The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 PC Staff Report 12.14.1983• • PC 12/14/83 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Sketch Plan APPLICANT: Kenneth and Sara Straight LOCATION: Section 35 and 36, T4S, R91W located NW of New Castle up Main Elk Creek. ACCESS: SEWER: Off County Road 243, by way of an easement One existing individual septic disposal system and a proposed individual septic disposal system. WATER: Existing well to serve both parcels SITE DATA: The site is 12 acres in size ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: North - A/R/RD South - A/R/RD East - O/S West - A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site sits within Districts C & E of the Comprehensive Plan. These districts are Rural areas with Minor Environmental Constraints and Rural Areas with Severe to Moderate Environmental Constraints. The Comprehensive Plan reads that Areas within District C & E outside of a one mile radius of District A shall have a density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Site Description: The site is 12 acres in size. It consists of a 20' access leading off County Road 226 to the 12 acre site. The access is a common access for three parcels. The site consists of two general areas, steep hillside and creek bottom. The hillsides appear to exceed 40o slope. Currently there is one mobile home on the 12 acre site. The parcel adjacent and to the south of the site is a 5 acre site with a mobile home. The third lot which uses the common access but is not adjacent to the site is 5 acres and has an existing home. B. Description of the Proposal The applicants wish to divide the 12 acre parcel into two lots of 10 acres and 2 acres. They will retain the 2 acre lot and sell the 10 acre lot. History - In 1979 (Resolution #79-100), Darrell and Lillian Reed obtained a S.B. 35 exemption to divide a 170 acre tract into 3 tracts of approximately 5.5, 5.5. and 158 acres. These two 5 acre tracts are the lots which now share access with the applicant's 12 acre lot. In 1981 (Resolution #81-216), the Reeds were granted another S.B. 35 exemption to create the applicant's 12 acre lot. Initially, the Reeds were requesting 10 acres rather than 12 acres be exempted. Iiowever, prior to the Resolution of Approval being signed for the 10 acre exemption, the Reeds requested that an additional 2 acres be added. Thus, the final Resolution of Approval is for the 12 acre lot. In 1981 • • (Resolution #81-286), the applicants were issued a Special Use Permit to allow a mobile home as a principal use of their 12 acre lot. The Special Use Permit had no stipulation as to the length of time the mobile home could remain on the parcel. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS Review Agency Comments: 1. The Division of Water Resources - no official letter of approval has been received from the Division of Water Resources. However, in conversation with Keith Kepler from the Division of Water Resources, he indicated that the well could be used to serve two households. IV. STAFF COMMENTS 1. When the applicants' request was taken to the Board of County Commissioners for referral to the Planning Commission, it was taken as a Sketch Plan with request for exemption from full subdivision review. Because the parcel was created through the S.B. 35 exemption process in 1981, the Commissioners felt that the Sketch Plan should be referred to the Planning Commission but that no exemption should be allowed due to the wording on Resolution #81-286 that stated no further exemption shall be allowed on the 12 acre parcel. Therefore, the request before the Planning Commission is a request for Sketch Plan with no request for exemption from full subdivision review. 2. The soils report required in the Sketch Plan application is Soil Conservation Service information, is a very general report that states that it is not to be used in place of an on-site investigation. This report is the report which is required at the Sketch Plan level. However, from an on-site investigation, it appears that the property could be subject to sloughing or slumping on the steep hillside on the east side of the creek. There was also evidence of severe erosion and cutting along the creek indicating possible flooding hazards. In the Spring of 1982, part of the access road leading to the applicants' mobile home was damaged by flooding. 