No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.07.2000Q7 BOCC 08/105/00 isilpoe NOTE: THE FOLLOWING STAFF REPORT HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE HEARING OF 07/10/00 TO INCLUDE THE COMMENTS FROM THE TOWN OF BASALT (EXHIBIT `J' TO BE ENTERED AT THIS HEARING) AND CDOT ACCESS PERMITS (EXHIBIT 'H' SUBMITTED AT LAST HEARING). ALL CHANGES HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED (GRAY BACKGROUND) WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. ALSO, ALL AGENCY COMMENTS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED HERE BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY ENTERED AS AN EXHIBIT AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT OF 07/10/00 AND TO SAVE PAPER (PLEASE SEE STAFF REPORT OF 07/10/00). PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review of the Cerise Ranch Subdivision. APPLICANT: Wintergreen Homes. ENGINEERS: High Country Engineering. PLANNERS: The Land Studio, Inc. LOCATION: A parcel of land located in portions of Sections 29, 32 and 33, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. Garfield and Eagle County. Approximately five (5) miles east of Carbondale on the north side of Highway 82, directly west and north of the Dakota subdivision SI'L'L DATA: 301.520+/- acres. WATER: Shared Well (Willow well). SEWER: I. S.T. S. (Individual Sewage Treatment System). This means secondary treatment will be supplied. ACCESS: Highway 82. ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL East (Northerly portion): A/R/RD. East (Southerly portion): D a k o t a Subdivision. West: A/R/RD. North (Westerly portion): PUD. North (Easterly portion): Subdivision. South: A/R/RD. A. Site Description: The subject property is located approximately five (5) miles east of Carbondale on the north side of Highway 82, directly west and north of the Dakota subdivision. The far easterly portion of the property is in Eagle County and is proposed to be open space. The southern portion of the property is relatively flat and is crossed by Blue Creek and a few existing irrigation ditches. A large amount of the southern portion of the property is within the 100 year flood plain of Blue Creek and is also designated as wetlands. All of this area except a small area of wetlands will be preserved as open space. The small area of wetlands not to be preserved as open space will "be restricted to no development and be avoided through careful design of lots and driveways", as noted in the applicant's submittal. This will need to be a plat note on any Final Plat to be recorded (See language in staff recommendation section of this staff report). The northern portion of the property is above 40% slope and is subject to geologic constraints. The great majority of this area will not be developed. Only the northwest portion of the subject property where there are steep slopes will be impacted with development. A road is proposed to be built through a portion of the property above 40% slope to access the proposed water tank which is to be located in an area of greater than 40% slope. A driveway is proposed to be built across two (2) proposed lots (lots 53, 54) within an area above 40% slope to access one (1) proposed lot (lot 52). The applicant shall incorporate with any final plat a plat note that will require any future lot owner of Lot 52, prior to the initiation of any grading or construction upon said Lot, to submit to the Garfield County Department of Building and Planning detailed engineering drawings of the proposed driveway accessing Lot 52. Further, the proposed access easement with dimensions, as shown on the submitted Preliminary Plan must be included on any Final Plat for recording. The proposed lot (lot 52) has a building envelope which is less than 40% slope. Any necessary mitigation measures as determined for any construction in areas above 40% slope will be conditions of any Final Plat. The site is currently occupied by a house and other out buildings, some of which, including the house, will be retained on one of the proposed lots (Lot 68). The site is currently actively used for grazing of cows and horses. 2 The existing pond on the property which is dry will be abandoned. A new pond in the designated Open Space area may be constructed at a later date for aesthetic purposes only. This will not be a part of this application. However, if in the construction of this pond, ground water is to be exposed, a well permit will be required. Three types of plant communities/ecosystems exist on the subject property. These are oak/serviceberry sluubland, herbaceous pasture lands, and wetland communities. B. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the tract into a total of sixty-eight (68) residential lots with 14 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), one (1) on each of fourteen (14) lots (lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 36, 52, 53, and 68) for a total of 82 units. The lots range in size from 2.004 acres to 40.748 acres. The development is proposed to be built in two phases as described in the submittal. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, since this proposal is for less than 100 lots, all lots must be final platted within five (5) years. Water is to be supplied by a shared well (Willow well) through a well sharing agreement. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs) are proposed for each lot. These provide more treatment of sewage than ISDSs (secondary treatment). Access will be via a single access off of Highway 82 in the western portion of the subject lot with an additional emergency access off of Highway 82 in the eastern portion of the subject lot. II. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area 1, 1995 designates the subject property as Medium Density Residential (6 to less than 10 AC/DU). The proposed subdivision proposes a density of approximately 3.68 AC/DU. This is in excess of the designated density for the subject property. However, this proposal is directly adjacent to the existing Dakota Subdivision which is designated as high density residential and is approved for higher density than the Cerise Ranch proposal. Objective 5.2 of the Comprehensive Plan states: The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision and PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance existing open space uses. Cerise Ranch proposes to maintain a significant amount of the subject property as open space which will promote this objective. Objective 5.5 of the Comprehensive Plan states: Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas. 3 Cerise Ranch is proposing to place the majority of residential lots away from Highway 82 which will allow the homes to blend more into the existing back drop. In addition, the four (4) proposed lots in the southeast portion of the property which are close to Highway 82 will be in close proximity to the existing Dakota subdivision and other developments which are of a higher density lending a transition zone to the proposed open space on-site. Thus, this application is in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Colorado Division of Water Resources: In a letter dated, March 21, 2000 (See pgs. 24- 27), the Division of Resources states, "...the proposed water supply is physically adequate and will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, provided the applicant obtains valid well permits for the proposed uses." Obtaining valid well permits will be a condition to be met prior to Final Plat approval since the applicants have an approved water contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The letter from the Division of Water Resources also states: "Also note that well permits are necessary prior to the exposure of ground water by the proposed ponds, and that well permits for residential use will require that engineered individual sewage treatment systems be of the non -evaporative type unless otherwise requested and supported by consumptive use estimates...Our records also indicate that several exempt wells may exist within the proposed development (Two pages listing eight wells are attached). If any of these wells are within the proposed subdivision, they must either be included in the District's TSSP or an augmentation plan, or will be required to be plugged and abandoned pursuant to the conditions of the new well permits for the development." These will all be conditions of any Final Plat approval. B. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: No comments were received from the Department of Health. D. Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District: No comments were received from the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District. E. Garfield County Vegetation Management: In a memorandum dated 03/13/00 (See pgs 28,29), Steve Anthony, of Garfield County Vegetation Management states, "The plan doesn't address weed control or revegetation." With this, he includes four (4) comments which are summarized below: 1. Request the applicant to conduct a noxious weed inventory. 2. Ask the applicant to submit a written Weed Management Plan. 3. The revegetation plan within the application needs to detail revegetation plans for all proposed disturbances and include a seed mix, method of planting, and 4 reseeding planting schedule. 4. The covenants should address noxious weeds. These comments as outlined in the memorandum received from the agency (See pgs. 23, 24), must be adhered to with any Final Plat submittal. F. Holy Cross Energy: No comments were received. G. Garfield School District No. Re -1: In a letter dated, April 14, 2000, (See p.30), Garfield School District No. Re -1, states, "...the District is requesting cash -in -lieu of land dedication to be calculated in accordance with the District's formula as adopted by Garfield County earlier this year." H. Garfield County Sheriff's Department: In a letter dated March 9, 2000, (See p.31), the Sheriff's Department stated the following concerns: 1. The need to ensure all access roads are of sufficient width to accommodate fire and EMS equipment. 2. Any roads that are a dead end or cul-de-sac type should have an ending radius large enough to accommodate fire or EMS equipment's turn around ratio. 3. All roads and roadways shall be clearly marked with correct County road numbers and names. 