HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.20.1999BOCC
Continue
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review for the Ranch Creek
PUD
Jane J. Jenkins, Stagecoach Associates, Ltd.
Stryker/Brown Architects
APPLICANT:
PLANNERS:
ENGINEERS:
LOCATION:
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
CTL/Thompson, Inc.
A parcel of land located in Lot 2 of Section
36, T7S, R88W; more practically described
as a parcel of land located approximately one
(1) mile northeast of Carbondale off of State
Hwv 82.
SITE DATA: 6.34 acres
WATER: Ranch at Roaring Fork water system
SEWER: Ranch at Roaring Fork sewage disposal system
ACCESS: State Hwy 82 and Stagecoach Lane and
Stagecoach Drive
ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
Planned Development (P/D)
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed subdivision is located in an area designated as an Existing Subdivision on the
Proposed Land Use Districts, Planning Area 1 map of the Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan of 1994.
1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The proposed subdivision is located along the Roaring Fork river
valley floor, adjacent to State Hwy 82 and within the Ranch at Roaring Fork
development. The Ranch at Roaring Fork contains a large open space/common area
that includes river bottom that has various riparian areas with large cottonwood and
evergreen trees. The site presently contains two original ranch houses, an old barn
and the Relay Station restaurant.
B. Development Proposal: The applicants were originally proposing to develop 24
lots, that included a lot for a park/parking and another lot for common area
maintenance (Lot Jll). The proposed amendment to the Ranch Creek PUD, if
approved, would reduce the total number of lots to 22, with one lot being for
Park/Parking. Two of the remaining 21 lots will have the previously noted existing
dwellings. All of the dwellings are proposed to be served by the Ranch at Roaring
Fork water and sewer systems. Access will be provided by the main entrance to the
Ranch at Roaring Fork onto a 40 ft. wide access easement that goes from Stagecoach
Lane on the east side to Stagecoach Drive on the west side of the restaurant. Up to
17 of the proposed lots will be accessed via the previously noted easement, the
remainder of the lots will access directly onto roads owned and maintained by the
Ranch of Roaring Fork.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. ZONING: The proposed subdivision is zoned PUD. The proposed lots are
consistent with the Ranch Creek PUD approval. The applicants propose to convey
Lot 13 to the owner of Parcel A , for parking area tied to the Relay Station restaurant.
This lot was approved as a part of the common area for the PUD and was to include
at least 10 off street parking places for the PUD and a landscaped area. The proposal
to convey the lot to the adjoining lot owned by the Relay Station is not completely
inconsistent with the PUD approval. If the owners of the Ranch Creek PUD are
precluded from parking on the lot or their visitors, then it would not be consistent
with the original PUD approval. If approved, the amended PUD would only allow
the transfer to go forward, without the PUD owners having any right to park on the
lot.
B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed subdivision was found to be in general
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan as a part of the PUD rezoning process.
Provided the subdivision submittal is consistent with the PUD approved, it should
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Soils/Topography: The geotechnical investigation indicated that the top layer of soil
is a soft, moist, organic sandy clay, underlain by dense to very dense, moist, sandy
2
to clayey gravels with cobbles and boulders. One of the test locations found a layer
of soft, very moist, sandy clay was found below the organic soils and above the
gravels. The gravels are on excellent soil on which to build homes and foundations.
They do note a concern about the potential problems for buildings with basements,
due to potential high water. They note that site specific investigations would be
appropriate due to the limited number of test pits and the potential for variations and
that drainage and grading plans for the project should include a geotechnical review.
Any plat should include a plat note requiring a site specific geotechnical analysis and
recommendation be submitted with each building permit. The documents submitted
at final plat should include a review by a geotechnical engineer of the proposed
grading and drainage plans.
D. Road/Access: The road system for the development consists of single loop named
Ranch Creek Lane, that is accessed on the east side of the development from
Stagecoach Lane and on the west side from a frontage road along Highway 82.
Sixteen of the 22 lots will access directly onto Ranch Creek Lane. At the PUD
rezoning stage, it was agreed to a 40 ft. wide right-of-way, with two 8 ft. driving
lanes and two ft. shoulders and no on street parking allowed.
The access off of Stagecoach Lane is via a 25 ft. wide right-of-way, that is intended
to be the majority of the right-of-way to provide access to the property. There is
documentation showing the right of the applicant to use 15 ft. of the adjoining
property for the other portion of the right-of-way. (See pg. g ) This is not
depicted on the proposed Preliminary Plan, but noted as being needed in the
agreement. It will need to be depicted on any final plat.
