HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 05.17.94I?-:Y A
ls+ B
[a* L
UL
PID
)*
BOCC 5n7t94
PROJECT INFORMATTON AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
;tFfur- l\gpetrlqk
Prince Creek Esl.ates Preliminary Plan
Individual sewage
(r.s.D.s.)
CR IIl
A/R/RD
A/R/RD
disposal systems
David and Connie Hicks (f*ol C=rrtl6- e*a)
A parcel of land located in a portion of
Sections 10, ll and 15, T8S, R88W of the
6th PM; located approximately two (2)
miles south of Carbondale, off of County
Road lll.
121.588 acres
Shared Wells
II.
RFT ATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHFNSIVE PI AN
The subject property is located in District C, Rural Areas with Minor Environmental
Constraints on the Garlield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts Map.
NESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site l-tescriJrtion: The property is bound on the east by County Road I I 1 (Prince
Creek Road) and on the west by the Crystal River. To the north and south are
agricultural properties, and properties to the south are small 2 to 5 acre
residential lots. Access to the site is provided via County Road 1ll, which
accesses State Highway 133 across from the Fish Hatchery (see vicinity map on
enclosed set of bluelines).
The property slopes gently towards the Crystal River at approximately 5 to 7
percent, and approaching 2 to 4 percent as the property closes on the River.
Vegetation includes native grmses, with isolated cottonwoods along the frontage
? l-
with the Crystal River. 'fhe only structures currently on the property include a
main house and several agricultura-l out-buildings.
B. Project Description: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 121.588 acre
parcel into six (6) two (2) acre lots, with the remaining 109 acres to remain in
agricultural production. Water would be provided by a community system using
two (2) separate wells (Permits #105764 and 174240). Each lot will have an
ISDS system (see attached set of Blue Lines entitled "Prince Creek Estates -
Preliminary Plan").
[I. REYIFW AGENCY COMMFNTS
Mount SoFris Soil Conservation District: Dee Blue recommended that any cuts
be revegetated, and recommended a reclamation plan to address soil
disturbance. In addition, the District recommended that animal control
regulations be adopted and enforced through covenants (see letter on page-tr' .
Colorado r\ivision of Wildlife: The Division has reviewed the project, and
indicated that the project is located within mule deer winter range and is
adjacent to critical habitat for mule deer and elk. In order to mitigate the
impacts on wildlife, Kevin Wright suggested the following (see letter on page -
'1.),
1.Restrict dogs to I per home, with kennel restrictions and kennel
construction prior to a C.O.;
All lencing must conform to DOW standards;
Maintain a450' buffer and limit access from December I - March 3l near
the bald eagle feeding perch (not impacted by the current proposal).
State Fngineer's C)ffrce: The Division reviewed the project at sketch plan, and
their comments, summ anznd,below, remain the same (see letter oo pugB-t ')t
l.The existing well permits allow for a total of four (4) dwelling units;
The applicant must submit an application to amend Permit #105764 to
allow for three dwelling units;
The wells should be jointly owned by the lot owners, and covenants
should be drafted to allow for management and operation of the wells.
A.
B.
2.
3.
C.
2.
3.
D.Colorado Geologic Survey: The Survey field-checked the project on March 14,
1gg4, and had the following comments (see letter on pages qilD
2.
l.Algriul_g.poritr may vary in composition and grain in short distances,
and each building site should be investigated by a soilVfoundation
engineer to determine the type and design of individual buildings;
O-g3i1gpp!!erns9n lhe srtle mzry require the insBllation of foundation
orams;
c7-
3. ISDS should be feasible on all lots.
E.Adjacent Land owners: Tom and Ross Turnbull had several comments
regarding the project, including concerns regarding compatibility with adjacent
agricultural uses and questions regarding future plans for the balance of the
property (see summary of concerns oo pagEl-l --).
ry. STAFF COMMENTS
Comf'rehensive Plan Comfrliance: The current Comprehensive plan gives little
guidance regarding design criteria for subdivisions in rural areas. Specihc
policies that should be considered include policies regarding the protection of
agricultural land uses (i.e. compatibility).
The Prince Creek drainage is an area of historical agricultural lands, with a
signihcant amount of those uses still in existence. Although this is the first
signihcant land use proposal for the area, staff would suggest that the
compatibility issue will increase in intensity as the area transitions to residential
uses. Specific policies regarding agricultural impacts include Objective l, which
reads as follows:
"Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with farms and ranches."
Policy lA reads as follows:
"Agricultural land should be protected by infringement by incompatible uses
through means such as buffer areas or the location of non-agricultural uses in
areas of non-productive farmland".
The co-existence of agricultural uses and residential development is a common
issue in rural areas, and stalr would suggest that some innovative design
approaches have been successful in addressing these concems. For the
Commission's reference, staff has included copies from a document entitled
"Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual from
Conservation and Development, developed by the Massachusetts Departrnent
of Environmental Management and the Lincoln lnstitute of Land Policy. The
threegraphicsinclude aper-development scenario ("Aerial ViewofsiteCBefore
Development", aconventional development scenario ("Aerial View of Site After
Conventional Development"), and a creative development approach ("Aerial
View of Site C After Creative Development").
The scenarios demonstrate that approaches to encourage progressive
development can be used to accomplish three objectives:
Allow the development of land in support of private property rights;
Protect the property rights of adjacent owners and agricultural uses;
Allow for gradual development while retaining a rural landscape.
Stalf includes these graphics primarily to address concerns voiced by the
Planning Commission and staff during the sketch plan review.
A.
