HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportPROJECT NAME: REQUESTED ACT]ON: APPL]CA},]T: PROJECT ]NFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Mitchell Creek PUD Pr-eliminary Plat Mitchelf Cneek Ltd., a (B pantnens) 232 Broadway, P.0. Box Eagle, CO 81631 Hanol-d Denton 328-7226 Denton Associates, Tnc. Box 1020 Eagle, CO 81631 co-l-imited Par"tnership 1.020 PLANNER: l,OCATION: S]TE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ZONING: ROADS: Within West Glenwood, along County Roads 130 and 132 and on the east bank of MitcheU- Cneek. Elevations range fi:om 6300 feet to 5750 feet; slopes range from 5% to 60%; vegetation range fz.om pinyon pine, scnub oak and cedar to sagebrush and mountain grasses with a heavy coven of cottonwood tnees along the banks and floodplain a::ea of Mitchel.l- Creek. Mitchel-l Cneek is the only live stream which crosses the property. West Glenwood Water District West Glenwood Sanitation Distr.ict seven northern J-ots which are proposed to be individual septic. Site-PUD ( single family r:esidential-) Nor:th: A/R/RD South: R/L/UD East: O/S and R/L/UD West: R/L/SD To be dedicated wi.rth improvements as foJ-lows: South Road: Asphalt su::face,50t R.0.W. 24r dniving surface, 2t shoulders 89o maximum gnade. Chip and seal- sunface, 50r R.OW. 221 dniving surface, 2r shoulders, 8eo maximum gnade. North Road: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The pi:oposal- consists of 29 single family lots ranging in size fnom , acre. Due to the steep topography the north and the south portions are physically separ"ated, eac.h with ,separate accesses. The northern sists of 7 lots, each approximately 1 acre, to be served by centnal individual septic. The southern pontion consists of 22 lots ranging 14 aere to ,z ac?e, to be sei:ved by central water" and sewen. There is pank located at the southwest corner of the pr:oject with additional the ir^rigation ditch. The major:ity of the open space, approximately compasses the steep hill-side in the centnal pontion of the proj ect. A'NFQQ 'From Donnegon Road for the 22 por:tion. From Mitchell Cneek 7 northern lots. '{ acr:e to 1 of the project portion con- water and in size from a 3/4 acre open space along 24 acnes: en- l-ots in the southenn Road fon the RELATIONSHTP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The project lies within Distr-ict rrB'r, Subsection 16 (Subdivisions/Rural Senvieeabn-e Aneas/A::eas having both central waten and sewen/mode::ate environmenta.l- constraint area. The development ties within the defined urban area of infl-uence fo:: Glenwood Spnings. The present use of the land is not agriculturaf in nature. In summary, this pnoposal does not conflict with the county Compnehensive Pl-an. Page 8 4 REFERRAL SUMMARY: CoJ-onado Geological Survey: Cautions that totally mitigated and consequent damage to will occun. AIso, they necommend against in the north 7 l-ots (see l-etter, page 13 City ot Glenwood Sprrngs: Recommends approval necommends denial of the norther"n 7 lots. See geological pr.oblems cannot be structunes and improvements allowing on-lot leach fields ). of the 22 southern lots, and pages 22 t n). e I 6. tr Division of Waten Resounces: Will not comment on the pnoposal until such time as the West Glenwood Water District submits additionaf infor:mation (See letter, page 14 ). Colorado State For"est Service: lJave sevenal concerns with the pnoposal to include: cul-de-sac length and design, no pnovision for dual ingress and egness, and pnovisions in the develope::ts design eontnol guidelines favor highfy flamable matenials (see letterl page s 15 6J6 ). Roaning Fork Schoof Distnict: Requests . 