E. Water: The applicants have reached an agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork
Homeowners Association , but the documentation submitted with the application was
not deemed to be adequate for the Division of Water Resources to determine the
adequacy of the system and the associated water rights. CRS 30-28-136 (h) (I),
requires that the Division of Water Resources make a determination of no injury to
water rights and the adequacy of the water supply. The applicants engineer has
stated that the developer has transferred more than adequate water rights, but does
not define the existing systems capacity. The R at RF HOA has applied for to the
District Court, Water Division No. 5, for a change in the point of diversion of the
water rights for the subdivision. If approved, the Division of Water Resources will
revise their determination of potential injury. (See letters pgs. 9',..5.- )
F. Sewer: It is proposed to serve the development's sewage by connecting to the Ranch
at Roaring Fork sewage treatment facility. The existing facility has a capacity of
50,000 gpd, but is in need of repair. Recently the Board and the Planning
Commission approval of a Site Application that will increase the capacity of the
system to 100,000 gpd and increase the treatment plant capability to meet the current
3
water quality discharge standards. The R at RF has stated that they will treat the
Ranch Creek development's sewage in their agreement. The Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment has stated that they would recommend that no
additional connections be allowed until the system is upgraded.
G. Fire Protection: The existing 200,000 gallon water storage tank is designed to meet
the domestic water needs of the R at RF and provide fire protection water. A letter
from the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District states that the fire protection
provisions appear to be adequate. (See pg. !to )
H. Lot Layout: All of the lots are consistent with the Ranch Creek PUD zone district
requirements. Each lot has a building envelope as agreed to during the PUD rezoning
process. The building envelopes for the lots along Blue Creek are designed to protect
the riparian area and provide for a fisherman's easement.
The applicant was required as a part of the PUD approval to a pedestrian easement
along the west line of Lot 7 to the proposed parking lot and park in Lot 13. The
applicant has stated that the pedestrian easement is no longer necessary since the
parking lot will be conveyed to the Relay Station owners. Staff and the Planning
Commission still felt that the pedestrian easement was necessary to provide access
to alternate parking for visitors to the development at the time of the Preliminary
Plan review and there was a recommendation to that effect. Subsequently, at the
amended PUD review, the Planning Commission reversed that position and the
easement was not required. Depending upon the decision on the proposed PUD
amendment. The pedestrian easement still needs to be included in the final plat
documents, if the PUD amendment is not approved.
I. Other Comments:
A. Colorado Geologic Survey: Based on the documented geologic constraints,
the Geologic Survey recommends that basements will not be feasible in the
development. Further they note that Lots 5 and 6 appear to have lots that will
be very limiting for the construction of a house. The concern being that
someone will want to modify the building envelope an infringe on the
wetlands of Blue Creek. They recommended that all recommendations /oathe
geotechnical consultant be included in any approval (See letter pg./ )
B. Division of Wildlife: Enclosed is a letter noting that a previous letter
included in the application states the building envelope design for the project
will be adequate to deal with their concerns about wetland encroachment.
Additional concerns about the need for kennels for any dogs was also noted.
.(See pg. /8 )
4
C. Roaring Fork School District RE -1: The enclosed letter requests a school site
acquisition fee be collected as a part of the subdivision approval consistent
with a formula adopted by the District in July, 1997. (See pg./9-22 )
D. Colorado Department of Health and Environment: The Department noted that
the additional loading resulting from the Ranch Creek and St. Finnbar
projects will result in the existing treatment plant exceeding their discharge
permit parameters. They recommend that no building permits be issued until
an upgraded sewage treatment facility is built for the project and surrounding
area. (See letter pg. 23 )
E. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Based on the information provided
to the Division, stated that the proposed subdivision will cause material
injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. (See letter pgs. Z4 )
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners; and
B. 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 that hearing; and
C. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area
of the County; and
D. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution; and
E. That all data, surveys, analysis, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State
of Colorado, and Garfield County, have been submitted and, in addition, have been
found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the proposed Preliminary Plan,
with the following conditions of approval:
1. That all representations of the applicant either in the application or during the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions
of approval, unless modified by the Board.
5
2. A Final Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the property,
dimension and area of the proposed lot, access to a public right-of-way, and any
proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
Specifically, a five (5) ft. wide pedestrian easement shall be shown along the east
side of Lot 7 and an easement along the Hunt property to the east, including the
designation of the fisherman's/pedestrian easement. Additionally the following plat
notes shall be shown:
"Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner."
"All construction shall be consistent with USFS Wildfire Prevention Guidelines."
"No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed; each dwelling unit will be
allowed one(1) new wood -burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-407, et. seq. and
the regulations promulgated thereunder; and there will be no restriction on the
number of natural gas burning fireplaces or appliances included in the protective
covenants."
"All exterior lighting will be directed downward and inward, to prevent glare on
adjacent property."