- 3o
B.Soils/Topography: The site for the proposed subdivision consists of a large
pasture area to the west olthe County Road, with a drainage area from the road
west. The geology of the site consists of older terrace deposits . Depth to
bedrock is estimated by Dr. Nick Lampiris at 30 to 100 feet. The Lampiris
report did not identi.fy any geologic hazardthat would preclude development on
the site. Drainage impacts should may present a risk to the units, due to
potential adverse impacts lrom adjacent irrigation. Dr. Lampiris suggests that
site specihc soils engineering studies be performed lor proper loundation design
and foundation drainage.
Road Design: Access to the site is vis two "easements" , approximately 14 feet
wide, that access the property lrom the north and south. Both easements are
include a 30'ROW, with the north road accessing lour lots, and the southern
road accessing two lots.
Based on the subdivision road standards, and the precedence for designing
separate roadways based on the number o[ dwelling units accessed, the north
access road is not consistent with adopted roadway standards. Based on
accessing lour dwelling units, the following standards apply:
Minimum ROW = 40'(30' as shown on plans)
Lane Width = 8'(two lanes)
These changes must be shown on the final plat.
In addition, the easements will have to be a publicly dedicated road, as opposed
to a dedicated easement.
Water: As indicated earlier, one of the well permits will have to be amended
prior to hnal plat.
Wastewater: Sewage disposal will be by ISDS. Bob Nelson (Nelson
Environmental and Wastewater Solutions, Inc.), prepared a review of the site for
ISDS feasibility. Mr. Nelson, based on slope, groundwater, soil types and
surficial geology, concluded that each lot can accommodate a traditional septic
system and leach field.
Fire Protection: The site is within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection
District. The District has not responded to the application.
Zoning: AII of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and
development requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
IV. Recommendation
On April 13,1994, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the
Preliminary Plan, with the lollowing conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearing with the Planning Commission, be considered conditions of
approval.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
-4-
The applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association and shall be
incorporated in accordance with the requirements ofColorado Revised Statutes.
The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the Basalt Water
Conservation Districtwatercontract, well maintenan@, roadmaintenance and I
snow removal. The articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants shall be
reviewed by County Staff prior to the approval of a Final Plat.
The applicants shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, addressing all improvements, prior to recording a final plat.
The applicanLs shall submit improvement plans for all road, drainage and utility
improvements prior to the approval of a hnal plat.
All utilities shall be placed underground.
All cut slopes created during construqtion shall be revegetated with native
grasses using certified weed-free see$fi-aw Ho!4, tb.( Appr,rcrn, a l€6b F fPtD P
qyP -rrrs (1) yenzs. .f q*
The applicants shall pay $200 per lbt in school impact fees prior to approval of
the hnal plat.
8. All roadways shall be designed and constructed in confornance with design
I standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations and in place at the time of
U.. ",qf,:t.
!r Dgqswaa Ferl^r s \,,rLL lle e*rv ttlnv rlr, (t151 €ooq
a) o';''"Siffi
:ffil#,fi;:"i#","',T,il::[#:;THi1ltrIvagncult
.hrr . ^ . ^ . shall be enforced through the covenan6. Jpp1ofi fo 4. O .Pbt "if*oO{.t EII111 f6 lll5i. o.r F LtzAlt\ oi- t(,grrv1en-cg Af ptt ttr.\r,/.
10, Well Permit#L}s7&shall be amended, consistent with comments from the State
Engineer's Office, to allow for three (3) dwelling units.
It. WvrFlflis fir& wAtcFl.j\€ ltrrru App€Af- ou Fr.lar_
xri capc $sLr-p:rr.vrT grra- E tpr+r b+enap 76
lZ, Au- Sylsva( Lt&H1rrr(it 5l'rtuu l9 4vtCulG,D,fOrffnnqr+g *S
ItQo ?trfltnrD EtrrtwrrlD ,
-,-7u qrro*,-
[1 . W, . .rrarr nr.f
3.
4.
5.
7.
I 3 , Alt( giutt ,.. .1 - o? 1vo t o\ t' te't P ,rtcr+r-
e\+s fL!ry * o(
\, r;;F-f."P\EhIr F,.AIToFI fF€lr qrnrr14.pL lV_tv g{sfgrrr.
.14, fuu ,DEzt*. ^-,' { ::*,5,:,,, {i#**,
*
Tte Eoueq,.rr,r(- tt e+>por6raua5p;y: **-" . ii;X
,
" "iloL\;;: r'"'i*'l,4/?Ja',,LP(Q .t,.r fuffi
1 ,i i ,'ii'r!..
r li;1r't i,'' i::iI :1,'
I'{OUNT SOPRIS SOIIJ
P.O. BOX L302
GLENWOOD SPRINGS,
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
co B1-60L
I{ARCII 9, L994
Garfleld County Planning Commission
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings, Co BL6ol-
I
Dear Sir,
At the regular rnonthly meeting of the Mount SoprLs Soll
Cor,="rratlon nf=t.t"tl the Boird revlewed ttre Prl-nce Creek
r=i"tes Subdivl-sion PIan .r,d d"t"rmined that the same comments
would apply as those in the sketch plan'
I
SincereIY,
&dZ--
Dee Blue, President
l,tount Sopris Soll Conservation Dlstrlct
srATE oF coLonADo
",''
iilt;
lloy Fonter, Governor
DEPANTMEN'I' OF NATURAL BESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPONIUNITY EMPLOYEN
Pcrry D,Olson, Dlroclor
GO0O Broadway
Denver, Colotado 80216
Tolcplrone: (3031 297'l 1S2
Carbondale
DEpAnTMENT OF NATURAL nESOUnCES. l(ennetlr salazar. Execulive Direcior
WILOLIFE COMMISSION. William Fl. l-tegberg. Menrber . Eldon W. Cooper, Merilbe r Felix Clravez, Menrber
Louis F. Swill. Secrelary . George VanDenBerg. Chairnran . Arnold Salazar. Menrber Tlrontas M.
il:i,,\
L2-29-9 3
Garfield county Plantring
1O9 Bth St., Suite lO3
Glenwood Springs, CO Bl60l
Dear Dave:
Prince Creelc Estates proposed by David and Cotrnie llicl<s lies within
mule deer winter ratrge and adjacent to critical habitat dn the
Crown for mule deer and elk. l]l)( will occasionally utilize the
property during winter attracted by the livestock winter feeding.
in adaitior',, tlre parcel also contains a bald eagle feeding perch
site along tlte southwest part of the property along the Crystal
River. It. is located in an old snag with some other cottonwoods
around it.