4. All street addresses be clearly marked and visible from the County road or access roads. These will be conditions of any Final Plat approval. Carbondale Fire District: In a letter dated March 3, 2000 (See p.32), the Carbondale Fire District is favorable to the provisions for fire protection as presented by the applicant in the submitted application. Homes over 3,600 square feet are to be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, and impacts fees in the amount of $417.00 per single family lot are to be paid. These will be conditions of any Final Plat. J. Colorado Department ofTransportati 'n: CDOT has issued two access permits for the subject property submitted as Exhibit 'H' at the Board of County Commissioners Hearing of 07/10/00. One access permit is for an emergency access only (Permit #300095), and the other is for a full access for 67 single-family detached housing, and 67 accessory dwelling units (Permit #300094). As discussed at the previous hearing, this access is for dwellings in excess of what the application is applying for (68 single- family detached dwellings and, 14 accessory dwelling units), which the applicant may want to clarify with CDOT. However, since the approved access is for more than what 5 is being requested in the application, this access permit is satisfactory. As a condition of any approval, all conditions of these permits (#300094, #300095) must be complied with by the applicant. K. Colorado Division of Wildlife: In a letter dated 03/22/00 (See pgs. 33-38), numerous comments were presented by CDOW. The following are those which will be conditions of any Final Plat approval: As per Garfield County regulations, one dog per lot will be allowed, and it must be confined within the owner's property boundaries.. Comment number 3, Fencing, as outlined in the letter. Wildlife mitigation should only be considered if avoidance is not possible. Comment number 4, Wildlife Mitigation: As per "Response to Division of Wildlife Letter Dated 01/18/00", included in Section 14, of the applicant's submittal, which states in Item 9, "The applicant will establish a wildlife mitigation trust fund to be used to mitigate for wildlife impacts on site or adjacent to the site. The applicant will contribute $100.00 per unit to the wildlife mitigation trust fund upon the sale of each unit. Use of the trust fund money will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association." Comment number 5, Bears/Trash Removal, as outlined in the letter with the following revision: Short term outside storage of trash, not within bear proof containers will be allowed upon the condition that the applicant incorporate within the Protective Covenants, acceptable limitations (not longer than 12 hours) on such short term outside storage which are adequate to satisfy the purpose addressed by CDOW Comment 5.. Comment number 8, CDOW Indemnification, as outlined in the letter. Note: For Preliminary Plan to the Planning Commission, staff recommended that indemnification for CDOW be a condition of any approval. However, upon further discussion with the County Attorney's office, it was determined that the County had no means to enforce this condition/requirement. Thus, it has been decided by staff that this should no longer be a condition of any approval. As such, staff's recommendation at the end of this report has been modified accordingly to eliminate this condition as well as the accompanying plat note. Comment number 9, Open Space Management, as outlined in the letter. Comment number 11, Educating Residents, as outlined for small developments. These comments (#3, 5, 9, and 11) as included in the CDOW letter of March 22, 6 2000, and the application submittal ("Response to Division of Wildlife Letter Dated 01/18/00" Item 9, in Section 14) must be included in any recorded covenants for this application. In addition, the following plat notes must be included on any Final Plat for recording: "One dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries." "Fencing will be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. See covenants for specific restrictions." "The comment received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Comment #5, titled Bears/Trash Removal in their letter of March 22, 2000, and included in the covenants must be adhered to by all residents" "The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future claims in regards to wildlife damage." As per the note above, this plat note shall be removed. "The subdivision shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing of other forms of harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off' open space areas. This provision shall apply during winter and production periods. Winter periods are defined as December 1 through April 30 and production periods as May 1 through June 30." "General brochures available from CDOW with regard to wildlife to educate homeowners will be distributed to all homeowners upon the purchase of a lot." L. U.S. West Communications: U.S. West Communications returned their copy of the application with no comments. M. Colorado Geological Survey: In a letter dated March 18, 2000 (See pgs. 39-42), the Colorado Geological Survey comments included (Please note that these comments were in reference to the original submittal which has been modified with respect to these comments and those from Wright Water Engineers): "We recommend that the County require the developer provide a comprehensive mitigation plan prior to approval." This was in reference to debris flow hazards. "A slope stability analysis should be performed at this location to quantify the effects of additional toe excavations for the road alignment. The county should not give approval until this is resolved. If mitigation is being considered it should be designed and included in the grading plan." This was in reference to the grading for Road B at the toe of the mapped landslide which is active. 7 "The building envelopes for lots 23 and 26 lie within the outer subsidence risk zone. We recommend that those lot envelopes be readjusted so that actual building footprints lie outside of the subsidence risk zones. Potential lot buyers should also be made aware of the risks of future subsidence." With regard to collapsible/compressive soils it was stated, "The geotechnical consultant's recommendations must be complied with for foundations on these soft, compressible soils... The report did not clearly distinguish the well rounded packed river gravel from the alluvial fan gravel...Their foundation performance is much poorer than river gravel and could be prone to settlement and compaction, especially if wetted.... We reiterate that control of surface drainage and subsurface water is important to the performance of foundations and slabs on grade." Under "Other Considerations" it was stated, "The odd narrow lot configurations and shallow ground water levels may severely impact the design of ISDS. It was concluded, "Provided the additional work and recommendations we stated above are required by the county prior to approval and the results of that additional work is satisfactory, the CGS finds no inherent geologic hazards that would preclude the bulk of this development as it was intended." All of these comments were taken into consideration by Wright Water Engineers, in their review of the most recent (April 12, 2000) application on behalf of the County. As such, the comments from Wright Water Engineers (WWE) addresses all of these concerns and WWE's comments will be used as conditions of approval as stated below. However, this does not exempt the applicants from performing any engineering/design/building etcetera that was presented in the applicant's submittal (i.e. what was included in the applicant's geotechnical consultant's report). N. RFRHA: In a memorandum dated 03/01/00 (See p.43), Noel Huff of RFRHA states, "As there are no proposed access over or encroachments upon railroad corridor, I see no potential impacts to the railroad right-of-way from the application...The applicant may want to consider a future connection across Highway 82 to this trail system during the development of the PUD." Please note: this application is not a PUD. O. RFTA: In a memorandum dated 03/15/00 (See pgs.44-50), Roaring Fork Transit Agency states, "RFTA would like to see the developer cover the associated transit costs of the development and at a minimum, cover the startup capital costs of transit which are estimated to be around $140,000 ($77,000 for vehicles and $63,000 for Park -and -Ride spaces). This is approximately $2,000 per dwelling unit and could be paid at the time of building permit." Staff notes: There are no provisions in place to require these fees as requested by RFRA and thus, they will not be made a condition of any approval. 8 P. Eagle County Planning Department: No comments were received. Q. AT & T Cable Services: No comments were received. R. Garfield County Road and Bridge: In a memorandum dated 03/09/00 (See p.51), Road and Bridge responded, "I do not see any physical road impacts as all traffic enters and exits onto State Highway 82." S. Garfield County Engineer (Michael Erion, Wright Water Engineers): Wright Water Engineers commented in a letter dated May 2, 2000, (See pgs.52-54 )with respect to a number of issues including Water Supply, Water System, Wastewater, Drainage, Soils/Geology, Wetlands/404 Permitting, Roads, and Miscellaneous Comments. The majority of specific comments will be addressed in the appropriate sections below. With respect to the Miscellaneous comments (14, 15, and 16), all of these comments will be conditions to be met for Final Plat submittal to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. T. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: In a letter dated 04/05/00 (See pgs.55-58), Sue Nall, states, "The Chief of Engineers has issued nationwide general permit number 3 which authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States for maintenance related activities...Your project can be constructed under this authority provided the work meets the conditions listed on the enclosed information sheets...This verification is valid until February 11, 2002. If you have not completed your project by that time, you should contact the Corps of Engineers to obtain information on any changes which may have occurred to the nationwide permits." All representations by the Corps of Engineers in this letter will be conditions of approval of any Final Plat. U. Town of Basalt; In a facsimile received July 28, 2000 (See Exhibit `J'), the Town of Basalt makes several comments with regard to this application. The following is a summary of these comments: Reduce overall development density to conform with the Garfield County Master Plan recommendations. Implement cluster development concepts. Concern over the design of the accesses with respect to safety. The potential generation of further demand for access to trails and pedestrian circulation, and the need for easements to provide such connections/circulation. 5. "The Town supports the County's requirements for heightened standards for 9 sal treatment systems and protection of ground water resources." The need for well defined guidelines for the management of common areas. o o Cla V 0 ..p._ O ..O .t0 ..s; 0 • = L1, a, v. - ? v' 2 0no ..„-'=i a o 6.4 Q. ,• a " o c.. ®'too - +� 0 0 0 $ O 0. cC 0 5, t]. 0 O -0 v, 0 0 4-r �" 3 �" 'G 0O = > v O .0 ' p cti 0 +r _ 0 o n -0 g a . 0.' v 0 = 0 --o'-- v �, - o o 4-4 cn b v a) . >0 0 Staff Response c/1 0 0 +- cc 0 a> 0 0 0 749 0 0 bA 0'� 0 oa 0 Q u-033cn 0 -0 Ct f -� g 0 0>cl c , cC ^pCti �_ Gl, •' p n 0 CA d 10., ,0 0. o E bA •� cd U eC O �� a C - 'v 0 3 0 -�s O . 0 Cl.) 1) ¢ N o c)s0., -0 ! p t4 o > -� c 0- N .L o -0 ett O R © Ki 0. 0 r •- 0 yj o, fl �, .•� +r 0 0 0 �' v v v olar �' o- 0 4., to ,.0 4-4 rn 0 o U0 v ct 0 r 0 O v; 0 ,_� 0 Aa c� +y c v tt .0_ 0 G G 0O .a) 3 o O0cd 3 v > •al dc -0u 0 0 cl G^.t p F" v G c40 + +0-, 0 v o o >, o �? o o o oU 3 ti its 0 0� Q,- 0 °? 0 �' 4� .o 0., ''° Cz .-. 0 z 0 �" N O 1 [0—� 0 z `i' g cu cF .rte 0. .cn cil c o H cC o- C� . o v -0 H �, v') E, C:1 . o ri v'i appreciates the Town of Basalt's endorsement of the applicant's proposal to regulate and limit wood burning devices within the project. Based on comments from Wright Water Engineers (WWE), and the number of recommended conditions to be complied with with regard to geologic hazards on the site as included in staff's recommendation, staff believes that these hazards will be adequately mitigated. IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1. Water Supply: Water is proposed to be supplied via a shared well (Willow Well). As per the Division of Water Resources comments, all necessary well permits will have to be obtained prior to Final Plat approval (included in any Final Plat submittal). The comments received from the Division of Water Resources detailed in the agency comments section of this report must be adhered to as a condition of Final Plat. Wright Water Engineers states in comment number 2, "A permanent augmentation plan will be decreed for the project by the Basalt Water Conservancy District and paid by the applicant. This cost should be paid by the applicant or included in SIA prior to any Final Plat approval." If this cost is to be paid out -right by the applicant, it will need to be done prior to the recording of any Final Plat. If a SIA is to be entered into, it will need to be submitted with any Final Plat submittal (before Final Plat approval). For simplicity, it is assumed that a SIA will be entered into by the applicant, and as such, this condition has been placed in the recommendation section as required with any Final Plat submittal. Comment 3 from Wright Water Engineers will be a condition as stated in the letter (for any Final Plat submittal). Comment 4 from Wright Water Engineers will be amended to require that State approval of the water treatment and distribution system be obtained by the applicant prior to Final Plat approval. 