"That all foundations will be designed by registered geotechnical engineer in
accordance with the recommendations in the engineering report done by
CTL/Thompson, Job No. GS -1791 and that engineered designs will be submitted
with each building permit application."
"All building envelopes are permanent and cannot be amended and all structural
elements of a house, including decks and accessory buildings, shall be contained
within the envelope."
3. That protective covenants will be developed to limit the number of dogs allowed to
one (1) per dwelling unit and that dogs will always be fenced or on a leash when
outside of the dwelling unit. The covenants will provide for progressive penalties for
allowing dogs to run at large that will allow for removal of the dog from the
subdivision.
4. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval by the Board of County Commissioners, a
letter from the State Division of Water Resources will be submitted to the County
stating that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water
rights and is adequate to serve the development.
5. The road design for Ranch Creek Road will be for a 40 ft. right-of-way, with two
eight (8) ft. wide hard surfaced driving lanes and two (2) ft. shoulders and consistent
6
with all other provisions of the other design standards for a Semi -Primitive road
defined in Section 9:35 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as
amended. The plans shall also include provisions for no parking signs and the
covenants include a method by which property owners can be fined for parking on
street.
6. building p will be is - • • r lots wit ' e Ranch Cree bdivision, until
the ch at Roaring k sewage trea ent facility 1 graded and co truction is
complete and approve by the Color.: • Departme of Public Hea and
Environment. This statemen so be include • : a plat note.
7. Lot 13 will remain as proposed Open Space as a part of the PUD, including parking
for residents of the Ranch Creek PUD.
8
GO(/ 6e.
a
at,-eci4 --e,40-0/
°-us ,
7
From:OFFICE / MKTNG
Hunt / Ranch Creek
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
March 25, 1998
Ranch Creek will direct their Surveyor to revise the Preliminary and Final Plats of the
Ranch creek P.U.D. to reflect the road Right of Way (R.O.W.) to be 15 feet on the West
Border of the Hunt property and 25 feet on the East Border of the Jcnkins property. The
Surveyor will also be instructed to note on the Preliminary and Final Plats that the purpose
of the easement is for Ingress and Egress for The Hunt's and The Ranch Creek
Subdivision or by their respective successors or assigns.
In accordance with the Agreement between Ranch Creek and the Ranch at Roaring
Fork Homeowners Association, Ranch Creek will construct a 16 foot wide paved road
as depicted on the Preliminary Plat. Ranch Creek, at their expense will have the road
constructed; Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association will maintain the road.
This agreement will become binding upon the approval and recording of the Ranch Creek
Subdivision by Stagecoach Associates, Jane J. Jenkins, David P. Brown or by their
respective successors or assigns.
Agreed To By
J. Richardf and Shirley Hunt
14913 Highway 82, Carbondale, CO 81623 963-2962
David P. Brown
P.O.Box 91, Aspen, CO 81612 925-2254
Jane . Jenkins �Y
P.O. x J, Aspen, CO 81612
925-6346
Date
ZS- 7,5
Date
AMOS
saw
210A Ventnor Ave., Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-1920
FAX (970) 925-1974
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
April 6, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St. Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
RE: Ranch Creek - State Engineer Comments on Water Rights 96-014.O1P
Dear Mark:
RONALD C. McLAUGHLIN
LEO M. EISEL
HALFORD E. ERICKSON
WILLIAM R. KENDALL
RALPH L. TOREN
TERRENCEP.KENYON
RICHARD E. McLAUGHLIN
GENE A. BURRELL
MICHAEL E. MERCER
JOHN M. PFLAUM
MICHAEL R GALUZZI
SCOTT E. LEHMAN
BRIAN S. KOLSTAD
G. DEAN DEROSIER
I am responding to the letter from Steve Lautenschlager, Assistant State Engineer EDWARD D.BAIN
dated March 5,1998 regarding the Ranch Creek Subdivision Proposal and his questions PAUL
D. CHEVALIERAA
g g p q PAUL D. ZACHARY
involving water issues. I will respond to each of Mr. Lautenschlager's comments
J. HAROLD ROBER1S
LEANDER L. URMY
DANIEL M. PETRAMALA
RONALD D. LUCERO
separately.
1. The basis for estimated water requirements was not provided:
There are currently 21 lots being proposed in the subdivision. Our basis for water
use followed the following logic. A. 1 home per lot, B. 3 bedrooms per home, C. 2
people per bedroom, and d. 100 gallon per day per person of use for an average day
of water use. (211ots X 3 brs X 2 peo X 100 gal = 12,600 gallons per day avg use).
We use a peaking factor of 3.0 to determine peak flows for the new subdivision or
37,800 gallons per day of use for peak day. The projected use by the Ranch Creek
Subdivision is 13.92 acre feet of use.
