HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 9.14.99REQUEST:
APPLICAITIT:
PLAI\I\ER:
ENGIIT[EERS:
LAWYERS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
IRRIGATION WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
,, #4'
BOCC 9ll4l99
PUD and Preliminary Plan Review
Coryell Ranch ComPanY, LLC
Rock Creek Studio
Water:
Civil:
Resource Engineering
Schmueser Gordon MeYer
Geotechnical: CTL/ThomPSon
Wetlands: ProfessionalWetlandConstrlting
Traffrc: Felsbburg Holt & Ullevig
Balcomb & Green
Atractof land located.g^ne mile not@ot
Carbondale, south *ffitof Hwy 82 andthe
Roaring Fork and south of the Aspen Glen
PUD.
259.44 Acres
Augmented Coryell Well #13, Central system
Kaiser-Sievers & Southhard-Cavanaugh
Ditches
Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District
Two Access Points on CR 109
A.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Site Description: The site is located one mile rro*## ofthe Town of Carbondale,
west of the Roaring Fork River and State Highway 82, and is 260 *- acres in size.
The confluence ofthe Roaring Fork and Crystal rivers is located east of the property
with portions adjoining both the Crystal and the Roaring Fork. These areas are
primarily located within the 100 year flood plain and contain significant wetland
riparian areas. From the 100 year flood plain boundary line, west to County Road
109, the property is gently sloping to the east. This area has traditionally been used
for agricultural purposed. From County Road 109, west, the properly is steeply
stoping. (See location map pg.?-& Illustrative Site Plan map pg.s )
Project Description: The project anticipates the creation of 72 rcsidential units as
indicated in the following development summary:
Tlil$$:
Prooosed Land Use
Rural Residential Lots
Medium Density Lots
Affordable Housing
Rieht of Way
Open Space
Conservation Easement
Utility Zone District
Conveyances
Total
USE
Rural Residential Lots
Medium Density Lots
Affordable Housing
Open Space
Roads
Expansion Parcels
Utilities
Total
Lot size range
2.001- 5.348
# oarcels
29
36
Acreage
76.548
Land coverage is anticipated at the following rates:
13,939 - 37,940 16.377
3 Duplex I1,000 - 14,800 1.167
1 SFR
nla nla 17.372
7 .622 - 69.04 138.49r
I 6.294 6.294
4 .027 -.s03 0.622
2 1.468 - 1.099 2.567
259.438
ACRES o/o
76.548 29.51%
16.377 6.31%
r.t67 0.45%
t44.785 55.8r%
17.372 6.70%
2.567 0.99%
0.622 0.02%
259.438 100.00%
REVIEW AGENCY AND OTIIER COMMENTS
The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District - states in a letter dated 5-11-99
that, Emergency response would come from Station 1 in Carbondale and Station 4
II.
b.
located on CR 154. The District believes the road layout adequate for fire apparatus.
The District would like to see uniform and sequential addressing for the entire PUD
and that the developer submit an addressing plan to Cotrnty for review by the
appropriate emergency response agencies.
The District finds that the proposed 200,000 gallon storage tank will deliver fire
flows of 1,0Gpm. The Uniform Fire Code (IFC) requires a minimum fire flow of
1,000 gallons for a 3,600 square foot one and two family dwelling. If structures in
excess of this size are to be developed, additional capacity will be required at the
rates set fortlt in the UFC Appendix Itr-A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings and
with fire hydrant locations in acco:rdancq with UFC Appendix trI-A: Fire Hydrant
Location a Spacing (See pgs. 3q-4q.
The State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife:
reports in a letter dated 5-2-99 that the proposed site lies within mule deer winter
range with use increasing in the fall. Elk use is primarily contained in the wetland
areas as well as various treed areas throughout the site. Bald Eagles have been noted
to use wetland/river areas from mid-late November extending through March/early
April. The DOW further note the wetland/pond areas are the most valuable and
sensitive habitat areas.
The applicant and the DOW have met and determined the best mitigation measures
as indicated in Appendix H of the application. DOW has filed an additional letter
dated 6-9-99 noting the following concerns:
The timing of the Roaring Fork River sewer line crossing should be timed to
protected the Brown Trout egg population. DOW recommends that the construction
take place ideally on April l, but if flows are too great a second altemative is the last
week in November through the first week in December. All precautions should be
undertaken to minimize silting of the river.
The DOW also identified that the equestrian easement coincide with the existing trail
access rather than create a new trail. DOW notes that the fishermen access points are
acceptable.
Setbacks in the Midland Point portion of the PUD appear acceptajle. DpW
recommends that no deck hangovers be permitted. (See letters pgt. 1/ '41 )
The Colorado Geological Survey: The survey has made the following observations
and recommendations:
The development has evidently been well thought out with regards to geologic
hazards.
c.
Of the three ponds proposed for the site, two lie within mapped subsidence
depression areas while the third does not. CGS is concerned that standing water may
exacerbate water introduction into the evaporitic bedrock and increase rates of
dissolution and subsidence. Also noted was ifthe ponds were to be lined. If they are
to be will the CGS questions if the liner design will accommodate minor settlement.
The survey is in general agreement about the defined locations of subsidence areas
as indicated by the application. Lot 26 is specifically noted to contain potential
sinkhole features and due to the proximity of sinkholes off of the lot, additional
geologic investigation should be conducted to determine if this is a viable lot. It is
further noted that site-specific building siting and subsurface investigation for all lots
adjacent to subsidence areas.
CGS stresses the importance ofpotential lot buyers being informed about the risks
associated with subsidence in this development and further notes that except for a
short note in a letter dated3-2-99 concerning roads and utilities, no mention has been
made for recommendations in foundation design to mitigate this hazard.
Concerns were noted about deflection berm height. The CGS recommends a berm
no less than 8 feet high. Additionally, the berm as placed in the "A" position may
cause debris flow to be deposited into the adjacent pond. If this were to occur it could
potentially ltflto pfld water displacement and flooding of adjoining areas. (See
letterpgs. n+-?l)
c. The County Engineer: has noted the following conditions:
The traffic generation figures as indicated in Appendix C, Table l, Trip generation
appear low. The table indicates AM Peak to have 39 exits, and a PM Peak of 45
enters for72 units. TheCountyEngineerwouldliketopeethebasisrandiustifipation- z .
that assumes the lower peak numb-ers. ,?OUt dil- add fiiO&a- 4 6 -t?
The Water Quality Test Results as indicated in Appendix E, shows several
concentration levels in excess of recommended levels. An Engineers Certification
that these values are suitable for a potable drinking water supply and pose no threat
to human health.
The Roaring Fork River sewer line crossing should be encased in a steel reinforced
system (concrete or steel) to prevent any possible separation of sewage lines in the
event offlooding, charurel changes, or unforeseen erosion.
A more defuritive description should be added to the typical cross sections to assure
that subgrade compaction or fill will be accomplished at95Yo per ASHTO-180 and
include the depth of this compactive effort.
4
e.
A debris flow similar to that which occurred in 1998 may occur agarn. The deflection
berm system should be certified by an engineer to asstre that in the event of debris
flows the velocity ofthe debris slurry will not compromise the berm. (See comments
per. 46 - +! )
d. The Roaring Fork School District RE-l: has noted that the District has developed
a formula for determining school site land dedication or fees-inJieu-of dedication for
residential development with the RE-l District. The District feels that their formula
more accurately reflects the actual cost of land acquisition than the $200 per lot fee
the County currently collects. Should the County adopt the formula prior to final
apploval of the PUD, the District requests that it be applied. (See letter pgs40-51 )
The Roarins Fork Railroad Holdins Authoritv: sees no imoact to the rail corridor.
