The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.0 PC Power Point Presentation 05.10.2006Ilunt Ranch Subdivision Sleetch Plan Garfield County Planning Commission May 10, 2006 6:30 PM Project Specifics Proposal: Sketch for "Hunt Ranch Subdivision" Owner: Hunt Ranch, LLC Representative: JAM Development, LLC & OTAK Location: Missouri Heights Property Size: 561 acres Zoning: ARRD Comprehensive Plan: Study Area 1 (Medium density Residential @ 6 to <10 ac / du Proposed Lots: 93 @ Density of 6.07 ac/ du Water: Central Water System (wells) Waste water: ISDS Access: CR 102 (Missouri Heights Road) urpose of Sketch Plan / Subdiv. Process • The Purpose of a Sketch Plan: A Sketch Plan Application is to generally evaluate a proposal against the current zoning / subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Planning Commission review and discuss the general development elements of a proposal and provide comments to the developer which are good for 1 year. No vote or decision of any kind is made at the sketch plan meeting. [Glorified pre -application process] • County Subdivision Process • Step 1: Sketch Plan Application (Planning Commission comments only) • Step 2: Preliminary Plan Application (PC & BOCC vote on project) • Step 3: Final Plat Application (Signature of Final Plat by BOCC) • Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements • Sketch Plan Map (Site Plan) • Proposed source and amount of water • Proposed type of sewage disposal • USDA Soil descriptions • Statement addressing impact on streams, lakes, and topography of the site • Statement assessing potential radiation hazards • Evidence that all lots have access to a public ROW / CDOT access code • Anticipated source of electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable TV services Area Residential Subdivisions Vicinity Map i 1 Blue Creek Ranch (49 du) 42 Aspen Equestrian Estates (50 du) 68 St. Finnbar (23)* 24 Ranch at the Roaring Fork (192 du) 22 Lion's Ridge (15 du) 23 Sun Mesa (30 du)* 17 Panorama Ranches (56 du) 87 Ranch @ Coulter Creek (26 du)* 7 King's Row (44 du) 32 Cerise Ranch (82 du) 70 White Cloud (13 du) 71 Dakota (64 du) 18 Hawk Ridge (17 du) 21 Wooden Deer (22 du) 13 Pinyon Peaks (18 du) 14 Up Cattle Creek (12 du) 9 Baby Beans (4 du) 15 Cottonwood Hollow (13 du) Other: Callicotte Ranch (27 du) Sketch Plan Proposal: Land Use Breakdown Proposed Development Designation 93 Single -Family Residential Lots Lots 2 - 93 1 Agricultural Lot 5 Common Open Space Parcels Ag / Open Space Common Open Space Common Open Space Common Open Space Common Open Space Lot 1 Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C Parcel D Parcel E Internal Subdivision Roadways ROW CR 102 ROW ROW TOTAL ACREAGE • Acreage (%) 212.29 (38%) 174.14 (31%) 63.14 2.54 72.15 2.55 1.44 141.82 (25%) 26.94 (5%) 5.62 (1%) 561.07 (100%) Proposed Site Plan -ems Rae --- rpprF7e 3A, ffiltL a:., hath - kV, Aa03•111,311 R43 AA, 19 5tur $ 04- 2.04 acres l• 7 01 acr!$ f T 2'3 LCIi If` N I. 1 bLQTf7 �\ L{}T iri 3 17 acres IA 16 - ix 2,92 4.7,71 tOT 12 ▪ \_ ' '`.i 4.06 wags PAMELA' .1.lacras LCl1 / \.38r ADT as CT33 1 } +w c. LOT 36 „Atm32)47,11 avast 2.07 S0e1+ 1 r‘Zokr* LOT31 �, ' 2.11scrI T 40 � Ta1 ~` .i16 aeraa2L lw B9 COT 42 1 2R ' LOT 43 --LOT 34 t 1246"'' .i 3K 11 acres _ LOT I ,a -. 