2. Zoning: The subject property is zoned A/R/RD. Uses by right: Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses. Accessory dwelling unit approved as part of a public hearing or meeting on a subdivision. This application is proposing 14 accessory dwelling units on lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 36, 52, 53, and 68. 11 Section 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit: Use ofa structure as an accessory dwelling whether approved by Special Use, use by right in a new subdivision approval, or an existing lot must meet the following standards, as well as all other standards applicable to residential use: (1) The minimum lot size shall be four (4) acres containing a building site which slopes less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size. All of the proposed lots for ADUs meet this criteria. (2) The gross floor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft. (3) This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval. Approval from the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by covenant if applicable. This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval. (4) Proof of legally adequate source of water for an additional dwelling unit. (5) This criteria has been met according to the letter received from the Division of Water Resources. However, all comments and conditions with regard to water supply contained within this staff report must be met to ensure this is ultimately met. Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations or proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatment facility. This means that an adequate single ISTS can be constructed to serve both the primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit, or, two separate adequate ISTSs may be constructed, one for the primary dwelling and one for the accessory dwelling. However, it must be noted that domestic waste water cannot exceed 2000 gallons per day (gpd) on any individual lot regardless if there is one or two ISTSs. If domestic waste water is to exceed 2000 gpd on any lot, state approval would be required. This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval. (6) Only leasehold interests in the dwelling units is allowed. This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval. 12 (7) That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code requirements. (A.95-076) This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval. Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres. Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%). Minimum Setback: (1) 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 lot line, whichever is greater; (2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line; (3) 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 Building: Twenty-five feet. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations). 9. Roads: Access is to be via a single entrance in the westerly portion of the subject property directly off of Highway 82. An emergency access is to be placed in the easterly portion of the subject lot, also directly off of Highway 82. With the submittal of access permits from CDOT, staff would recommend a condition that would require the applicant to comply with all conditions of the access permits placed on them by CDOT. With regard to the Army Corps of Engineers, all conditions of the nationwide general permit number 3 as approved, will have to be adhered to by the applicant as a condition of any Final Plat approval. 4. Waste Disposal: Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs) are proposed for each lot. These systems provide secondary treatment of sewage. These systems should be adequate for this application. However, all representations made by the applicant within the submitted application with regard to ISTSs including but not limited to the report submitted by HP Geotech dated January 26, 2000, the ISTS management plan included in the covenants, and the ISDS requirements included in Section 18 must be adhered to. 13 As stated in comment number 5 from Wright Water Engineers, all Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs) must be designed by a registered professional engineer. This will be a condition of any Final Plat approval. In addition, from the comments received from the Division of Water Resources, "... individual sewage treatment systems be of the non -evaporative type unless otherwise requested and supported by consumptive use estimates." These will be conditions of approval of any Final Plat. 5. Soils/Geology: There are a number of soil/geology issues present on the subject property including slopes over forty percent (40%), subsidence zones, and landslide areas. These can be adequately addressed by following the information submitted by the applicant and the comments received from Wright Water Engineers. Comments 9, 10, and 11 from Wright Water Engineers will be conditions to be met for Final Plat submittal. 6. Wetlands: As per the comments received from WWE, "Impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. have been permitted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Road A and Road F crossings of Blue Creek." In addition, as stated in the submittal by the applicant, the small area of wetlands not to be preserved as open space will "be restricted to no development and be avoided through careful design of lots and driveways." This will require the following plat note to be included on any Final Plat to be recorded: "Any wetlands on this property not to be preserved as open space will be restricted to no development and be avoided through careful design of lots and driveways." 7. Fire Protection: Based on the letter received from the Carbondale Fire Protection District, all provisions for fire protection represented by the applicant in the submitted application including paying the $417.00 development impact fee per single family lot will be conditions of any Final Plat approval. Homes over 3,600 square feet in area are to be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, as represented by the applicant, and thus, language to this effect must be included in any covenants to be recorded, and the following plat note must be included on any Final Plat to be recorded: "Homes in excess of 3,600 square feet shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems." Language in the covenants will be a condition of any Final Plat submittal (prior to Final Plat approval). 8. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan: Section 4:33 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations requires that the Board of County Commissioners make a decision regarding the Preliminary Plan based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and on the conformity or compatibility of the proposed subdivision with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. 14 The Subdivision Regulations require that the Board review an application based on compatibility with various issues including the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, this application is in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Vegetation: As outlined above, the recommendations of Garfield County Vegetation Management (See pgs. 23-24) must be addressed within any Final Plat submittal to be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. 10. Drainage Plan: Comments 6, and 7 from Wright Water Engineers will be conditions to be addressed for Final Plat submittal. 11. Wildlife: As discussed above, the Division of Wildlife made several comments concerning wildlife. The ones that will be conditions of approval of any Final Plat have also been detailed above, and are as follows: As per Garfield County regulations, one dog per lot will be allowed and will have to be contained on the owner's property. Comment number 3, Fencing, as outlined in the letter. Wildlife mitigation should only be considered if avoidance is not possible. Comment number 4, Wildlife Mitigation: As per "Response to Division of Wildlife Letter Dated 01/18/00", included in Section 14, of the applicant's submittal, which states in Item 9, "The applicant will establish a wildlife mitigation trust fund to be used to mitigate for wildlife impacts on site or adjacent to the site. The applicant will contribute $100.00 per unit to the wildlife mitigation trust fund upon the sale of each unit. Use of the trust fund money will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association." Comment number 5, Bears/Trash Removal, as outlined in the letter with the following revision: Short term outside storage of trash, not within bear proof containers will be allowed upon the condition that the applicant incorporate within the Protective Covenants, acceptable limitations (not longer than 12 hours) on such short term outside storage which are adequate to satisfy the purpose addressed by CDOW Comment 5. Comment number 8, CDOW Indemnification, as outlined in the letter. As per staff's earlier note, this will not be a condition of any approval. Comment number 9, Open Space Management, as outlined in the letter. 15 Comment number 11, Educating Residents, as outlined for small developments. Further, the required plat notes as discussed previously in the comments section of this staff report will need to be included on any Final Plat to be recorded. 12. Radiation: In a letter dated September 8, 1999, and included in Section 12 of the submitted application, CTL/Thompson, Inc. Consulting Engineers states, "In our opinion, our data indicates normal background radiation at this site." Thus, radiation does not appear to be a concern on this site. 13. School Fees: School fees in the amount of $20,536.00 as determined using the required formula must be paid as a condition of any Final Plat approval. 14. Road Impact Fees Since the subject parcel does not directly access a county road, no road impact fees will be assessed. V SUGGES 1ED FINDINGS: 1. That the proper publication and pubic notice and posting were provided by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. 3. That the proposed Subdivision can be determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has fully met the requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, Section 4:00 Preliminary Plan. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At a special hearing of the Planning Commission held on May 17, 2000, Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed subdivision with the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Planning Commission, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted by 16 the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. Prior to Preliminary Plan review by the Board of County Commissioners: 3. Access permits which have been reviewed and approved with any necessary conditions by CDOT must be submitted or at the Board of County Commissioners' hearing upon the Preliminary Plan, applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the proposed access to State Highway 82 complies with the State of Colorado , STA IES HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE (Volume 2, Code of Colorado Regulations 601-1). Staff has modified this condition based on the access permits which have been received, to require compliance with all conditions of the access permits as per CDOT (See staff recommended condition number 11). As part of any Final Plat submittal (prior to Final Plat approval): 4. Valid well permits for all proposed wells must be obtained and submitted. 5. The four (4) comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management must be addressed. 6. Comments 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16, from Wright Water Engineers must be addressed. Comment 4 being revised to require State approval of the water treatment and distribution system be obtained by applicant prior to Final Plat approval. 