RFRHA would like to point out that the corridor was obtained for public
transportation and recreational uses and that the current draft plan for the right of way
shows a public hail alignment connecting the tracks to that portion of the river. The
applicant may wishJo consider a future connection of the PUD to the proposed trail.
(See letter p;r. 5 4 )
The Roaring Fork Transit Agency: has estimated that the proposal will create the
need for 10 park and ride spaces and generate 7 ,991 one-way passenger trips annually
at full build out. RITA estimates the park and ride spaces to cost $50,000 with an
annual maintenance fee of $2,438. The transit costs to RFTA are estimated at $4,375
annually. Fare box generation is estimated to be 514,819 RFTA requests that the
developer dedicate $750 per unit for a total of $54,000 to construct the park and ride
spaces. (See letter pg". 5l-621
Office of the State Engineer. Division of Water Resources: reviewed the proposed
water supply and determined that Coryell Well No. 13, which was issued pursuant
to a contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District, is physically
adequate and will not cause material injuy to decreed water rights provided the well
is operated according to the terms and conditions of the well permit. The applicants
will have to submit a statement of Beneficial Use by March 9,2000, to maintain a
valid well permit. (See letter pe. 0 3 )
h. Peter Nichols: is an adjoining property owner and believes that the proposed
development is a responsible proposal for the development of the property. He
supports the designation of building envelopes ps being mandatory and included as
a condition of approval. (See letter pg. 64 )
('E'
f.
III. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIYE PLAN
Section 4.04 requires that a PUD cannot be approved trnless it is fotrnd by the County
Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Comprehensive plan. Staff
Comments are highlighted in bold. Some sections have not been included as they haveno bearing on the application. The application's generally conformity to the
Comprehensive Plan is described below:
DENSITY: The Coryell Ranch property has two land use district designations shown on the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area 1 map. The
majority of the property appears to be designated High Density Residential (Less than
2acldn). The remainder is designated Low Density Residential ( 10 and greater acldu). The
applicant has provided an argument that the actual areathat does not have development
constraints due to riparian areas, environmentally sensitive areas and geologically
constrained is 116. 9 ac.. Based upon that acreage and using 72 dwellngs, the overall
density for a property is 1.61 acres per dwelling. This would be in compliance with the
proposed Land Use Districts density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. (See
application pgs. 24-26)
TIOUSING GOAL: To provide all types ofhousing that ensures ctrrent and future residents
equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential
structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment.
POLICIES:
The County, through the development of regulations, shall provide for low and
moderate income housing types by allowing for mixed multi-family and single-
family housing in appropriate areas throughout the County.
The County has adopted affordable housing regulation and incorporated them
into the zoning Resolution. Per the adopted regulations, the proposed
development includes the 10 percent affordable requirement.
To include an assessment of the impact of present and future subdivisions in both
incorporated and unincorporated portions of the County during the subdivision
review process.
The application has provided an assessment of traffic, water quality,
determination and preservation of critical habitat and environmental features
which could preclude development.
2.r
2.2
6
2.4
2.3 Major accessways, topographic features, open space and other undeveloped land will
be used to separate residential uses from industrial and commercial centers.
There are no proposed or adjoining industrial or commercial uses within the
proposal.
Solar orientation that allows for both passive and active design will be strongly
encouraged in the design review process and will not be restricted by protective
covenants.
The large size of the estate lots allow for solar orientation of houses. The
Midland Point units are oriented 19 of the 36 lots in a true north south
orientation. Solar power generation units are permissive under the proposed
Covenants.
TRANSPORTATION GOAL: Ensure that the County transportation system is safe,
firnctional, appropriately designed to handle existing and future traffrc levels and includes
options for the use of modes other than the single-occupant automobile.
OBJECTIVES:
To encourage the development of a regional public transit system that respects the
interaction between emerging land use pattems and travel behavior in the Valley.
No transit improvements have been proposed by the applicant. RFTA, in their
comments concerning the project, have included a cost estimate for transit
improvements based on the projected impacts to the only regional public transit
system, the bus system.
To encourage the use of modes other than the automobile.
The proposal calls for placement of a bike path along CR 109. A future link to
Carbondale's path system is envisioned off-site and may be developed in the
future.
Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the ability of Cotrnty roads to
adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposal.
The development includes a traffic study which estimates 670 vehicle trips per
day (vrD) with a peak average of 55 vr expected in the morning and 70 vr
in the evening. Staffhad concerns that these projected counts are low, especially
for the higher density Midland Point portion of the PUD.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
The study further indicates that the long term impacts to CR 109 and 108 are
relatively minor. By 2001, the intersection at CR 108/108 and the two CR f 09
access points as proposed will operate at a LOS B or better in both the AM and
PM peak hours. Traffic along CR 108 from the west along SH 133 is expected
to rise to lloh. Again, staff had concerns that these projected counts are low,
especially for the higher density Midland Point portion of the PIID.
In a supplement to the application, the traffic engineers provided
documentation that satisfred the County Engineer, that the projections were
correct for the method of projection.
Proposed developments will include street designs that will reduce adverse impacts
on adjacent land uses, respect natural topography and minimize driving hazards.
The access points to CR 109 as indicated in the application appear sufficient for
sight line distances. The overall densities in the subdivision and the relatively
subtle street angles respect the natural topography and mimic adjacent
subdivision street layout and design.
Proposed developments will provide a minimum number of access points on through
streets and highway corridors.
Two access points are planned for CR 109, that provide safe sight lines for
vehicles entering the road.
3.5
POLICIES:
3.1
3.2
Staffwill foster a cooperative relationship with cities, cotrrties and transit providers
in addressing regional transportation issues.
Staff has referred this application to both RFTA and RFRHA. RFTA has
requested that the developer provide cash for impact mitigation, RX'RHA is not
affected by the proposal but requests that a potential trail connection on the
Roaring Fork river be given consideration.
Developments are encouraged to integrate bikeways, pedestrian circulation pattems
and transit amenities into project design.
The applicant is proposing fishermen's easements / accesses and a bike path.
There are no internal sidewalks proposed along the internal road system. There
are no transit amenities, bus stop or park and ride areas proposed.
8
3.6
3.3 The project review process will include a preliminary assessment of the projected
traffic impact associated with all commercial and industrial projects and residential
projects greater than 50 dwelling units.
The application provides a preliminary assessment
impacts.
Development proposals will be required to mitigate traffic
proportional to the development's contribution to those .
include, but not be limited to the following:
Physical roadway improvements;
The applicant is proposing widening and regrading for portions of
cR 109.
Intersection improvements ;
Both access points will require intersection improvements to the
standards set forth by the County.
Transit amenities;
Although RFTA does not contemplate future service along CR 109, the
applicant could provide a future transit amenit5r, if they were to agree
to the proposed contribution to a park and ride for RFTA.
Signage requirements;
No signage has been proposed by the applicant. It is assumed that all
signage will conform to the Model Traffic Control Device Manual.
Altemative traffic flow designs;
No alternative plans or scenarios were submitted by the applicant.
Funding mechanism to implement necessary mitigation.
Engineers cost estimates will be required prior to approval of any
subdivision improvements agreement.
of the projected traffic
impacts on County roads
impacts. Mitigation may
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
9
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE GOAL: Garfield County should provide adequate
recreational opportunities for County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with
BLMruSFS policies and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual
corridors.
OBJECTIVES:
5.1 Encourage the location of active recreational opporttrnities that are accessible to
County residents.