Wildlife inrpacts can be minimized by:
1. Restrict to 1 dog/home with kennel restrictiotr and kellnel
constructed before C.O. is issued
2- AII fencing be 42tt, 4 sl-rand or less with a L2rt kickspace
bel-ween the tofi 2 strands. Any tail fencitrg be 48", 3 rail or
less with at least 1B'r between 2 of the rails.
3. l,laintain 450, buffer zone around the feeding perclr tree
where there is no home construction. The current proposal
does not impact t.his area I
4. No fishing or residential use (Iivestock activity is o.K.)
in the buffer area from Dec. 1 - March 31 each year'
5. Maintain 10o' sel-back along t5e Crystal. River;
livestock grazing witfuitr this area, fellce if necessary.
'Ihank you f or the opportunity to contnteltt
questions, please give me a call.
If you have any
fe Matrager
For l4tildlife-
Iror l'cople
I. l-lebecca L' Frank. Mernber
Eve, Vice Cllairnran
I
I
:
ffi
,l-J
liilirs
i1..ii.rrls
i.i,li,.i i ii:,
ili:' 'i; lil
i:i,i!i,,,ir.j ,l{:,11.t!''ll"il;ir,
:
lrErEn To
l(evin Wr
' District
rlr
i;:i i i'l(,:i ii l'
STATE, OF COLOKADO
OTTICE OT TTIE STATE ENGINEER
Dlvlsiorr of Water Resources
Delrartnrent of Natural Resources
IIII Sherntan Slreel, Roorn 0lB
Detrver, Colorado 00203
Plrone (3031 866-3581
r^x (l03l 066-3s09
Marclt 22, 1994
Mr. Dave Miclraelson, Plalttrer
Garfield County Building arld Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Prince creek Estates subdivision Prelinrinary Plalr
i^X,J1l,X:::'!:ii,Ii Bi,t,::rM'
6'lrr P M
IDear Dave:
Thapk you for the relerral for a six lot subdivision. The applicants, David and Cotrnie
Hicks, are prop;sing to create six single-farnily lots of approxirtlaLely two acres eaclt. The proposed
wate6uppiy ior this subclivision is to be froin the sharetl use oI two dontestic wells, permit nos'
105764 anrJ 174240.
This office previously conuuented on Lhis proposal in a tetter to Garfield County dated
Decenrtrer ZZ, lggi (copy eirclosed). Our comtttenrs from that letter are still applicable.' The
applicant 5as not yet requested an arnendment to pertnit no. 105764 to serve tlrree dwellings as
required by the Decenrber 22, 1993 letter.
. Should you have further questions or conrlrents regartlitrg tlte water supply for this project,
please colttact this office at l"he above address.
Sincerely,
kn T<*@
Je[f Deatherage
Water Resources Engineer
cc: Orlyn Bell, Divisiott Engitteer
Joe Bergquist, Water Coltlmissiotter
prince2.sub
itr
(-
r.fJ,:,1.
il:l:rl":
,!r
t: Ii,!
rllll\tt 2 0 l9e4
' ' ,, ':.i
ill,l 1,'l'i 't,i ri,
STATE, OF COLOT(ADO
COTORADO GEOLOGICAT SURVEY
Divisi<.ln of Minerals arrd Ceology
Deuar lnrenl <-r[ Natural Resottrccs
1 I i3 Slrerrnan Slteel, ltn. 715
Detrver, Colorado 00203
Phone (l0l) 066-261 I
FAX p03) 06G-2461
DEPAIUMI]NT OF
NAIUI{AL
I\ESOUI\CES
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salarar
[.xecullve Dlreclo]
Mlchael B. Long
Dlvislon Dlrector
Vlckl Cowrrl
5i;rte Ceolo6ltt
elld Dl]cclol
i
Marclr 22, 1994 cA-94-00I I
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfielcl County Planning Departuteut
109 Bth Street, Suite 103
Glenwood Springs, C<llorado 81601
Re: l'roposed Prince Creek Estates (Subdivision) Prelinrirlary Plan
Intersection of Prince Creek Road (C.R. 111) artcl the Garfieltl
Boundary, Garfiel'tl County
Dear Mr. Michaelsotr:
At your request and iu accordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have reviewed the uraterials
subinittecl filr and made a tield inspection on March 14, 1994, of the site tlf the proposed
resiclential subclivisiort inrlicated above. 'l'he followiug ct.rtuurellts sultlltrurize our fin<lings.
