subdivision and other development which are
of a higher density lending a transition zone to the proposed open space on-site.
Thus, this application is in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Awaiting new response.
B. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment:
D. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District:
E. Garfield County Vegetation Management: In a memorandum dated 03/13/00 (See
pgs ), Steve Anthony, of Garfield County Vegetation Management states, "The
plan doesn't address weed control or revegetation." With this, he includes four (4)
comments which are summarized below:
3
1. Request the applicant to conduct a noxious weed inventory.
2. Ask the applicant to submit a written Weed Management Plan.
3. The revegetation plan within the application needs to detail revegetation
plans for all proposed disturbances and include a seed mix, method of
planting, and reseeding planting schedule.
4. The covenants should address noxious weeds.
These comments as outlined in the memorandum received from the agency
(See pgs. ), must be adhered to before any Preliminary Plan review before
the Board of County Commissioners.
F. Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology:
G. Holy Cross Energy:
H. Garfield School District No. Re -1:
I. Garfield County Sheriffs Department: In a letter dated March 9, 2000, (See p. ),
the Sheriffs Department stated the following concerns:
1. The need to ensure all access roads are of sufficient width to accommodate
fire and EMS equipment.
2. Any roads that are a dead end or cul-de-sac type should have an ending
radius large enough to accommodate fire or EMS equipment's turn around
ratio.
3. All roads and roadways shall be clearly marked with correct County road
numbers and names.
4 All street addresses be clearly marked and visible from the County road or
access roads
J. Carbondale Fire District: In a letter dated March 3, 2000 (See p. ), the
Carbondale Fire District is favorable to the provisions for fire protection as presented
by the applicant in the submitted application.
K. Colorado Department of Transportation:
L. Colorado Division of Wildlife: In a letter dated 03/22/00 (See Pgs. ), numerous
comments were presented by CDOW. Staff is of the opinion that all of these need
to be taken into consideration by the applicant and at least some will likely be
recommendations of any approval.
4
M. U.S. West Communications: U.S. West Communications returned their copy of the
application with no comments.
N. Colorado Geological Survey: In a letter dated March 18, 2000 (See pgs. ), the
Colorado Geological Survey comments included:
"We recommend that the County require the developer provide a comprehensive
mitigation plan prior to approval." This was in reference to debris flow hazards.
"A slope stability analysis should be performed at this location to quantify the effects
of additional toe excavations for the road alignment. The county should not give
approval until this is resolved. If mitigation is being considered it should be designed
and included in the grading plan." This was in reference to the grading for Road B
at the toe of the mapped landslide which is active.
"The building envelopes for lots 23 and 26 lie within the outer subsidence risk zone.
We recommend that those lots envelopes be readjusted so that actual building
footprints lie outside of the subsidence risk zones. Potential lot buyers should also
be made aware of the risks of future subsidence."
With regard to collapsible/compressive soils it was stated, "The geotechnical
consultant's recommendations must be complied with for foundations on these soft,
compressible soils... The report did not clearly distinguish the well rounded packed
river gravel from the alluvial fan gravel...Their foundation performance is much
poorer than river gravel and could be prone to settlement and compaction, especially
if wetted.... We reiterate that control of surface drainage and subsurface water is
important to the performance of foundations and slabs on grade."
Under "Other Considerations" it was stated, "The odd narrow lot configurations and
shallow ground water levels may severely impact the design of ISDS.
It was concluded, "Provided the additional work and recommendations we stated
above are required by the county prior to approval and the results of that additional
work is satisfactory, the CGS finds no inherent geologic hazards that would preclude
the bulk of this development as it was intended."
O. RFRHA: In a memorandum dated 03/01/00 (See p. ), Noel Huff of RFRHA
states, "As there are no proposed access over or encroachments upon railroad
corridor, I see no potential impacts to the railroad right-of-way from the
application...The applicant may want to consider a future connection across Highway
82 to this trail system during the development of the PUD." Please note: this
application is not a PUD.
P. 11` I a memorandum dated 03/15/00 (See pgs. ), Roaring Fork Transit
5
y
Q.