The proposal is granting a 10 foot fisherman's easement along the entire river
frontage of the PIID. A 6.2 acre parcel along the Crystal river is proposed for
a conservation easement. The project also includes a bike path along County
Road 109, that would connect with other paths along the road.
5.2 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.
The project has in excess of 140 acres of public and private open spaces.
5.4 Rafting and fishing access witl be strongly encouraged during the development
review process.
Two public access points at each end of the PUD connecting to the fisherman's
easement are proposed.
5.5 Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and
policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas.
The entire proposal lies within the Hwy.82 View Corridor as identified in the
1984 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed layout utilizes larger lots and the 100
floodplain boundary to minimize visual impacts.
POLICIES:
5 . I Developments that propose densities above one ( 1 ) dwelling unit per acre and exceed
50 dwetling units will be required to provide adequate recreational opportunities to
serve the residents ofthe project. Altematives for meeting this requirement will be
defined in the Subdivision Regulations.
The proposal calls for over 140 acres ofopen space for use by the residents of
the PUD. Additionally river access and a bike Path meet this policy.
10
5.2 Important visual corridors will be identified and appropriate policies developed to
address the retainment of open space areas that link communities in the County.
The Hwy.82 View Corridor as identified in the 1984 Comprehensive Plan has
been respected in terms of lot layout and design. The fisherman's easement
allows additional access to river bottom open space that has been created as a
part of the downstream developments.
5.3 If physically possible, subdivisions and PUDs will be encouraged to design open
space areas to become contiguous with existing and proposed open spaces adjacent
to the project.
See above comment.
5.5 With the cooperation of the Division of Wildlife, developments proposed in areas
next to streams or rivers with rafting or fishing potential should dedicate easements
for public access to these areas.
The fisherman's easement as proposed is consistent in size with other similar
easements and was developed in cooperation with the Division of Wildlife.
5.6 In order to encourage public access to rivers, streams and public lands, the County
will be receptive to incentives, consistent with an overall program approved by the
Board of County Commissioners, for developments that propose public access to
these amenities.
Two public access points at each end of the PUD connecting to the fisherman's
easement are proposed.
s.0(A) oPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
GOAL: Garfield County shall develop, adopt and implement policies that preserve the rural
landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing agricultural uses, wildlife habitat and
recreational opportunities in a mutually beneficial manner that respects the balance between
private property rights and the needs of the community.
OBJECTIVES:
5.1(A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development
approved by Garfield CotrntY;
The property to the west, the Crystal Springs Ranch, should not be adversely
impacted. Restrictions should be placed on the creation of potential access to
11
private ranch property from the open space indicated on the site plan west of
cR 109.
5.2(A) To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable
mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat;
The Colorado Division of Wildlife @OW) Wildlife Resource Inventory System
and the Garfield County Geographic Information System (GCGIS) was utilized
by the applicant to determine the potential impacts to wildlife by the proposed
development. No Blue Heron or Bald Eagle habitat was identified along river
corridor. The proposal calls for preservation, through dedicated open space, of
the entire river frontage areas affected by the development. DOW and the
applicant have created the following conditions which have been integrated into
the PUD.
Coryell Ranch Lots 1- 6 will have a 50 foot setback from the top of the
slope above the Roaring Fork river. Landscaping will be permitted to
the top of the slope.
Coryelt Ranch Lots 7 - 12 will a75 foot setback from the back of each lot
line. Landscaping will be permitted to the lot line.
River access will be year round, with access restricted to designated
areas December through March. The2 designated points of accessing the
fisherman's easement are indicated on the Public Access Plan @xhibit
7) and are located at the southeast and southwest corners of the site.
The river park area will be closed to snowshoes, cross county skiers, etc,
from December through March.
Fencing shall comply with all DOW requirements.
No livestock shall be permitted in the subdivision.
There will be allowed only one dog per dwelling unit with kennel
restrictions. Homeowners will be encouraged to keep cats inside.
8. No development on the north side of CR 109 with the exception of a
water tank and an access road.
Every effort will be made to minimize damage to vegetation when water
and sewer lines are installed across the river.
The bike path shall be placed on the south side of CR 109
1.
)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
t2
Wildlife brochures shall be given to all property owners at closing.
The DOW will not be held liable for wildlife damage to landscaping or
plants.
flomeowners shall be responsible for disposal of wildlife carcasses which
may happen on their property.
Proper permitting and licensing shall occur in habitat enhancement and
trout stocking within private ponds.
The timing of the Roaring Fork River sewer line crossing should be
timed to protected the Brown Trout egg population. DOW recommends
that the construction take place ideally on April 1, but if flows are too
great a second alternative is the last week in November through the first
week in December. All precautions should be undertaken to minimize
silting of the river.
The equestrian easement shall coincide with the existing trail access
rather than create a new trail.
5.3(A) That the development of passive and active trails in the County should be developed
in a comprehensive fashion, consistent with efforts by adjacent jurisdictions;
The Development of the bike trail and any other trail should coincide with
Carbondale's comprehensive bike path plan.
POLICIES:
5.1(A) All projects approved adjacent to existing agricultural uses shall be required to
mitigate any adverse impacts. These mitigational measures shall include some or all
of the following:
a) Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from corrmon property
boundaries;
The use of open space to provide additional buffering;
Dog restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs and
kenneling, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The application complies with all above-named mitigational measures.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
b)
c)
13
6.0
5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource lnformation System (WRIS) will be
required to propose mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects.
Mitigational measures shall include the following:
a) Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations;
b) Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use of building
envelope restrictions or cluster development concepts;
c) conservation easements.
The application complies with all above-named mitigational measures.
AGRICT]LTTIRE
GOAL: To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and
compatibility issues are addressed during project review.
OBJECTIVES:
Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches.
The Crystal River Ranch is located adjacent to the property west of County
Road 109. The applicant has indicated that this area, due to slope will be open
space. Given the distance between each use, the proposal appears to be
compatible.
Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher-intensity adjacent uses.
See previous comments.
Developments adjacent to agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that
allows for flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses.
The potential exists for a conflict between open space users and the Crystal
River Ranch. The access way to the water storage area could provide a trail.
The remaining slopes are too steep for access. The storage tank easement should
not be a public access way.
WATER AI\D SEWER SER\ICES
GOAL: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost efflective and
environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development.
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.0
t4
OBJECTIVES:
7.1 Development in areas without existing central water and sewer service will be
required to provide adequate and safe provisions for these services before project
approval.
Domestic Water: The applicant is proposing to utilize the Coryell Ranch Well
No. 13, serving a centralized water system. The application indicates that the
maximum daily requirement will be 53 gpm. The pump test conducted on the
well indicates that yield in excess of 1,000 gpm are possible. Staff had concerns
that the current water storage at 200,000 gallons will not be sufficient fordl
protection or for caretaker units as anticipated in the application. The
caretaker units were removed from the application prior to the Planning
Commission hearing.
Wastewater Treatment: A pre-inclusion agreement exists between the applicant
and the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District for sanitation service. The
District has the ability to serve the needs of the development.
7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on
existing water and sewer sYstem.
Please Refer to the Preliminary Plan water and wastewater section of the staff
report.
8.0 NATT]RAL ET\IVIRONMENT
GOAL: Garfield County will encourage a land use pattem that recognizes the environmental
sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacrty of the land and is in the best
interests of the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County.
OBJECTIVES:
8.1 The County of Garfield reserves the right to deny a project based on severe
environmental constraints that endanger public health, safety or welfare.
The applicant appears to have mitigated, to the greatest extent possible, the
majority of environmental constraints through logical site planning and
engineering. Portions of the lots are located on areas with moderate soil
hazards.g.2 Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and
design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment.
