HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.01 PC Staff Report 05.10.2006PC 05/10/06
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Sketch Plan review for the Hunt Ranch Subdivision
APPLICANT / OWNER: Hunt Ranch, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: JAM Development, LLC
OTAK (John McCarty)
LOCATION:
PROPERTY SIZE:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Missouri Heights
561.07 acres
New Central Water System
ISDS
CR 102 (Missouri Heights Road)
ARRD
ARRD / Residential Subdivisions
Study Area I (Medium Density Residential of 6 to <10
ac/du)
:agmb
• .pdmr xa 4-33
r_
'\ LOT 1. 1 S Lo-rd,2O1... 2RS..[m 7 I !
! 25d acIBY1 ....„1......
�er sae. 1xrr is f. wend, I T=` I -moi pMCEL'C"
` 7162.1 s� ,r_ �,T � {{ppT.1 P --.'.` 24 i �� ti r -'` 7II,lian C
1LnT 17 l �� 1 ! -� .4B BCr..2.3i ac[e. gar a2 f �" rtor
TS
! 1 i
1 macre. ,ri Sora. \ 3� 2.{5 ara.YP L+]T!3 rr 27 I I LU1Sa9 1
—L,7,-,—;g—•236a r `Lo,N ,.., i Pi tprpS z aae.1 + sLT
I \ qq;T Y 0 -.118cr2F LO * r3.90 Kies II -LOT 28i
1 317 .e\`R�„ ao .r,[ar----24e i 06.041
1
ti+y 0.16
Oa
PARCEL'A'
93.14www
LOT
0T fp 202 O�TB4
p 4/31.'7--
a0. , - 1 1 / LOT }
zw.. 0T r.1l4�.LLppT&{ 4T6_•- 6H 8�8. ]n4 ocp
ran -74:- r WTd3 s_ 7.MTY 1 ' '. zLer 72
D1:x. 1.t4pxm} .-- P
I s, LOT 62 rlCT G7, LOT Tr t
.f
—..,..k LUT':'.-� 201 aRA 2 t .
dOT9 `--
T,!@ P
yL 2 x[wrP'-
.04 ....,..T.'".
.r a1rTa�
Y�11L9T•LLS 42.01 ur-[aey .y yLOT 1.
LOT PS PAS •
201 aUM1
IATT le
LDT 511
'h1 acne.
CO +lc
OT SS �`--
LAT
•LCLO ae�dB • _-4
1 3 mT 1.2 ' 67 88
1
I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
A. General Property Location / Description
The Hunt Ranch (the Property) contains 561 acres and is generally located approximately 4.5 miles
northeast of Carbondale and 3 miles northwest of El Jebel in the Missouri Heights area in east
Garfield County. The Property is bound on the east by the Garfield / Eagle County line, on the west
by the Strang Ranch, on the north by Panorama Ranches Subdivision, and on the south by CR 102,
King's Row Subdivision and a variety of private land holdings.
The Property consists of rolling topography where approximately 250 -acres consist of active
pasture land with the remaining acreage consisting primarily of juniper / pinyon, sage vegetation.
Presently, uses on the Property are agricultural in nature where 250 acres of the property is devoted
to irrigated hay and pasture production during the growing season as well as serving 150 head of
cattle during the winter months. There are three residences and a variety of structures that all serve
the ranching operations.
B. Proposal
The Applicant requests approval from Garfield County to subdivide 212 acres of the Property into
approximately 93 single-family residential lots while devoting the remainder of the Property to
active agricultural operations and common open space and trails. More specifically, the proposed
land use breakdown is shown here:
Proposed Development Designation Acreage %
➢ 92 Single -Family Residential Lots Lots 3 - 93 212.29 38%
> 1 HOA Office / Property Management Lot 2 2.27 0.05%
➢ 1 Agricultural Lot Lot 1 168 30%
> 5 Common Open Space Parcels
■ Ag / Open Space Parcel A 63.14
• Common Open Space Parcel B 2.54
■ Common Open Space Parcel C 72.15
• Common Open Space Parcel D 2.55
• Common Open Space Parcel E 1.44
141.82 25%
> Internal Subdivision Roadways ROW 26.94 5%
> CR 102 ROW ROW 5.62 1%
TOTAL ACREAGE 561.07 100%
2
II. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The Sketch Plan Application was referred to the following agencies and County departments for
their review and comment. Comments that were received are briefly noted below and more
substantively included in the body of the memorandum.
a. Town of Basalt: Exhibit M
b. Town of Carbondale: No Comments Received, Anticipated
c. Eagle County Planning Department: No Comments Received, Anticipated
d. Carbondale Fire Protection District: Exhibit D
e. RE -1 School District: No Comments Received
f. Colorado State Forest Service: Exhibit P
g. Colorado Department of Transportation: Exhibit A
h. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments Received, Anticipated
i. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit F
j. Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibit E
k. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority: No Comments Received
1. County Road and Bridge Department: Exhibit C
m. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: Exhibit 0
n. Garfield County Sheriff Department: Exhibit B
o. Resource Engineering: Exhibit G
III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located within Study Area I which designates the property as "Medium Density
Residential" on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map which suggests properties in this area
develop residentially at a density of 6 to <10 acres per dwelling unit. The proposed subdivision is
required (at Preliminary Plan) to demonstrate that the plan conforms with or is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan. Note, the Comprehensive Plan includes land use goals, objectives, policies,
programs, and methodology in addition to the proposed land use map. All subdivisions (at the
Preliminary Plan stage) in the County are required to demonstrate that their proposals conform with
or are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
A. Proposed Land Use Districts Map
The proposed development proposes 93 residential lots on a 561 -acre property which results in
an average residential density of 6.03 acres per dwelling unit which falls within the allowable
density range of 6 to <10 acres per dwelling unit. Further, residential development is
specifically contemplated as an appropriate use on the map as defined in the designation itself:
"Medium Density Residential." As a result, it appears the proposed density and use conforms
with is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use Districts Map.
The Town of Basalt commented they support clustering of homesites and also support lowering
the density to 1 unit/10 acres in this rural area. It is not clear from the Application if the
individual lots will be permitted to have ADUs. The Town feels that density could be increased
overall, up to 1 unit/6 acres, by allowing for Additional Dwelling Units (ADU) on individual
lots. (Exhibit M)
B. Goals, Objectives & Policies
The Sketch Plan Application provides an analysis of how the proposed development plan
conforms with and is compatible with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies within the
3
Comprehensive Plan. Staff has identified several Goals, Objectives, and Policies which have not
been fully addressed and which will need to be fully addressed during the Preliminary Plan.