(1) The gelleral geology of this site consists of older terrace gravels and other alluvial
(rir"onr-J"posited) nraierials depositetl by the ancestral Crystal ll.iver which overlie lhe
Mancos Shale and possibly other Cretaceous sedimentary rocks. The thickrless o[ the stream-
tlerivecl rnaterials is pr<lbably variable, but exceeds txrrttral forrndaLion depths for typical
resideltial structurei wittr basernents. Althougtt tltese surlicial tnaterials typically exhibit
good to excellent foturclation-stability characteristics, thcy can vary in composition an<l grain
Iize greatly in short distances, both laterally and vertically. Because of this variability, we
,".uirrrr"rid that each building site be investigatecl by a clualitiecl soils and foundatiou
engineer before selectiou o[ foundation type(s) an,l.,design(s).
i
(2) Because of the irrigation in the vicinity and the resulting possibility that shallow perched
water table(s) could clevelop on clayey zolles in the aucietrt alluviuut, we recotllmend that
foulclation tlrains be installed in all structures with bascrtretrts. The slope of tltese Iots is
such that these drains cau outfall by gravity flow.
I
i
i
I
I
-- North of tfre
CounLy-Pitkin County
I
t,
I
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Marclr 22,1994
Pagc 2
(3) The proposed inrlivitluat septic sewage-rlisposnl systetrts probably witl be eutirely [easible
f,r all of the lots. I-I<rwever, itis possibi-e thai percoiation rates calr vary greatly frortr place
iu pio"" wSich m:ry necessitate tise of "custont" Ieach-fielt] designs. '
,
(a) Tde gracling and tlrainage plan presentecl in the Sclttttueser, Cordott, Meyer, Ittc', tnap
. shoull be arlequate to coniroi surface runo[f across the lots. I'lorvever, the gulch that will
carry offsite flow that is shown dividing i'BASIN #1" fronr "BnSlN {l2" in their rePort (map)
shoul<l be stuclied further to determirie if erosion in it coulcl becoute excessive. Depending
,, actual otfsite flows and the contributions to runolf causcd by inrl.rerviotts cover ott the
lots, it may tre advisable to protect this gulch area froltt crrtsiolt try active tllealls suclt tts
riprap placeuretlts along it, etc.
In sununary, we believe that this subdivisioll proposlrl is entirely teasible if the reasonable
precautionary measures recontureuded abtlve are takeu.
Sincerelv.
0;7,,5,,.-((-.($mes M. Soule
'Engineering Geologist,
l0-:! :r!ii l:
j:iiiiiF i
: t. !! tl::
j !. ::: l:i
.lj:t!i
,1 :r,i
,!, i i .:Ii
ir; i
!i,l
i ,ir
ar;
(rji'
Cor'a*,r,Jrg r=
-16r..r Turxl rs
PrInce Creel< Subcllvlslon - Davld Itlclte
i
Overvlew: ir
Need bo mI.IrnIze tntompaLtbtflLy vibh surroundlngL)
ranchland nelghborhood'
.Should regulre Lhe full
accourlbabIll bY as bhis
geograPhlcal Presenbabl
Preliminary PlaL MaP:
.EnLlrelY lnaccuraLe as
owne rslt I P
frog develoPtnenb I
properbY Plan Lor fubure
i; ci.artY Phase I bY }b"'oni
:
I
f ar as aclJ acenb ProPerLY2)
3)
:
il
Wa ber :. .onry one exisblng well LtraL has never been pu!,:"
Ibeneflcialuse.LocaLerlwiblrirr25o,ofTurnbulll
"l trell whicli has senior adJudlcabion Ib cannob' I
.t be assumed thab bhere wif f be no InJ ury'
tLr
. Proposecl well is i', Area B of Basalb WaLer - ^r --i'iffi";;_ni=u't"uandrequiresaugmenLabionp1"1.
Cisbern sUtrage sSould be u.r.lerground ancl concealed,
.*iirii;:; or"" ,.' ;;. ,";" o,-'..r= noL addres:'u-]
plan should be requlred bo evaluaLe rgLevance :"^, I' gracJing and clralnJge platr or pobenbial over-use "t iveIl faclllbies.I
I,lUbll-l bies:
. ExlsLing power supply clirecblv. over T'I']b:11-.,1:::" IIIoly cro=s needs bo reloca be 11ne bef ore appr'oY?l; -l-.Ruralclraracberneedsbobepreservedwlbhublllui]sunderground. I i
No af i nighb securiby light'lng be allowed'
I
Roads: - --, I
.AnaLyzetrafflcusageonPrinceCreel<Road-braffl!
counb conrPlebed in Pasb Year - i
7) Dogs:
Resb, li:i:b dogs f rorn subdlvision ,i1iift.=s Pennedll-ivesi.bck and deer ab rislc ltere.*'
4)
s)
counb compleuecl ].n pasu year I
. Neecl f or braf f 1c slgnal ab Ilwy 133? Already one
I
Lrafflc fabaliby ab thls intersecblon
.Iucreaslng Lrarlic becomes lnore lncompablbte wlblt
hisLor1c ranch usage
.14 ' Drlveway "u=."Irb" neecl f enclng and -vegaLablvel.andscaplngbonrlnlnrlzelmpacbofsubdlvlslon
Ito access ioir exlsbing ran"tl Souse or remainder of
properby depicb;;-". pf"U (need for overvlewlof
nblre ProPerbY)
i
i6) Building envelopes:
. n"qriie tuf J.dtng f oobprl'bs bo be deslgnabed 1n
ord"r bo maxlmize vtsual aeslrtreLlcs and seb baclcs'
.llequire some mltrimum screetl planblngs
,
l!: il
r ai:lili
:iiil
, t,r:
.i'll !,:rl
"lri
iiililiit
li i'd liiiii:i:i
, : ! '
! :' '!