15
The site design identifies all physical features, including topography, geology,
vegetation, view sheds, adjacent development and wildlife.
Garfield County will enstre that natural drainages are protected from alteration.
The design proposes surface diversion into existing ditches and into three
storage ponds. Care has been taken to minimize potential sedimentation impacts
to the river. It appears that the drainage system as proposed is adequate.
River-fronts and riparian areas are fragile components of the ecosystem and these
areas require careful review in the planning process.
The applicant has developed a series of open space and a conservation easement
to protect fragile river areas. No permanent structures are proposed besides the
sewer line river crossing.
Development proposals will be required to address soil constraints unique to the
proposed site.
The application indicates development areas with mild to moderate soil
constraints. Building envelopes defined by setbacks have been included to
mitigate these conditions.
Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resotrces and critical
wildlife habitats are protected.
The Division of Wildlife and the applicant worked extensively to ensure that the
potentially impacted habitat and other sensitive areas have been protected.
Development will be encouraged in areas with the least environmental constraints.
The Midland Point portion of the PUD falls within a potential mudflow/debris
hazardarea. The proposed berm mitigation method may control a flow event.
It should be noted that no matter how extensively engineered, a potential for
slope failure and resultant property damage will always exist.
IV.MAJOR ISSTIES AND CONCERNS
A. Subdivision Regulations.
Planned Unit Development: As defined and regulated under Section 10:00 Planned
Unit Development, the applicant is required to comply with the requirements of both
the Subdivision Regulations and the PUD Section (Section 4.00) of the Garfield
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
16
B.
County ZonrngResolution. The applicant is requesting simultaneous review of a
PUD rlzoning application and a Preliminary Plan as provided for by Section 3:00 of
the ZonrngResolution.
Design and improvements standards for the planned turit development are defined in
Section 4:00 of the ZonngResolution. Because the application is for both a rezoning
and a preliminary plan review, the application is required to meet not only the design
standards set forth in Section 4.00 of the ZonngResolution, but also the standards
fourd in Section 10:00 of the Subdivision Resolution.
If there is a conflict regarding design and improvements standards for a PUD
subdivision between requirements of the Subdivision Resolution and Section 4.00
of the Zontng Resolution, the standards established by these Regulations rn the
Subdivision Resolution shall control. If there is a conflict regarding land use or
developmenf, the standards and specifications of the PUD section of the Zoning
Resolution shall control
Zoningz The purpose of a PUD is to permit greater design flexibility and,
consequently, more creative and imaginative design for development than generally
posibl. under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. It is intended that
irUOr shall be planned to insure general conformity, both in substance and location,
with the goals and objectives of the master/comprehensive plan through integrated
development.
Applications for Planned Unit Development zoning may be made for land located in
any zoning district. The site is located within the Agicultural/Residential/Rural
Density (A/R/RD) zone district.
Vehicular Impacts: Legal access will be provided by two access points along
County Road 109. Two parking areas are proposed for the fisherman's access areas
located on the northwest and south ends of the site.
Parking: Four oflstreet parking spaces per unit are proposed for the Coryell Ranch
portion and trvo parking spaces are proposed for Midland Point. The proposal is
consistent with County standards.
Traffic Generation: A traffic impact analysis prepared by Felsberg Holt & Ullevig
FHU Reference # 99-022 and dated 2199 has been provided by the applicant. The
report outlines two traffic scenarios, long and short range future traffic impacts. The
Short range analysis analyzes traffic impacts for the year 2001, while the long range
forecasts projections to 2020. The study was conducted using the methods defined
in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Third Edition,
1985 (Update dlgg/).The result ofthe study is a Level of Service (LOS) Rating. The
LOS rating is a qualitative assessment of traffic flow based on the total delay per
C.
t7
1.
2.
aJ.
4.
5.
vehicle at a controlled intersection. Level of service designations are described by a
letter designation ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing unintemrpted flow
and LOS F representing a breakdown of traffic flow with excessive congestion an
delay.
The following summary outlines the projected traffic
By the year 20Ol , the signalized intersection of SH 1 3 3/IVIain Street, and the
unsignalized intersections at CR 108/CR 109 and the two site access/ CR 109
are expected to be at a LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak
hours.
By the year 2020, the signalized intersection of SH 133A4ain Street is
projected to operate at a LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak
hours; at the unsignalized intersections, it is expected that the critical
movements will operate at a LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours.
The Coryell Ranch development is expected to increase the volume oftraffic
traveling through the intersection of SH 133/ Main Street by less than 3
percent relative to existing traffic volumes and by less than 2 percent relative
to the projected 2020 traffic volumes.
Relative to existing volumes, traffrc along the CR 108 approach from the
west to SH 133 is projected to increase by 11 percent as a result of the
additional Coryell Ranch trips. This is signifrcantly less than the 20 percent
criterion stipulated in the State Highway Access Code which requires a new
access to be obtained.
At the intersection of SH l33/Ivlain Street in the yeat 2020, comparing
background traffic delays (trafEc through the intersection, not including site
generated traffic volumes) and total traffic delays (background traffic
volumes plus site generated traffic volumes) the addition of the Coryell
Ranch development traffic to the intersection is expected to increase the total
daily per day volume through this intersection by less than one second per
vehicle during both the AM and PM peak hours comparing delays.
Road Impact Fee: The applicant has submitted an estimated fee of $122.00 per lot,
based upon the existing road impact fee structure adopted by the Board.
Water: Section 4:91 requires that a water supply plan, be submitted. Resource
Engineering has supplied a water supply plan with the application. The plan meets
the technical requirements for Preliminary Plan. The following sunmary details the
report:
D.
18
Water Supply: The Coryell Ranch Well No. 13 is located on the cul-de-sac at the
end of Coryell Ranch Road. A well permit, No. 51447-F has been issued for the well.
The permit allows for a maximum pumping rate of ll2 GPM and is limited for the
service of 75 single family dwelling units and the irrigation of not more than 51,500
squre feet (1.18 acres) of garden and lawn. Annual ground water depletion is limited
to 38.12 AF (12,420,000 gallons).
The Augmentation is via a water allotment contracVlease with the West Divide
Water Conservancy District (Contract #990220CRC(a)) activated l/28/99. The
contract indicates an augmentation of 38 .12 acre feet. As indicated on page 2 of the
contract, states "It is wrderstood that any quantity allotted from the direct flow,
storage or otherwise, to the Applicant by the District will be limited by the priority
of the District's decrees and by the physical and legal availability of water from
District's sources. Any quantity allotted will only be provided so long as the
Applicant fully complies with all ofthe terms and conditions of this contract/1ease."
The zoning regulations require that a subdivision have a legal and adequate water
supply in perpetuity. The previous language requires the applicant to maintain a
contract in perpetuity too. The homeowners association needs to have control of the
water rights immediately.
The applicant has filed awater rights plan for augmentation Case No. 98CW3l0 and
anticipates a decree l.r;'1999. The plan anticipates the existing senior irrigation water
and West Divide Water Conservancy District for all augrnentation of the Coryell
Ranch Well # 13. The applicant has indicated that after the decree is entered, the
contract water will be used to augment in-house domestic depletions when
Avalanche Canal and Siphon is out ofpriority, and to augment evaporation from the
Aspen Glen Lakes nos 1 through 3 during the non-irrigation season. Dry up credits
from the Southard-Cavanaugh and Kaiser-Sievers are anticipated for augmentation
of evaporative losses during the inigation season. Anticipated augmentation
requirements at full build-out will be 7.47 AF annually, with 5.2 AF is attributable
to evaporation loss and2.27 AF of domestic in-house use.