The subdivision is planning on using the irrigation water rights it has to install
and use a separate irrigation system for all outside watering.
2. The water rights information submitted did not reference decrees or well permits
for the water rights for domestic use.
Enclosed is the well permit and associated water rights for the Ranch at Roaring
Fork Subdivision that is currently in use to provide water to the existing
subdivision as well as the proposed Ranch Creek Subdivision. Well Permit # 2448-F,
dated November 26, 1979. You may also refer to Exhibit A for more information on
the Water Rights owned by the Ranch at Roaring Fork and the Rights transferred to
the Association by the Ranch Creek Subdivision.
3. Analysis of dependable yield of the water rights.
Attached are the 1993 to 1996 and 1997 water use records for the existing well and
Ranch at Roaring Fork Subdivision. The well produces 400 gallons per minute to
supply a 200,000 gallon water storage tank. The tank and the well are capable of
providing 776,000 gallons of water during normal and peak water use periods. Peak
use by the existing subdivision is approximately 400,000 gallons per day Water use
by the existing Subdivision does not exceed the well use on any one day, even at
peak usage periods. Peak use by the Proposed Ranch Creek Subdivision is 37,800
gallons. In our opinion, the well and tank have the capacity to provide the water
to be used by the proposed Ranch Creek Subdivision.
Please refer to Exhibit H, Letter by MWE dated October 16, 1997 for more information
on projected used of the proposed subdivision.
DENVER, CO
(303) 458-5550
PHOENIX, AZ
(602) 468-2141
COMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN: WATER RIGHTS AND RESOURC1 WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IRRIGATION FOUNTAINS STORM DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL
WASTEWATER COLLECTION TREATMENT AND REUSE FIRE PROTECTION WATER BASED RECREATION SPECIALTY HYDRAULICS RATE STUDIES AND UTILITIES ECONOMICS
4. Current obligations and ability of Association to deliver the necessary water.
Please refer to Exhibits A pages 1- 5 and Exhibit H for more information on
obligations to be provided by the Homeowners Association and existing facilities.
The existing system consists of a 400 gallon per minute well, 200,000 gallon storage
tank, pump station, 8 and 6 -inch distribution main lines, fire hydrants, valves,
and other appurtenances throughout the entire subdivision and surrounding the
proposed subdivision. The Ranch at Roaring Fork subdivision consists of 143 units,
approximately 133 of the units are on line as of this date, with the remaining 10
projected to be connected to the system over the next two to three years. The Ranch
Creek Subdivision will add 21 units to the system for a total of 164 units.
Please review this information and determine if it provides the data required to
complete this submittal. As you know Mr. Brown is appearing before the Board on
Wednesday April 8, 1998, we would appreciate immediate response to this letter in
order to collect any information that is missing prior to the meeting date. I am by
fax sending a copy of this letter to Steve Lautenschlager, for him to review and
comment on as well. Please call if you have any questions.
Attachments
CC: S -B Arch
RRF - Michael L
State - Steve L.
JCAug, 5, 1998i 112:12PIv1 MSTRYKER / BROWN ENG FRX NO, 9709251974 No, 0412 P. 2/6
From:OFFICE / MKTNG
May 21, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 811' St, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
RE: Ranch Creek - Water Rights and Water Supply - 96.014.O1P
Dear Mark:
210A Ventnor Ave., Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-1920
PAX (970) 925-1974
RONALD C. MdAUGHI 1N
1/p M. Era
HALFORD s >
WILLIAM R. KENDA1L
UIPK LTOREN
TEMP= P.MOO>:
RIM= E M4Aocriu i
•41C7LAID. C MOOR
JOHN 14 PRAM
M» A GA1.trm
SCOTT E. LE2NMAN
OMAN S- KOt$TAD
C DEAN IMMO.
EDWARD D. BAIN
WEAN E. ChEvALIER
MVLD. ZACHARY
t.E.WHDFY L URMY
CAMEL M. PETRAMALA
RONALD D. wCFRO
The Ranch of Roaring Fork Homeowners Association have been reviewing the water rights issues discussed in the
State Engineers Letters by Steve j autearohlager. In conversations with the Ranch of Roaring Fork Water Right
attorney Sherry Caloia from Caloia and Houpt in Glenwood Springs, the Association and Ranch Creek Developer
David Brown are taking the position that Ranch Creek Property and was included in the original water right filings
;end decrees in 1973. A formal water augmentation plan does not need to be provided to the State. The
Homeowners have more than adequate water, from both physical and decreed water sources to supply the Ranch
Creek Project and the Ranch of Roaring Fork.
