The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 Staff Report BOCC1) PROJECT ]NFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Burning Rock Subdivision PneliminarY PIat Battlement Mesa, Inc' Battlement Mesa, Inc' GingerY Associates, Inc' A portion of the gBr-u of Section 7 and a portion of the SW% of Section 8' Town- shiP 7 South, Range 95 West of the 6th P.M. The site is located generally on,- the north west side of the Battlement Mesa PUD. 205.8 acres to be divided into six lots' BattlementMesacommunitySystem(private). BattlementMesacommunitySystem(private). Within the PUD the site is zoned PSR-Public' Semiptlblic,andRecreational,NC-Neighborhood Commercial and BC-Business Center' I. RELATIONSHIP TO T HE COMPRE HENSIVE PI,AN This Pro- PROJECT NAME: REQUEST: OWNER: PI.ANNER: ENGINEER: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ZONE DISTR]CT TheBattlementMesaPUDisincorporatedintheComp:rehensivePlan. po=af is consistent with the Battlement Mesa PUD Plan' ]I. DESCRIPTI ON OF THE PROPOSAL A I1I. MAJOR CO NCERNS AND ISSUES A. Comments for Reviewing Agencles: Site Descniption: The site is generarry gently rorring te::rain' There are severaldrainsand"drainagewaysthatcrossthesite.Priortostripping thepropertytoconstructthegolfcourse'thesitevegetationwasnative grasses, trees, and shr:ub ' project Descr:iption: The proE>sal is to plat lots 1 (89'1 aclles) and 2 (ss.B acres) to enco*pt"" tt'e froposea i1{ :?::""'r^:"1 ?rll;-l"i!li'will be the lot for 15s Battlement Mesa entry slgn' Lor'+ \z'rJ is the proposed, visitors center' Lot 5 (5'86 acnes) is the pnoposed clubhouse. Lot 6 (8.33 acres) is a site for a proposed convention center' B 1,TheDivisionofWaterResourceshasraisedquestionsaboutthewater openationsforthegolfCourseandtheaugmentationplan.Seeletter, ii:T#f##a:orogicar survey states that the recommendations of the geotechnical enginiers be followed' See letter' PaBe 23 The Bookctiff soir conservation Service points out that drainage ways shouldtakeintoaccountflashfloodsituations.Seeletter,page2E TheCo}oradoStateForestServiceStatesthatagolfcoursewould SenveaSaneffectivefirebreakintheeventofawildfire.Seeletter, page 29. 2 aJ 4 B Staff Comments 1 2 The County Health Department recommends approval' See lettel?' page 30 TETevetoper of this project originally intended to develop a golf Cou]]SeaSpartoftherecreationatfacititiesforBattlementMesa. When Exxon closed down the Colony projectl tl"y also scaled down the development program at Battlemeni M"=u ' It is the understanding of the staff that the construc-tion of the golf course has been suspended indefinitelyandthatthedisturbedtandswillberevegetated.The cost of the revegetation -r.a "prirrkler system, drainage ways, tld other facitities requined in this area should !e included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement with the Final PIat' IPage 10 P.0. Box 1302 Bookcliff Soil Conservation Districto Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 f-"1 P. i . i,,., ArnH E Bs. April 26, L9B2 tr'Iarren Dodo Secretary wD/te Encl. %"^r- /!'"L '' i\') [i ,'i,raR Dennis Stranger 2014 Bl-ake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Slr: The Bookcl-iff Soil Conservation District has reviewed the Burning Rock Subdlvision. IrIe feel a golf course on this site would be a beneficial Land use. SoiL erosion on these sites are caused by severe thunderstorms in the sturmer months and to a lesser extent by snow melt. The drainage ways that are planned for this area should talce into account the flash floodlng that is cormon to the area. These drainage ways should also be designed to protect the land below the subdivision. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SELF.GOVERNMENT COIORADO SIAIT UMVENSIIY coO,.A',o STATE FOFIEST SEFIVICE Petroleum Building 1129 Coloradcl Avenue, Rooms 21 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone 3O3 I 242-7518 '- 1 I I*J tlV, r r-ntirtuii a r, F L, \r'I 04iii r ci_r, APR Z s tgga April 22, 19BZ Garfield County Planning Department c/o Dennis A. Stranger 20.l4 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8,l60.| RE: Burning Rock Subdivision Dear Mr. Stranger; hlildfire hazards are of little concern with a golf course development. In fact, fainrays and greens can serve as an effective fire break in the event of a wildfire. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Si ncerely , John Denison District Forester atGARFIELD COUNTY ; ENVIRONMENTAL.HEALTH bEPRNT}AENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 8I 60I MEMO Dennis Stranger Garfield County Planning Department 20I4 BLAKE AVENUE FROM: PHONE 945-2339 TO DATE: SUBJECT: Terry L. Hourard TLll.Garfieid County Environmental Health Department May 4, L982 Bu rn i ng Roc k Subd i vi s i on , Batt'l ement Mesa I have reviewed the preliminary plat for Burning Rock Subdivision and recommend approval. RICHARD D. LAMM Governor oo JERIS A, DANIELSON State Engineer OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 8'l 8 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 'i i .'\, -ilI rJ,'a\/- April 29, L982 ir.,Ju &tfit,..-- t,u" r *i.ir,.-. Mr. Dennis A. Stranger Garfield County Planning Department 20L4 BLake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re Battlement Mesa Burning Rock Subdivision (Golfcourse) Miscellaneous Church and School Plats Dear Mr. Stranger: We have received the above referenced proposals. The Burning Rock Subdivi- sion includes a 194-acre golf course and a 10.78 acre commercial area. Obviously,the water requirements for the golf course and commercial area would be very high. We do not believe the estimate in the Subdivision Summary Form which was sub-mitted with the application includes the entire requirement. The other proposal includes one school, three churches, and Stone Ridge Village. Water requirementsfor all these developments are low with the exception of the school. We believethe indicated water requirement for the school is in error. The golf course represents one of the larger water consumers of the pendingproposals. Itle are not sure whether the applicants intend to operate the golf course as a part of the rest of the water system or whether it would operateseparately. We do not know what the ultinate water requirenent for this develop- ment wilL be, therefore, it nay be possible that the 6 cfs out of priority limita-tion contained in the applicantrs augmentation plan could limit out of prioritygolf course irrigation. This is not a real problem, but the applicants may wishto clarify their own operational procedures. We have previously indicated concerns regarding the applicant's ability to supply augmentation water pursuant to their plan for augmentation in Water Court Case Nos. 79CW350 and 79CW351. These conments were most recently stated in our letter of JuLy 23,1981. We realize that the availability of Ruedi water has not progressed at the rate anticipated by the applicant. Our previous comments have not been addressed and we have not received information to indicate any other sources of augmentation water are being considered or on line. While we dontt object to approval of this proposal, we feel there should be some assurance thatthe applicants will obtain water frorn Ruedi once it becomes available. Since we Ivlr. Dennis A. Stranger April 29, 1982 HDS/KCK:mvf o Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Land Use Comnission l.tahHal'D. Simpdon, P.E. Assistant State Engineer e Page 2 haventt received any updated information to indicate the applicants couldoperate in accordance with the augnentation plan, we cannot fu1ly endorsethis proposal at this time. Sincerely, cc fu.t*tOli't RICHARD D. LAMM COVERNOB JOHN W. ROLD DI RECTOR COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL BESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING _ 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (s03) 866-2611 0 it (\, l$,Pn Zg ltgsz n tlq. April 28, 1982 Mr. Dennis A. Stranger Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, C0 81601 Dear Dennis: RE: BATTLEl'lENT MESA I,le have reviewed the following Battlement Mesa plats: L.lrl. St. John Middle School Monument Creek Vi1'lage Church site #3 High Meadow Village Church site #6 High Meadow Village Church site #7 StoneRidge Village section two Burning Rock Subdivision (go1f course) There do not appear to be any major geologfc problems with any of these filings. However, drainage and foundation design should be carefully planned and constructed, taking into account the recommendations of the geotechnical engineers. Pr^oper setback of structures from the steep bluffs in StoneRidge Village section two i.s the only geologic concern. We under- stand that no developrnent pians have been proposed for StoneRidge at this time. We have no geo'logically related objections to these Battlement Mesa p'lats. Si ncerely,k c\"<_ Bruce K. Stover Engineering Geologist cc: Land Use Commission GEOLOGYBKS/bn srony oF THE pAST. . . KEy ro rHE FUTURE