7. Language must be included in the covenants which states that homes over 3,600 square feet in area will be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 8. The cost for a permanent augmentation plan must be paid for by the applicant or included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 9. Comments 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 as included in the CDOW letter dated March 22, 2000, with the revision to Comment 5 as outlined in this staff report, and the "Response to Division of Wildlife Letter Dated 01/18/00", Item 9, in Section 14 of the applicant's submittal must be included in the covenants. 10. The Final Plat must include the proposed access easement to lot 52 with dimensions as was submitted for Preliminary Plan. 11. Required Plat notes: "Prior to the initiation of any grading or construction on Lot 52, detailed engineering drawings of the proposed driveway accessing Lot 52 must be submitted to the Garfield County Department of Building and Planning for review and approval." 17 "One dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries." "Fencing will be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. See covenants for specific restrictions." "The comment received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Comment #5, titled Bears/Trash Removal in their letter of March 22, 2000, as modified, and included in the covenants must be adhered to by all residents" "The CDOW shall be indemnified against all future claims in regards to wildlife damage." "The subdivision shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing of other forms of harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off open space areas. This provision shall apply during winter and production periods. Winter periods are defined as December 1 through April 30 and production periods as May 1 through June 30." "General brochures available from CDOW with regard to wildlife to educate homeowners will be distributed to all homeowners upon the purchase of a lot." "Any wetlands on this property not to be preserved as open space will be restricted to no development and be avoided through careful design of lots and driveways." "Homes in excess of 3,600 square feet shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sec., 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." "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries, but not into private property." Note: the following information is not part of the approved motion of the Planning Commission, rather it is an explanatory note to the Board of County Commissioners: The bolding above is added to clearly show the modification approved by the Planning Commission in their motion, to the plat note recommended by staff to the Planning Commission. In 18 discussion with the County attorney's office, staff has been informed that this modification cannot be legally enforced upon the applicant. Thus, staff will be making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners below, that does not include this modification. The rest of the plat notes below are part of the approved motion of the Planning Commission. "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 part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations." "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 of information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." As part of any Final Plat approval: 12. All comments received from the Sheriff's Department in the letter dated March 9, 2000. 13. The comments regarding wildlife as detailed in this staff report. 14. All representations of the Army Corps of Engineers in their letter dated 04/05/00, and all conditions of the issued nationwide general permit number 3. 15. Section 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit, of the Subdivision Regulations, must be complied with. 16. Comment number 5 from Wright Water Engineers which requires all ISTSs to be designed by a registered engineer. 17. As stated in the letter dated March 21, 2000, from the Division of Water Resources, 19 individual sewage treatment systems must be of the non -evaporative type unless otherwise requested and supported by consumptive use estimates. 18. Impact fees for fire protection must be paid. 19. School fees in the amount of $20,536.00 must be paid. 20. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, with regard to phasing, all lots must be final platted within five (5) years. 21. Any necessary mitigation measures as determined for any construction in areas above 40% slope. 22. As per the Division of Water Resources comments, any exempt wells which exist within the proposed development must either be included in the District's TSSP or an augmentation plan, or will be required to be plugged and abandoned pursuant to the conditions of the new well permits for development. 23. As per the comments received from the Division of Water Resources, if any ground water is to be disturbed for the proposed ponds, well permits will be required. 24. The proposed 300,000 gallon water tank must be painted and screened through the use of landscaping and/or berming to minimize its visual impact. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of this application with the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Planning Commission, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of Board approval, or conditional approval, unless an extension of not more than one (1) year is granted by the Board prior to the expiration of the period of approval. As part of any Final Plat submittal (prior to Final Plat approval): 3. Valid well permits for all proposed wells must be obtained and submitted. 4. The four (4) comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management must be addressed. 20 5. Comments 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16, from Wright Water Engineers must be addressed. Comment 4 being revised to require State approval of the water treatment and distribution system be obtained by applicant prior to Final Plat approval. 6. Language must be included in the covenants which states that homes over 3,600 square feet in area will be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 7. The cost for a permanent augmentation plan must be paid for by the applicant or included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 8. Comments 3, 5, 9, and 11 as included in the CDOW letter dated March 22, 2000, with the revision to Comment 5 as outlined in this staff report, and the "Response to Division of Wildlife Letter Dated 01/18/00", Item 9, in Section 14 of the applicant's submittal must be included in the covenants. 9. The Final Plat must include the proposed access easement to lot 52 with dimensions as was submitted for Preliminary Plan. 10. Required Plat notes: "Prior to the initiation of any grading or construction on Lot 52, detailed engineering drawings of the proposed driveway accessing Lot 52 must be submitted to the Garfield County Department of Building and Planning for review and approval." "One dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries." "Fencing will be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. See covenants for specific restrictions." "The comment received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Comment #5, titled Bears/Trash Removal in their letter of March 22, 2000, as modified, and included in the covenants must be adhered to by all residents" "The subdivision shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing of other forms of harassment in an attempt to coerce wildlife off open space areas. This provision shall apply during winter and production periods. Winter periods are defined as December 1 through April 30 and production periods as May 1 through June 30." "General brochures available from CDOW with regard to wildlife to educate homeowners will be distributed to all homeowners upon the purchase of a lot." "Any wetlands on this property not to be preserved as open space will be restricted to 21 no development and be avoided through careful design of lots and driveways." "Homes in excess of 3,600 square feet shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sec., 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." "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries." "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 part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations." "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 of information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." As part of any Final Plat approval: 11. All conditions of the access permits, numbers 300095, and 300094 must be complied with by the applicant. 12. All comments received from the Sheriff's Department in the letter dated March 9, 2000. 13. The comments regarding wildlife as detailed in this staff report. 22 14. All representations of the Army Corps of Engineers in their letter dated 04/05/00, and all conditions of the issued nationwide general permit number 3. 15. Section 5.03.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit, of the Subdivision Regulations, must be complied with. 16. Comment number 5 from Wright Water Engineers which requires all ISTSs to be designed by a registered engineer. 17. As stated in the letter dated March 21, 2000, from the Division of Water Resources, individual sewage treatment systems must be of the non -evaporative type unless otherwise requested and supported by consumptive use estimates. 18. Impact fees for fire protection must be paid. 19. School fees in the amount of $20,536.00 must be paid. 20. As per Section 4:34 of the Subdivision Regulations, with regard to phasing, all lots must be final platted within five (5) years. 21. Any necessary mitigation measures as determined for any construction in areas above 40% slope. 22. As per the Division of Water Resources comments, any exempt wells which exist within the proposed development must either be included in the District's TSSP or an augmentation plan, or will be required to be plugged and abandoned pursuant to the conditions of the new well permits for development. 23. As per the comments received from the Division of Water Resources, if any ground water is to be disturbed for the proposed ponds, well permits will be required. 24. The proposed 300,000 gallon water tank must be painted and screened through the use of landscaping and/or berming to minimize its visual impact. 23 101 MIDLAND AVENUE • BASALT, CO 81621 (970) 927-4701 • FAX (970) 927-4703- I. RECEIVED,J . July 28, 2000 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 109 8th St. Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cerise Ranch Board of County Commissioners: BAS4UT The Town of Basalt appreciates the extra time provided by the County in which to formalize our referral comments. The Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission met on July 18th and authorized by motion the submittal of this letter. The Commission's motion directed that minutes from both the Town's review in November of 1999 and of our July 18th meeting be included. The referenced minutes are attached as exhibits. Overall Site Plan Comment The Town wishes to clearly indicate our concern that the project does not conform with both the County and Town Master Plans and should not be approved as currently proposed. In weighing different elements of a Master Plan the fact that this project greatly exceeds the County's recommended Master Plan densities (See County Staff memo dated 5/17/00 pg. 3) should be a critical threshold issue. This additional density (82 units proposed, County Master Plan recommended density range is 30 — 50 units) affects all other elements of the plan from circulation to infrastructure. Some development on this site is felt to be appropriate but the Town feels strongly that it should be of a lower density, less suburban in character, and provide more of a transition between urban and rural land uses. The Town requests that the County support the implementation of your Plan by not approving the proposed development as submitted. An action, such as a re-referral to your P&Z to further refine the plan to better conform with the County Master Plan will benefit all citizens of the Valley who rely on the vision contained in such Plans to preserve and protect our quality and life and the character of our communities. Detailed Comments While the Town has expressed the concerns noted above, we have through our staff engaged the applicant in a dialogue regarding potential refinements to the project. We appreciate the willingness of the applicant and his representatives to meet with Town staff and we hope that the Board of County Commissioner's will favorably consider some key adjustments to the plan should it move forward toward a final plat review. The following concepts are in summary form for the purposes of this referral letter. Should additional details be appropriate the Town would be willing meet with you, your staff or the applicant. Established in 1901 1 Reduce overall development density to conform with the Garfield County Master Plan recommendations. This would allow lots to be configured to better avoid hazard areas, provide better access to open space/agricultural areas, reduce impacts on ground water through a reduction in the number of ISTS systems, reduce traffic impacts at Highway 82, eliminate remaining conflicts with wildlife habitat, and better maintain and establish a transitional edge to development in this portion of the Roaring Fork Valley. 2. Implement cluster development concepts by combining lots and allowing two units (primary and accessory) on the resulting larger lot. This concept is particularly recommended in geologic hazard and debris flow areas. This would allow building envelopes for the newly combined lots to be laid out to avoid debris flow areas, areas where debris flow will be conveyed across the road and ditch systems and subsidence hazard areas in the southeast portion of the site. The clustering concept can be effectively used while maintaining the existing proposed density and general layout of lots and streets. 3. Phone contact with CDOT has confirmed that the access permit has been signed but that the design of the access has not been approved. The Town of Basalt wishes to be on the record as strongly encouraging that the safety of residents and drivers on Highway 82 be of a top priority and that the County endorse restrictions on the hazardous left turn movements that have resulted in injuries and deaths at similar intersections along this stretch of Highway 82. We encourage ideas such as limiting the development to right -in and right -out movements which will create a safer intersection without waiting until after there are injuries and deaths to warrant changes or signalization. We acknowledge that this kind of restriction based on public safety may be at the expense of the convenience of new residents of the proposed development (existing stop lights are located approximately 1.2 miles north and 1.7 miles south of the development). Eagle County and the Town of Basalt have begun an access control plan process for Highway 82 just south of the proposed development, a similar planning process by CDOT within Garfield County would help in studying overall access issues on this stretch of Highway. With higher densities this type of residential development will generate demand for access to trails and pedestrian circulation. Safety issues associated with Highway 82 again become a concern. Local trails groups often are put in the positions of looking for opportunities to safely connect existing neighborhoods. The project should provide necessary easements for such future connections and related public access. Vehicular connections may be more difficult to implement but should be considered and the Town endorses the applicant's driveway easements for adjoining properties as included on the north end of the site. 5. The Town supports the County's requirements for heightened standards for sewage disposal treatment systems and protection of ground water resources. 6. Guidelines for management of the common areas including agricultural uses should be well defined and include practical considerations based local ranching expertise. Establishment of conservation easements should be considered as a means of assuring the common areas remain permanently as well managed open space. 7. The Town endorses the applicants proposal to regulate and limit wood burning devices within the project. This portion of the Valley periodically experiences air quality concerns during winter periods of heavy wood burning. Consistency of the County's restrictions with other approvals in Eagle County and the Town of Basalt will help alleviate this potential problem. 8. Allowing development in areas with debris flow, geologic, soils, and subsidence hazards remains a major concern. It is felt that additional mitigation of these concerns beyond the current proposals by the applicant can be accomplished through clustering and related building envelope refinements noted in comments above. Final debris flow calculations and engineering for debris flow deflection berms should be completed as part of any final development review and not left for individual implementation by home owners at the time of building permit application. The complexity of debris flow engineering warrants that it be comprehensively reviewed to avoid future conflicts between lot owners along with increased potential for property damage and safety hazards. The Town appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. We anticipate that the Town will be represented at the continued hearing to expand on the above comments and answer any questions. Once again it is worth noting that our cooperation on future development review is an important part of both the County and Town working toward implementation of our respective master plans. Sincerely, Gary Wheeler Chairman Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Community Development Director Jeff Laurien, Garfield County Planner Basalt Board of Trustees Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission Doug Pratte, The Land Studio 101 MIDLAND AVENUE • BASALT, CO 81621 (970) 927-4701 • FAX (970) 927-4703 July 5, 2000 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 109 8"' St. Suite 301 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 RE: Cense Ranch Board of County Commissioners: BASALT The Town of Basalt wishes to formalize our intent to submit referral comments on the proposed Cerise Ranch Development Preliminary Plan. While we did not receive official notification of your current review process, we are prepared to generate comments on this important development located within the Town's Three Mile Planning Area in a timely fashion. In order to facilitate our preparation of comments we respectfully request that you continue the currently scheduled public hearing. Staff meetings between our Planning Departments have identified a standard 21 day referral period. The Town has worked closely with the County and your Planning Staff over the past several years including presentations to your Planning Commission on our recently adopted Master Plan. The Towns Master Plan contains numerous elements, goals, and objectives relevant to the site and its impact on how the valley will continue to grow. We look forward to providing comments on many of these topics with an initial outline of concerns noted below: 1. The Basalt Master Plan shows this site outside of the Urban Service Area and with an agriculture designation on the West Basalt Planning Area. Future Land Use Map. 2. The Development accesses directly onto State Highway 82. Safety issues regarding the proposed access onto this highway, which recently received an expressway designation by the State should be thoroughly resolved at this time. 3. The project reflects an increase in density over the recommendations contained in the Garfield County Master Plan. The County's recommended densities would likely better preserve the rural character of this portion of the County and help to avoid conflicts with the Town's Master Plan that may result from increasing demands for urban type services. 4. Division of Wildlife concerns should continue to be strongly considered especially where the project extends into the transitional habitat between the valley floor and upland vegetation. 5. Opportunities to link the project to neighboring developments in Garfield and Eagle Counties, for pedestrian purposes, transit use and vehicular usage should be strongly considered. Established in 1901 6. The Town supports the County's requirements for heightened standards for sewage disposal treatment systems and protection of ground water resources. 7 The Town supports the County's efforts to address impacts from the development through your schedule of mitigation fees. Consideration should be given to whether the development is adequately addressing impacts resulting from its higher densities and suburban character. 8. Guidelines for management of the common areas including agricultural uses should be well defined and include practical considerations based local ranching expertise. Establishment of conservation easements should be considered as a means of assuring the common areas remain permanently as well managed open space. 9. Additional consideration should be given to potential geologic hazards associated with soils and steep slopes. 10. County should consider wood burning regulations within the project, consistent with Town provisions that prevent wood burning fireplaces, and allow gas fireplaces and wood burning stoves that are EPA compliant The Town appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal and your favorable consideration of our request for a continuation of the scheduled public hearing. Cooperation on future development review is an important part of both the County and Town working toward implementation of our respective master plans. Sincerely. Tom Baker Basalt Town Administrator CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Community Development Director Jeff Laurien, Garfield County Planner Basalt Board of Trustees Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission Doug Pratte, The Land Studio Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, July 18, 2000 Commissioner Maron had a question about the setback amount of the garage from the house. Jeffrey Tankersley showed on a drawing how the second floor is cantilevered over the basement to better match how the garage is recessed from the house. Philp noted that the Commission will need to make a motion to amend item 6 to say that the garage is recessed two feet instead of three feet as stated in the Staff Memo of 7/12/00. This change also should be reflected in the resolution to the Board of Trustees suggesting approval. Commissioner Elice asked about the significance of having painted rocks and a non-white garage door as suggested in item 7. Philp said this was in response to Commissioner Bacheldor's previously stated concerns about having rocks painted so mineral deposits are covered. A non-white garage door is more consistenct with the neighborhood typologies in that it de-emphasizes the garage. Commissioner Zuena expressed concerned with backing out of the garage onto Sopris Drive. He suggested putting some sort of reflector at the end of driveway so people driving down Sopris Drive take notice of the driveway. Jodi Tankersley said that due to curves in the road in that area people drive more slowly through there anyway. M/S MOTION TO APPROVE THE TANKERSLEY SPECIAL REVIEW SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS 3 THROUGH 9 UNDER ITEM IV ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WITH AMENDMENT TO ITEM 6 TO REFLECT CORRECTION OF THREE FEET TO TWO FEET WITH COMMISSIONER PAUSSA FIRST AND COMMISSIONER MARON SECOND. MOTION CARRIED. Continued Public hearing on Willits Town Center, Sopris Meadows parcel 