HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 04.08.1998fr-(Lr4
PC 4/8/98
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review for the Ranch Creek
PUD
APPLICANT: Jane J. Jenkins, Stagecoach Associates, Ltd.
PLANNERS: Stryker/Brown Architects
ENGINEERS: McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
CTL/Thompson, Inc.
LOCATION: 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
Hwy 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)
I. 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.
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 are proposing to develop 24 lots, that
includes a lot for a park/parking and another lot for common area maintenance (Lot
J11). Two of the remaining 22 lots will have the previously noted existing
dwellings. The proposed lots range in size from 0.070 ac. to 0.402 ac. 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. Sixteen (16) 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 PUD approval. The agreement for the conveyance of the property to the
Relay Station owners needs to be modified to very clearly allow Ranch Creek PUD
owners and their guests will be allowed to park in the lot for reasonable periods of
time. It should not allow a Ranch Creek PUD owner to store their RV or boat on the
property for any extended period of time.
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.
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. e ) 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 Until this information is provided to the
Division of Water Resources, the County Commissioners should not approve the
proposed Preliminary Plan.
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. As a part of the same Planning Commission
meeting, a Site Application is being reviewed that will increase the capacity of the
system to 90,000 gpd and increase the treatment plant capability to meet the current
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. 9 )
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 still feels that the
pedestrian easement is necessary to provide access to alternate parking for visitors
to the development. The pedestrian easement still needs to be included in the final
plat documents.
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 of the
geotechnical consultant be included in any approval (See letter pg. /Q )
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. /L)
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./G2 -15 )
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 trea ent facility is built for the project and surrounding
area. (See letter pg. )
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. /9 )
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Planning Commission; and
B. That the hearing before the Planning Commission 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, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the
State of Colorado, and Garfield County, have not been submittedand, in addition,
have not 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.
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
a? 0$ ' YoYYO o yyproposea easements ror setnacxs, 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. 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 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
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. No building permits will be issued for lots within the Ranch Creek subdivision, until
the Ranch at Roaring Fork sewage treatment facility is upgraded and construction is
completed and approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment.
Y
•
Hunt / Ranch Creek
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
March 25, 1998
From:OFFICE / MKTNG
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 Jenkins 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 Nat. 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. Richarclf and Shirley Hunt Date
14913 Highway 82, Carbondale, CO 81623 963-2962
L1C,l/ �� t
David P. Brown
P.O.Box 91, Aspen, CO 81612 925-2254
Jane %. Jenkins / V
P.O.Flox J, Aspen, CO 8161.2 925-6346
Date
3.- 9
Iate
Carbondale & 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
fL=
$ 2,6_1998,
GiA4* 4tLD couyv -y
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.
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
9
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
•MA 09 Mk ijjt
KT GA -98-0016
RE: Ranch Creek in the Ranch at Roaring Fork Geologic Hazard Review
Dear Mr. Bean:
spoP
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
James 5. Lochhead
Executive Director
Michael B. 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 degradedby 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,
.,./474-41,"— Z. /L./Z:1
Jonathan L. White
Engineering Geologist
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNFTY EMPLOY6i
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:
1,„R
FEB 2.. 0 1998
l'11t fi ,Cti� Cou
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.
Sincrely,
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
g•
. ` Roaring
•L~`:, `iii a• .1,•)�C�:
<School' biatjlct RE -1
.. _ ._ moi. .�'•S..
1.405.Gr�rid Avenue'
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
,,.Telephone (970) 945-6558x"
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:
• FRED•A, WALL, Superintendent
JUDY HAPTONSTALL, itssistant S ipedntendent
SHANNON :pELLANO;'Finance Dnectnr
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. Ager
we have revised thc 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 sec in the final resolution, we are requesting; application of
thc formula described therein. We hope to have a resolution to you soon for all three districts so
that a uniform land -dedication standard 'night formally be adopted by the County prior to final
review for this subdivision. The consulting firm we are working with to collect county -wide data
estimates that they are approximately two weeks from having a final report for us.