The Ranch of Roaring Fork is applying to the State of Colorado to Change the Point of Diversion of some of their
c>dsting decreed water rights from their current diversion point to the point of diversion for their domestic water
supply, which is the new Skim Well and two back up wells- This will allow additional diversions from the wells
to serve both the Ranch at Roaring Fork and Ranch Creek
In discussions that Sherry Caloia has had with the State of Colorado Water Resources Department they have
informally agreed to the plan and we anticipate their approval of the Change in Diversion and the Ranch Creek
Project.
If you have any questions, please fed free to contact me at any time.
Attachments
CC. CC: David Brown SB- Arch
RORF - Hardin H_
DE V1 C0
Alui+sssl 9)
(EM 4 341
amour! erictveearsc VORVICIDOe: WATER IOCUTs AND RZIOURCIZ WATat TR&1T14e rr AND DISTRIBODO Sa:SUR6ACE DFAINACE IRRIGATION FOONTi%INs STORM DRAIN Ail AND FL *' SOI.
wA rfwATEa couscrlog Ti tATMD1T AND RAUSE PIM noxecrtaN want > 4. W RECREATION !MALTY HYDRMILIO FATE WDID AND trnunes ECVNOMICS
RFAug, 5. 19981 112:12PM ISTRYKER / BROWN ENG
FAX NO. 9709251974 No, 0412 P. 3/6
From:OFFICE / MKTNG
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
210 A AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925.1920 970-925-1974 fax
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron McLaughlin, Ralph Toren, Michael LaMontange, Hardin Holmes, Sherry Caloia, and David Brown
FROM: G. Dean Derosier, P. E. , MWE - Aspen
PAITL April 16, 1998
RE: Ranch of Roaring Fork - Water Augmentation Plan -
As you all know we are working with David Brown on the hunch Creek Subdivision inclusion into the Ranch of
Roaring Fork, As part of the approval from Garfield County, the State of Colorado requested that before the
subdivision was approved, adequate water rights were to be piescnt and available to serve the project. 1 do not
have all the water right information, but as 1 untie -island, the water rights to service the Ranch Creek addition were
given to the Ranch of Roaring Fork in the 1970's. I do not know the wader right history ,thus this memorandum
may be premature, but in the attempt to help Mr_ Brown keep his project submittal going forward, I am sending it
to all concerned parties.
The current Ranch of Rearing Pork well permit and decree show that the Ranch has the right to divert 30 acre-feet.
of water to serve the current Ranch of Roaxing Fork (See attached documents). According to use records,. in 1997
the Ranch diverted 77+ acre-feet of water for use within the subdivision. The Ranch has 8 to 10 lots in the Elder
addition that are not on line al this time, but will use additional water in the future. This addition and possible
higher uses within the ranch in the future will push the water diversion from the wellover the 80 acre-feet allowed
under the current decree.
The Ranch Creek Subdivision, under agreement is to obtain. it's water from the Ranch at Roaring Fork. 1 have
calculated that the water use for Ranch Creek, utile. a normal year, will be approximately 13.92 acres -feet, (See
attanhcd MWE letters to the Stare of Colorado and David Brown on water use)_ The projected water use for the
new subdivision will require the diversion from the well to exceed the 80 acre-feet allowed As part of the
submission to the County the State received copies of the current Ranch of Roaring Fork Well permits, decree and
use records. They arc requiring that a water augmentation plan be submitted and approved prior to giving the final
approvals to Garfield County for the subdivision.
After reviewing the information that 1 have and the comments from the State of Colorado, 1 suggest Thar the Ranch
of Roaring Fork look into the need to file a augmentation plait, not only to serve the Ranch Creek addition, but to
insure adequate water rights are available for the Association in the future as well. Unfortunately the submittal in
Garfield County for the Ranch Creek Project being held up until this issue is resolved, thus timing is crucial.
Please call the to discuss this issue if you have any questions or need additional infomtatioa
Thanks Dean!
Aug, 5. 199E 12:13PM STRYKER / BROWN
SHERRY A CALOIA
JEFFERSON V. HOUPT
BARBARA P. KOZFLKA
CALOIA & HOuvr, P.C.
A'TT'ORNEYS AT LAW
1204 GRAND AVENUE
GLEN W OOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 111601
June 12, 1998
George M. Hopfenbeck
333 Logan Street, #108
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Ran at Roaring F_osk Wells
Dear George:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Engineering Report in the above -referenced
matter, along with a copy of the Application for Change of Water Right.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
CALOIA & HOUPT, P.C.