58 aci:e rof tand or the dollar val-ue thereof and advises that bus senvice extension to that ar:ea is not presently planned (see.l-etter, page L7 ). Mount Sopris Soi] Consenvation Distr:ict: Points out the following: a need to an on-site investigation befor.e constnucting, dnainage must be kept open and in good wor:king or:den, d R.O.W. agreement along the inrigation ditch should be provided fo:: (see letter, page 18 ). Colonado Depa::tment of Heatth: Suggests that the West Glenwood Springs Water Distnict shoul-d be capable of serving the development, and also points out that an engineened system will most likely be nequined fon each of the seven northern l-ots (see letter, page 19 ). Buneau of Land Management: Do not object to the proposal but caution about debris flow (see letter, page 20 ). 8. Colo::ado State Depantment of Highways: Estimate that there will be an ad- ditionaf 290 vehicles pen day impacting the intersection at the West Glenwood I-70 intenchange and reminds Garfield County that it is their: responsibility to eventually channelize these intersections (see letten, page 27 ). o 10. 7t City of Glenwood Spnings City Engineer has several questions and concerns (see pages_ 24 t 15). Glenwood Spnings FIne Depa::tment: page 26_ _. Made several- recommendations, see letten, STAFT COMMENTS: Envinonmental Health(septic and central) Depar.tment recommends approval of the dual- sewage as pnoposed (see letter:, page t 27. ). systems 60 feet as northenn Road and Bridge Department indicates that the minimum county R.O.W. is opposed to the p::oposed 50r. Suggests that Mitchetl Cneek Count (the r.oad) be pr.ivately owned and maintained fo:r the foltowing reasons: 1". Severity of the cuts and fills to buitd the noads. 2. Necessity of the netaining wal1s. 3. Lack of a cul-de-sac bul-b where the r"oad tenmlnates. Planning Depar:tment is eoncerned that there should be some pnovision to incorporatea traiJ- system along the entir:e length of Mitchell Creek. Subdivision regulation 5.07.01 requines a 30 foot set-back from the high water mark on the bank of a cr:eek. From the Drainage Pl-an submitted, it appears that the applicant has measured the 30 feet from the centenline of the cneek. Once cornected, this would change the building envelopes shown for the lots 14 and 15. Section 5.02.05 requii:es that any retaining structures be designed in detail with cost estimates and that a revegetation plan be submitted fon all cut and fill slopes with a slope in excess of one foot verticaf in three foot ho::izontal. Pa e:' 2. The par:k shoul-d be dedieated to and be maintained by the home owners association. This should be clear"Iy addressed in the covenants, conditions, and restnictions of the pnoject. Lots 5 - 2! are shown with a 10 foot f:ront yard set-back. This should be increased to 25 feet. section 6.00 of the subdivision Regulations indicates a fee of $100'00 + $5'00 per acre which equates to $314.50. The applicant has only paid $fZS.fO. The access from County Road 132 crosses approximately 180 feet of pl"operty not within the pnoposal. The engineering geology report submitted states the following: !. Maintenance access to the improved mudflow channel-s must be incor"porated into the p1at. 2. Centain lots may be vulnerable to some ffooding and this potential problem shoul-d be addr:essed by houses being buil-t up 2 feet on stem wall-s on impor'ting fifl to buil_d a levee on building the entire area up two feet. PREV]OUS ACTION The sketch plan and r:ezoning fon this proposal was appnoved by the Board of County Commissioners on Ap::i1 1-2, 7gB2 with the following 11 conditions: CONDITION 1. That the southerly access off 130 Road have some pr?ovision fon an inte::mediarY tur-n around. MITIGATION: Modified cul-de-sac as shown on pJ.at. CONDITION 2. That the county neceive a detail-ed 1OO yean floodplain study for: Mitchell Creek at Pneliminary Plat. MITIGATION: Addnessed in submittal packet. CONDITION 3: That the existing and potential deb::is fl-ow pnoblems be addressed in detail- with mitigation measunes at Pneliminar"y P1at. MITIGATION: Addnessed in submittal- packet. CONDITION 4: That some consid.eration be given to pnoviding centnal sewer to lots 23-29 if it is Practical. MITIGATION: Add::essed 1n submittal paeket as impnactical' C6NDITION 5: That the question of wate:: senvice be resolved at Preliminany PIat. MITIGATION: Pending positive response fnom Division