2.0 HOUSING GOALS
To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable
housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures
that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment.
Encourage mix of housing types within a development.
2.0 HOUSING OBJECTIVES
2.1 To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents
throughout Garfield County.
2.5 Residential development should respect the natural characteristics of a particular
site, including topography, vegetation, water features, geology and visual
relationships with surrounding land uses and view sheds.
2.0 HOUSING POLICIES
2.2 To include an assessment of the impact of present and future subdivisions in both
incorporated and unincorporated portions of the County during the subdivision
review process.
Staff Response
The proposal anticipates the construction of single-family dwellings which is also a use -by -right
limitation of the ARRD zoning by which the property is regulated. The zoning precludes the
construction of multi -family dwellings which can be a method to address this goal. The
Comprehensive Plan contains a visual corridor map which is intended to require special
consideration be given to the areas that falls within in as viewed primarily from SH82, I-70,
SH133, and SH13. The Property is not in an identified "visual corridor." Lastly, the Preliminary
Plan will need to include an assessment of the impact of present and future subdivisions in both
incorporated and unincorporated portions of the County during the subdivision review process.
7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES OBJECTIVES
7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on
existing water and sewer systems.
7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer
systems.
7.0 WATER AND SEWER SERVICES POLICIES
7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or sewer
systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and
4
environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before
project approval.
Staff Response
As many of the letters from neighbor's and concerned citizens assert, it appears wells drilled on
the Property are feared to impact neighboring water supplies. The Applicant drilled two test
wells and pump tested them while monitoring a neighboring well to which there was no affect
during the test. This is a limited analysis of the impact that wells on the Property will have on
surrounding water sources.
The second objective listed above strongly discourages the proliferation of private water and
sewer systems. The project proposes a central water system similar to Panorama Ranches and
Kings Row which surround the Property. It appears this objective was written due to the fear
that private systems can have operational issues that are controlled by an HOA; this system is
not dissimilar to surrounding subdivisions and provides 250,000 gallons of water that can be
devoted to fire protection in the Missouri Heights area.
As Policy 7.1 states, all development proposals in rural areas without existing central water
and/or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and
environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project
approval. Ultimately, the State Division of Water Resources will review the legal and physical
attributes of the water system and will provide a determination that the proposed system results
in either a material injury to decreed water rights or not.
IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS
The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of
the ARRD zone district.
A. Proposed Uses
The Applicant proposes single-family residential development on 93 lots which is
contemplated as a "use by right" in the A/R/RD zone district and is therefore consistent with
the underlying zone district. For other uses, the Applicant should consult Section 3.02 of the
Zoning Resolution.
However, note that the Applicant proposes to include home occupations and HOA Office
as uses by right. This could only be possible if this project were a Planned Unit
Development. As such, home occupations shall only be allowed as a conditional use in the
ARRD zone and Office is not allowed at all in the ARRD zone district. The only uses
allowed are those in Section 3.02 of the Zoning Resolution.
B. Common Dimensional Requirements
➢ Lot Size / Slope: The Applicant proposes the
561.07 -acre property be subdivided into 93 lots
and 5 open space parcels. The sizes of the
proposed lots and parcels meets or exceeds the
minimum lot size except Parcel E which is
proposed as 1.44 acres which is below the
5
minimum lot size allowed in the ARRD zone district. This will need to be adjusted so that it
complies with the 2 -acre minimum. (Shown on the right)
➢ Every lot in the proposed subdivision shall be required to demonstrate that every lot will
need to have a building area ("building envelope") of at least 1 contiguous acre with slopes
less than 40% pursuant to Section 5.04.02(2) of the Zoning Resolution. This shall be
demonstrated a Preliminary Plan.
➢ Maximum Lot Coverage: The most any lot can be covered by structures or impervious
surfaces such as driveways or walkways is fifteen percent (15%). The smallest proposed lot
size can be 2 acres which means a total of 6,534 square feet could be covered on that lot.
➢ Minimum Setback: The Applicant proposes building envelopes on all 93 residential lots.
They shall also be consistent with the following minimum setbacks.
o 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 front lot line, whichever is
greater;
o Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line;
o 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 Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet
➢ Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5
(Supplementary Regulations)
➢ Steep Driveways: Some of the lots contain significant slopes. Section 5.04.02(3) requires
that for all lots, driveways, access ways and access easements within the development and
on the property of developer shall have a maximum grade of fourteen percent (14%). The
Applicant shall be required to demonstrate that al proposed lots can satisfy this requirement
at Preliminary Plan.
➢ Other Site Design Issues: The Town of Basalt suggests that the interior lots adjacent to the
large agricultural parcel should be eliminated or moved. Creating a single loaded street
would have more of a rural feeling, create less conflict between single family home sites
and active ranching facilities, and allow for appropriate fencing to be placed to protect the
ranching facilities. The Town also suggests creating more of a buffer on the north and east
areas of the overall development. This would create less of an urban feel for adjoining
properties.
V. APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The following section addresses common subdivision issues that will need to be fully addressed in
the Preliminary Plan submittal to the County.
6
A. Domestic Water
The Application states that domestic potable water for the 93 single-family dwellings will
be provided by a private central water system that will consist primarily of two recently
drilled wells (Wells #3 and #4) and two back up wells (Wells #5 and #6). Water from these
wells will be sent to a central treatment facility then to a 250,000 gallon water storage tank.
This system design will require approval by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) prior to any final plat approval as it is considered a Community
Water System. Due to the location of the storage tank being lower than most of the proposed
lots, booster pumps are required to provide 40 psi to each residence. Proof of this approval
from CDPHE shall be included in the Final Plat Application to the County. Regarding the
physical components of the water system, the Applicant should review the following
requirements found in Section 9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations included here:
Section 9:51 requires an adequate potable and irrigation water supply shall be available to
all lots within a subdivision, taking into consideration peak demands to service total
development population, irrigation uses, and adequate fire protection requirements in
accordance with recognized and customary engineering standards.
9:52 Individual wells may be used as the water supply, provided the applicant has submitted
the required documentation to the appropriate water court, and the Colorado Division
of Water Resources will approve well drilling permits for all lots within the
development.
