HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 12.03.1990• •
BOCC 12/3/90
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Cedar Ridge Farm Preliminary Plan
OWNER/APPLICANT: Sandra Smith
PROJECT ENGINEER: Dean Gordon, P.E.
LOCATION: A parcel of land situated in the SW
1/4 of Section 12 and the N 1/2 of
Section 13, T7S, R88W of the 6th
P.M.; located approximately four (4)
miles north of Highway 82 on C.R.
103 (Crystal Springs Road) across
from the Hawk Ridge Subdivision.
SITE DATA: The site consists of 105.5 acres.
WATER: Individual wells.
SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
ACCESS: Proposed private access road off
C.R. 103.
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site is located in District C - Rural Areas with Minor
Environmental Constraints as designated on the Comprehensive
Plan Management District's map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
A. Site Description: The property is located in a rural
area of the County, with uses in the vicinity being
single family residential and ranching. The property
consists of a north -south trending valley and its side
slopes. The property drains from south to north in an
intermittent channel. The valley floor consists of
grasslands and irrigated pasture. The side slopes are
vegetated with scattered pinon/juniper and oak trees. At
the north end of the property is a single family
residence and an enclosed riding arena.
B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to divide
the 105 acre tract into 7 single family lots ranging in
size from 4.4 to 17.6 acres in size. The 8th lot of 46
acres would be retained by the owner for grazing and
pasture purposes.
C. Background: In 1982, the applicants submitted a Sketch
Plan for Cedar Ridge Farm. At that time, the submittal
was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners (see enclosed staff comments, [pages
]) . No major objections were voiced at that time to
the submittal. The current Preliminary Plan submittal is
similar in design to the approved Sketch Plan reviewed in
1982.
• •
III. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Colorado Geological Survey: No major geological
impediments exist in this area. Major concerns are
foundation design, adequate grading and drainage and
radon mitigation (see letter on page ).
B. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: Their concerns
include preservation of existing irrigated lands, soil
erosion and adequate dog control (See letter on page
C. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Requested that
plat notes and protective covenants be developed
consistent with water augmentation plan limitations.
Noted that the water report by Dean Gordon indicated hard
water. (See letter pages
D. Colorado Department of Health: Notice that ISD systems
must meet county and state requirements.
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Design: Six (6) of the 8 proposed lots are located on
the hillside slopes above the valley floor. Slopes on
these lots, particularly Lots 1-4, range upwards to 25%.
These slopes may present difficulty for wastewater and
foundation design as well as requiring substantial
excavation, Lots 7 and 8 are located on gentler terrain
in the valley floor.
Vegetation removal for homesite development should be
minimal with the exception of Lots 2 and 3 where
substantial amounts of pinyon/juniper oak scrub exist.
B. Roads: The applicants are proposing to extend an
internal roadway from C.R. 103 into a "K" turn -around
adjacent to Lots 1 and 2. This roadway will consist of
a 24 foot wide platform with 10' travel lanes and 2'
shoulders within a 50' right-of-way. The proposed
surface is gravel. There is currently an existing
roadway within this alignment varying in width from 16 to
20 feet. From the "K" turn -around, a lesser width road
right-of-way will extend to Lots 6 and 7. (See enclosed
map on page
Section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations state that
private roadways may be permitted provided they meet all
requirements of the regulations including design stand-
ards. Minimum standards for this type road include a 28'
driving surface width (includes minimum 2' shoulders) and
a chip and seal surfacing treatment.
Section 9:34 allows cul-de-sacs in excess of 600' in
length if acceptable for fire protection purposes. A
minimum cul-de-sac turn -around radius of 50' is required.
No provisions for "K" turn-arounds are included in the
Subdivision Regulations. In addition, contributions (ie.
chip and seal surfacing) towards the upgrading of C.R.
103 may also be required. Specific contributions will be
determined at a later date. f„
Y�.