I i : I i : : : I
. ::t:l !iil;.|. i
li i ii ll'tlri ii
I;r1il,
i$si
r t? iJ' i,:
[ !;i i,ii; i ;:
rl rifi$! iiil
:[llilii
"i'i ili'i';ii
Irii4 tiii:
iq!''}I$
i';li:iii
tl
I
.4,&-Jlfu i,-r:..r!4^" rr.:- . '.---.f id"' -'-- --" *'^ "- ".] ^'-'--'l
Aeial l4cw of Site C Aftcr Crealive Dcvclopnrcrrt
43
, i i, I,,,r.lli,,ilrdriiri,,ilritrli;):ri.ii!:i,.
I-lr,
-E
-h+
E
;E
E
IE
IE
E
,F
E
P
,P
ts
F
-L
E
E
t
t
t
5
F
t
F
t
r
t
I
I
t
AcialView o[ Site CA[tcr Convenliolol Dcveloprrwtt
42
,".n:.!:lif:n_lLiiinrllii,iii!',ir,iilh, i',i, _j..:Lt. -.....__..
in
tr
il
il
EI
:
il
il
il
il
m
u
a
fi
H
:
at
fl
il
u
il
.'il
a
il,
il:
JI
;il
H
{
t
Aeial Wew o[ Sitc C Beforc Dcvelopnrcnt
ilo< r,Evl Plr
E1 r1 trle-
%* C b,b.
PROJE T INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PC 4ll3t94
Prince Creek Estates Preliminary Plan
David and Connie Hicks
A parcel of land located in a portion of
Sections 10, l1 and 15, T8S, R88W of the
6th PM; located approximately two (2)
miles south o[ Carbondale, off of County
Road I I l.
121.588 acres
Shared Wells
Individual sewage disposal systems
(r.s.D.s.)
CR I11
A/R/RD
fuR/RD
REQUEST:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
I.
I
RITI ATIONSHTP TO'THE COMPRFHENSTVE PLAN
The subject property is located in Dist"rict C, Rural Areas with Minor Environmental
Constraints on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts Map.
I'IFSCRIPTTON OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Descrintion: The property is bound on the east by County Road I 1 I (Prince
Creek Road) and on the west by the Crystal River. To the north and south are
agricultural properLies, and properties to the south are small 2 to 5 acre
residential lots. Access to the site is provided via County Road 111, which
accesses State Highway 133 across from the Fish Hatchery (see vicinity map on
enclosed set of bluelines).
The property slopes gently towards the Crystal River at approximately 5 to 7
percent, and approaching 2 to 4 percent as the property closes on the River.
Vegetation includes native gftNses, with isolated cottonwoods along the frontage
\
- 17-
i
I
with the Crystal River. T'he only structures currently on the property include a
main house and several agricultural out-buildings. 1
B. Project Descrintion: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 121.588 acre
parcel into six (6) two (2) acre lots, with the remaining 109 acres to remain in
agricultural production. Water would be provided by a commttnity system using
two (2) separate wells (Permits #105764 and 174240'5. Each lot will have an
ISDS system (see attached set of Blue Lines entitled "Prince Creek Estates -
Preliminary Plan").
III. RFYTEW AGFNCY COMMFNTS
A. Mount Sonris Soil Conservation District: Dee Blue recommended that any cuts
be revegetated, and recommended a reclamation plan to address soil
disturbance. In addition, the District recommended that animal control
regulations be adopted and enforced through covenants (see letter on page
- Z}-:
B. Colorado nivision of Wildli{b: The Division hzn reviewed the project, and
indicated that the project is located within mule deer winter range and is
adjacent to critical habitat for mule deer and elk. In order to mitigate the
impacts on wildlife, Kevin Wright suggested the following (see.letter on page -- 1,b,
l.Restrict dogs to I per home, with kennel restrictions and kennel
construction prior to a C.O.;
All fencing must conform to DOW standards;
Maintain a 450' buffer and limit access lrom December I - March 31 near
the bald eagle feeding perch (not impacted by the current proposal).
State Engineer's Office: The Division reviewed the project at sketch plan, aqd
their comments, summarizndbelow, remain the same (see letter on page 2ll,
The existing well permits allow for a total of four (4) dwelling units;
The applicant must submit an application to amend Permit #105764Lo
allow lor three dwelling units;
The wells should be jointly owned by the lot owners, and covenants
should be drafted to allow for management and operation of the wells.
Colorado C'eologic Survey: The Survey held-checked the project on lvlarch 14,
l9g4,and had the following comments (see letter on pages ,J&:r.b
Alluvial deposits may vary in composition and grain in short distances,
and each building site should be investigated by a soilVfoundation
engineer to determine the type and design of individual buildings;
Drainage patterns on the site may require the installation of foundation
drains;
- lg'
2.
3.
C.
l.
')
3.
D.
t.
2.
3. ISDS should be feasible on all lots.
E.Adjaceqt I ^nd Owners: Tom and Ross Turnbull had several comments
regarding the project, including concerns regarding compatibility with adjacent
agricultural uses and questions regarding future plans lor the balance of the
property (see summary otconcerns on page *?.).
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
Comf'rehensive Plan Compliance: Thecurrent Comprehensive Plan gives little
guidance regarding design criteria for subtlivisions in rural areas. Specific
policies that should be considered include policies regarding the protection of
agricultural land uses (i.e. compatibility).
The Prince Creek drainage is an area of historical agricultural lands, with a
significant amount of those uses still in existence. Although this is the hrst
significant land use proposal for the area, stalT would suggest that the
compatibility issue will increase in intensity as the area transitions to residential
uses. SpecifiO policies regarding agricultural impacts include Objective l, which
reads as follows:
"Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with farms and ranches."
Policy lA reads as follows:
"Agricultural land should be protected by inlringement by incompatible uses
through means such as buffer areas or the location of non-agricultural uses in
areas of non-productive farmland".