(--#r1 /No, 0412 P. 4/6
From:OFFICE / /0T0G'
TELEPHONE (970) 945-6067
FACSIMILE: (970) 445-6292
Email: caloia khouptasopsismet
k it)
SAC/cds
Enclosures
ug,-12:13PM '.'' 'STRYKER / BROWN No, 0412 P, 5/6
CIFrom:OFFIGE / MKTNG
�-•°'°' DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5, COLORADO
Case No. 98CW (`:
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF:
RANCH AT ROARING FORK,
in Garfield County, Colorado
r4,
1. Name, address, and telephone number of Applicanu:
Ranch at Roaring Fork MAI Inc.
14913 State Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
rsulc Hallowel ,President
c/o Caloia & Houpt, P.C.
1204 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6067
(970) 945-6292 fax
2. Decreed name of structure for which change is sought: Jacobson Extension of the
Patterson Ditch and the Jacobson Extension of the Patterson Ditch Spring.
3. From previous decree:
A. Date entered: November 5, 1971 and June 20, 1973
Case number: 5884 and W-1825.
Court: District Court, Garfield County, Water Division No.5
B. Decreed point of diversion: The decreed point of diversion is:
Patterson -Jacobson Ditch Fpeti.sion:
The Spring in Case W-1825, is located az a point in the NE • 1/4 of Section 36,
T7S, R88W 6th P.M. whence the NE corner of said Section 36 bears North
06°07'17' East 1358.68 feet. as more fully set forth in the decrees referenced
above.
RANCH RF-wa. App-98cw
ug, 6, 1998"12:13PMm'mSTRYKER / BROWN " ' '1"No. 0412 T. 6/6 —
From:OFFICE / MKTNG
3. Ranch at Roaring Fork No. 3
Location: SEY NEN, Section 36, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6th P.M. at a point
2,100' from the North line and 300' from the East line of said Section 36.
Source: Roaring Fork River alluvium
Depth; 100'
Amount; 0.71 cfs (320 gpm), 120 AF/yr
Use: Domestic/municipal
Irrigation: 10 acres (lawn and landscape)
SUMMARY
The proposed change of water right from the Jacobson Extension to the Patterson Ditch Spring to
three wells will not cause injury to any vested water users. The proposed diversions of 120
AFiyear is Tess than the contemplated draft at the time of the original decrees
The wells are shallow alluvial wells which are tributary to the Roaring Fork River and will have little
delayed impact.
Respectfully submitted,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
ul S. Bussone, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
PSB/mmm
351-4.0
w,app.351_wpd
wflpp_351.wpa
M3RESOURCE
■aNil• N O I n e E fi l N O , N G •
Carbondale 8c Rural Fire Protection District
February 23, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Ranch Creek Subdivision, Preliminary Plan
Mark:
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 963-2491
Fax (970) 963-0569
CMI-*-iti_O C .)u TY
I have reviewed the preliminary plan application for the Ranch Creek Subdivision. The proposed
water system and road layout appear to be adequate for the development.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Since
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-261 1
FAX (303) 866-2461
February 23, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean -
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
F COLORADO /\1q
\4.;-' mai 9Mk
‘,;.Vkrit; ial- TY GA -98-0016
RE: Ranch Creek in the Ranch at Roaring Fork Geologic Hazard Review
Dear Mr. Bean:
soP-41
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Michael 8. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
At your request and in accordance to S.B. 35 this office as reviewed the materials submitted by
your office for the above mentioned subdivision. Enclosed with the submittal were an application report
and preliminary plat. We conducted a site inspection on February 23, 1998. The site lies on river
terrace gravel a few feet above Blue Creek on the southwest corner of Stagecoach Lane and Highway
82. Parcel A and lot 13 are to be used for the existing restaurant and new parking lot.
We have reviewed the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, enclosed within the plan
application, and generally agree with the consultant's assessment. Residential basements will not be
feasible at this location with it's proximity to water. Our only other concern is the narrow building
footprints that are shown for lots five (23 feet) and six (28 feet) to accommodate, not only the sewer
easement, but the wetlands delineation as well. The County Planning Department should consider how
to insure that the wetlands within the lots that face Blue Creek will not be degraded by the immediate
proximity of the homes. It will be difficult for potential lot owners of these lots, with such narrow
building envelopes, to not use this area. Likely, to a detrimental effect.