9:53 Central water systems shall be designed by an engineer qualified to design water
systems and be a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado.
Central water and treatment and storage facilities shall be approved by the Colorado
Department of Health. All lines in a central water system should be looped, with no
dead ends included in the system. Where dead ends are proposed for cul-de-sacs,
there will either be a fire hydrant or blow -off valve at the end of the line.
9:54 Water supply systems, on -lot or otherwise located in a floodplain, shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration and avoid impairment during or subsequent to
flooding.
9:55 All water mains shall be a minimum diameter of four inches (4'7, provided storage
facilities adequate for fire protection are available.
Adequate Physical and Legal Supply
The Application shall be required to prove at the time of Preliminary Plan, that the proposed
water system is physically and legally adequate to serve the project. As is required by state
law, Staff will refer the Preliminary Plan Application to the Colorado Division of Water
Resources who will review the proposed plan. Ultimately, this review will result in a
determination of either material or no material injury to decreed water rights as well as a
determination that the water supply is or is not physically adequate to serve the needs of the
project by the State.
To this end, the Applicant has obtained well permits from the Division of Water Resources
for the wells proposed to serve the project (Wells 3, 4, 5, and 6). In addition, the Applicant
7
filed an application (in water court) on December 31, 2005 (Case no. 05CW301) for
underground water rights for the Property for Wells 3, 4, 5, and 6 to provide water for a 188
EQR development and approval of a plan for augmentation using Basalt Water Conservancy
District as the source of replacement water. The Application also states that in addition to
the Basalt contract, it may be necessary to construct an on-site storage pond to store and
release water that historically has been used for irrigation but is no longer needed due to
dry -up of historically irrigated area by roads, building footprints, etc. Irrigation to each of
the single-family lots would also be provided from this system.
Section 4:91 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that a water supply plan, at the same
scale as the Preliminary Plan, shall provide the following information in graphic and/or
written form:
A. In all instances, evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and
dependability, shall be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed
subdivision. Such evidence may include, but shall not be limited to:
1. Evidence of ownership or right of acquisition or sue of existing and proposed
water rights;
2. Historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights;
3. Amenability of existing right to change in use;
4. Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply water to the
proposed subdivision, including the amount of water available for use within the
subdivision by such providers, the feasibility of extending service to the area, proof
of the legal dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation that
all necessary water rights have been obtained or will be obtained or adjudicated,
prior to submission of the final plat; and
5. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply for the
subdivision.
B. If a central supply and distribution system is to be provided, a general description of the
system, as designed by a Colorado registered engineer. In addition:
1. Nature of the legal entity which will own and operate the water system; and
2. Proposed method of financing the water system.
E. If applicable, a Plan of Augmentation and a plan for subdivision water supplies, as
required by law, with the supporting engineering work signed by a Colorado registered
engineer, shall be submitted by the applicant, even if the applicant is not the actual supplier
of water.
Physical Potable Water Supply
The proposed physical supply of water, as stated earlier, is to come from permitted Wells 3
and 4 and Wells 5 and 6 as back-up wells. Both Wells 3 and 4 have been drilled and were
pump -tested in November, 2005. See (Appendix I of the Application). It is the opinion of
Zancanella & Associates, in the Application, that both wells should be able to pump for
extended periods at a rate of 50 gallons per minute.
8
The report states that peak diversion is 47.5 gpm in July. Either well should be able to
provide needed water for this diversion. The report further states, it will be necessary to
install a water storage tank to meet the peak demand and fire flow. We also recommend the
locations of the wells be surveyed and the final well permits be adjusted to reflect actual
construction locations. We also recommend that the water levels in the aquifer be monitored
on a quarterly basis to determine if there are seasonal fluctuations. (Staff added emphasis.)
Further, their analysis of water quality opines that the water is likely of sufficiently high
quality for all domestic uses.
B. Irrigation Water
While the proposed central water supply system is anticipated to provide irrigation water to
the single-family dwelling lots, the proposed site plan includes 5 additional parcels devoted
to agricultural operations and / open space. Additionally, there are two formal ditches that
presently serve the Property (Needham and Missouri Mountain Meadows Ditches) from
which the Hunt Ranch has water rights. Appendix K to the Application states the majority
of the existing hay field will remain and continue to be irrigated by the existing ditch
system. The Applicant has not shown how this all works. Are open space parcels B through
E to be non -irrigated? How does the irrigation system (including Well #1 and Well#2) work
to provide irrigation to Lot 1 and Parcel A? It also appears that the Needham Ditch will run
underneath Road D and then terminate on the property. The Preliminary Plan will need to
fully describe the irrigation system to all of these areas as well as prove that the water is
legally and physically adequate.
Again, all development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or sewer
systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally
sound water systems can be provided before project approval. Ultimately, the State Division
of Water Resources will review the legal and physical attributes of the proposed water
system and will provide a determination that the proposed system results in either a material
injury to decreed water rights or not.
The Division of water Resources did a cursory review of the Sketch Plan and stated that
with sufficient storage capacity, these wells should provide an adequate supply for the
proposed use. The use of irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and
a change of water rights application may be necessary to allow irrigation of lands that were
not historically irrigated. Due to the lack of a water court -approved augmentation plan, it is
our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(l) that the proposed water supply will cause
material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. (Exhibit F)
Lastly, based on the proposed number of lots, the proposed drinking water system will
require Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) review and
approval. (See Exhibit 11)
The Town of Basalt commented that Individual lot irrigation should be provided using raw
water irrigation and would be consistent with Town of Basalt Policies. The overall
development receives raw water rights and some of those could be diverted to individual
lots for landscaping and other uses such as car washing.
9
C. Waste Disposal
The Application proposes that the wastewater generated from the 93 single-family lots will
be handled by individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) on each lot. The soils
characteristics in the area range in suitability for ISDS depending on moderate slopes and
shrink -swell characteristics. In the event bore samples provided in the preliminary plan
application show shrink -well characteristics or percolation rates faster than 5 minutes per
inch or slower than 60 minutes per inch, the County typically requires that ISDS be
designed by an engineer licensed to practice in Colorado. This would also be required as a
plat note on the final plat.