The co-existence of agricultural uses and residential development is a common
issue in rural areas, and staffwould suggest that some design approaches have
been successlul in addressing these concerns. For the Commission's reference,
staffhas included copies lrom a document entitled "Dealing with Change in the
Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual lrom Conservation and
rrevelonment, developed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management and the Lincoln Institute ol Land Policy. The three graphics
include a per-development scenario ("Aerial View of Site C Before
Development", aconventional development scenario ("Aerial View of Site After
Conventional Development"), and a creative development approach ("Aerial
View of Site C After Creative Development").
The scenarios demonstrate that approaches to encourage progressive
development can be used to accomplish three objectives:
Allow the development of land in support o[ private property rights;
Protect the property rights of adjacent owners and agricultural uses;
Allow for gradual development while retaining a rural landscape.
Staff includes these graphics primarily to adclress con@rns voiced by the
Planning Commission and staff during the sketch plan review.
.lq'
A.
l
B.Soils/Topograpby; The site lor the proposed subdivision consists of a large
pasture area to the west of the County Road, with a drainage area from the road
west. The geology of the site consists of older terrace deposits . Depth to
bedrock is estimated by Dr. Nick Lampiris at 30 to 100 feet. The Lampiris
report did not identify any geologic hazardthat would preclude development on
the site. Drainage impacts should may present a risk to the units, due to
potential adverse impacts from adjacent irrigation. Dr. Lampiris suggests that
site specihc soils engineering studies be performed lor proper loundation design
and foundation drainage.
Road Design: Access to the site is vis two "easernents" , approximately 14 feet
wide, that access the property from the north and south. Both easements are
include a 30' ROW, with the north road accessing four lots, and the southern
road accessing two lots.
Based on the subdivision road standards, and the precedence for designing
separate based on the number of dwelling units accessed,
access ro istent with adopted roadway standards.
accessing fo units, the following standards apply:
Minimum RO as shown on plans)
Lane Width = 8' (t'nes)
These changes must be shown on the hnal plat.
In addition, the easements will have to be a publicly dedicated road, as opposed
to a dedicated easement.
Water: As indicated earlier, one of the well permits will have to be amended
prior to hnal plat.
Wastewater: Sewage disposal will be by ISDS. Bob Nelson (Nelson
Environmental and Wastewater Solutions, Inc.), prepared a review of the site for
ISDS feasibility. Mr. Nelson, based on slope, groundwater, soil types and
surficial geology, concluded that each lot can accommodate a traditional septic
system and leach field.
Fire Protection: The site is within the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection
District. The District has not responcled to the application.
Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform with the minimum parcel size and
development requirements of the Zoning Resolution.
Recommendation
C.
the north
Based on
D.
E.
F.
G.
IV.
A primary issue belore the Planning Commission is the compliance with the
Commission's sketch plan request lor a "more innovative design". If the Commission
feels that the design issue has been addressed, stalf would suggest the lollowing
conditions of approval:
??0-
Gnr*.419 ftaA
-e-raFA I UEdBrl-r_,
r)
z)
q)
s)
Prince Creek Subdivision David Hicks
Overview:
.Need to minimize incompabibifity wibh surrounding
ranchland neighborhood.
Represents classic leap frog development
. Should require t,he ful1 property plan for fuLure
accounLabiliby as this is clearly Phase I by its'
geographical presentation
Preliminary Plat, Map:
.Entirely inaccurate as far as adjacent properby
ownersh i p
3 ) Water:
4
urilir
6)
{,1
.Only one existing well that has never been put to
beneficial use. Locabed within 25O' of Turnbull
well which has senior adjudication It cannot
be assumed t,haL bhere will be no injury.
.Proposed well is in Area B of Basalt Water
Conservancy District and requires augmentation plan.
. Cistern storage should be underground and concealed
from view.
. Irrigation plan for two acre parcels not addressed-
plan should be required to evaluate relevance to
grading and drainage plan or potential over-use of
well facilities.
i
ies:
.Existing power supply directly over Turnbull house
Holy Cross needs bo relocate tine before approvat. ].Rural character needs to be preserved with utilities
underground.
.No all night security lighting be allowed.
Roads:
.Analyze traffic usage on Prince Creek Road- traffic
count completed in past year.
.Need for traffic signal at Hwy 133? Already one
traffic fabalit,y at this inLersecbion
. fncreasing trafiic becomes more incompabible with
historic ranch usage.L4' Driveway easments need fencing and vegababive
landseaping bo minimize impact of subdivision
.No access for exisbing ranch house or remainder ofproperty depict,ed on plaL (need for overview ofentire properby)
Building envelopes:.Require building foobprint,s to be designated inorder to maximize visual aesthetics and set backs.
.Require some minimum screen plantings
Dogs:
. Rest :t dogs fromlive- -oek and deer
subdivisionat risk here
7)
ess penned-
l.
2.
4.
5.
All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearing with the Planning Commission, be considered conditions of
approval.
The applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association and shall be
incorporated in accordance with the requirements ofColorado Revised Statutes.
The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the Basalt Water
Conservation District water contract and for road maintenance and snow
removal. The articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants shall be
reviewed by County Staltprior to the approval of a Final Plat. The applicant
shall modify the existing Flomeowner's Association Lo include ajoint roadway
maintenance agreement.
3. The applicants shall prepare and submit a Subdivision lmprovements
Agreement, addressing all improvements, prior to recording a hnal plat.
The applicants shall submit improvement plans lor all road, drainage and utility
improvements prior to the approval of a final plat.
All utilities shall be placed underground.
6. All cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses using certihed weed-free seed.
7. The applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school irnpact fees prior to approval of
the final plat.