Provided the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant are followed, and concerns of
the Division of Wildlife and this office of wetlands impacts are addressed, this office finds no
geologic hazards that would preclude development. If you have any questions, please contact this
office at (303) 894-2167_
Sincerely,
„Ad ///ti
Jonathan L. White
Engineering Geologist
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNrry EMPLOYE3t
John Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
2-19-98
Garfield County Planning
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mark:
o s`7
FEB 0 1998
l:.ts'trer ,CLiJ COUN
For Wildlife -
For People
I will refer you to my 2 letters contained in the Preliminary
Plan application for Ranch Creek subdivision concerning wildlife
impacts. I would like to stress the importance of the riparian
and wetland protection as well as dog control. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
Sincg'rely,
Kevin Wrigh
District W'
Carbondale
ife Manager
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice -Chairman • Mark LeValley, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member
Louis F. Swift, Member • John Stulp, Member
... l t l a • •i i wq.. r r • • Y \ h4•• .•1 No*
Kik' School:"Diiatrict RE -1
140.erarid Avenin •
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
• • ,.Telephone (970) 94S-6558'.• -•
March 9, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Ranch Creek Preliminary Plan
Dear Mark:
• •iii LSV• V I VV-IVvI_. .v
• i, ,. `. .. •,
•
•• • FRED'A. WALL, Superintendent
JUDY HAPTONSTALL, Assistant Superintendent
• •' SHANNONPELLANit'Flnance Director
The following is submitted in response to your request for comments on the Ranch Creek
Preliminary Plan:
As you are aware, the District's Board of Education adopted a formula for land dedication in
July, 1997. Application of this formula (see attached resolution) results in total land dedication
of an amount less than the minimum requirement for a school site. Accordingly, the District is
requesting cash -in -lieu of land dedication to be calculated in accordance with the attached
resolution.
The District recognizes that this land dedication standard has not yet formally been adopted by
the County. At the County's request, we arc now working with Garfield Re -2 (Rifle) and
Garfield 16 (Parachute) in an effort to develop a common standard which can be applied for all
three school districts. We have met with Superintendents from Parachute and Garfield Rc-2 and
agree conceptually on the formula. We are now in the process of collecting consolidated data for
all three districts regarding number of students per dwelling unit and land arca per student. After
we have revised the formula based on county -wide data, each of the Boards of Education will
need to adopt a resolution in support of the formula. Because we believe the attached resolution
closely approximates what you will scc in the final resolution, we are requesting application of
the formula described therein. We hope to have a resolution to you soon for all three districts so
thnt a uniform land -dedication standard tnight formally be adopted by the County prior to final
review for this subdivision. The consulting tints we are working with to collect county -wide data
estimates that they are approximately two weeks from having a final report for us.
Siyeegcly,
Shannon Pelland
Finance Director
fine.
RESOLUTION OF THE ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 BOARD
OF EDUCATION REGARDING STANDARDS FOR LAND DEDICATION AND
CASH IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION
1997
A. THIS RESOLUTION IS PREMISED ON THE FOLLOWING:
1. Roaring Fork School District ("District") has experienced annual
student cnrollrnent increases ranging from L5% to 6.9% from 1988 to 1996 and
averaging 4.8% during that time:
Year Enrollment
1988/89 3301
1989/90 3495
1990/91 3 708
1991/q2 3921
1992/93 4013
1993/94 4288
1994/95 4473
1995/96 4668
1096/97 4737
2. The District recognizes the impact of new development on the
need for public land for new schools and has prepared the following formula to calculate
a standard for school land dedication:
Land arca provided per student x students generated
per dwelling unit Land Dedication Standard
3. The District has determined that the total land arca currently
provided by the District is 1,042.8 square feet per student based on existing school site
acreage and reasonable capacities for each building as reflected in Exhibit A.
4. The District has determined the number of students generated per
type of dwelling unit according to data obtained from the State of Colorado
Demographer as follows:
Single Family 0.593
Townhotne, Condo, Duplex. etc. 0.329
Aparttnent 0.185
Mobile Home, Trailer 0.474
5. Application of thc formula results in the following suggested Land
Dedication Standards:
Single Family
'I'ownhoine, Condo, etc.
Apartment, Duplex, etc.
Mobile Home
618 sq. ft per unit or .0142 acres
343 sq. ft per unit or .0079 acres
193 sq. ft per unit or .0044 acres
494 sq. ft per unit or .0113 acres
6. At the District's request, a developer of residential housing may
make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land, or may snake a cash payment in
combination with a land dedication to comply with the standards of this Resolution. The
formula to determine the cash -in -lieu payment is as follows:
Market value of the land (per acre) * Land Dedication
Standard * # of units = Cash -in -Lieu
For example, for a property having a market value of $100,000 per
acre and 1 single family unit on it, the payment would bc:
$100,000 * .0142 * 1 = $1,420
B. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ROARING
FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 RESOLVES as follows:
1. The Counties of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin, Colorado; thc City of
Glenwood Springs, Colorado; and the Towns of Basalt and Carbondale, Colorado
("Entities") adopt a Land Dedication Standard as set forth in Part A of this Resolution.
2. The Entities require land dedication or a payment in lieu of Land
dedication as requested by thc District in response to specific subdivision requests as yet
forth in Parts A. 5 and 6 above from all residential land developers.