Water: The applicants are proposing individual wells on
each of the proposed lots. Two potential groundwater re-
sources exist in the vicinity, in the shall alluvial
deposits and in the underlying basalts. Typically, the
basaltic deposits yield higher quality and more reliable
water. The existing well on Lot 7 is in bedrock at a
depth of 186' and produces upwards of 50 g.p.m. Typical
yields would probably be 5 to 25 g.p.m.
The applicants have approved water rights and an
augmentation plan for the construction of 7 wells. This
plan provides .03 CFS for domestic in-house use, lawn and
garden irrigation, stock watering and fire protection.
The property is traversed by an irrigation ditch which
waters the irrigated pasture land. It is unknown whether
the applicant intends to transfer any of these rights to
future lot owners.
E. Wastewater: The applicants are purporting that septic
tank/leachfield system will suffice for wastewater dis-
posal purposes. I.S.D.S. systems are currently in place
on Lots 6 and 7 serving the existing residence and riding
arena. S.C.S. soil survey data indicates that there may
be severe limitations for septic tank/absorption fields
due to the steep slopes and presence of large stones.
F. Fire Protection: The subject property is located within
the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. No
response from the District has been received to date.
The applicants are proposing a 5000 gallon cistern for
fire fighting supply.
G. Drainage: Stormwater runoff will be collected through a
series of existing culverts and routed through natural
drainage courses. Runoff will leave the property heading
northward concentrated into an intermitted stream bed.
No significant increase in stormwater runoff should be
generated by the development proposal.
H. Wildlife: No response has been received from the
Division of Wildlife regarding impacts of wildlife.
Covenants will restrict the number of dogs and require
that they be kenneled to reduce potential for conflicts
with wintering deer and elk.
I. Utilities: The applicants are proposing to place
underground electric service within the 50' road right-
of-way. No reference to telephone service has been
indicated in the application.
V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
A. That proper publication, public notice and posting were
provided as required by law for the hearing before the
Planning Commission; and
B. 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 that hearing; and
C. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general
compliance with the recommendations set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the
County; and
D. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and
E. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and
designs as are required by the State of Colorado and
Garfield County have been submitted and, in addition,
have been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
On September 12, 1990, the Planning Commission recom-
mended APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within
• •
the application or stated at the public hearing before
the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise stated by the Planning
Commission.
2. That the applicant shall reserve a tract of adequate size
in a central location for a community dumpster. The
tract shall include a concrete pad with wood fencing or
masonry walls for screening purposes. This tract shall
be dedicated to the homeowner's association and reserved
in perpetuity for this purpose. The homeowner's
association shall be responsible for the upkeep and
maintenance of this tract.
3. That the homeowner's association shall be incorporated in
accordance with C.R.S. requirements.
4. That the applicant shall submit a subdivision improve-
ments agreement addressing all on-site and off-site
improvements prior to the submittal of a Final Plat.
5. That the applicant shall submit improvement plans for all
roadway improvements prior to the submittal of a Final
Plat.
6. That the following plat notes shall be included on the
Final Plat:
1. Soils test and engineered foundations shall be
required on Lots 1-3 and may be required on all
other lots.
2. Engineered wastewater systems may be required.
3. Wildfire prevention guidelines of the U.S.F.S.
should be incorporated in site planning and
residential design.
7. That the proposed roadway shall be constructed in accord-
ance with Sections 9.34 and 9.35 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
8. That the applicants shall provide written endorsement
from the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
9. That the applicants shall provide written authorization
by the Carbondale Fire District consenting to the cul-de-
sac design.
10. That all utilities shall be placed underground.
11. That the applicant shall submit $200 per lot in School
Impact Fees prior to the submittal of the Final Plat or
in conjunction with the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement.
12. That the water rights for the domestic wells be trans-
fered to the Homeowner's Association or the individual
lot buyers.
13. That the applicant shall make provision for repayment of
pavement costs to the Hawkridge developers as identified
in their Subdivision Improvements Plan.
