HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 Basalt CommentsDRAFT
April 14, 2006
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
Attn: Fred Jarman
101 8th St. , Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Hunt Ranch Sketch Plan
Dear Mr. Jarman,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide referral comments on the Hunt Ranch Sketch
Plan Application. The Hunt Ranch is within our three-mile planning area and the Town
appreciates the ability to comment on the development. Technical comments and
issues associated with the project are noted below:
Planning Issues:
1. The Division of Wildlife comments stated that lot perimeter fencing should be
prohibited. The development plan shows that a central parcel will continued to
be used as agricultural and ranch property. It is the Town's understanding 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 review may be needed regarding fencing associated on each
individual lot.
2. The density of the development is suggested to be 1 unit/6-10 acres according to
the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Town supports clustering of
homesites and also supports 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.
3. The Town 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.
4. The Application does not appear to address affordable housing. The Town
suggests that this development mitigate for affordable housing as part of its
development plan.
5. The Town 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.
DRAFT
6. It is stated in the Application that the HOA will retain ownership of the large
agricultural/ranching parcel with one single-family home to be retained for the
ranch manager. More detail is needed in regards to the relationship between the
management of the ranch and the HOA and could be provided for the preliminary
review stage.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. It is stated that home occupations will be permitted on the individual lots. A more
complete list of permitted home occupations should be developed to assure the
neighbors and potential buyers of the uses on each lot (i.e. landscaping
business, construction business, etc...) and what materials could be potentially
stored on each lot.
10. The Town supports providing pedestrian connections within the development.
The trails outlined for the development are a nice addition to the neighborhood.
Engineering Issues:
1. 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.
2. It is stated that a 250,000 gallon storage tank for domestic water will be provided
for the development. The uses for this water will be for fire protection, domestic
use and individual lot landscaping irrigation. 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.
The comments above are referral recommendations made to Garfield County. The
Town recognizes that Garfield County is responsible for reviewing all of the input on this
matter and the Town does not have the jurisdictional authority to make decisions on
DRAFT
these issues. If you have questions about the above comments or need clarification,
you can contact the Planning Staff at Basalt Town Hall, 970-927-4701.
Sincerely,
Susan Philp
Town Planner
CC: Basalt Town Council
Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission
Bill Efting, Town Manager
ML/SP