3. The buildable sites on the proposed 10 acre lot is severely limited due to the steepness of the hillside and the potential flooding near the creek. The applicants feel that there are two potential building sites; one on the east side of the creek and one on the west. The site on the east side of the creek would require cutting away part of the hillside and cutting a drive up to the site. The site to the west side of the creek is currently inaccessable due to the lack of legal access. (The site could be reached by crossing the creek at the existing bridge and then constructing an additional bridge to cross back over the creek at a point on the proposed 10 acre sit). 4. The neighbors of the applicants who share the common access across the creek are opposed to the subdivision on the basis of access. Adding an additional lot would mean another family using the access road and the bridge. -13- • • 5. It is questionable as to whether or not the proposal could meet the requirements of 5.04.02 in the Garfield County Zoning regulations regarding Development Limitations Based on Lot Slope. 5.04.02 states that "land whose original and undisturbed slope is or was in excess of 40% shall not be credited toward lot area in determining whether a lot meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth in the zone district regulations". The A/R/RD zone district requires 2 acres. In addition, this section contains development requrements for developments where slopes are greater than 40% (see page 15 )• 6. The applicants have notified all their adjacent land owners of their proposal (see pages 16-19). 7. The access easement does not have a limitation on its expansion or ability to serve additional lots. V. FINDINGS 1. The application for Sketch Plan meets the requirements set forth in Section 4.01.01 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The acreage requirements for the A/R/RD zone district with regard to Section 5.04.02 of the Zoning Regulations is undetermined. 3. The proposed residential land use is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. VI. RECOMMENDATION The concerns associated with this project are access, soils stability and lot size. If the lot size was found to be adequate for the zone district, the soils stability question would be answered at preliminary plan submittal. The common access controversy is one which will not be resolved even at Preliminary Plan. The Planning Commission should take the following conditions into consideration if the Sketch Plan is approved. 1. That a waterline easement and well access easement to the 10 acre parcel must be established at Preliminary Plan and noted on the final plat. 2. A detailed soils and floodplain report must be submitted at preliminary plat. 3. Evidence must be provided that the lot area meets the re- quirements of Section 5.004.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations prior to final approval of the Sketch Plan. • • 70 L � 5.04 SUPPLEMENTARY LOT AREA REGULATIONS 5.04.01 Lot Slope Determinations: In determining lot slopes for use in establishing minimum lot area requirements and buildable area, existing and proposed lots of less than two acres shall be calculated on an individual lot basis. Contour intervals of five (5) feet or less shall be used to make this determination. For lots of two or more acres in size and tracts of land proposed for other methods of development wherein creation of individual lots within said tract is not anticipated, the determination of lot slope shall be made utilizing available topographic maps. 5.04.02 Development Limitations Based on Lot Slope: Land whose original and undisturbed slope is or was in excess of 400 shall not be credited toward lot area in determining whether a lot meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth in the zone district regulations, except that up to one-half of the requirement for open space may be comprised of lands in excess of 40% in slope, and no structures or use involving the disturbance of the land shall be allowed unless lateral support is provided to any affected adjacent landowners, as demonstrated by the materials required by this section. (A. 80-180) In addition to all other requirements of this Resolution and all other County regulations, the following special requirements shall apply to development where slopes are greater than 40%, and the required materials listed hereunder shall be submitted with the permit application: 1.2 (1) A soil and foundation investigation must be prepared and bear the seal of a registered, professional engineer. (2) Foundations must be designed by and bear the seal of a