14. That the applicants shall modify Article 3 of the pro-
posed "Protective Covenants" to bring them into compat-
ibility with minimum zoning regulations.
15. All recommendations of the Division of Water Resources in
their 9-11-90 letter shall be incorporated into the Final
Plat and the applicants covenants.
16. The applicants shall (chip and seal) surface C.R. 103
from the end of the pavement to the entrance of the Cedar
Ridge Farm.
• •
CEDAR'RIDGE SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN
Owner: Sandy Smith - Cedar Ridge Farm, 3059 103 Road, Carbondale, CO 81623
Planner: Jim Curtis - Real Estate Affilites, 300 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
Location: Approximately 4 miles north of Highway 82 on County Road 103 (Crystal Spgs. Rd)
Site Data: The parcel is a 102 acre parcel of gently rollinr topography located above
Cattle Creek to the north.
Water: Proposed from individual wells on each lot.
Sewer: Individual septic systems on each lot.
Existing Zoning: A/R/RD (Agricultural, Residential, Rural Density)
Adjacent Zoning: North: A/R/RD
South: A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
Adjacent Land Uses: North: Steep terrain to Cattle Creek
South: Agricultural
East: Agricultural
West: Agricultural
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan:
This parcel is located in Management District C, a rural area with minor enviromental
constraints -Page 70 of the Comprehensive Plan. These lands have moderate suitability
to absorb growth. Non-agricultural and non-productive cropland shall be considered
best able to absorb growth. Road access and condition shall be used to evaluate the
relative ability of areas within District C to absorb growth. District C shall be
considered to have a maximum density of one unit per 5 acres.
Any development in District C which is determined to have a high degree of visual
impact shall receive special attention to building siting, etc.
Description of Proposal:
A) The site is located on agricultural land which seems to be phasing out of
production. The site is primarily vegetated with clusters of oak, juniper,
and pinion with irrioated areas of hay. The site is gently rolling and
slopes to the north toward Cattle Creek.
B) The project consists of 7 single family lots ranging in size from 5 acres to
17 acres. There is proposed an 8th lot of 46 acres to be used and maintained
as pasture land for horses.
Major Concerns and Issues:
A) The applicant is proposing that the existing dirt road into the property be
retained "as is" as a private road. It is against county policy to allow
private roads and it is inappropriate to allow subdivisions to have access
off substandard internal access streets:
B) The applicant is also proposing individual wells on each lot as opposed to a
central water system. The commission should pay special attention to this
request because the county has not approved, in recent times, any subdivisions
over 6 lots on individual wells. Individual wells, each with a plan for
augmentation, do not represent, in the staff's opinion, a major prohlem to
water supply for the subdivision.
c) Fire protection is a major issue for the subdivision. The applicant proposes
individual 1,000 gallon cisterns on each lot. No comment has been received
from the Carbondale Fire Department regarding cisterns of this size, but should
be available by the Planning Cori i ss ion meeting.
D) Hawk Ridge Subdivision has been required to chip and seal County Road 103 from
the existing paved portion to their project. Cedar Ridge Subdivision should be
required to extend the paving to their access. Cedar Ridge and Hawk Ridge
Subdivision should be required to share in the costs of improvements to County
Road 103 on a per/lot basis.
E) The preliminary soils report indicates that there may be potential limitations
for septic systems because of soils. Individual perk tests should be preformed
on each lot to determine whether standard or engineered septic systems will he
required.
V5/5/„.1
t\JA.
i
FINDINGS:
This proposal seems compatible with the precedent which has been set for larger lot
sizes in this part of Missouri Heights. The proposal also meets the basic provisions
of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the staff does not find any major objectives
to this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
cAlo
1) That the major access road within the subdivision be constructed to county standards.
2) That the issue of fire protection be addressed in detail at preliminary plat and
comply with the recommendations of the Carbondale Rural Fire District.