3. Tho provisions of this Resolution shall serve as the general critcria
for the imposition of school fccs to be required of all residential land developers as set
forth in C.R.S. 30-28-101, et seq., as amended, with specific modifications or deviations
herefrom to be made as the District responds to specific subdivision requests as required
by statute.
4. This Resolution shall be amended periodically by the District to
accurately reflect the student population and school land and building situation as it
exists within the District.
llti1S-Ud-70 11U11 UO U9 rl1 IN.Lir lLPYtt rutin aVnvVt. Li Lai rrin t1U. UU4U7c4u 1 u9
EXHIBIT A
Roaring Fork School District Re -1
Capacity Acres
Soplis Elementary 550 16.0
Glenwood Springs Elementary 775 10.2
Carbondale Elementary 500 6.2
Crystal River Elementary (when complete) 550 6.9
Basalt Elementary 750 5.8
Glenwood Middle School 675 15.3
Carbondale Middle School 380 8.3
Basalt Middle School 590 11.4
Glenwood Springs High School 750 15.0
Roaring Fork High School 600 26.3
Basalt High School 450 36.0
6,570 157.3
Total acres per student
Tota sq. feet per student
0.02394
1042.8
Roy Romer, Govemor
Patti Shwayder, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Cobra
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80220-6928
Located in Glendale, Colorado (303) 692-3090
STATE OF
http://www.cdphestate.co.us
March 4, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Ranch Creek PUD Proposal - Ranch at Roaring Fork
Dear Mark:
LIAR 0 9 1998
• itL J G,C=7 r<;olocado Department
of Public Health
, r .diantiEnvironment
Based on the referral from the County on the Ranch Creek PUD, we have one comment about the
wastewater service. Our concern is that the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association wastewater •
treatment facility is reaching hydraulic (flow) capacity. Expansion of that facility or the availability of a
regional wastewater treatment facility should be assured before connecting the units proposed for both St.
Finnbar and Ranch Creek.
Using an average wastewater flow per single family unit of 300 gallons per day (gpd), consistent with the
figures used by McLaughlin Engineers in the Ranch Creek report, the flow from St. Finnbar would be 4200
gallons (14 units) and Ranch Creek would be 6900 gallons. The discharge monitoring reports for the
Ranch at Roaring Fork show an average flow of 39,000 gpd for January, 1997 and 43,000 gallons for
September, 1996. Higher daily maximum flows occur in the spring season when there is sewer line
infiltration/inflow. If 11,100 gallons is added to existing average flows, there will be flows in excess of the
50,000 gallon design capacity of the Homeowners Association facility. It is difficult to predict the timing
for some or all of the new units to be constructed and connected to the sewer system.
The Division would reconunend that the County condition the approval of Ranch Creek PUD so that the
additonal wastewater capacity is available from the Ranch at Roaring Fork or another treatment facility
alternative before building permits are issued or occupancy is allowed. We are aware that the Ranch at
Roaring Fork has plans to upgrade their facility in a timely way.
Please contact Bill McKee at (303) 692-3583 or Dwain Watson at (970) 248-7156 if you have any
questions. Thank You_
Sincerely,
. David Holm, Director
Water Quality Control Division
cc: Michael Mortell - President, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association
Leroy Duroux - President, Mid -Valley Metropolitan District
Dean Derosier - McLaughlin Water Engineers
Dwain Watson - Water/Wastewater Technical Services, WQCD Grand Junction
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
March 5, 1998
Mark Bean
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
r � r
i
MAR 0 9 199x:
GC-
•,, ,t fi/
Roy Romer
Governor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
Re: Ranch Creek in the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Preliminary Plan
NW'/4 NE% Sec. 36, T7S, R88W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Mr. Bean:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of 6.34 acres into 25 lots, with
one single family dwelling on each of 22 lots, a parking lot on lot 13, the Relay Station Bar and Restaurant on
Parcel A, and a gardner's storage building on lot J11. The applicant proposes to provide water and sewer
service through the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc (the Association). An MOU between
the applicants and the Association for water and sewer service was included in the submittal, as was a copy of
an agreement for the Association to provide service to the commercial parcel (Parcel A). A deed granting one
second foot of flow and 300 acre-feet per year to the Association was also provided.
The basis for the estimated water requirements was not provided. The water rights information submitted
did not reference decrees or well permits for the water rights, therefore the legal availability of the water supply
cannot be determined. An analysis of the dependable yield of the water rights was not submitted, and the current
obligations and the ability of the Association to deliver the necessary water was not fully addressed.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., the State Engineer finds that the proposed
water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. If you or the applicant has
any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPUCMURanch Creek.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38