2. Final PUD Development Plan and Final Plat The public hearing opened at 9:55 p.m. The Applicants were not in attendance. Hartmann informed the Commission that vacation schedules on part of both the Applicant and Town employees and other time constraints have put Staff behind the curve. A meeting with the Applicant is scheduled for this Friday, July 21. He added that continuation of the public hearing to August 1 is tentative at this time. However, Staff will keep the hearing notice alive. M/S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AUGUST 1, 2000 WITH COMMISSIONER MARON FIRST AND COMMISSIONER DUNN SECOND. MOTION CARRIED. Referral from Garfield County - Cerise Subdivision Preliminary Plan Patrick Seurynck of Basalt Realty and Doug Pratte, Land Planner, were in attendance to represent the Applicant. Hartmann explained that this plan will be heard again by Garfield County on August 7, 2000. Staff has been meeting with the Applicant somewhat regularly since last autumn. He reviewed 9 the information that the Commissioners have received from Staff. Pratte was invited to be seated with Staff in order to address questions from the Commissioners. Chairman Wheeler began by noting that the clustering concept as presented in the plan does not meet with what he envisions as clustered housing. It still looks like houses stretched along the highway. Commissioner Paussa asked why Garfield County denied the sewer hookup. Pratte responded that they tried to get annexed into the Mid -Valley Sanitation District for sound water and wastewater reasons. However, they were also trying to meet the demand for a diversity of housing types with multi -family and single family housing. The County said that this was too much density. Then the Sketch Plan was deemed incomplete because the parcel was not annexed. However, they couldn't plan until they knew what they were dealing with. It was a Catch-22 situation. Garfield County zoning does not allow ISDS on less than 2 acres. This proposal contains secondary treatment systems. He noted that the systems all have alarms and will be inspected up to four times a year by a specialist. Commissioner Maron noted that the plan does not preclude the Applicant from having their own sewage treatment system. Pratte agreed. Hartmann wondered how this proposal will communicate the edge of the Town. He also noted that when dealing with clustering there are opportunities to move buildings around and adjust building envelopes. There doesn't seem to be much creativity in this plan with these options. He added that this is a rural transition area. Commissioner Paussa said that she is against this proposal because it is too close to the UGB. Just because Dakota is there does not mean we have to keep on going. She added that she is uncomfortable with individual septic systems and that proceeding without CDOT comments is irresponsible. She sees this as a dead-end, auto -oriented development and that is not good. She suggested at least getting a pedestrian connection to Dakota to access trails there. Commissioner Dunn agreed with Paussa's comments. Commissioner Maron said that this proposal has not changed noticeably from the last one. He suggested that Staff use their previous referral letter but change the date. Hartmann noted that this proposal contains a greater level of detail. Pratte explained some changes including the elimination of a road that could possibly impact wildlife and moving some homes further down from a south -facing slope used by wildlife. Commissioner Maron agreed with Commissioner Elice's previous comments that this is suburban dwelling at its worst. It is so far away from the Town's Master Plan goals. However, he recognizes that this is development by right. Commissioner Elice stated that this proposal is essentially the same thing as the previous proposal. His feelings haven't changed. He acknowledged that Pratte's hands are tied by 10 Garfield County as to what can be done. Still, he is really opposed to it and doesn't want to help dress up an ugly cow. Alternate Gildred had no comments Commissioner Zuena reiterated that his biggest concern is access onto the highway. This is going to be a residential community, not many second homeowners. He lives on Highway 82 and knows how fast traffic moves past that area. Also, the visual impact is huge. While the parcel can retain some agricultural use it won't be enough to detract from the sprawling development. Chairman Wheeler asked Seurynck about the intended market. Seurynck responded that they anticipate selling to move -up buyers from the valley who are looking to get into bigger homes. He anticipates homes starting at three-quarters of a million dollars. Chairman Wheeler noted that his feelings toward this proposal still haven't changed, either. He is still opposed. Hartmann suggested that Staff put together a compilation of minutes from the last letter and this letter for Wheeler's signature. MIS MOTION TO COMPILE REFERRAL COMMENTS FROM TWO MEETING MINUTES AND STAFF COMMENTS FOR CHAIRMAN WHEELER TO SIGN WITH COMMISSIONER MARON FIRST AND COMMISSIONER ELICE SECOND. MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Code Amendments Town Manager, Tom Baker, presented the Zoning Code amendments: Maximum House Size not to exceed 5000 total square feet with exemptions for porches, decks, and patios (not enclosed) and crawl spaces. 5,500 total square feet allowed by special review with deed restricted ADU. Baker inventoried seven of the largest homes in town. He found that 99% of homes in the Town could fit within the 5000 square feet limit. He noted that home sizes and prices keep escalating. The Town Trustees are asking for advice from the Planning and Zoning Commission on this. Alternate Gildred suggested that the Town perhaps require mandatory occupation by a renter. Chairman Wheeler noted that enforcement of this would be a problem. Baker acknowledged that the Town would be able to enforce only by complaint but would ultimately get desired inventory in place. Commissioner Zuena asked if a greenhouse would be considered as part of allowable 5000 sq. feet? The answer was yes. Baker noted that there are currently lots in Town that would allow house over 5000 sq. ft. but not if this zoning restriction is in place. 11 F4 2_ 1t C.1- -1b-'4L) Commissioner Bacheldor suggested having a vertical planting area on the west side of the parking area to provide shade. Guy said that ash and honey locust trees would be amenable to the suggestion. Bacheldor thinks that a four foot wide stairway is too narrow, especially when passing. Philp reviewed the PUD text amendment language and said that the Town Attorney is making sure it is in compliance. Regarding the flood variance, Staff suggests that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the variance so it will move on to the Board where it can be scrutinized more closely. Staff suggested accepting the conditions in the Oct. 29 memo as amended by Nov. 12th memo with the inclusion of tonight's discussion. Commissioner Bacheldor thinks that the housing is too restrictive and would like to see the housing open to people who work in the general area. Philp and Hartmann suggested opening the housing requirement to those who work in West Basalt. The Commissioners suggested expanding it to be open to those who work in the Mid -valley. This will make policing a much easier job. Staff is going to recommend that if it is legally feasible, children will be restricted from the development. Commissioner Bacheldor would like it better if children were not restricted. Commissioner Maron pointed out that given the housing shortage in the valley, people are going to live wherever they can. M/S MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PUD TEXT AMENDMENTS ON THE KEELTY SPECIAL REVIEW AS OUTLINED IN THE OCT. 29 STAFF MEMO AND REVISED IN THE NOV. 2ND MEMO WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: OPTION A CHOSEN FOR PARKING, OPTION B FOR THE OVERALL SITE PLAN, ENCOURAGE SHADE TREE LANDSCAPING, CHANGE STIPULATION TO THAT ONE RESIDENT MUST BE AN EMPLOYEE IN THE MID - VALLEY, INCREASE STAIR WIDTH FROM FOUR TO FIVE FEET, WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT CHILDREN BE ALLOWED IN THE DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER FOX-RUBIN FIRST WITH COMMISSIONER MARON SECOND. MOTION CARRIED. M/S MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR FLOOD DAMAGE PROTECTION TO THE KEELY SPECIAL REVIEW PER THE OCT. 29 STAFF MEMO AS REVISED ON NOV. 12 UNDER THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT CAN NOT BE APPROVED DUE TO THE CURRENT LACK OF INFORMATION AND WITH THE HOPE THAT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CAN REMEDY THE SITUATION. COMMISSIONER FOX-RUBIN FIRST WITH COMMISSIONER DUNN SECOND. MOTION CARRIED. Referral Comments to Garfield County - Cerise Ranch Hartmann introduced Doug Pratt who is representing the Cerise Ranch project. Pratt indicated the location of the project which is just down valley from the Dakota development. He outlined the proposal. The project has 67 two to six acre lots with individual septic and a community water system. Blue Creek flows through the property. Hold 92 acres of hillside in common easement - slopes are 40% or greater. He explained the intricacies of Garfield County code. Pratt thinks they'll be able to get about 12 ADUs on the project. The Division of Wildlife (DOW) is concerned with the building envelopes next to the hillside because the snow melts quickly on 6 the south facing slopes, thus drawing more deer and elk close to the development. Street widths are 24 feet. A pedestrian trail runs along the main road. Six acres in Eagle County are planned to be kept as open space. Regarding trail connections, Dakota abandoned an easement on a lot that would connect the Cerise Ranch pedestrian trail with the trails in Blue Lake/Dakota. That lot is in the hands of an individual. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Zuena had to leave the meeting but left comments read by Chairman Wheeler: Commissioner Zuena is concerned that there is no mention of impact fees to Willits or school impact fees to RE -1; there will be about 200 cars in the subdivision and he is concerned with the access point to Highway 82 especially at rush hour; he would like to require a sewer system because he is not in favor of individual septic systems for full time residents; there is no mention of a lighting plan but he suggests that it be similar to the Basalt code and, finally, he is concerned about the placement of streets and trails. There followed a discussion about why Garfield County denied sewer service to this project. Commissioner Elice is concerned about the type of growth in the valley and this low density plan is suburban dwelling 'at its worst. Water quality is being compromised. He cannot support this plan. The idea of putting houses in a pasture is incomprehensible to him. Commissioner Fox -Rubin agrees with Commissioner Elice. The project is still too dense and is auto -oriented. He is not sure if this meets any community requirements for either Basalt or Carbondale. Wildlife habitat is being fragmented. Water quality is a major concern. He asked if it possible to put a conservation easement on the lowland, especially near the wetland where there will be problems with homes, and building some free market, expensive homes on the other end of the development. He thinks this is an insidious way to pave the valley. Commissioner Dunn said this goes against everything the Commission is trying to do. There will be nothing but houses all the way from Catherine Store to EI Jebel. She recommends denial. Commissioner Maron does not consider this the highest and best use for this parcel. However, it is not in this county and does comply with code so there is not much more to be said about this project. Commissioner Bacheldor likes that the majority of the pastureland is still held as pastureland and would like to see agricultural use continue. He would like to see the houses near the highway pulled back into one of the cul-de-sacs. He wondered if there are acceleration/deceleration lanes at the project's entrance. Pratt said there is. Bacheldor would like to see more aggressive use of agricultural land on the property. Commissioner Elice said that nobody is trying to deny ranchers a chance to benefit from growth in the valley but this proposal does nothing to control sprawl. It seems that there would be a better way to cluster more of the housing. Pratt said that Garfield County code restricts their planning creativity due to the County's denial of sewer service. Individual septic systems require more space. Elice asked how this Commission could help the developer become more responsible with its application. 