All roadways shall be designed and constructed in conlornance with design
standards set forth in the Subdivision RegulaLions and in place at the time of
hnal plat.
Only ond -dog will be allowed lor each dwelling unit to prol.ect adjacent
Kennels shall be required, and language ensuring compliance
through the covenants.
agricultural
Well PermiL#105764 shall be amended, consisten[ with comments lrom the State
,c
M
\-.^
10.
Engineer's Oflice, to allow lor three (3) dwelling units.
{&x,rut f."f l. !r,,r tr(t. WS+#r*tq
[ ,, EAsE]*ak g @ \JA.rHa- t^r4I , -:F;ohr,'ro HeH
ViW ffi^ci:r
@,* Jn,*--r)
Itet(
l)zse+ h r,,**, r\(fue, r{
-zl'
shall be enforced
Z-3 araagrck4'
!! J',: :\ r'-,'\.1 ,r i, '.::atl'
MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
P.O. BOX l-302
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8l-60l-
MARCH 9, L994
Garfield
109 Bth
Glenwood
County Planning Commission
Street, Suite 303
Springs, Co 8l-601
Dear Sir,
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil
Conservation Districtl tne Soird reviewed the Prince Creek
nsLates Subdivision pi-an and determined that the same comments
would apply as those in the sketch plan.
Sincerely,
@dZ--
Dee Blue, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
,i, fl ,,,,i;i;i{i,,','i i:,
li .,ii,,i,i:liill;liiir,;,,lr: .il'
::; ii l ill
,i liiiit: 1,, i iiiil i:il' 'r i
rr,'liti,i;iiiii,i,i,i -'; i
. ,, .':.i.;: I i.; ;ii I' ii : - -' ,
,::. ',i li: ii,: r i,.: i I i : .r ,1.r:
:;,, i;Il,:.i:i:;,:liiii,:;' Iiiiil
i ffirfi;iii
;i:; :ii ii'iiiiili'iii,,,i r;,lii
;,;, il ii:lflh;,iii ,ili'
. i:i,i ii:iiiiiii:lil: rli.,i.,
rl ,! i i' i. r,:;::.l,i,i',, ' ,i; :,1
| .:j -, tr..: , .r:i'
ir.r; l:
STATE OF COLONADO ']. ]
Roy Bomer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPORIUNITY EMPLOYEN
Perry D. Olson, Oireclor
6O6O Broadway
Denver, Colorado BO2 16
Teleplrone: (303) 297-l 192 For Wildlife-
For People
t2-29-93
Garfield County Planning
109 8th St., Suite 3O3
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Dave:
Prince Creek Estates proposed by David and Connie llicks Iies within
mule deer winter range and adjacent to critical habitat on the
Crown for mule deer and elk. EIk will occasionally utilize the
property during winter attracted by the livestock winter feeding.
In addition, the parcel also contains a bald eagle feeding perch
site along the southwest part of the property along the Crystal
River. It is located in an otd snag with some other cottonwoods
around it.
wildlife impacts can be minimized by:L. Restrict to 1 dog/home with kennel restriction and kennel
constructed before C.O. is issued.2. A11 f encing be 42t1 , 4 strand or less with a L2'r kickspace
between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing be 4Br', 3 rail or
less with at least 18ir between 2 of the rails.
3. Maintain 45o' buffer zone around the feeding perch tree
where there is no home construction. The current proposal
does not impact this area.4. No fishing or residentj.al use (Iivestock activity is o.K. )in the buffer area from Dec. 1 - March 31 each year.
5. Maintain 10o' setback along tlre Crystal Riveri no
livestock grazing within this area, fence if necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to commetrt.questions, please give me a call.
If you have any
Sinqerely,
fr,LrL fiKevin.wrlyfiy
District"wildlife Manager
Carbondale
DEPARTMENT OT NATURAL RESOUNCES. KenneIII Sa|azar. ExECUI|VE DiTCCIOT
WtLDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Menrber . Eldon W Cooper, Mernber Felix Chavez, Member ' Rebecca L. Frank, Member
Louis F. Swilt, Secretary . George VanDenBerg. Chairrran . Arnold Salazar. Menrber ' Tlromas M. Eve, Vice Chairman
:iiil1i*flflfl!fliriiiii;,,ffiit'::iiiiilri.irimirinifiiii4iliiir ii[ffi-i i,ii ,
**##*1't g\,1ilffi[*
-ilil
lil.
*i *.,' *
ffi*' ili :,ffi ffi
fi
*il"*ffi --
'H iffiN-=
*' ffiiffiilf i',
**ffilffiii
NETEN TO
ffi
t..
l:.'
STATE OF COLORADO
OTFICE OF THE STATE ENG!NEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
l3 | 3 Sherman Slreet, Room B l8
Denver, Colorado 80201
Phone (303) 866-3581
rAx (303) 866-3589
&qHijtEu) (}out{ tY 5-":-s.:f:"I
Marclr 22, 1994
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Prince Creek Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plan
SW 1/4, Section 11, T 8 S, R 88 W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Dave
Thank you for the referral for a six lot subdivision. The applicants, David and Connie
Hicks, are prop;sing to create six single-family lots of approxinrately two acres each. The proposed
water supply for this subclivision is to be from tlte shared use of two domestic wells, permit nos.
105764 and 174240
This office previously commented on this proposal in a letter to Garfield County dated
Decenrber 22, Iggt (copy enclosed). Our comments from that letter are still applicable. The
applicant has not yet requested an amenclment to permit no. 105764 to serve three dwellings as
required by the December 22, L993letter.
. Should you have further questions or comments regarding tlte water supply for this project,
please coniact tltis office at the above address.