Agency states, "RFTA would like to see the developer cover the associated transit
costs of the development and at a minimum, cover the startup capital costs of transit
which are estimated to be around $140,000 ($77,000 for vehicles and $63,000 for
Park -and -Ride spaces). This is approximately $2,000 per dwelling unit and could be
paid at the time of building permit."
there are no provisiorrin place to require these fees as requested by RFRA.
Eagle County Planning Department:
R. AT & T Cable Services:
S. Garfield County Road and Bridge: In a memorandum dated 03/09/00 (See p. ),
Road and Bridge responded, "I do not see any physical road impacts as all traffic
enters and exits onto State Highway 82."
T. Garfield County Engineer (Michael Erion, Wright Water Engineers): Wright Water
Engineers commented in a letter dated (See pgs. ). This letter contained
numerous concerns which are critical to this application. Areas of concern included:
Water supply, Water system, Drainage, Stormwater quality, Soils/Geology,
Wetlands/404 Permitting, Roads, and miscellaneous comments on the drawings and
covenants.
U. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: In a letter dated 03/21/00 (See p. ), Sue Nall
comments on the need for a more involved permit and a detailed alternatives
analysis to be submitted for the three proposed lots and water tank in the
northwestern portion of the property.
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1. Water Supply: Water is proposed to be supplied via a shared well (Willow Well). A
detailed well sharing agreement will need to be included as part of the proposed . r
covenants for the subdivision. This can be provided before Preliminary Plan is Y ti0
reviewed by the Board of County Comissioners.
Division of Water Resources...
c.U P (le, iJ ,4) ,//;(-
2. Zoning: The subject property is zoned A/R/RD. w . // um_./ 1.,4, (/
Uses by right:
Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses.
Accessory dwelling unit approved as part of a public hearing or meeting on a
6
subdivision.
This application is proposing 14 accessory dwelling units on lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 23,
24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 48, 51, 52, and 66.
Section 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit: Use of a structure as an accessory
dwelling whether approved by Special Use, use by right in a new subdivision
approval, or an existing lot must meet the following standards, as well as all other
standards applicable to residential use:
(1)
The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site which
slopes less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size.
Building sites are the same as building envelopes. Thus, the building
envelopes on all of the proposed lots proposed for accessory dwelling units
must be a minimum of two (2) acres in size. None of the building envelopes
on the lots proposed to have accessory dwelling units is at least two (2) acres
in size. Therefore, accessory dwelling units as applied for cannot be
recommended for approval by staff.
(2) The gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq.
ft.
(3)
Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by
covenant if applicable.
Covenants for the subdivision would have to allow for accessory dwelling
units.
(4) Proofofa legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit.
(5)
Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations
or proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage
treatment facility.
This means that an adequate single ISTS can be constructed to serve both the
primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit, or, two separate adequate
ISTSs may be constructed, one for the primary dwelling and one for the
accessory dwelling. However, it must be noted that domestic waste water
cannot exceed 2000 gallons per day (gpd) on any individual lot regardless if
there is one or two ISTSs. If domestic waste water is to exceed 2000 gpd on
any lot, state approval would be required.
(6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units is allowed.
(7) That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code
requirements. (A.95-076)
Without a building site of at least two (2) acres in size with less than 40% slope,
accessory dwelling units as proposed cannot be recommended for approval by staff.
Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%).
Minimum Setback:
(1) Front yard: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75) feet from street centerline or
fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater; (b) local streets: fifty (50) feet
from street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet from lot line, whichever is greater;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
(3) Side yard: Ten (10) feet from side lot line, or one-half (1%2) the height of the
principal building, whichever is greater.
Maximum Height of Building: Twenty-five feet.
Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section
5 (Supplementary Regulations).
This application complies with all zoning requirements except those for accessory
dwelling units. Thus, accessory dwelling units as proposed cannot be recommended
for approval by staff.
5. Roads: Access is to be via a single entrance in the westerly portion of the subject
property directly off of Highway 82. An emergency access is to be placed in the
asterly portion of the subject lot, also directly off of Highway 82.