The County considers an adequate sorrce of water to be an average or no less than
3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day.
Water Treatment: Section 9:51 requires that an adequate potable and inigation
water supply be available to all lots within a subdivision, taking into consideration
peak demands to service total development population, irrigation uses, and adequate
fire protection requirements in accordance with recognized and customary
engineering standards. The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
has determined that the only treatment required for the Coryell Well #13 is
disinfection. The proposal calls for Chlorination to treat the water. A well pump
station is proposed
t9
Water Storage: The water system will be served by a 200,000 gallon above-ground
storage tank located west of CR 109 in the Utility Zone District identified within the
open space area. The application indicates the following usage projections:
Eoualization
Use of 25 % of Maximum Day Demand
0.25% x 534 gpm x 1440 mnlday = 19,080 gallons
tu
Use 1000 gpm fire flow for a}-tu. Duration
1000 gpm x 2 hrs x 60 min/tu: 120,000
Emersencv
Use 2 x Average Day Demand
2 x 2l gpm x 1440 mn/day : 60,480 gallons
Estimated Required Storage: I99,560 gallons.
The county standard for water use has been an estimation of 350 gallons per
residential use per day. This assumption is based on an average of 3.5 people using
100 gallons per day. The project will generate a total of 72 dwelling trnits.
Countv Estimation
Use 350 gal per house hold per day
350 gal x72:25,200 gallons Emergency Flows 2x25,200: 50,400
This estimation is much cruder than the equalization method. The discrepancy is a
matter of accuracy. It has been noted that the proposed storage capacity will limit the
average square foot per dwelling unit to 3,600 square feet due to a lack of emergency
pressure for larger units.
Distribution System: The delivery system is proposed to consist of a 200,000 gallon
storage tank with a 10" transmission line connecting to a network of 8" distribution
lines with 1" service lines. The system is designed to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi
throughout the system. Normal system pressures will range from 35 to a maximum
of 75 psi, depending on water tank surface levels.
Raw Water Irrigation: The Coryell Ranch portion of the PUD will be served by
existing raw water in the Southard-Cavanaugh and Kaiser-Sievers ditches. It is
assumed individual pump stations will be placed for each lot. Flow restriction meters
should be installed to ensure proper draw.
The Midland Point portion of the PUD is to be served by a pressurized raw water
delivery system. A pump house located near the intersection of Midland Point Road
20
and CR 109 will deliver a maximum flow of 220 gpm at a total dynamic head of 60
feet. A variable frequency drive will be installed to meet actual demand at any given
time. A looped delivery system consisting of a 6" main flowing to a network of 4"
secondary lines and 3" lines serving individual units. Each house tap will have an
electronic valve for service and check valves will be installed on the secondary lines
for maintenance and purge as may be required.
Ownership & Financing: The system as proposed is intended to operate as an
independent system. The system has been designed to the standards of the Roaring
Fork Water & Sanitation District and an easement will be provided for a potential
future connection. The applicant intends to construct and bear the total costs for
installation of the system. All facilities are intended to be conveyed to the
homeowners associations. The Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District has been
approached by the applicant as a potential future service provider who could take
over operations of the proposed system if desired by the homeowners associations.
A service plan amendment to the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District would
be required and to date, no such request has been received.
E. Wastewater: The application has provided a sanitary sewage disposal plan
summarized as follows:
Wastewater Collection: The applicant is proposing to centrally collect wastewater
and transfer the effluent via a lift station across the Roaring Fork River to the
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District's wastewater treatment facility located
in the Aspen Glen PUD. Wastewater will be collected through a series of 8" sanitary
sewer lines located either in the streets or in easements located along the sides or in
the rear of lots. Interceptors and collection systems have been designed to flow at a
maximum depth of one half full. Manhole spacing has been limited to 400 feet.
Sanitary service laterals are proposed to be 4" lines entering the mains at wye
connections.
Treatment: The Roaring Fork River to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District's wastewater treatment facility was permitted in 1994. The service plan
anticipated service to the Coryell and will allow forthe 72 additional EQRproposed
by the project. A pre inclusion agreement (Appendix I) has been provided by the
applicant which sets forth the terms and conditions upon which all of the Coryell
Ranch PUD will be annexed into the District.
Ownership & Financing: The applicant intends to bear all costs of installation of
all wastewater infrastructure. Upon completion of the project, the applicant will
2t
F.
G.
convey and dedicate all facilities to the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District.
State Health Standards. The Colorado Department ofHealth regulates the Roaring
Fork Water & Sanitation District wastewater facility. The plant is cturently operating
tnrder Discharge Permit # CO-0044750.
Drainage: The application addresses (Pgs. 60-65) both on and off site drainage
impacts and the methods of mitigation employed. For specific drainage element
specifics please see Pg. 63.
Off Site: Three major areas comprise the potential offsite impact areas, the Roaring
Fork and Crystal rivers, the basins southwest of CR 109 and existing irrigation
ditches.Impacts to the rivers are addressed by the applicant, who has indicated that
there will be no residential development in the flood plain area. The placement of the
sanitary sewer force main link to the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District and
construction of a pond are the only floodplain alterations proposed. The County
Engineer has commented on the design of the force main and river crossing be
encased in a reinforced system of steel or concrete to prevent any future potential for
erosion or leakage. The applicant has further indicated that there will be no
permanent fiIl in the floodplain. Construction of the force main will require a
nationwide Army Corps of Engineers Permit.
Basins: The proposal calls for the placement of new culverts under CR 109 south
and west of the road to allow for minor tributary flows to be diverted into the Kaiser-
Sievers Ditch and conveyed northward. One exception is a proposed 36" culvert to
be located near the diversion berm constructed by Garfield County following the
1998 slope failtre across CR 109. The culvert would allow increased drainage flows
created by re-contouring caused by the failure to be diverted directly across the
proposed development rather than being diverted into the Kaiser-Sievers Ditch and
conveyed northward.
Overflow controls are proposed for the Kaiser-Sievers Ditch to allow for substantial
rises in the water elevation due to either blockage or increased runoff. This water
would be diverted into the Coryell Ranch drainage system.
Ditches: Two major irrigation ditches currently exist on site; the Kaiser-Sievers
Ditch and the Southard-Cavanaugh Ditch.
The Kaiser-Sievers Ditch is decreed for 22.4 cfs and originates at the Crystal River
entering the site on the southern portion of the property. The following changes to
the ditch are proposed:
The intersection of County Road 109 and the proposed Coryell Ranch Road will
22
H.
require a culvert.
An overflodturn-out structure is proposed to intercept the previously mentioned
debris fan drainage and a separate overflodtum-out structure is proposed for the
intersection of CR 109 and Midland Point road. Many sections of the ditch will
require culverting given the proposed CR 109 design.
The Southard-Cavanaugh Ditch also originates from the Crystal River and is decreed
for I2.4 cfs. Historical flows in the ditch exceeded the current decreed flowage and
will require placement of an overfloilturn-out structure to reduce flows through the
southem entrance to the project. The ditch will require extensive piping and rerouting
including up-sizing ofpipe diameters north ofthe overflodtum-out structure to carry
potential increased flows created by rtrnoff from overflow of the Kaiser-Sievers
Ditch.
On-Site: The Coryell Ranch Drainage Plan primarily utilizes dual purpose drainage
elements for raw water inigation and storm water runoff flows. The application
represents that due to the lower overall density of the project the proposal will
produce less runoffthan typical development. All elements were designed for a 25
year peak flood event and 100 year events were checked to ensure that there would
be no resultant property damage due to such an event.
