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