204 WI F ▪ -y, 293 ser ILS 24. I ▪ ti„ 1 .cart i---r-T------1,,.;, ,,,T..2. I - 1 L�T� 27 I kor •264 ,'z.9� Bali' LOT Z ° a 2 ac,l !! !LOT 2l 5.26 aGrea L9 2 09 8crea PARGEL'C' 72.1581743 44, ▪ t257ac • LCT moi"+; 8'k ▪ LOT7 t4 screw LOT 6 L 3.22 acres r. 1 LOT 5 t2 17 acres. LOT 4 12.20 Aciv4,7 • LOT 3 J k • 209 our LOT 2 r 2 27 aunt} LOT 1' 2.11 as LOT 1 166.00 acres L�3T 2.0 act. 1 u''1 f4 \' 'JT * Z.{12 ix f LGT 67‘.--7,-;;,, 9i 1 t11 „� 2_41 scrim 4, LOT 511, L0771111 2.04 &up LOTT2 I,' Lot3 Wel. LOT 73 2Nerg L4T 52 2.06 ! SOT E 4 cr'~ __ 44E aceta 04 ¢cra3 NRcos i LOT 55'"4 ir2 acre® 1 x., LOT 60woe '+ LOT 56 2.6 T i LOT 57‘� tea, i LOT 59 ll 06 tier r ' t LO 1 1j i 1. .1 Lia; 97 t 25 ast A7 3 acres f • LJ' 82 kGT 67 2.((11 7=ras i ? i.i . ., I LOT Oi 1'' '° p Tgp�/ .Lk ec+ a LOT 85 LOT 66 Comprehensive Plan Map raw Jp Date I -CI CM 1 1 J 1 i i F LaanDrarais Ranches 22 23 Medium Density Residential of 6 to less than 10 acres/ dwelling unit Proposing 6.07 acres / du `` _ ! Sun Mesa (FIG i 1 1 1 on's RI:. 190_ zrch al Roadw Fork. Mee ECLestia°Y Estate ci n...., Project Issues / Concerns: Comprehensive Plan 2.0HOUSING 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 2.2To 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. Project Issues / Concerns: Comprehensive Plan 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 environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval. Project Issues / Concerns: JVater • Physical System: 4 wells, treatment system, and 250K tank which requires approval from CDPHE as a Community Water System serving more than 25 persons or 15 households (at final plat) • Water Supply: Wells 3 & 4 were pump tested in November, 2005 with pumping rates of 50 gallons / minute, quick recharges, and likely to be of good potable quality • No effect to neighboring well which was monitored during tests. • Legal Adequacy: Requires a Court approved augmentation plan (Basalt WCD) and well permits; and • Legal and physical adequacy shall be reviewed by CDWR at Preliminary Plan for determination of material injury; • Neighbors are concerned as to the net effect of this water consumption on the aquifer and their water supplies • Comp Plan Objective 7.4 requires that Applicant be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on existing water / sewer systems (Monitor aquifer (Zancanella Report) & irrigate historically irrigated lands for recharge • Will need to better describe / detail the irrigation water supply to lots / open space and ensure the Missouri Meadows / Needham Ditches are legally described and do not conflict with internal ROW Irrigation Water Potential Tank Location Project Issues / Concerns: Traffic Generation / Off - Site Impacts • Traffic Analysis shows that project generates 890 trips which will add 70 net trips to the road network in the AM and 94 in the PM and which accounts for an 18% increase to the southbound approach traffic at the SH82 / CR 100 intersection and 6% increase to the southbound approach traffic at the El Jebel / SH82 intersection in