7 Commissioner Fox -Rubin sees this project as the property owner cashing out. He would like to see 35 acre lots if there has to be some buildout. Have the property owners seriously considered a conservation easement? Pratt said they are not interested. Aspen Valley Land Trust has met with the family to no avail. Pratt reiterated that he thinks this plan does the best job that it can considering its constraints. Chairman Wheeler does not support this plan either. He also is concerned about water quality, density, location, and sprawl. Commissioner Elice again asked Pratt if there is any way this Commission can help the developer make this a better development that incorporates the values of the valley. Chairman Wheeler asked about contacting the Ranch at Roaring Fork and working with them regarding sanitation. Pratt said this has been attempted. Basically all the proposed developments outside the Urban Services Boundaries are in the same unfortunate situation. Hartmann said Staff will draft a recommendation letter with these comments and bring it to the next meeting for approval. Final Commissioner Comments Commissioner Dunn suggested allocating more than an hour for the Continued Hearing of Riverwalk at the December 7th meeting. Commissioner Fox -Rubin suggested switching the Cardimone/Gottlieb and Dolezal items to 7:15 and the Riverwalk hearing to 8:15 at the December 7th P&Z meeting. The minutes of November 2, 1999 were approved as read. M/S MOTION TO ADJOURN WITH COMMISSIONER ELICE FIRST AND COMMISSIONER MARON SECOND. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. TOWN OF BASALT PLANNING AND ZONING COMIIISSION By: ATTEST: Gary Wheeler, Chairman Denise Mytty, Recorder 8 JUL-1U-UU I'IUIY !1.U3 till MBA UUUNIKT triluttK11Y1r Chl1 i'u. dtU C000 r. UC 07/10/00 11:3ii FAX 9702487291 CDOT R3 TRAFFIC R102 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R.tgirn 3 Traffic Section ??Z South 6th street. Rom 100 Gravid prnrssc,n, CO 81501 970-228-7239 office ?I 0-228-72°t fax July 10, 2000 To: Maarclbert Cerise Family Co. 17072 State Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 Fk•sc Sir or Madam: 1'le: sr. rev i;cv the attached Stat. Highway Access Permit (Form #101) and all enclosed attachments. s 1 ff you choase NOT to act on the permit, please return the permit unsigned. 1 4 if you wish to APPEAL the Terms and Conditions of the permit, please refer to the attached Form 101 pages 2 & 3 for an expF r ation of the appeal procedures. If you ACCEPT the permit and its Terris and Conditions, please sign and date the Access Permit form on the line marked "PFRMITTEF". Your signature confines your agreement to all the listed Torras and Conditions. - Provide a check or money order made out to the jurisdiction named an the next line for the amount clue.. Colorado Department ent of Transportation S 400.00 Make chuck or money order payable to Amami bre - Return all copies and attachments of tete Access Perrnit along with your payment back to the Cotoratlo Department of Transportation at the address rioted below. The Department will process and return to you a validated (signed and recorded) copy of your State Highway Access Permit. 1f you fail to sign and return the attached Access Permit within 60 days of the date of this transmittal letter, Colorado Department of Transportation will consider this permit Void. You taunt cbtairi a Notice to Proceed. DO Ng" begin any work within the State Right -of -Way without a validated Access Permit and Notice To Proceed. Use of this permit without Transportation Department's v:+liclation shall be considered a violation of State Law, If yc u hAve any questions, please call: Mike Smith at 970-248-7230 ltelutn Access Permit and attachments to; Region 3 Traffic Section 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 TIT Isrnaculral to you of the Access Permit form for your approval constitutes .final action by the Colorado 11,:vari.;ict of Transportation pursuant to section 43-2-147 C. R. S., as amended. CDOT Foam 1+122 11199 1 • .34 i JUL—IU—UU (IUIY 11.UO Mil TI1Vtl 1✓UUNIKT Cr 1NCCK1N1r ft1A IYU• dtU d40 C000 r. UJ 07/J.0/00 11:38 FAX 970248729.1 CBOT R3 TRAFFIC 8103 COO)fitKDO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT COOT Permit No. 300095 sra.t feria Dalu of transmittal 100.00 ..ure..mxwwwsmia�.w. 06/ 10/2000 Region/Sect ion/P and 03/02/16 State Highway No/Me/Side 082A/017.250/L Local Judsdlction Garfield County The IAC irr4i:C'.(s): Mtunbett Cctke Famity Co_ 17072 Stale Highway 82 Ca;iho:tdalu, CO 81623 Nona Givrce �N tha3 t�.�:r,rrJ duiriculty If �t any lime the G� Applicant; Art Klienstien P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 303-322-4119 1,; tic-toby t,,r.>nteel penni:.t,inn to have nn nctoss to the state highway at the location noted below, The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in 3rtv4 d.leico with Chir. ()resit, includirr the Steto Highway Access Code and any attachments, terms conditions and exhibits. This permit may be revoked 'mdtted access and its use violate any parts of this permit. The Issuing authority. the Department and their duly appointnd :rid n<r:pioyedS shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of (ho anerciee of Er) sr.'iit. 1.CSCx:EG�I: ult trot; south silt of Sll 82, a distance of 1320 feet east from milepost 17, Fr ,� as to 1%rovid3 Service to: lsrrrrrteiicy S v!“1 Amin 1 Erich 100.00 V. O:iyr;r tern > and conditions: Sce Ailn:tied 1'cv es 2 and 3 and Other Enclosures for Additional Terms and Conditions. MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate, local authority retains issuing authority. 13y Date r rL Title (x) Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained All crwisituc1on shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from Initial -A. -4i. The. pt:rmiticd access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to L)& J uvad. Ti<c pencil/tee stall notify Mike Moore with the Colorado Department of Transportation in El Jeble/Basalt at 970- 92;-3937 at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction within the State Highway right-of-way. 7i .� r 9r�rxi t,:r3ning tas but hermitic() meat be the owner or legal representative of the properly served by the permitted across end heve full authority to atex i the pc,lrnit wnd tt: (earns and conditions. (x) Pale This faeiinit is tint valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION lEY Date (of Issue) Title Access Manager C<,;:, r 44ntiNdro : Resulreo. Hake cope: as necessary for t.rtia.34 n Local Authority Inspector /Applicant MTCE Patrol Tref& Engineer 3SON Atr,i,ss Section Peawleue wldon. are *Melees r.d map not b. used COOT rorm nos BM JUL-IU-UU NUN 11:U4 An hllrii UUUN!NY hNlr1Nt±.K1Nlr t'HA NU. y!U no noo r. U4 07/10/00 11:38 FAX 9702487294 C)OT R3 TRAFFIC STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT #300095 kaue d to Mumbiu Cerise Farnity Co. TERMS AND CONDITIONS t.i I. The following items are required before a Notice to Proceed will be issued: (1) final Constructable Plans Stamped by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. Design shall include but not be limited to: (i) Construction design plans shall mcct all requirements of the State Highway `d Access Code. (ii) An emergency access shall have a minimum width to serve one-way traffic and may be Iess than 16 feet wide. The radii should bc eliminated or reduced based upon the assumption that fire equipment niay encroach on other travel lanes. The access profile can bc individually designed without compromising drainage or vertical curve minimums. Surfacing shall be chosen to minimize its visibility while still providing sufficient strength. The emergency access shall have a suitable barrier to eliminate non -emergency use and barrier design usually based upon the standards of the local emergency services_ The access shall not bc open for non -emergency uses and shall be maintained by the permittee as a closed access except during emergencies. Any barrier shall not be in the state highway right-of-way and will not be maintained by the Department. The access shall remain closed at all tunes other than when in use for emergency purposes. The access should be signed for emergency services only. (iii)Upgrade of existing Traffic Control Devices. (Signing, striping, signals, etc.) (2) Certificate of Insurance Liability as per Section 2.3(11)(h) of the Access Code. (3) Traffic Control Plan 2. All access provided to a category E -X highway shall be done so with the understanding that if the highway is reconstructed, the direct access location may be dosed and alternative access I ey be regtsircd to a frontage road or by other available means 3. Upon completion of the access, the applicant shall notify the Access Manager by certified mail '! tivit3 in 10 days at: of ®04 July, 10 2000 ( 1f �t l 1 Colorado Department of Transportation Mike Smith Region 3 - Access Manager 222 South 6th Street , Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 4. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application and Permit. This Permit is issued in accordance with the State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601-1), and is based is part upon the information submitted by the Permittee. Any changes in traffic volumes or tyrp;;, drain:vs, or other operational aspects may render this permit void, requiring a new permit to be applied for based upon existing and anticipated future conditions. 5. Nothing in this permit shall prohibit the chief engineer from exercising the right granted in CRS 213-3-102 including but not limited to restricting left hand turns by construction of physical r cdiel separations. 6. \.Ur.tcr, s:iaita y, sewer, gas, electrical, communication, landscaping, and telephone installations will require individual additional permits. -2- 5. °r •, JUL-10-00 MON 11:05 AM HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING rAX NU. y1U Mb Cbbb r. ub 07/10/00 1I:36 FAX 07024$7294 CDOT R3 TRAFFIC IO5 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT #300095 issueci to tvturnbet Cerise Family Co. TERMS AND CONDITIONS(confd) July 10, 2000 7. The Petinittce is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional federal, state and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Approval of this ncc: ss pccrnit does not constitute verification of this action by the Permittee. 8. A titLly executed complete copy of this permit must be on the job site with the contractor at all tiviles during the construction. Failure to comply with this or any other construction requirement may result in the immediate suspension of work by order of the department insp::etor or the issuing authority. `.. Survey markers or monuments found in state highway right-of-way must be preserved in their (sriginr^1 positions. Notify the Department at (970) 248-7220 immediately upon damage to or discovery of any such markers or monuments at the work site. Any survey markers or monuments disturbed during the execution of this permit shall be repaired and/or replaced immediately at the expense of the Pennittee. 