Quality: The application includes a Stormwater Quality Plan intended to protect
wetland and riparian areas as well as water quality in the Roaring Fork and Crystal
rivers. The plan calls for runoff to be routed through several large ponds where
sedimentation can occur prior to frrther discharge. The Colorado Geological Survey
has noted that two of the ponds do not lie within mapped subsidence depression areas
and may be subject to hydrocompression due to compaction from wetting. Standing
water may exacerbate water introduction into the evaporitic bedrock and increase
rates of dissolution and subsidence. If the ponds are to be lined, their design should
accommodate minor settlement. The application indicates that charurel linings on
steep slopes and at culvert outlets will be used to prevent scour.
Temporary erosion controls will be used during construction as required by the
County in accordance to typical mitigation requirements as defined in a Subdivision
Improvements Agreement.
Soils & Geology: The Subdivision Resolution requires that information be provided
in the application:
Geology: The applicant has submitted a description and illustration by CTL
Thompson, consulting engineers (Job No. GS-2641 Part tr) which details the bedrock
lithology and the stratigraphy of overlaying unconsolidated materials and indicates
23
potential development problems resulting from groundwater, subsidence, instability
in road excavations and fills, expansive soils, drainage patterns and structural
bearing strength. The report indicates the following summary conclusions:
CTL discovered no geologic or geotechnical constraint that would preclude the
planned site development. The report indicates that the subsoil conditions are in
general, favorable for the proposed residential development. Areas of potential
geologic hazards have been identified and are discussed in Job No. GS-26 47 Partl.
The applicant included the results of Part I into the site design to mitigate through the
placement of open space and easement areas potential geologic hazards.
The boring and pit tests performed by CTL penetrated asurficial mantle of organic
sand and clay underlain by dense to very dense, moist, silty to clayey gravels with
cobble and bolder with thin to moderately thick lenses of medium dense to dense,
silty to clayey sands with gravels and occasional cobbles. A 3.5 foot thick and 1 foot
thick layer of silty to sandy clays were found in test hole 3 and test pit 4, below the
organic soils, above native gravels. (See Appendix F, Geotechnical)
CTL determined that the natural clays are moderately compressible and that the
natural gravels and sands possess a low consolidation potential.
CTL anticipates the recommended use of spread footings placed on native gravels for
the majority of parcels within the PUD. Extending of footing excavation to gravels
and sands and replacement with structural fill built with on site gravels or sands may
be recommended where clays are found at footing elevations. CTL recommends that
detailed soils and foundation investigations should be performed on a lot by lot basis
to determine the appropriate foundation type and to develop design criteria.
CTL's preliminary data indicates concrete slabs-on grade floors placed on gravels or
sands will perform satisfactorily if the soils below slabs are not wetted. Where clays
occur at floor subgrade elevation it may be recommended to remove and replace the
upper I to 2 feet of the clay with granular structural fill.
CTL has determined that the gravels and sands will provide good subgrade support
for pavements and were found at planned subgrade elevations should result in
economical, minimal thickness pavement sections. Thicker pavements or removal
of 12 to 18 inches of clay and replacement with gravels and sands may be
recommended in those areas where clays were found at planned subgrade elevations.
CTL has determined that control of surface drainage is important to the performance
offoundations and interior and exterior slabs-on-grade. Surface drainage should be
designed to provide rapid removal of surface runoffaway from buildings and roads.
24
Soils: The applicant has included a National Cooperative Soil Survey, from the
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, and has included a table of interpretations as
required. Please see Exhibit 2l ardPg.57. The 6 soils types identified in the report
describe the tlree distinct areas of the property. The steep slopes to the west
comprise Almy and Tridwell-Brownsto Loams commonly found on slopes of l-l2o/o
ail,12-50o/u The central portion of the site running north to south is comprised of
Evenstonloam and Atencio-Azeltine Complex found on slopes of 6-25Yo and3-6Yr.
The lower river wetland and riparian areas are made up of Fluvaquents found on
slopes of 0-10%. The applicant has determined through studies of far gteater detail
the portions of the property which are most suited for development. Please See
Appendix F.
Geologic Hazards: The Subdivision Resolution requires that land subject to
identified natural hazards, such as falling rock, land slides, snow slides, mud flows,
radiation, flooding or high water tables, shall not be platted for any use other than
open space or an uninhabitable portion of a lot over two (2) acres, unless mitigation
is proposed by a Colorado registered professional engineer qualified to do such
which another debris
Fire Protection: The property is located within the Carbondale & Rural Fire
Protection District. The District has noted that emergency response would come from
Station I in Carbondale and Station 4 located on CR 154. The District believes the
road layout is adequate for fire apparatus.
The District would like to see uniform and sequential addressing for the entire PUD
and that the developer submit an addressing plan to County for review by the
appropriate emergency response agencies.
fire
(UFC) requires a minimum
pU@IIons for a 3,600 square foot one and two family dwelling. If structures in
excess of this size are to be developed, additional capacity will be required at the
rates set forth in the UFC Appendix Itr-A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings and
with fire hydrant locations in accordance with UFC Appendix Itr-A: Fire Hydrant
Location & Spacing.
J. Vegetation: The application includes a map and description of plant associations
and indicates that the property consists of four distinct vegetation types. The area
south of CR 109 is comprised of pinon-juniper with an understory of Bunch, Indian
and Winter Wheat and other native grasses. The lower slope east of CR 109 is
characterupd by introduced and native grasses typical of once-productive agricultural
lands. The wetland and riparian areas along the Crystal and Roaring Fork rivers are
25
design.
-
-
II
K.
dominated by Cottonwood, Willows, Service Berry and isolated stands of Choke
Cherry and Douglas Fur. Cottonwood have migrated along portion of both ditches
creating isolated stands.
Exhibit 22,Yegetation and Pg. 58.
-IMildlife: The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Wildlife Resource Inventory
System and the Garfield County Geographic Information System (GCGIS) was
utilized by the applicant to determine the potential impacts to wildlife by the
proposed development. No Blue Heron or Bald Eagle habitat was identified along
establish an Average Daily Traffic (ADT).
ine the applicable data identified in the Road
L. R?ad lmnact,Iees:, Section 4:94 requires that oflsite road impacts be evaluated for
sub-clFiSiofls through the completion of a traffic study identifuing the volume of
trafEc generated from the development, based on Trip Generation Rate calculations
utilizing the most current Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, to
-M.Natural Environment / Open Space: The Subdivision Regulations require that
deve shall g.BEf igUUn extenf4ossi hl e, - ^rr rra I features
rivers, streams and trees. Where appropriate,rock
req owners to preserve these
features. In no case can lots be designed such that a dwelling unit will be located
closer than thirty feet (30') to a live stream, lake or pond, regardless of the fact that
floodplain regulations may allow dwelling units located closer in some instances.
The applicant has included appropriate setbacks from all proposed ponds, and is
respecting the 100 year floodplain boundary.
The Subdivision ations also that 1C
E-a part of any proposal
where it is determined to be appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners. The
applicant is providing a pub the Roaring Fork river
with t'wo points of access and parking and also prov@&g
easement along the Crystal river. A bike path, separate d from CR 109 is also
proposed.
Internal private open space is also proposed for the project. The design avoids
development in areas of significant wildlife and riparian habitat as well as view
26
water tank and access road west of CR 109. Please see-uafi ual-veeetation and to
thE
N.
corridors. Areas of significant slope and areas of severe soil hazards have also been
included. Total open space dedication for the project is approximately. 144.785
representing 55.8 percent of the entire property. The Zoning Resolution requires
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area within the boundary of any PUD be
devoted to Common Open Space, which this application meets.