Section 4:60 (C) of the Subdivision Regulations states, "Evidence that all lots and
parcels created will have access to a public right-of-way, as required by Colorado
states law."
At this time, no road access permits have been submitted. Thus this section of the
Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with. Thus, this application must be
recommended for denial by staff.
8
Further, without the permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allowing
wetlands to be crossed by the proposed access roads, access has also not been proved
with regard to this constraint.
4. Waste Disposal: Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs) are proposed for
each lot. These systems provide secondary treatment of sewage. These systems
should be adequate for this application. However, all representations made by the
applicant within the submitted application with regard to ISTSs including but not
limited to the report submitted by HP Geotech dated January 26, 2000, the ISTS
management plan included in the covenants, and the ISDS requirements included in
Section 18 must be adhered to.
5. Soils/Geology: Numerous concerns have been raised by the Colorado Geological
/Survey, and Wright Water Engineers with regard to soils and geology as described
above. It is clear that geological and soils issues have not been adequately addressed
at this time. Sections 4:70 (A) and (B) of the Subdivision Regulations requires that
geology and soils be adequately addressed. Thus Sections 4:70 (A) and (B) have not
been complied with. Thus, this application must be recommended for denial by staff.
6. Wetlands: As discussed above, a letter was received from the Army Corps of
Engineers which expressed the need for a more involved permit and a detailed
alternatives analysis to be submitted for the three proposed lots and water tank in the
northwestern portion of the property. This has not been submitted by the applicant,
and thus, it has not been adequately addressed. Section 4:33 (G) of the Subdivision
Regulations states:
The Board shall make its decision regarding the Preliminary Plan based on the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and on the conformity or
compatibility of the proposed subdivision with the following:
G. Other applicable local, state and federal regulations, resolutions and
policies.
Given that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is an applicable federal agency and
their regulations have not been addressed, Section 4:33(G) has not been complied
with. Thus, this application must be recommended for denial by staff.
7. Fire Protection: Based on the letter received from the Carbondale Fire Protection
District, all provisions for fire protection represented by the applicant in the
submitted application including paying the $417.00 development impact fee per
single family lot will be conditions of any Final Plat approval. Homes over 3,600
square feet in area are to be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, as
represented by the applicant, and thus, language to this effect must be included in
any covenants to be recorded.
9
8. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan: Section 4:33 of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations requires that the Board of County Commissioners make a
decision regarding the Preliminary Plan based on the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and on the conformity or compatibility of the proposed
subdivision with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan.
The Subdivision Regulations require that the Board review an application based on
compatibility with various issues including the Comprehensive Plan.
As discusses above, this application is in general conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan.
9. Vegetation: As outlined above, the recommendations of Garfield County Vegetation
Management (See p. ) must be addressed within any Preliminary Plan submittal
to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners.
9. Drainage Plan: Wright Water Engineers made several comments with regard to
drainage within their letter as discussed above. It is clear from their comments that
the drainage concerns on the subject property have not been met. Section 4:80 of the
Subdivision Regulations requires that drainage be adequately examined. Thus,
Section 4:80 of the Subdivision Regulations has not been complied with. Thus, this
application must be recommended for denial by staff.
10. Wildlife: As discussed above, the Division of Wildlife made several comments
concerning wildlife. Given that many other issues have not been met within this
application, and thus, staff will be recommending denial, staff suggests that the
applicant at this time, consider the comments made by DOW and discuss with staff
which ones may be conditions of any approval.
11. Radiation: In a letter dated September 8, 1999, and included in Section 12 of the
submitted application, CTL/Thompson, Inc. Consulting Engineers states, "In our
opinion, our data indicates normal background radiation at this site." Thus, radiation
does not appear to be a concern on this site.
12. School Fees: School fees in the amount of $20,536.00 as determined using the
required formula must be paid as a condition of any Final Plat.
13. Road Impact Fees, as to be determined, will need to be paid as a condition of any
Final Plat.
H. SUGGESTED FINDINGS:
1. That the proper publication and pubic notice and posting were provided by law for
10
'127
the hearing before the Planning Commission.
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties
were heard at the hearing.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed subdivision of land based on the following:
1.
11