D. Public Access / Internal Road System
The Application proposes two main access points into the development directly off of
County Road 102 (Missouri Heights Road) which is the public road presently providing
access to the ranch. The internal road system is designed as a large loop with two cul-de-
sacs extending off of the loop (Roads B, C, and E), and a 30 -foot wide emergency access
road from Road C back to an existing County ROW (extension of CR 102) along the
southern property line. Staff has identified several issues with the proposed design:
1) Split Road Design
The Application proposes the internal road system (except Road F and the emergency
access) be designed to the Secondary Access road standard which consists of a
minimum ROW of 50 -feet with two 11 -foot lanes and a gravel or chip / seal surface
(although the application proposes a paved surface). Road standards (Section 9:35 of the
Subdivision regulations) are determined by the maximum number of trips generated on
roads within a development. In this case, 93 new single-family dwellings generate 890
average daily trips (9.57 trips x 93 units). Normally, this many trips requires an internal
subdivision road system be constructed to the Minor Collector standard (401 — 2500
capacity). There is no specific provision that provides relief from this standard as it has
always been interpreted to apply to the entire road system and not reduced on assumed
traffic patterns. The Board has approved reductions in width in the case of a PUD where
they have authority to vary subdivision regulations.
As stated above, the Applicant proposes a lesser standard of Secondary Access with a
design capacity of 201 — 400 trips by splitting the trips inside the development stating
that all of the vehicle trips generated from Lot 27 will typically head west through the
development and vehicle trips generated from Lot 28 will typically head eastward. The
net result is that rather than applying the total trips to the entire road system, the
Applicant has applied the trips likely to travel each section according to their specific
capacity.
Staff points out that the split internal traffic pattern assumption is simply an assumption
based on the path of least resistance to CR 102 and does not contemplate additional
internal patterns for other reasons. All of the residents have the opportunity to use all of
the roads particularly since they might lead to a subdivision amenity such as a trail
access so that all of the roads should be designed to full trip capacity of a Minor
Collector. To this end, Resource Engineering also commented on this issue stating "The
main loop consisting of Road A, Road D, and Road C should all be designed as a Minor
10
Collector with a 60 foot ROW. Downsizing these roads on the basis of traffic at each
entrance is not standard practice or consistent with County practice." (Exhibit G)
Based on the above, Staff recommends the internal road system be redesigned so that all
roads meet the Minor Collector road standard in Section 9:35 of the subdivision
regulations.
The most significant net result difference between the two standards is compared here:
The Applicant will gain 10 feet of right away and have to pave 2 less feet of the driving
lanes.
2) Section 9:32 of the Subdivision Regulations
This regulation requires that "Streets and roads shall be designed so that alignments will
join in a logical manner, such that adjacent road systems can be combined to form a
continuous route from one area to another." The proposed road system is contained
entirely within the property with no stub provided for future connection to adjacent
property which is the intent of this provision. This regulation has not been addressed or
satisfied.
3) Road and Bridge Department / Fire District / Sheriff Comments
The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and provided the
following comments (Exhibit C):
1. All entrances to CR 102 will require a driveway access permit issued by Garfield
County Road & Bridge Department with conditions specific to the driveway
location. Any existing driveway access that is left in use will comply with current
driveway standards.
2. The potato cellar on the curve on CR 102 shall be removed for improved visibility
for the added traffic load on CR 102 created by the subdivision.
3. If CR 102 does not have a 60 foot easement in place then a 30 foot easement from
the center line of existing CR 102 shall be deeded to Garfield County the entire
length of the property bordering CR 102. All building, fences, brush and trees
encumbering the deeded ROW shall be removed back to the new ROW at the sub-
dividers expense prior to subdividing.
4. CR 102 from the intersection of CR 100 to the intersection of road number 83 should
be upgraded to an asphalt road with a 2 -inch asphalt mat at the Applicant's expense
to accommodate the increased traffic load created by the subdivision.
11
Design
Capacity
(ADT)
Minimum
ROW
Lane
Width
Ditch
Width
Surface
Minor Collector
401— 2500
60 feet
12 feet
10 feet
Chip Seal
Secondary
Access
201— 400
50 feet
11 feet
6 feet
Chip Seal /
Gravel
The Applicant will gain 10 feet of right away and have to pave 2 less feet of the driving
lanes.
2) Section 9:32 of the Subdivision Regulations
This regulation requires that "Streets and roads shall be designed so that alignments will
join in a logical manner, such that adjacent road systems can be combined to form a
continuous route from one area to another." The proposed road system is contained
entirely within the property with no stub provided for future connection to adjacent
property which is the intent of this provision. This regulation has not been addressed or
satisfied.
3) Road and Bridge Department / Fire District / Sheriff Comments
The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and provided the
following comments (Exhibit C):
1. All entrances to CR 102 will require a driveway access permit issued by Garfield
County Road & Bridge Department with conditions specific to the driveway
location. Any existing driveway access that is left in use will comply with current
driveway standards.
2. The potato cellar on the curve on CR 102 shall be removed for improved visibility
for the added traffic load on CR 102 created by the subdivision.
3. If CR 102 does not have a 60 foot easement in place then a 30 foot easement from
the center line of existing CR 102 shall be deeded to Garfield County the entire
length of the property bordering CR 102. All building, fences, brush and trees
encumbering the deeded ROW shall be removed back to the new ROW at the sub-
dividers expense prior to subdividing.
4. CR 102 from the intersection of CR 100 to the intersection of road number 83 should
be upgraded to an asphalt road with a 2 -inch asphalt mat at the Applicant's expense
to accommodate the increased traffic load created by the subdivision.
11
The spur cul-de-sacs (Roads B and E) meet the 600 -foot length criteria. Additionally, Road
C has a 30 -foot emergency access easement across Lots 88 and 89 extending approximately
300 linear feet to an existing 30 -foot ROW recorded in Book 86 on Page 218 which is
attached as Exhibit I. The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District reviewed the
proposal and stated that "the proposed access throughout the subdivision appears to be
adequate for emergency apparatus." (Exhibit D)
Staff shall require the Applicant to provide details of the emergency access road regarding
design, access, and maintenance as part of any Preliminary Plan such that the roadway can
accommodate heavy emergency apparatus in inclement weather. Additionally, the
Applicant shall address the legal status of the driveway (labeled as existing 20 foot access
and utility easement to be abandoned) that crosses lots 89, 90, and 91 then leaves the
property to the east. The County Sheriff's Department reviewed the proposal and
commented that all addresses should be visible at the point the individual driveways meet
the road.