The Board, upon consideration of county land use, circulation and public facilities,
the future requirements due from impacts created by the proposed subdivision on the
RE-l school dishict, can require the applicant to provide sites and land areas or cash
-inJieu suitable for schools and parks when such are reasonably necessary to service
the proposed subdivision. It has been the practice of the Cotrnty to only require a
$200 per lot created fee. The County is considering the adoption of a new formula
based on a request by the RE-1 School District.
All maintenance of open space will be the responsibility of the Homeowner's
association withthe exception ofthe conservation easement, that is the responsibility
of the Roaring Fork Conservancy.
Lot Design: The Zoning Resolution requires that lot size, width, depth and shape
shall be appropriate for the type of development proposed and shall meet or exceed
the minimum lot size requirements of the Garfield County Zonrng Resolution or
PUD regulations which the applicant has complied with. The following lot
restrictions by zone are as follows:
Low Density Resid en tial Zone Dis trict- pp$!ggg)
Floor Area Ratio: .25
Minimum Setback: Front 35 feet, rear 35 feet, Side Yard : l0 feet or %
height of principal building, whichever is greater
Corner Lot Minimum Site Yard Abutting Private Street: 20 feet from
roadway right-of-way
Minimum Lot Depth: 200 feet
Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet (at building setback)
Medium Density Residential Zone District-.fl\fu19\- Midland Point
MinimumtotRrffit
27
Minimum Lot
P.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: .25
Minimum Setback: Front 30 feet, Rear 20 feet, Side Yard : l0 feet or %
height of principal structure, whichever is greater
Corner Lot Minimum Site Yard Abutting Private Street: 20 feet from
roadway right-of-way
Minimum Lot Depth: 80 feet
Minimum Lot Width: 110 feet (at building setback)
The Zonrng Resolution also requires that Corner lots for residential use shall have
extra width to permit the required building setback from both roads which the
applicant has provided for.
-.B.aneLbfldrrq-serrarat" ".frr"ces on CR l0q, The sln portron
serving the larger estate lots will have gravel shoulders with drainage swales while
the Midland Point portion will have sidewalks, curb and gutter. Typical road profiles
indicate 3" asphalt cap over 6" Class 6 aggregate base course. In areas of moderate
subsidence risk, a 3 foot sub excavation and placement of compacted granular
structural fill will be utilized to mitigate this potentialhazard.
All roads in the subdivision have been designed in accordance with Garfield Coturty
Roadway Design Standards contained in Section 9:35 of the Subdivision
Regulations. Typical tum radii are 25 feet at intersections and cul-de-sacs. Due to the
lack of slope on the property, no significant cut and fill will be required.
Section 9:32.4 requires that Cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may be designed under
the following circumstances :
A. Cul-de-sacs may be permitted provided they are not more than six hundred
feet (600') in length and have a turnarourd radius of not less than forty-five
feet (45') from the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and frfty foot (50')
right-of-way for residential development and not less than seventy-five foot
(75') right-of-way for commerciaUindustrial development where tractor trailer
trucks will enter the property or by providing a T-shaped tumaround with a
minimum tuming radius of fifty feet (50') for residential development and
seventy-five feet (75') for commercial/industrial development where tractor
trailer trucks will enter the property. The Board may approve longer cul-
de-sacs for topographical reasons and it can be proved that fire protection
and emergency egress and access is provided as a part of the longer design.
28
the
The PUD regulations allow for an applicant to request a variance from design
standards required by code. The applicant is requesting a variance to this standard.
Stonefly Road, which extends from Coryell Ranch Road to the westem reaches of
the property, exceed the 600 foot limitation.has
on the
CR 109 with near the
topographical reasons.
between the Mi Point and
The applicant is proposing that all streets within the PUD be private in nature, subject
to appropriate easements for access by emergency service vehicles and personnel. No
gates are planned for either portion of the PUD. All maintenance of the roadways
will be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association.
O. Preliminary Plan: The Preliminary Plan meets the minimum requirements of the
regulations as indicated in Section 4:41.
Expansion Parcels: Two parcels identified as the Kennedy and Tomcat Expansion
Parcel, are to be transferred to the Respective Adjoining property owners. Transfer
ofthese lands do not adversely affect the overall scope ofthe proposal.
PUD Zoning: The purpose of a PUD is to permit greater design flexibility and,
consequently, more creative and imaginative design for development than generally
possible under conventional zonrng and subdivision regulations. The regulations
require Zonngtext to gurde the development of the PUD and to ensure that the high
quality of design which the process creates, will be enforceable by the County and
will be maintained in all stages of the development's life.
The proposal details six criteria by which the site design was guided. The criteria are
as follows:
1. The development scenario should be sensitive to the 100 year flood plain and
associated riparian areas and avoid these areas to the maximum extent
possible;
2. All building envelopes and road alignments should avoid site-specific
geotechnical constraints to the maximum extent possible;
3. The Division of Wildlife guidelines and recommendations regarding wildlife
constraints be included in the design process to ensure the protection of
existing wildlife habitat;
the
P.
a.
The request can only be allowed if emergency access and egress are provided and for
29
4. Steep slopes should be avoided to minimize disturbance to natural vegetation
and drainage Patterns;
5. The project should include a mix of housing types, and integrate the
necessary affordable housing mitigation requirements on-site if possible;
6. The lot design should incorporate a sensitivity to adjacent land uses and the
goals of adjacent communities.
The Illustrative Site plan @xhibit B) has identified and mitigated the potential negative
impacts to view-sheds, wetland and riparian areas, potential geohazatd conflicts,
comprehensive plan compliance and severe slope areas through placement of building
"rrr.iop"r, creation of open space and the siting of roads. The applicant is proposing five
zone districts within the puD. The Preliminary Plan submitted will also regulate the
placement of houses but, all setbacks need to be included in the zone text
following sunmary identifies the five districts:
4''od*
1.
Uses by right: Single Family residential uses plus accessory uses, including
detached guest and/or caretaker's quarters; home occupation'
Uses, Conditional: None
Uses, Special: None
Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres
Floor Area Ratio: .25
Minimum Setback: Front 35 feet, rear 35 feet, Side Yard:
height of principal building, whichever is greater
Corner Lot Minimum Site Yard Abutting Private Street:
roadway right-of-way
Minimum Lot Depth: 200 feet
Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet (at building setback)
Maximum Height: Thirty Two (32) Feet
l0 feet or Yz
20 feet from
Low Density Residential Zone District- (LDR Zone) - Coryell Ranch
30
Minimum Off- Street Parking ::4 spaces
2.Medium Density Residential Zone District- (MDR Zone)- Midland Point
Uses by right: Single Family residential uses plus accessory uses, except
guest and/or caretaker's quarters; home occupation.
LJses, Conditional: None
IJses, Special: None
Minimum Lot Area: 13,000 square feet
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: .25
Minimum Setback: Front 30 feet, Rear 20 feet, Side Yard = l0 feet or %
height of principal structure, whichever is greater
Corner Lot Minimum Site Yard Abutting Private Street: 20 feet from
roadway right-of-way
Minimum Lot Depth: 80 feet
Minimum Lot Width: 110 feet (at building setback)
Maximum Height: Twenty Five (25) Feet
Minimum Off- Street Parking::4 spaces
J.ffordahle lfnrr"i-g - 'o hisfricf- (AH ZOne)
Uses by right: Deed Restricted, Appreciation-Capped Duplex and Single-
family dwelling and customary accessory uses; home occupations
IJses, Conditional : None
Uses, Special: None
Minimum Lot Area: .25 Acres
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: .35
Minimum Setback: Front 25 feet, Rear 25 feet, Side Yard = 0 feet (Common
Wall) or 10 feet for Single Family Lots.