Eagle County. • Assumes County / CDOT agrees with Trip Distribution proposed by Applicant which shows • 25% trips to / from the west on SH 82 • 55% trips to/from the east on SH 82 • 15% trips to/from the south of SH 82; and • 5% trips to / from the north on CR 100 Project Issues / Concerns: Hxternal Traffic Distribution FELSI3LI RG HOLT ULLE +1G 5 Ci 102 - SITE L,ioris Garr Kings Row Kings Row Based on existing traffic patterns (Kings Row) & proximity to surrounding roadways Fender L. LEGEND 5 = Trip Distribution Percentages Figure 7 Project Issues / Concerns: Internal Road Design / Off - Site Impacts • Traffic Study Area 11 which requires approximately $380,000.00 in Impact Fees • R&B believe portion of CR 102 should be paved due to increased traffic • Possible western shift of eastern access • Internal Road design: Minor Collector vs. Secondary Access Design Capacity (ADT) Minimum ROW T 60 feet Lane Width 12 feet Ditch Width Surface Minor Collector 401 — 2500 10 feet Chip Sear Secondary Access 201 — 400 50 feet 11 feet 6 feet Chip Seaf . Gravel Internal Road ystem GEND E37541. IC NWT,* DIIIPIC 63,11.111 MIMING MOM AIMING POVERATArrI PO. E.TNG WELL PROPO. PROPER', UNE PROPOSED Of 14A• WPC= EDGE Of ROAD pF,DeogED 9N. na..pe Haul. PRD pAA�� A. GRAPHIC SCALE { Sqr 1101finie Secondary Access 1051 rIAADC Tiff • ".i County Road Profile Regulations SLC0E 0 3Z 30' C" 4' D" S OuLDER !. 'i- rtLP�' 71- swill= Au h'1' IL, SCAPfY ANC RECOARACT SUEGRADE A LZNIULITA DTd DUN FO 4S]L STANDARD PRQCroA 12' 0" 12' 0" 30' 0" 4'-0" SHCk1LdER 5I0F4 O2X SORE82X SLOPE 0 31L 5, 0, 2'_0" - 5' 0'. '- y 5• Cr SLOE C 2x CLASS 6 ACGNGGATE .6ASA couRSE. LFNOER PAVEMENT, CCNAFAcT.F.D "0 252 STANDARD PROCTOR. TYPICAL ROAD SECTION - MINOR COLLECTOR uINttl7 COLLECTOR SEC1ON USED FOR: Ran A FROM CCEINTT RJ 11 102 TO Fi'AAO P ,_21A22 2 AGGREGATE @A'.E COURSE 560UEO A DON SIDES OF ROAD. A AT TRAIL SECTION SLOPE 0 3x STRa° ALL 10,546., ScAnnrr mar RECOMPACT CLA'S'S 6 AGGREGATE BASE COUPUE [ANDER PAwEHENT; COMPACTED '0 252 STANDARD PAOGTOR 11' 0" suPE oZ 91' 0" 25' 0 4.-0" 5HEXILD[R SLOPE 0 2% SG6GRADE A uwluUu Or r d€PT11 10 951 STANDARD PROCTOR. 61 -ORE Q 32 3' D' 1._0' 0' TYPICAL ROAD SECTION - SECONDARY ACCESS SEGGNGANY ACCESS SEchC61 [SEG FOR: N.T.S. ALL ANTERNAL 5UBEA.,ASQON STREETS 0TNCR THAW MINOR COLLECTORS AND EMERGENCY ACCESSES AND lhPROYDPENT TO ROAD F. R CLASS 6 A4GREGAT$ RASE COURSE SNOULOER 80111 51DE5 OF ROAD SLOPE 0 276 Cr SPH AI T TRAIL_ SECTION Design Capacity Minimum ROW Lane Width Ditch Width Surface (l•Hrnor- Collector- 401— 2500 60 feet 12 feet 10 feet Chip Sea! Secondary Access 201 — 400 50 feet 11 feet feet Chip Sear/ Grave/ SLOPE 0 3x STRa° ALL 10,546., ScAnnrr mar RECOMPACT CLA'S'S 6 AGGREGATE BASE COUPUE [ANDER PAwEHENT; COMPACTED '0 252 STANDARD PAOGTOR 11' 0" suPE oZ 91' 0" 25' 0 4.-0" 5HEXILD[R SLOPE 0 2% SG6GRADE A uwluUu Or r d€PT11 10 951 STANDARD PROCTOR. 61 -ORE Q 32 3' D' 1._0' 0' TYPICAL ROAD SECTION - SECONDARY ACCESS SEGGNGANY ACCESS SEchC61 [SEG FOR: N.T.S. ALL ANTERNAL 5UBEA.,ASQON STREETS 0TNCR THAW MINOR COLLECTORS AND EMERGENCY ACCESSES AND lhPROYDPENT TO ROAD F. R CLASS 6 A4GREGAT$ RASE COURSE SNOULOER 80111 51DE5 OF ROAD SLOPE 0 276 Cr SPH AI T TRAIL_ SECTION H mergen cy Access / Trail Profiles STIP ALL TGRSOL, SCARIFY AND RE COMPACT SUBORADE A kdiNIIMUM OF 8 DEPTH TO 95% STANDARD PPOCT. 