registered, professional engineer. (3) A topographic survey must be prepared by a registered surveyor, with contour intervals of not more than two feet. (4) Structures must be designed by a licensed architect. (5) A site grading and drainage plan shall be required. (6) A detailed plan of retaining wallsor cuts, and fills in excess of five feet, shall be required. (7) A detailed revegetation plan shall be required. GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: 945-8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 945-2339 / BUILDING: 945-8241 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Cindy Houben, Planner Ed Feld, Environmental Health Officer December 7, 1983 Letter of Feasibility for Sewage Disposal - Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth W. Straight, request for exemption Based on the information received by this office and past experience with sewage disposal facilities in the immediate area of the proposed exemption, this office has determined and believes on-site sewage dis- posal facilities to be both feasible and practical, commensurate with both County and State regulations, provided proper permits are obtained prior to construction. It should be further noted that due to the known conditions, only the following types of on-site sewage disposal systems would be acceptable, provided unforseen problems are not encountered: x Approved septic tank and subsurface absorption area Approved septic tank and sealed dispersal system Approved septic tank and unsealed dispersal system System designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer Other as specified: NOTE: Due to the increasing density of housing in the area of the request, I would recommend a site review to assure required set backs from property lines, wells, and Elk Creek be conducted prior to any final approval. 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 ro--iL- ,-Q.- 0-ec—aa YuL.eLud- . 42etz1 7g4400. RICHARD D. LAMM Governor 1666H • • OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 December 8, 1983 Ms. Cynthia M. Houben Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Straight Exemption Section 36, T4S, R91W Dear Ms. Houben: JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to split 12.02 acres. This tract was previously created by the Reed exemption. The property is served by well number 122037. We could not make an additional well available since the tract was created by a prior exemption. The applicants indicate they would be agreeable to sharing the well. We would not object to sharing the well if the following provisions are met: 1. The well should be located on an outlot owned in common by all property owners using the well. Access to the well and the right to establish and maintain a pipeline shall be provided by easements where necessary. 2. The well should be jointly owned by the lot owners. 3. Covenants and/or other mechanisms should establish a lot owners association with powers to make decisions concerning management and operation of the well. A joint maintenance agreement is a required part of such an association. Sincerely, 1 D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer HDS/KCK:ma cc: Orlyn Bell, Div. Eng. Ralph Stallman ..,,, , DE.,12. 1983 riatuzaz ca p •4, y Pa Ci /6 t �2� vi/(0// W Ate/ 'CtI/11/Pri1C51-1--( ptoc„ /pr4 A.6,-( pa -e -c; 4zra c7(g / f 7>Z6; 46/ -e "e4Lee eede, thC.VLA/Cet-C;2;(7;L- E� 0 0 3 �� • e?" -1-2" Ziet- a7 _,Y,e , 6, .ze_.-. ---'2:-.1--e01-7/ ---G, ,?-- ----V-te1W---4/ ,- /e_ Ae,e/ &1--.._,-46s/ __;00(—) 9IZG-1 -.1.4-;.1 ,e..-0 4/L4' evvi afe , �, � 7 e 3 -b Lc r GLD v✓i . �yrtq�i �c - - -- - )-2 a C.�2 �Yl�U /2i4/ -t / v, oc Spew �vr` cuh Cr n ) Q ua. auv,d"� V ,r1 -E- 4 -)///t/z--1.- e t~ � a �- C a G A 4 g-ee_ 61 / 73. #e)e, c7 -72.e c 2 C‘74' ,,e--erte-0—)1 7- c-3 :5',e4.1) t 9,61.-- tra44.4-,:7X 7^; £e( / G c ��:i Y _sJo�a Je �-2 0,„ 72, g'"" rfla4,6„ 6,23y a� /y 7 4V(, qp 0---u4k NIAALCIA (‘)) )G-024u;ikel Utrittni'i-sc ), 44-01J0-1 • 4OLCtLO v,t,t4-14, Gc / 0 a cit),_ J-0444. utAk ,tLQ0 14244x - I a uLt )p) -L -cid - - L'\1A (PUO- 12C)LN): diet ir)3(5 7,31-(0 )4(4 c024:t6Cto Nvy 7-D1 ?' ,/ - /l ,,Q4..VC/ / zi_/ , �e g e2, LL-J-ic 6/,(-e-ei, -&k4-4e-e-- /- 6 7a ti l /.7-�, c2 &&_,E4 / &,,‘ez-74-2-,,Qr. ./ E2.?,,, ,01;--',--i6i--d, /4 kgd.,_,":- k.,/,<2,.,Z21., -,-/2-7` -a, ee// 9 -7 -c -e-) ) -.-/i- 40 --,•-•-,i _ de4.e,6_,(4-6,?-7-z, 1.,ad •lee. -6 1.-ete€/ zz,,,,r ,_, ,,,,,,„, „,, , ed,„,„ , , , ,,_ ,,„, , ,,,, d,/d /, id, • /52°) -- go_& �G��c,ttc-clue. 0��-� rTh