E. Traffic Generation
Section 4:94 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that off-site road impacts shall be
evaluated for subdivisions through completion of a traffic study identifying the volume of traffic
generated from the development, based on Trip Generation Rate calculations utilizing the most
current Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, to establish an Average Daily
Traffic (ADT). The road impact fee shall be established as a result of entering the applicable
data identified in the Road Impact Fee calculation Work Sheet located in Appendix A.
Fifty percent (50%) of the road impact fees shall be collected at the Final Plat for a
subdivision, if the affected County road project is scheduled to start within five years in a
Capital Improvements Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. All other road
impact fees will be collected at the issuance of a building permit.
Any road impact fees collected will be put into a separate interest bearing account in the
County Treasurer's office, for each road that impact fees are collected. All fees collected and
interest accrued must be spent on capital improvements to the specific road for which the fees
were collected within twenty (20) years of the date that the fee is established. All capital
expenditures must be consistent with the capital improvements plan used as a basis for
establishing the fee. If after twenty (20) years, the fees collected have not been spent in
accordance with the capital improvements plan used to establish the fee, all fees will be
returned to the land owner of the property assessed an impact fee, with interest accrued.
To the extend the County has expended funds consistent with a capital improvements plan for a
particular road and a property owner has not paid a road impact fee as required for a building
permit which establishes additional ADT, the impact fee shall be collect at the time a building
permit is issued to recoup the expenditure. Any fees collected after the completion of an
identified road project, will be credited to the appropriate project and will be used to reimburse
the County for the funds advanced to complete the project.
The County may use road impact fees for a specific road improvement identified as a critical
facility with a high priority for health and safety reasons in a Capital Improvements Plan
12
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, in advance of the completion of the entire road
improvement project. any such use of funds must be consistent with the basis for the impact fee.
If after the use of road impact fees for a critical facility road improvement, the County fails to
complete the entire project identified in the capital improvements plan within the twenty (20)
year period of collection, the proportionate share, with interest, will be returned to the owner of
the property subject to the impact fee based on the actual amount of the expenditures made on a
particular road system.
As a part of the Capital Improvements Plan, the Board may determine that certain portions of
the road improvements to a road are critical to complete, before there are any additional traffic
generating uses added to the road. If a development is proposed before the County has
scheduled to make the necessary improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plan, the
developer may be allowed to pay the total cost of the needed improvements prior to the
County's schedule. The County will reimburse the portion of the cost that exceeds the amount
that would be applicable for road impact fees, plus interest, by the time that the project had
originally been scheduled to be completed.
Based on the above, the proposed 93 single-family dwellings will generate approximately 890
average daily trips to and from the subdivision using the ITE Manual. Further, the property is
located in Traffic Study Area II which will require that a Traffic Impact Fee be paid which is
generally calculated to be $379,572.80 of which 1/2 shall be paid at final plat and included as a
component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) with the remaining half to be
paid with building permits.
The 890 average daily trips to and from the subdivision will most likely impact CR 102, CR
100, and Upper Cattle Creek / El Jebel Road) the most as they provide the most direct routes to
State Highway 82 for faster movement up and down the Lower Roaring Fork Valley. The
Applicant commissioned a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig
which is in Appendix Q of the Application. Traffic counts were made at several key
intersections. The analysis points out that approximately 70 net vehicle trips will be added to
the road network in the AM Peak period and 94 during the PM peak period. During the short
term horizon, Hunt Ranch traffic accounts for 18% of the southbound approach traffic at the
CR 100 /SH82 intersection and approximately 6% of the southbound approach traffic at the El
Jebel / SH82 intersection. Further, the roadway corridors of CR 100, CR 102, and Upper Cattle
Creek remain at LOS B. (See page 17 of the TIS)
In the long range, it appears that the unsignalized intersections continue to operate at LOS A.
The CR 100, CR 102, and Upper Cattle Creek corridors also operate with acceptable delay
during the peak hours of operation. During the afternoon peak hour the levels of service along
Upper Cattle Creek go from LOS B to LOS C, however, this is still an acceptable level of
service.
Based on the forgoing, the consultant recommends that each entrance to the subdivision be
constructed according to County design standards. Each access should also provide adequate
intersection sight distance based on the requirements in the 2004 AASHTO Green Book.
Resource Engineering, on behalf of the County, commented that the detailed design and
location of the Road C intersection with CR 102 should be at a point where the grade is less
13
than 5% for a minimum distance of 25 feet either side of Road C. This intersection may need to
shift slightly to the west.
CDOT reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments (Exhibit A):
CDOT will rely on local government to be ok with trip distribution and growth rate. The
TIS indicates the site will have no direct access on state highway system. They will use
County Road 100 (Catherine Store) and Upper Cattle Creek Road (connect to El Jebel
Road on SH 82). The report indicates that they will only increase traffic by 18% by project
alone at CR 100 and 6% at El Jebel Road. If traffic volumes increase by 20% then an
access permit would be required, at this time the development is under the threshold for
permit requirements.
The Town of Basalt commented that the level of service at the Highway 82 and El Jebel Road
intersection is expected to deteriorate to unacceptable levels within the analysis period of the
study (to the year 2025). This project by itself doesn't have a significant impact on traffic
volumes and levels of service, but the cumulative impacts of traffic growth from this and other
projects within the trafficshed during the analysis period result in deterioration in levels of
service at key intersections. If physical improvements at this intersection by this project aren't
practical, the Town suggests that traffic impact fees be contributed and that a portion of those
fees go to Eagle County and/or the Town of Basalt to be used for future improvements at this
intersection. (Exhibit M)
F. Fire Protection
The property is located in the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. The property appears
to be characterized as primarily Low Wildfire Hazard with limited areas of Moderate
Wildfire Hazard in the Comprehensive Plan which are designations generally based on
existing slope and fuel type. The Applicant proposes a central water supply system with fire
hydrants and a 250,000 gallon storage tank.
Section 9:70 of the Subdivision regulations requires an Applicant to address and satisfy the
following provisions in the Preliminary Plan Application:
9:71 Subdivision fire protection plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate fire protection
district to ensure that all lots have primary and secondary access points to escape fire
entrapment.
9:72 Where a central water system has fire hydrants, all fire hydrants shall meet the
specifications for the appropriate fire protection agency, particularly with regard to
thread size on the fare hydrants.