Sincerely,
W D<lWr
Jeff Deatherage
Water Resources Engineer
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
prince2.sub
Execulive Director
l-l3l D, Simpson
-5iate Engineer
t:::
,.i:t;t,,,
it{Atl 2 0 1994
STATE OF COLORADO
COTORADO CEOTOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and CeologY
De;lartrrrerrt of Natural Resources
1 3l 3 Slrerrnan Street, Rm. 7l 5
Denver, Colorado 80203
Plrone (303) 866-2611
FAX (303) 866-2461
DEPATTTMENT OF
NAIURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Covernor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vickl Cowarl
Slate Ceologist
and Director
Marclr 22, 1994 GA-94-0011
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Bth Street, Suite 103
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Proposecl Prince Creek Estates (Subclivision) I'relirnitlary Plan -- North <lf the
Intersection of Prince Creek Road (C.R. 111) ancl the Garfield County-Pitkin County
Bounrlary, Garfieltl County
Dear Mr. Michaelsou:
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1,912), we have reviewed the rnaterials
submitted for and made a fielcl inspection on March 14, 1994, of the site of the proposed
residential subclivision inclicated above. The followittg comurents sunrmarize our findings.
(1) The general geology of this site consists of older terrace gravels ancl other alluvial
(stream-tleposited) materials deposited by the ancestral Crystal River which overlie ttre
Mancos Shale and possibly other Cretaceous sedimentary rocks. The thickness of the stream-
clerivecl materials ls probably variable, but exceeds nortnal foundation depths for typical
residential structureJ with basements. Although tltese surficial materials typically exhibit
good to excellent founclation-stability characteristics, tltey can vary in composition and grain
iize greatly in short distances, both laterally and vertically. Because of this variability, we
,""o**encl that each builcling site be investigated by a qualified soils and foundation
engineer before selection of foundation type(s) and design(s).
(2) Because of the irrigation in the vicinity and the resulting possibility that shallow perched
water table(s) c<luld clevelop on clayey zones in the ancieut alluvium, we recommend that
foundation drains be installed in all structures with basenrents. The slope of these lots is
such that these drains can outfall by gravity flow.
I
I
li
!:I
I
ti
,.f:iii{ ,:::'..:-,
Mr. Dave Michaelson
March 22,1994
Page Z
(3) The proposed individual septic sewage-disposal systetns probably wil.l be entirely feasible
for all of the lots. Flowever, itls possibG thai percolation rates can vary greatly from place
io piu""-*hich may ,r"""rritot" use of "custom" Ieach-fiekl designs. 1
( ) The gracling anrl drainage plan presentecl in the Scltmueser, G<lrdon, Meyer, Inc'' map
ihould bi adequate to cont-rof surface runoff across the lots. I-Iowever, the gulch that will
carry offsite flow that is sirown dividing'BASIN #L" frorn "I-]ASIN #2" itt their report (map)
snoda be studied further to determirie if erosion in it coutd become excessive. Depending
on actual offsite flows and the contributions to runoff causecl by irnpervious cover ott the
lots, it rnay be aclvisable to protect this gulch area from erosion by active me'alls -suclt zts
riprap placements along it, etc.
In summary, we believe that this subclivision proposal is entirely feasible if the reasonable
precautionary measures recommended above are taken'
Sigperely,
0*=Tr, >*-(L_
(ly'mes M. Soule --
Engineering Geologist
I 1..
-:l o
Corq*-'Jrg +ph^
-4a1,lehl I U?zM E+t_
It,raffid
one
wi uh
Prlnce Creek Subdivlsion - David IIicke
1) overview ' rrNeed bo mI'imize inbompabtbiliby wibh surrounding
ranchland neighborhood.
.Represenbs classic leap frog developmenL
Should require the full properby plan for future
accounbabiflby as Lhis is clearly Phase I by ibs'
geographical presenbabion
2) Preliminary Plat Map:
.Enbirely inaccurabe as far as adjacenb properby
ownership
Wa ber :
.Only one exisbing well bhab has never been pub to
beneficial use. Located wibhin 25O' of Turnbull
well r+hich has senior adj udicabion IL cannob
be assumed bhab bhere will be no injury.
.Proposed vel1 is in Area B of Basalt Waber
ConiGivancy I-lisbricb and requires augmenLabion pfan.
.Cisbern su-rage should be unclerground and concealed
from view. I
. Irrigabion plan for Lwo acre parcels not addressed-l
plan should be required to evaluate relevance Lo
Igrading and drainage plan or potenbial over-use of
iwell facilities.
iUbili t,ies: I.Exist,ing power supply direcbly over Turnbull house
IHoly Cross needs bo relocate line before approval.
I.Rural characber needs to be preserved wlbh ut,ilitids
underground. I
s)Roads:
.No all night securiby lighLing be allowed.
. Analyze t,raf f ic usage on Prince Creel< Road-
counb complebed in pasL year.
.Need for braffic signal ab IIwy 133? Already
traffic faLaIiLy ab t,his inbersecbion
. Increasing t,raffic becomes more incompabible
hisLoric ranch usage
3)
nJ
{
4)
.L4'Driveway easmenLs need fencing and vegabative
landscaping bo minimize impact of subdivision
.No access for exisbing ranch house or remainder of
properby depicted on plab (need for overview of
enbire properby)
6) Building envelopes:
.Require building foobprlnbs bo be designabed in
order to maximize visual aesbhetics and seb backs.
.Require some minimum screen planbings
Dogs:7)
. ResL, :',:t, dogs f rom subdivis ion ri:;,,i,u"s penned-Iiveu,.ock and deer at risl< here.'l"" i
I