3) That Cedar Ridge Subdivision he required to extend the paved portion of 103 Road
to their access and share in the costs of road improvements with Hawk Ridge
Subdivision on a cost per/lot basis.
4) That perk tests be performed on each lot to determine whether standard or engineered
septic systems will be necessary.
5)---- A Ouc6,, 4.c ^'-• oLo--�
,c.,,,re,c,o... ,ovr,0 i,_e_ .0-e,v)Ziz,t).wz
0 .A'Ai\-e'Q i21-2-- eCiz6L' „ Oeiffe4,v, _in .
-Zt-d- ---gc Ap-A,0 A,(‘*,:,,S. . i
i
GA -91-0004
ROY R. ROMER
GOVERNOR
August 23, 1990
•40110 Ikt14
c4 4 E'\
0
\t,;,
* _
/876
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET -71
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611 (,1
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planner
109 8th Street, #303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
_r
�.Y
r
• l�Ur.:291990 i;( I
RE: Cedar Ridge Farm
Dear Mr. McGregory:
We have reviewed the materials submitted regarding this proposal and the
general and engineering geology of the area.
Proper foundation design, adequate grading and drainage and radon mitigation
are the critical issues in this area.
The foundation design and grading/drainage recommendations found in the
Chen/Northern and Lincoln DeVore reports should be followed.
Structural design or HVAC systems should be modified to minimize the
potential for radon gas accumulation in occupied buildings.
If these conditions are met, we have no objections to the approval of this
subdivision.
Yours Very Truly,
0
(J (1 (1
Jeffrey L. Hynes
Senior Engineering Geologist
1n1:JLH-91-5100
6081
17 Av-c-d-
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE
;'i
Mow. 'Tis Soil Conservation District
P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
August 3, 1990
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Andrew:
J ir-r 171 1----N
ruC a 1990 1_
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
the Board reviewed the plans for Cedar Ridge Farm.
Since they had reviewed a plan for this property in the past, they were very
familiar with the property.
Some of the concerns they did note were that although a table was shown using
the SCS soil symbols, they felt that the complete information sheets on each
of these soils are very helpful to those reviewing as well as the landowners.
Since this service is provided without cost by the Soil Conservation Service,
they would urge that the material be included in full in packets.
Since irrigation is used on this land, the Board recommends that continued use
of the ditch be preserved for homeowners' use, and any erosion the ditch may
cause or have within the ditch be controlled as much as possible.
As always, the Board is concerned about soil and water preservation, and encourages
the use of measures that ensure water quality as well as control of soil
erosion.
With this area being one with wildlife populations, the Board recommends that
strict control of animals, especially dogs, be maintained.
Again, the Board appreciates being allowed to make comments on development within
their boundaries.
Sincerely,
Dee Blue, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
1
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT
it �Y �•: �.,'-.i �. �. 1'11 t ., G:�.. .�. �.,. , {.fit; -r.
ROY ROMER
Governor
18
76
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street -Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
September 11, 1990
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Cedar Ridge Farm Preliminary Plan
SE1/4 NW1/4, Section 13, T7S, R87W
Dear Mr. McGregor:
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
1 .,
1 t
!990
NTY
i/
We have reviewed the above referenced submittal for a subdivision of
105.5 acres into seven residential lots. The proposed water supply source is
individual wells. An augmentation plan (Case No. 81CW497) has been approved
in Water Court. The seven proposed wells are each limited by the augmentation
plan to single-family in -house -uses, non-commercial lawn and garden irrigation
of up to 0.04 acres, fire protection, and the watering of livestock.
Plat notes and protective convenants should be promulgated to limit water
uses to those discussed above. The homeowner's association should have powers
to enforce these restrictions. The water rights used to replace depletions
from the wells in this subdivision should be conveyed to the homeowner's
association. One individual should be designated to be specifically
responsible for these water issues and his name and telephone number should be
provided to our Division Engineer and Water Commissioner.