The Fire District reviewed the Sketch Plan and commented that the proposed access throughout
the subdivision appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. Water supplies for fire
protection should be in accordance with IFC Appendix B and hydrants should be located
according to Appendix C. The proposed subdivision contains areas of grass, sage, and gamble
oak which present a wildfire hazard. Defensible spaces and /or fire resistant building
construction features should be implemented in these areas. Defensible spaces should follow the
recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service. The development is subject to impact
14
fees adopted by the District. The developer shall be required to enter into an agreement with the
District for the payment of these fees which is to be executed and paid at final plat. The current
fee is $437.00 per dwelling unit. (See Exhibit D)
The Colorado State Forest Service reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments: (Exhibit P)
The primary vegetation is sagebrush, gamble oak, and juniper trees. All of these vegetation
types pose a signification wildfire hazard to parts of the proposed subdivision. The areas I am
most concerned about are: Phases 1-5 (exhibit 16 from plan) based on the slope and vegetation
composition. Phase 6 is in an area of dryland pasture that would need to be monitored to keep
the grasses at a reduced height.
I believe the best methods to reduce wildfire hazard on this property would be to create
fuelbreaks along the proposed right of ways, to enforce defensible space standards around all
permanent structures, and encourage or require the use of firewise building materials (Firewise
Construction, Design and Materials, 2000).
Written standards for fuelbreaks and defensible space zones published by the Colorado State
Forest Service obviously do not cover every situation encountered. Most of our publications
are designed for forested areas, rather than lower vegetation types such as brush and shrubs.
However, for fuelbreak vegetation modification for Hunt Ranch, I would recommend following
the standards outlined in the recent revision of publication 6.302, Creating Wildfire Defensible
Zones, Prescriptions, Zone 2. Obviously, removing all the sagebrush and oak brush by
mowing/machine removal would also be an effective method.
In terms of fuelbreak width, CSFS standards state a minimum of 300 feet wide (Fuelbreak
Guildlines for Forested Subdivisions and Communities, 2005). However, this standard applies
to forested areas, and there is no written standard for brush. Although sagebrush can burn
intensely and move quickly, fires in this fuel type are typically of short duration with low
spotting potential, and control is relatively easy using a well constructed handline, a dozer line,
or utilizing roads and natural firebreaks. For Hunt Ranch, I would recommend following
Constructing the Fuelbreak contained in the Fuelbreak Guidelines for Forested Subdivisions
and Communities, 2005. A 12 foot fuelbreak width on either side of the proposed road width of
24 feet, would be required in order to adequately mitigate fire danger in this development.
G. Drainage & Floodplain Issues
There are no FEMA mapped floodplains on the property. Regarding drainage, Appendix K of
the Application contains a cursory engineering report that briefly and generally discusses
drainage on the existing and built -out property prepared by Sopris Engineering. The report
summarizes that runnoff will not significantly increase with this development. It is estimated
that each of the 93 lots will create approximately 4,400 sq. ft of impervious surface. Combined,
the roads and lots will increase the impervious area to a total of 36 acres which is less than
6.5% of the property. The historical drainage will remain substantially unchanged. To maintain
existing natural flow, ditches will follow roads and culverts will be used where roads cross
natural water courses and sized to a peak 25 year storm.
15
Resource Engineering reviewed the drainage on behalf of the County and found that there are
no significant drainage issues for this site. The Applicant should anticipate the need for one or
more detention facilities on Lot 1. (Exhibit G)
The Applicant shall be required to address the following regulations in the Preliminary Plan
submittal (Section 4:80 and Section 9:41 — 9:44).
A drainage plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer
registered in the State of Colorado, shall depict the following information in graphic and/or
written form:
A. Existing water courses and lakes;
B. Limits of tributary areas, where practical;
C. Computations of expected tributary flows; and
D. Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-off from
entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and to prevent major
damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred (100) year storm, showing:
1. Area subject to inundation; and
2. Location and size of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels.
9:41 Drainage easements, channels, culverts and required bridges shall be designed by an
engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
9:42 All drainage facilities shall be designed based on a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm.
9:43 Where new developments create run-off in excess of historic site levels, the use of
detention ditches and ponds may be required to retain up to a one hundred (100) year
storm.
9:44 All culverts shall be designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement in
concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3) beyond the driving surface on each side.
Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load.
H. Wildlife
The Application contains a brief analysis of the wildlife found on or near the property (page
11). They state they have worked by the DOW and used the WRIS mapping to identify the
species on or near the property which primarily include bald eagle winter forage, mule deer
winter and summer range, and elk severe winter range. The Application states they have
designed the project to be sensitive primarily to the elk winter range by leaving a corridor open
through the subdivision and open space buffers have been included in the north eastern portion
the property. The Applicant shall be required to address the following at preliminary plan:
4: 70(D) Wildlife - Description of wildlife habitation, including big game ranges based on the
mapping practices of the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
The DOW reviewed the Sketch Plan and provided the following comments....
16
The Town of Basalt commented that fencing might need to be provided to separate the ranch
facilities from the individual smaller lots surrounding the agricultural use. More clarification at
Preliminary Plan review may be needed regarding fencing associated on each individual lot.
(Exhibit M)
I. Soils / Geology / Radiation
The Comprehensive Plan does not identify any geologic / soil constraints on the property. The
Application contains the requires Soil Conservation Service soil -type mapping that identifies a
variety of soils which do not represent significant challenges to residential development of the
property. Further, the Application contains a radiation analysis conducted by HP Geotech and
included as Appendix R in the Application. It states the project site is not in a geologic setting
that would indicate high concentrations of radioactive minerals in the near surface soils and
rock formations. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area.
Testing should be done when structures have been completed.
The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) reviewed the proposal and provided the following
comments (see Exhibit E) that the Applicant shall address with the preliminary plan.
The GIS information, which possibly originated from the county 1041 maps, states that there
are no slope hazards, soil hazards, or landslide hazards within the limits of the site. However,
Exhibit 15, the Slope Analysis and Site Plan, shows a number of lots in the northeast part of the
site that have very steep slopes. In particular, lots 24-29 show 30-40 percent slopes adjacent to
the roadway. Driveway access, construction, and siting of onsite wastewater systems (OWS) on
these lots could be very difficult. I did not observe signs of slope movement other than rock
creep, but construction of the access road at the base of the steep slopes in this area could
destabilize the hillside; the single track road north of these lots also traverses steep terrain.