10. ft stall tic the responsibility of the Permittee to verify the location of the existing utilities and notify all utility owners or operators of any work that might involve utilities within the State 114;1rway right-of-way. Any work necessary to protect existing permitted utilities, such as an t:r.c3s4svo::.nt will be the responsibility of the Permittee. Any damage or disruption to any utilities during the construction shall be the Permittee's responsibility and shall be repaired or replaced at no cost to the Department_ 11. Any incomplete construction activity on the State Highway that must be left overnight, shall be h2riic.d d and signed in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and other applicable standards. 12. Op; cuts, which are 6 inches in depth, within 30 feet of the edge of the State Highway traveled way, will not be left oprn at night, on weekends, or on holidays. 13. No more than 6 feetof trench areas shall be opened at any one time. Open trenches and other excavations within the State llighway right-of-way shall be backfilled and/or paved before 3:30 P.M. of each working day or be protected in accordance with the M._U.T.C.D. 14. Ail required access improvements shall be installed prior to the herein -authorized use of this act: ss. 15. Corip:rtion of subgradc, embankments and backfill shall be in accordance to section 203.07 of the l),;:p <rtment's standard specifications. 16. Slopes shall be at a 6:1 ratio on the roadway and a 6:1 ratio on the approach. 1%. No drairage from this site shall enter onto the State Highway travel lanes. The Permittee is required to detain all drainage in excess of historical flows and time of concentration on site, All existing drainage structures shall be extended, modified or upgraded, as applicable, to accommodate all new construction and safety standards, in accordance with the Department's $1andayd specifications_ -a - 3! T JUL-1U—UU C1UN 11:Ub Hf1 !Intl UUUNIKY t,Nlr1NLU UNlr t'H2S NU, y(U y4D CDDJ 07/1e/ci0 .11:36 FAX 9702487294 CDOT R3 TRAFFIC r, uo IA 06 f41CO.ADo t1EPAFCIMENMT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT iyvP":if[ f 300.60 Date of transmittal 06/10/2000 Region/Sedion1Patrol 03/02/16 COOT Permit No. 300094 • State Highway No/hip/Side 082A/016.800/L Local Jurisdiction Garfield Coun Permilte.t=(a): Mi.rr,bGrt Cexisi: Family Co. 17072 St.7,t4 Hwy 82 Carhnndle, CO K162.3 yi i, it giv::tl Applicant; Art Klienstien WinterGreen Homes P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 303-322-4119 r:, ,; rpt y °fantail p6criiiF ..ix, to have an nrrt,c,F to the state highway al the location noted below. The access shall be constructed. maintained and used in rr .- vcance A.rytJ, poirnit, including tho Slate Highway Access Code and any attachments, terms. conditions and exhibits. This permit may be revoked by 0;s, issuing at thpr'iy if at any trine the pemn'rtted access end itr use violate any parts of this permit. The issuing authority, the Department end their duty tapluMtosf 0.0.5ntu:ancf canppoysa,s shalt be brad barrnless arrja net any action for personal misery or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of 0v:scrawl of the; ,Psttrr sidd of S11 82, a distance of 4224 feet east from milepost 16. A .cess tD PTC .'iCti9 `service to•, Simple•-Vabt.JIy Detached Housing 67 Each 50.00 % Aci;el,ss►r y :)wcciting Units 67 Each 50.00 % erti; sr tfi: si S and conditions: Sec Attached Pages 2 and 3 and Ocher Enclosures for Additional Terms and Conditions. IMMtrNiCIPALtTY OR COUNTY. APPROVAL Retluiri?d only than the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. sy Dale (X) Tide 1Jperl the Signing or this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained i-rart•in.: It ccarpArtar.'Aion shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from lr,i+i�otiot7. Tho pt,rrni3 ed access 66'1011 he completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to Isr;;rig tl;i,d. Tl`rc Pen -rinse ftihall notify Mike Moore with the Colorado Department of Transportation in Basa tIEI Jebel at 97iU- 927.3137 at least 40 hours prior to commencing construction within the State Highway right-of-way. ti "fid rasrst'ns 3rorr;s9 ar. the permittee must be the owner or toga' representative of the property ter'ed by the permitted access and have full authority to r grl era permit orkd it; terms and axtditions, i•' wmiili,Na, (=) I Dale INS 11err;iit IS not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. COLORAr O DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION rate (of issue) Tido ) JAZ. dialabe,gr.aoaa.m...16 Access Manager Cbf." Roou.r. 1.Rogion 2.App! cant 3_Statf Ac-isc Section Make copies as necessaryfor: Local Authority Inspector kJTCE Parini Traffic Eneinpar Previou..myone ere *baste. and way ant be used COOT Fenn Sidi Me ti I It JUL-10-00 MON 11:06 AM HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEEK1Nli H -1X H-1NU. y 1U JO e666 r, u r 07/10/00 11:30 FAX 9702487294 CDOT R3 TRAFFIC tJ07 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT #300094 (woad to Murnbert Cerise Family Co. TERMS AND CONDITIONS July 10, 2000 I. The following items are required before a Notice to Proceed will be issued: (1) Final Constructable Plans Stamped by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. Design shall include but not be limited to: (i) Construction design plans shall meet all requirements of the State Highway Access Code. Including: a. A )eft tum lane with deceleration, storage, and taper lengths is required. b. A right turn lane with deceleration and taper lengths is required. c. A tight turn lane with acceleration and taper lengths is required. d. A lett turn acceleration lane may be required_ (ii) Upgrade of existing Traffic Control Devices. (Signing, striping, signals, etc.) (2) Certificate of Insurance Liability as per Section 2.3(11)(h) of the Access Code. (3) Traffic Control Plan 2. All access provided to a category E -X highway shall be done so with the understanding that if the highway is reconstructed, the direct access location may be closed and alternative access 'nay be required to a frontage road or by other available means 3. U >ort completion of the access, the applicant shall notify the Access Manager by certified mail !I within I0 days at: Colorado Department of Transportation Mike Smith Region 3 - Access Manager . f 222 South 6th Street , Room I00 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 4. This )permitted access is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application and Permit. This Permit is issued in accordance with the State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601-1), and is basial in part upon the information submitted by the Permittee. Any changes in traffic volumes or type, drainage, or other operational aspects may render this permit void, requiring a new p4 nut to be applied for based upon existing and anticipated future conditions. 1 5. Nothing in this permit shall prohibit the chief engineer from exercising the right granted in CRS 13-3-102 including but not limited to restricting left band turns by construction of physical rr.idial separations. 6. Water. sanitary, sewer, gas, electrical, cotnmunication, landscaping, and telephone installations will regi2Fre individual additional permits. 7- Alt costs associated with the installation of traffic signals for this access are the recilo msibiiity of the Permittee. This includes but is not limited to the design, err istruc.tiota, utility relocation, testing of materials and inspection. TI:^ Pc r ►'toe is tesponstzle for obtaining any necessary additional federal,state and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Approval of this access horttait does not constitute verification of this action by the Permittee. -2- ij 34 1 11. A s h +li Ise the responsibility of the Pennittee to verify the location of the existing utilities and notify all utility owners or operators of any work that might involve utilities within the State Highway right -of --way. Any work necessary to protect existing permitted utilities, such as an .y encasement will be the responsibility of the Permittee,_ Any damage or disruption to any utilities during the construction shall be the Pcrmittee's responsibility and shall be repaired or I rept eed at no cost to the Department. 12. Any ineempletc construction activity on the State Highway that must be left overnight, shall be h u-ric::ded and signed in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and 11 other :els, licable standards. 13. Open cuts. which are 6 inches in depth, within 30 feet of the edge of the State Highway traveled way, will not be left open at night, on weekends, or on holidays. 14. No more then 6 feet of trench areas shall be opened at any one time. Open trenches and other cxcav: tion s within the State Highway right-of-way shall be backfilled and/or paved before 3.30 P.M. of each working day or be protected in accordance with the M.U.T.C.D. • I 15. The access shall be constructed perpendicular to the travel lanes of the State Highway for a e iniiiireum distance of 50 feet, and shall slope down and away from the adjacent pavement edge ti at , rate of 2% grade for a minimum of 20 feet. If curb and gutter arc present, the slope shall be c:3h Meted from pan line to pan line. Any revisions to this requirement shall be subject to Department review and approval prior to commencement of any work within the highway Yig -..t-of-way. 16. Pursuant to section 4.10.2 of the State Highway Access Code, the access roadway shall not esccceal a maximum grade of 10 percent within the highway right-of-way, as measured 50 feet bcyc;kd the pevement edge and extending to the right-of-way line. The access vertical grade shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the Department M & S standard M-203- 1 17. All required access improvements shall be installed prior to the herein -authorized use of this access. JUL-10-00 MON 11:06 AM HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING 1•HX NU. 11U y45 L555 r. uu 07/10/00 11:36 FAX 9702487294 COOT R3 TRAFFIC 1 aa STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT #300094 July 10, 2000 ts� (ied to Mu7nberi Ceri ,e Family Co. TERMS AND CONDITIONS(cont'd) 9. A golly executed complete copy of this permit must be on the job site with the contractor at all times during the construction. Failure to comply with this or any other construction rc uiren cnt may result in the immediate suspension of work by order of the department inspector or the issuing authority, 10_ Survey markers or monuments found in state highway right-of-way must be preserved in their original positions. Notify the Department at (970) 248-7220 immediately upon damage to or discovery of any such markers or monuments at the work site. Any survey markers or monuments disturbed during the execution of this permit shall be repaired and/or replaced irruncdiately at the expense of the Pennittee. Et 1 1 t. The access shall be surfaced immediately upon completion of earthwork construction and prior to :lie. 19, Compaction of subgrade, embankments and backfill shall be in accordance to section 20107 of the Department's standard specifications. -3. ti "t JUL-1U-UU CIUN 11:UI Hfl hllrh UUUN1KY tNtr1NttK!NU rHX NU. a!u dqO c000 r. LJ 07/10/00 11:36 FAX 9702487294 CDOT R3 t1AITIC Zoo STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT #300094 July 10, 2000 /saved tO Murrino t Cerise Family Co. TERMS AND CONDITIONS(cont'd) 20. Th surfacing shall meet the Department's specifications with minimum surfacing to be equal to or gieater than existing highway conditions. Contact the Region Materials Engineer or Regio=s Access Manager for a materials recommendation lctter.(I.e. gravel if Gravel exists on CM re hi1;li,way, Asphalt if asphalt exists on current highway.) 21. Slopes shall be ata 6:1 ratio on the roadway and a 6:1 ratio on thc approach. 22. No drainage from this site shall enter onto thc State Highway travel lanes. The Permittee is required to detain all drainage in excess of historical flows and time of concentration on site. A11 existing drainage structures shall be extended, modified or upgraded, as applicable, to accommodate all new construction and safety standards, in accordance with the Department's st tidarc1 specifications. -4-