Si
ly,
Shannon Pelland
Finance Director
Enc.
Alia/Aift—
RESOLUTION OF THE ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 BOARD
OF EDUCATION REGARDING S'T'ANDARDS 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 enrollment increases ranging from 1.5% to 6.9% from 1988 to 1996 and
averaging 4.8% during that time:
Year Enrollment
1988/89 3301
1989/90 3495
1990/91 3708
1991/92 3921
1992/93 4013
1993/94 4288
1994/95 4473
1995/96 4668
1096/97 4737
2. The District recognizes thc impact of new developtnent 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 thc total land arca currently
provided by the District is 1,042.8 square feet per student based on existing school she
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
Tawnhome, Condo, Duplex, etc. 0.320
Apartment 0.185
Mobile Home, Trailer 0.474
11 1 1111 IWO U 1 vv-ivvI... ...
5. Application of the formula results in the following suggested Land
Dedication Standards:
Single Family
'1'ownhotne, Condo, etc.
Apartment, Duplex, etc.
Mobile Home
618 sq. ft per unit or .0142 acres
343 sq. ft per unit or .0079 acrcs
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 inay 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 t single fancily unit on it, the payment would be:
$100,000 * .0142 * 1 = $1,420
B. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCA'T'ION OF ROARING
FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 RESOLVES as follows:
1. The Counties of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin, Colorado; the 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 set
forth in Parts A. 5 and 6 above from all residential land developers.
3. The provisions of this Resolution shall serve as the general criteria
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 thc 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.
it r\Ufl[ liar Li& uv11VvL. Li 10I
EXHIBIT A
1 1111 11V, J 1 UJ`td )L..-1 /
Roaring Fork School District Re -1
Capacity Acres
Sopris 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
Total sq. feet per student
0.02394
1042.8
Roy Romer, Governor
Patti Shwayder, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Cobra
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
Phone (303) 692-2000
Located in Glendale, Colorado
http://www.cdphestate.co.us
March 4, 1998
Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
8100 Lowry Blvd.
Denver CO 80220-6928
(303) 692-3090
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:
t+ C?t,�•r r LD GCANIVolorado Department
of Public Health
,......aguniEnvitunment
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 recommend 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,
--c,C
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 878
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
MAR o 9 199-4-
t..0
99
LL COUNTY
Roy Romer
Govemor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
Re: Ranch Creek in the Ranch at Roaring Fork„ Preliminary Plan
NW'/4 NE1/4 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 conceming this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPL/CML/Ranch Creek.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38
REFERRAL FORM Date Sent: February 1�, 1998
Return Requested: March f, 1998
Garfield County Ph
109 8th Street, Suit
Glenwood Springs,
(970) 945-8212/Fa)
File Name(s)
RANCH CREEK i
Roarin ' Fork
Staff Planner: Mark Bel
Applicant: Stagecoach
Contact Person: David E
Type of Application(s)
Location: Within the boundaries at the Ranch at Roaring Fork
PRELIMINARY PLAN
Phone: 970-945-8212
Phone: 970-925-2254
Phone: 970-925-2254
Summary of Request: Preliminary Plan for 22 residential lots, 2 special purpose lots
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON APRIL 8, 1998.
The Garfield County Planning Department has received a land use request as referenced above. Your comments
are an important part of the evaluation process. In order to review all appropriate agency comments and
incorporate them into the Staff Report, we request your response by March 6, 1998
GARFIELD COUNTY
School District
Road & Bridge
County Attorney
COLORADO STATE
Water Resources
BLM
Geological Survey (Fee)
Health Department
Forest Service (Fee)
Wildlife Division
SERVICE DISTRICT'
U.S. West
Public Service
Holy Cross Electric
G.S./Carbondale Fire District
Silt/New Castle/Rifle Fire District
Soil Conservation Distri