The cuts, fills and retaining wall requirements for the road alignment should be reviewed by an
engineer, and a slope stability analysis in the vicinity of lots 24-29 should be considered. For
constraints that are identified, mitigation should be proposed. If the county allows residential
construction on lots with 30+ percent grade, these lots should be evaluated for slope stability at
a later stage of development, incorporating the home design. [Lots outlined in frame below.]
LOT 57
3.55 was
LOT 10
3.17 acres
LOT 21
LOT 7ll1 204 avrs
LOT 18 258 soft
3&7 4044 LUT 19
277.0,4
000 32
203 acres
LOT 40 L0741
2083vea 203.aues
LOT a;
LOT23
255 save
LOT 24
2.40 acres
305x .
LOT25
337 eras
LOT 14
203 eves
LOT 34
2.5840es
LOT35
"YC 248 arras
LOT 33
02 awes 6.
1.0T32
207 aces
LOT 2.9
40 ares
LOT27
284 sea
PARCEL"C'
72.158Or08
L0020
7.0.5 03
5 25 marts
LOT%
2.11 ave
1OT31 abs
2.11. acres
LOT 36
05 Ares
LOT 13
2.02 ales
LOT 12 ' LOT
204 0014 2G?: aa:n
LOT 4.9
0749 297 aeras LOT70
1240 es LOT 69 20T eaves
2.03 acres
13751
!OT -2 2l:].aaa
() 03
LOT69 21007)
As mentioned above, the zoning resolution requires that every lot in a proposed subdivision
shall be required to demonstrate that every lot has a building area ("building envelope") of at
17
least 1 contiguous acre with slopes less than 40% pursuant to Section 5.04.02(2) of the Zoning
Resolution. This shall be demonstrated a Preliminary Plan.
Erosion. Disturbance on steep slopes can lead to accelerated sheetwash erosion. Where flows
become concentrated, gully erosion can form. An erosion control plan should be prepared for
the site. Homeowners should monitor gullies that form to prevent general lot deterioration and
to prevent any adverse effects to neighboring lots.
Debris fans. Mapping of the area by CGS in the 1990s showed debris fans in the area of the lot
line between lots 48 and 49 and on lot 46. The drainages are small, but could run during
periods of heavy precipitation. It did not appear that rocks had been carried by the drainages,
which were not deeply incised. The preliminary observations suggest that no action is required
beyond building on high ground on these lots. The debris fans, themselves, could be composed
of low density soils that are prone to collapse. The small fan on lots 48/49 could probably be
avoided in development. However, the fan on lot 46 covers most of the buildable portion of the
lot, as the remaining part is composed of slopes of 40 percent or greater. At Preliminary Plan
stage, the drainage report that is prepared for the site should include a discussion of these
drainages. Also, the fan on lot 49 should be drilled and sampled to determine the
characteristics of the soil. Where determined to be necessary, mitigation should be proposed
for drainage and soils problems.
Onsite ditches. I did not observe any impact on the hillside from the Needham Ditch. For most
of its length, the Needham Ditch could be piped in the right-of-way for the access road. It could
be rerouted along the lot line for lots 19 and 20. The Mountain Meadows Ditch bisects lots 74
and 80. Either the ditch should be realigned or the lots should be reconfigured. The alignment
for both ditches should be shown as an easement.
Foundations. Structures on slopes should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures and
avoid lateral shear. Local drainage control will be important to maintaining stability.
Excavation could be difficult, locally, and blasting could be required. The material that forms
the substrate for foundations should be limited in size (rocks generally less than 4 inches in
diameter) to prevent differential compaction. Subsurface soil (as opposed to rock) should be
tested for geotechnical characteristics, including swell -consolidation, so that foundations can
be designed appropriately.
Onsite wastewater systems. The possible constraints for OWS are the steep slope on many of
the lots and the shallow bedrock or boulders. In the Sketch Plan application, Sopris
Engineering recommends that all OWS be engineered. Sopris has experience in designing
systems for steep mountainous terrain and their recommendations should be followed.
In summary, the site characteristics at Hunt Ranch are not unusual for the mountainous parts of
the state, but there are conditions that require close attention during development. At this stage
of development, the stability of the road alignment in the northwestern part of the site should be
investigated. Further analyses, as mentioned above, should be performed at Preliminary Plat
and Final Plat stages of the project.
The Applicant shall also address the following section in the Subdivision Regulations for
Preliminary Plan:
18
4:70 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: GEOLOGY, SOIL, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Information on the following characteristics of the area proposed for subdivision shall be
shown graphically and/or by reports, whatever is appropriate, for a complete description of
existing conditions, and shall include:
A. Geology - Description and/or illustration by a registered professional engineer licensed
by the State of Colorado of bedrock lithology and the stratigraphy of overlaying
unconsolidated materials in sufficient detail to indicate any potential development
problems resulting from groundwater, subsidence, instability in road excavations and ills,
expansive soils, drainage patterns, structural bearing strength, or the like;
J. Vegetation Management
The Application contains a map of existing vegetation characterized as dry -land pasture,
irrigation pasture, mountain shrub, sagebrush, sagebrush, juniper, and pinyon pine. At the
Preliminary Plan stage, the Applicant will be required to provide a vegetation management plan
that addresses weed management, topsoil disturbance issues, and revegetation of disturbed areas
in the development of the site.
The County Vegetation Manager reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments
regarding noxious weeds, revegetation, soil management, and rare plant occurrences. (See
Exhibit 0)
Noxious Weeds
1) The Applicant shall be required to map and inventory the property for Garfield County
listed noxious weeds and one State listed plant, Absinth wormwood.
2) The Applicant shall be required to provide a weed management plan for the inventoried
noxious weeds. This area is known to have Russian knapweed, plumeless thistle, whitetop,
and absinth wormwood. It would be a benefit to county -wide noxious weed efforts if the
applicant would implement a weed management program prior to the start of the project.
This would help reduce some of the seed spread into future disturbed areas. Staff requests
that the applicant verify that weed management is implemented by providing treatment
records prior to June 30, 2006. Please send treatment records to: Garfield County
Vegetation Management, POB 426, Rifle CO 81650
3) Staff requests that the applicant detail how the common areas will be managed for noxious
weeds and designate a responsible party.