of Waten Resounces. CONDITION 6: That lots 23-29 be redesigned so that each site is at least 1 acre and is not sPlit bY the access road. MITIGATION: As shown on pnelimina::y p1at. CONDITION 7: That the park site contain active necneation equipment. MITIGATION: Applicant indicated that a rrtot-lott' plan would be pnovided at Final Pl-at. CONDITION 8: That al-l- distu::bed vegetation be restabilized with native on appnopriate matenials . MITIGATION: Addr:essed in submittal packet (revegetation plan) cONDITION g: That the road. senvicing lots 1 -22 not exceed 49o gr^ade within 100 feet of the intersection with 130 Road. MITIGATION: As shown in pnofile submitted. CONDITION 10: That p:rotection of the drtch be resolved to the satisfaction of the ditch comPany. MITIGATION: Not yet provided. CONDITION 11: That the County Road Supe::visor look at the aceess noads for standard nequinements. MITIGATION: Leona::d Bowlby has neviewed the plans. Page 10 FINDINGS t. The Publ-ic Hearing has been p::openly advertised. 2. The certified maifings have been pnoperly sent. 3. The nequest does not eonflict with the Comprehensive P1an. 4. A11 pentinent regulations and pr"ocedures have been fol-lowed to date. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Commission moved-r.to.:n,ee'ommend approval to the Board oF County Commissioner"s on July 14, 7982 with the fol.lowing eonditions: t. Developer pay remainden of $139.50 submittal fee. 2. The developer commit to specific improvements (as determined acceptable by the Board of County Commissioners on their authonized representative) in their Subdivision Impnovements Agr-eement p:rion to Final PIat, for the following: a. Pank including pj-ay equipmentl b. Trail system (along Mitchetl Creek and connecting the two cul-de-sacs); c . Al1 ::etaining walls; d. Flood-proofing of any .Iots suseeptible to the 100 yean floodplain; e. Revegetation of a.l-l ::oad cuts and fills; f. Dol-Ia:r figures for their: fair share of eventua-I channelization of State Highway 6 t 2+ with County Roads 132 and 133; g. Sidewalks, cur:bs, and gutten for Creekside Count; h. Fir:e hydnants and street lighting, paving, bnidges, culverts, diversion ditches; i. Debr:is flow mitigation. 3. Fire Mitigation Pl-an be submitted by f inal plat r.easonably addnessing the coricerns of the Cofonado State For.est Service. 4. The dol}ar value of .58 acr"e of l-and be paid to the Roaring Fonk School- Distr:ict at Final Pl-at. 5. Agreement between the ditch company and the pnopenty owner?s be supplied prion to Final Plat. 6. Mitchell Cneek Cou::t be pnivately owned and maintained (it was r:ep:resented at sketch ptan that all- roads would be privately owned and maintaj-ned. 7. Proof of legat access fnom County Road 1,32 to Mitchefl Cneek Court be pr:ovided pni-o:: to Final Plat. 8. 30 foot set-back be shown on Final- Plat from high-water. line on Mitchell Creek and suitable building envelopes delineated. 9. Park and open space to be dedicated to the home owners association and maintenance theneof provided for in the covenants. 10. Maintenance access to the improved mudflow channels be pr:ovided for on the finaf pl-at. !7. Plat note be pnovided indicating that school buses witl not necessanily aecess Mitchell Cneek Court (if and when bus senviee is avai-lab].e in that a:rea). 12. A plat note be provi.ded indicating that l-ots 23-29 will utilize evapotranspir- ation septic systems (to satisfy the concerns of the Colorado Geological Sunvey). 13. A11 fots have a building envelope shown on the Final Plat. 14. Lots 5-21 have a 25r set-back shown on the building envelopes. 15. Developen address and/or incl-ude within the Subdivision Improvements Agreement the fol-lwoing items prion to Final- Plat, 6s suggested ry the City of Glenwood Spr.ings unglnee::: ( see pages ,* ^l ol S{ ): DRAINAGE answelr, items 1-3 ROAD DESIGN. item 3 WATER, items 1-3 WATER/WASTEWATER ltems 1-6 and 8-15 16. The Division of Water Resoui:ces necommend app::oval of the legal water supply prio:: to submittal of final pl-at. Page 11