7' Cr 30'—CY FJ SEM N r SLOPE 0 2Z A J' 0' GRAVEL T5`—" SLOPE 0 2% TYPICAL EMERGENCY ACCESS SECTION N. T.S. SIDESLOPE Full Bench 1.5'-2.0' SINGLE RACK STRIP ALL TOPSOIL. SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT SURGRADE A MINIMUM OF 8" DEPP-! 70 95Z STANDARD PROCTOR. SLOPE 0 27. CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE UNDER CONCRETE do PAVEMENT; COMPACTED TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR. CLASS 6 SHOULDER BOTH SIDES OF TRArL. TYPICAL ASPHALT TRAIL SECTION r.IS. 1.Q'-2.0 VECETAT1VE SOFT SHOULDER SINGLE TRACK TRAIL SECTION N.T5 Project Issues / Concerns: Steed Slopes • Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) identified possible development constraints on Lots 24 — 29 due to steep slopes in possible excess of 40% which is problematic for cut / fill for access / foundations, and ISDS design and placement; • Zoning Resolution requires that Developer demonstrate that each lot has at least a 1 -acre building envelope with less than 40% slopes; and • All 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. Slone Concerns: Lots 24 — 29 FAR EL'A' 63 .1:3c LOT} 44 ...a LOTS 161 a; LOTP F57 acres LO11} ]35 maws LOT Hi 31F 2P 'LOT 15 2 !4 wf.r. LOT 1d 36r4i4 LOT 19 2T2'won Mr3Tl 3.3 acme 101 2 ;?04 epw LGT 44.1 203 sale " L# 223guq LT 7 259 lax LOT39 2 11 ebFa 4.7 LOT 42 244 L014 2.15 e7 e LOT 24 243 44,94 Lar 7S 3'32 ales CT d2 204 aural 'r 36 10174 395 acres LOT 71 244 4.144 1.0723 PARCELt 7.1534r as LO1 25 921 Pam LOT A CCS sage 10, .l LOT T' rs..e-r+r. 21.2 �ti'iva LOT 12 760 3.784 LOY S fa�'ryi 7 •44 arr ILOT 1 LOAM Km L]T #2 2.52 *am LOT 93 2 PE grigF [111 2.23 ares LOT 57 iM oval. LL}T 4F '_E7T se lox erlEa 7171 aesN LOT 4T �2yrs 202 an -mi L5145 r01 inn LOT 711 7.018P .7r.+.r.t1. 7.01,..741 107 165 Lars!) LOT 01 202 uutos 2 3E gaL 2 PP bled LOTLOT .}T 72 .' 111 410'71 L' TP2 ,'74+74a LOT47 212 gvas LOT 6l 254 saes 10757 274 a v1 lT 73 1'm LQ#55 52 war 322' i�lF LOT 10 !lace 14711 74� "!ret LOT 5 2 13 0.x44 LOT $9 57 mums 1177 ;Than L01• LOT 3 LS7T 55 1,29 ETEi 2441 44[141 LOOT 81 355 saes 107 8a 73.'$.7 PARCEL:E. Project Issues / Concerns: Vegetation Management • 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. • 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. Project Issues / cerns: Zoning (Uses / Lot skes) • Office / Home Occupations not allowed as "use -by -right" • Open Space Parcel E is too small and needs to be at least 2 acres • Trail on CR 102 needs to be outside of the ROW • Nature of al the access & utility easements crossing the property and how those are to be legally described, platted, vacated, etc. • Building Envelopes are not to be less restrictive than ARRD setbacks • All uses for all lots shall conform to ARRD uses / dimensional requirements • How to deed restrict further development of the Open Space tracts? • Defensible Space measures as suggested by Carbondale Fire & CSFS • Wildlife management concerns by the DOW (hunting, fencing, black bears, mountain lions)