4) Weed management needs to be addressed in covenants. The language should remind each
lot owner that it is their responsibility under the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the
Garfield County Weed Management Plan to manage County -listed noxious weeds and State -
listed noxious weeds.
19
Revegetation
1) The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan
(adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following:
A. Plant material list
B. Planting schedule.
C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building
envelopes).
D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat.
2) The applicant shall provide a plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a
map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be
disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information
will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation.
3) The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully
reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County
Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to
the release of the security.
Soil Plan: The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil
Management Plan that includes 1) provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil, 2) a timetable for
eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles, 3) a plan that provides for soil cover if any
disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
Rare plant occurrences
1) The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) may be
present in the project area. Staff requests that the applicant contact a qualified plant
ecologist or botanist to conduct field surveys to determine if Harrington's penstemon is
located on the property. If present, the locations shall be identified in general terms as
they pertain to building envelopes.
2) This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural
Heritage Program (CNHP). This means that the plant, according to CNHP is
"vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100
occurrences). This plant is found exclusively in Colorado and is known to be only in 37
locations centered around Edwards in Eagle County.
K. Easements / ROW
Section 4:50(0) of the Subdivision regulations requires all existing easements, along with the
name and address of the entity having an easement shall be legally described on the plat. There
are several easements shown on the existing conditions map in the Application as Appendix F.
These easements are as follows:
1) Public Service Company Easement for a Powerline that cuts through the center of the
property which is recorded in Book 1051, Page 127. A copy of which is included as
20
Exhibit J. It appears the project has been designed around the easement (Open Space
Parcel B);
2) Access & Utility Easement for a private driveway in the SE corner of the property which
is recorded in Book 646, Page 4. A copy of which is included as Exhibit N. It appears
the Applicant intends to slightly realign and vacate a portion of this easement. It is not
clear what entity is the beneficiary of this easement and what, if any, terms or
obligations are attached to said easement. This will need to be fully addressed at
Preliminary Plan;
3) Existing 30 -foot Right -of -Way that runs along the southern property boundary as an
extension of CR 102 which is recorded in Book 86, Page 218. A copy of which is
included as Exhibit 1. This ROW was quitclaimed to Garfield County as a public road in
1912 and is the road which is proposed to serve the secondary emergency access into /
out of the project;
4) Existing 20 -foot Irrigation Easement located in the far SE corner of the property. There
was no information submitted on this easement but it will need to be better addressed
and defined with the Preliminary Plan;
5) CR 102 ROW: The Road and Bridge Department commented that if CR 102 does not
have a 60 foot easement in place then a 30 foot easement from the center line of existing
CR 102 shall be deeded to Garfield County the entire length of the property bordering
CR 102. All building, fences, brush and trees encumbering the deeded ROW shall be
removed back to the new ROW at the sub -dividers expense prior to subdividing. (See
Exhibit C) This shall be deeded to the County in a form acceptable to the County
Attorney's Office at the time of Final Plat;
6) Needham & Mountain Meadows Irrigation Ditches: It appears that both ditches
terminate on the subject property. Neither existing alignments are located in an easement
presently according to the existing conditions map. Additionally, it appears the
Needham Ditch intermittently crosses and runs underneath the main road in several
places. This may be problematic for the Ditch Company regarding monitoring and
maintenance as well as potentially result in a conflict with the roads as they are
dedicated to the public on the plat. These issues will need to be clarified at Preliminary
Plan; and
7) 30 -foot Secondary Access Easement: The plan proposes a 300 -foot long secondary
access easement that is 30 -feet wide that will need to be legally described and deeded to
the HOA for maintenance.
L. Trails / Paths / Parks
The Applicant proposes a primitive surfaced single-track trail to run along the outside of the
development through the open space parcels for the benefit of the lot owners. The Applicant
also proposes a 10 -foot wide asphalt trail / path along the main loop road (Roads A and D) as
well as along CR 102 between the two entrances to the project. The HOA shall be responsible
for the ownership of these trails / paths. Further, the 10 -foot asphalt path along CR 102 shall
need to be outside of the 60 -foot ROW for CR 102. The Applicant also proposes to establish a
21
pocket park at one of the entrances to the subdivision for use by the general public as well as
maintained by the HOA.
The Town of Basalt commented that they support providing pedestrian connections within the
development. The trails outlined for the development are a nice addition to the neighborhood.
The Application states that there will be two entrance points into the subdivision each
developed as parks. More detail regarding timing of the development of these parks and
irrigation for landscaping should be provided at preliminary review. There is an existing red
barn proposed to be restored and relocated, possibly to the pocket park area. The Town
supports the retaining of historical structures within the development plans. More detail
regarding this barn should be provided at preliminary to address historic preservation and/or
designation.
M. Assessment / Fees
The property is located in Traffic Study Area 11 which requires a $384 per ADT fee be paid to
the County. This will be figured at the time of Final Plat. The Applicant could expect to pay an
approximate preliminary Traffic Impact Fee of $379,572.80 of which %2 shall be paid at final
plat and included as a component of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA).
The development is also located in the RE -1 School District which requires a developer to
either convey sites and land areas for schools or pay a School Site Acquisition Fee to be
calculated and paid at Final Plat and included as a component of the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement (SIA) pursuant to Section 9:81 of the Subdivision Regulations.
As mentioned above, The Fire District reviewed the Sketch Plan and commented that the
development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District. The developer shall be required
to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of these fees which is to be executed
and paid at final plat. The current fee is $437.00 per dwelling unit.
N. Recommended Plat Notes/ Covenants
Please be aware, the County requires, at a minimum, the Applicant place the following plat
notes on the final plat and in protective covenants:
1. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells
of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living
in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be
prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on
public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the
application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments,
herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a
legal and non -negligent agricultural operations."
2. "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision.
One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling
units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and
appliances."
22
3. "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents
and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as
good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such
information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the
Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County."
4. "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting
will be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property
boundaries."
5. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be
confined within the owner's property boundaries."
6. If applicable, the following plat note shall be included regarding a severed mineral
estate: "The mineral rights associated with this property known as the Hunt Ranch
Subdivision have been partially severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the
surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the
property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s)."
O. Sketch Plan Comments and Preliminary Plan Review
The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date
of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not
presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission by that date, the Applicant will have to
submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Department for review and
comparison with the original application.
23