A water supply report prepared by Mr. Dean W. Gordon was submitted
indicating that there is sufficient physical supply to serve the development.
This report also indicates that the water quality is satisfactory although it
mentions that "typically ... the water from these wells tends to be classified
as "hard" with respect to mineral content and high in dissolved solids."
As long as the
approval of this
amended copy of the
above issues are adequately addressed, we can recommend
subdivision proposal. However, we would like to see an
protective convenants prior to final platting.
Sincerely,
James R. Hall, P.E.
Supervising Water Resources Engineer
JRH/JCM/clf:3073I
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Bruce DeBrine
Ai
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
222 So. 6th St., Room 232
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
September 6, 1990
Telefax:
(303) 322-9076 (Main Building/Denver)
(303) 320-1529 (Ptarmigan Place/Denver)
(303) 248-7198 (Grand junction Regional Office)
Garfield County Planning Department
Attn: Andrew McGregor, Planner
109 8th Street
Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Roy Romer
Governor
Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.
Executive Director
Re: Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision Preliminary Plan, Garfield County
Dear Andrew:
I have reviewed the preliminary plan for Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision and
offer the following comments:
1. The ISD Systems proposed must meet all county and state
requirements.
2. Is the proposed subdivision located too far away from Carbondale
to utilize Carboridale's central water or wastewater facilities?
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 248-7150.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Bowman, P.E.
West Slope Unit Leader
Water Quality Control Division
RHB/ck
cc: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
Denver -Planner and Standards
File
cr)
L21
liode/ine Larson
;t. Suite 101
,'do 81611
cribed.
1 cap L.S. 15710.
N 00'1 9'40
17.6 Acs.±
iuments as shown.
•rr with the right to
'ed by the United Slates
ler J0, 1941, in Book 205
t.
'cipating royalty of 1/32 of
•1 in Document No. 214013
and Imo Renft/e.
vcE
115.08'
J7. J4'
105.66'
9614'
143.24'
42.09'
70.39'
15736'
76.53'
95.46'
16.10'
6758'
:09.40'
IJ6.94'
739_33'
57.78_
97.27'
179.07'
40.35'
174.20'
122.39'
76.44'
171.00'
65.4-4'
18.79'
29.7'
61.77'
75.00'
105.23'
47.87'
106.55'
46.05'
23.86'
99.34'
•
I.or 7
ru
L.,,
co
Richard Honig
3057103 Rd
Carbondale, CO 11/623
1-
If
r3. f C7 C5 174
7i?gs L28 125
JO' Access an
J0' Access and Ufihty Easement Hca \ \ MO, Easement
I.01 6 �
9.5 Acs,±
9t\\\
•
\\ /
4
!" w
Q
,
S 8758'57"
352.93'
Karl C. and Madeline Larson
201 ,7 Mill St. Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
5 80'79'JO` E 1077'Ja:
6.75'7
J65 61,
LOT 8
46.1 Acs.±
7 e s
406.30.
I._O F
7.3 Acs.±
N p
a �
F
Karl 6'. and Madeline Larson
2n r 11. Mill St. Suite 101
N 7,14 00me1.
Section IJ, r 7 S, R 88 W
08
762,34'
379.39'
7.75
LOT 1
6.0 Acs.±
Hammerhead/
Turnaround 4'u
1 �u
4'
0.18
C17
ut
S 84'16'27 E
S 81'48'42' W
431.84'
LOT 2
4.4 Acs.±
s 83'47'51"
344.09'
4 LOT 3
of c16 4.6 Acs.±
�1 G
p7•
210.00•
0
✓
0,
\n
Li4
tn
lv 0
John c
• C.4
00 .. c!o Pe
101 Cc
▪ it
Son Fi'
1,1
SCALE . /" •
BLM
C15
•
C14
C13 (108
\ 712
N 8701'50` E
205.37'
cl1
ay
LOT 4
7.0 Acs.±
0..10
50.00'
cj
CO00'1 R
La 8