31
Minimum Lot Depth: 125 feet
Minimum Lot Width: 85 feet
Maximum Height: Twenty Five (25) Feet
Minimum Off-Street Parking:
OPEN SPACE ZOI\E DISTRICT-
Uses by right: Open Space, Passive and Active Recreation, and typical open
space accessory uses including but not limited to barbecues, shelters, gazebos
and other uses not intended for residency
Uses, Conditional: None
Uses, Special: None
Minimum Lot Area: .10 Acres
Minimum Setback: None
Maximum Height: Twenty Five (25) Feet
5.UTILITY ZOI\E DISTRICT
Uses by right: Utilities, including but
stations, water tanks and access roads.
IJses, Conditional: None
Uses, Special: None
Minimum Lot Area: .10 Acres
Minimum Setback:None
Maximum Height: Thirty (30) Feet
not limited to pump houses, lift
Internal Compatibility: The ZonngResolution recognizes that certain individual land uses,
regardless of their adherence to all the design elements provided for in the code, might not
exist compatibly with one another. During review, a proposed PUD is considered from the
point of view ofthe relationship and compatibility ofthe individual elements of the Plan, and
:2 spaces
4.
32
no PUD should be approved which contains incompatible elements. The project contains a
mix of residential lot sizes and housing types which appear to be compatible infemally and
with adjacent uses.
Building Height: The Zoning Resolution provides for an increase above the maximum
permitted for like buildings in other zone districts in relation to the following characteristics
of the proposed building:
(1) Its geographical location;
(2) The probable effect on surounding slopes and mountainous terrain;
(3) Unreasonable adverse visual effect on adjacent sites or other areas in the immediate
vicinity;
(4) Potential problems for adjacent sites caused by shadows, loss of air circulation or loss
of view;
(5) Influence on the general vicinity, with regard to extreme confiast, vistas and open space;
and
(6) Uses within the proposed building.
The Building height in the Coryell Ranch portion of the p
which is the same as the adjacent portions of the Aspen Glen PUD. The Midland Point
portion of the PUD proposes a hei@ the adjacent A/R/RD zone
district. The applicant has requested a variance to these requirements in the supplemental
documentation submitted to the Planning
v.RECOMMEITIDED FIIIDINGS :
1.That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the hearing before
the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners.
That the hearing before the Garfield County 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 meeting.
That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed preliminary plan is in the
best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare
of the citizens of Garfield County.
That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County ZonrngResolution
of 1978, as amended, and the Garfield Cotrnty Subdivision Resolution of 1984, as
amended.
2.
3.
4.
33
the supplemental informatiq!-as beinred=equate to address the PUD requirements.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the PUD Plan andZone District
Amendment and the Preliminary Plan of the Coryell Ranch PUD, subject to the following
conditions:
PUD ZOr\-E REQUEST CONDITTONS OF APPROVAL FOR CORYELL RANCH
-F 1.
2.
3.
All representations made by the Applicant at the Public Hearing and in the
Application shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise
by the Board including, but not limited to, the following items listed below.
That the development shall not occur in stages.
That the access road to the storage tank adhere to the revegetation and geotechnical
plans ( CTL Thompson report 29 January 1999) as submitted.
The maximum height of structures within the Coryell Ranch portion of the PUD is
limited to thirty two (32) feet.
The maximum height of structures within the Midland Point portion of the PUD is
limited to twenty five (25) feet.
The construction of all community facilities shall be undertaken in a single phase.
The PUD shall contain no fractional time ownership of any dwelling unit.
The PUD Plan as indicated as Exhibit 16, shall not be altered without County
approval and full amendment review.
The maximum number of dwelling units within the PUD shall be seventy two (72)
with sixty five (65) free market and seven (7) affordable units.
No commercial uses, other than those defined as Home Occupation, shall be
permissive uses within the PUD.
The PUD Plan as indicated as Exhibit 16 shall prohibit, to the most reasonable
extent, any access, either public or private to the islands identified north of Lots 1,
2 and 3 by covenant and signs on the islands.
The PUD Plan shall prohibit non-maintenance oriented access to the water tower
access road south of County Road 109.
6.
7.
8.
4.
5.
9.
10.
11.
12.
M- oifff'rffi,K*'/l h ,t-t" -:/ag*v*'/4
13. The applicant shall provide a more detailed single phase construction schedule, and I
shall file the final piats for both portions of the subdivision simultaneously.
I
14. The applicant shall adhere to the requirements and recommendation of the I
nngineering Report prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, March 1999 as submitted I
in the application for the development of the preliminary plan'
I
15. The development and construction shall follow Best Management Practices and shall I
minimize to the extent possible, potential impacts to County Road 109 and to I
adjoining propertY owners.
I
16. The maintenance of open space, including public access areas shall be the I
responsibility of the Midland Point and Coryell Ranch Homeowners Association., I
burexcludini the Conservation Easement which will be maintained by the Roaring I
Fork ConservancY,
I
17. The applicant shall compensate the County for retention of an independent I
geotechnical engineer to review and monitor all debris flow mitigation measure A I
installations and all improvements affecting County Road 109 as identified in the \5tn I
CTL Thompson letter dated 3 March 1999 and as identified on the Master '-rl'|
Drainage Plan. ,()l I
18. The applicant shall place signs along the fisherman's easement north of the Lot 9 and W I
;
;#ffi;:p.r, rpr.., p.or,iuitinglpen fires and littering. ur
I
PRELIN/ilNARY PLAN COI\DITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE CORYELL
I
RANCH PtiD
I
1 All representations made by the applicant at the public hearing and in the Application
I
shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board
I
including, but not limited to, the following items listed below.
2. At fural plat, the applicant shall make one (1) location on the northwest and one (1)
location on the southeast end of the PUD available for public access for fishing,
including improvement of the public parking area identified on the site plan.
3. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of the Division of Wildlife as
indicated in the letters dated 2May 1999 and 6 June 1999'
4. At the time of Preliminary Plan consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners, the applicant shall provide proof of security for the sewer taps to be
obtained from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District.
35
5.
6.
The applicant shall pay the appropriate impact fees as determined by the Carbondale
& Rural Fire Protection District prior to recording of a fural plat. [Section 5:31 (If]
The applicant shall pay fifty (50) percent of the appropriate road impact fees at the
time of final plat approval with the remaining frfty (50) percent due at the time of
issuance of a building permit. [Section 4:92]
The applicant shall pay the appropriate school site acquisition fee as determined by
the nb--t School Disirict and adopted by Garfield County at the time of final plat
approval. [Section 5:31 (H)]
All development shall conform with the water system design as set forth in the
Coryell Ranch and Midland Point Water Supply Plan from Resource Engineering
dated 3 March 1999. [Section 4:91 (B)] No dwelling shall exceed 3600 sQ.ft., unless
the watsr system becomes a paspf fie "wfr!iltytr ffilwnPY.rct.ii?b@liZs ur/ dtre lar
The Subdivision Improvement Agrcement at the time of final plat shall compensate
the County for retention of an independent geotechnical engineer to review and
monitor all debris flow mitigation measure installations and all improvements
affecting County Road 109 as identified in the CTL Thompson letter dated 3 March
1999 andas identified on the Master Drainage Plan'
The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations contained in the letters from the
cotoraJo State Geological survey dated 17 May 1999 and 18 May 1999.
At final plat, the design shall comply with the recommendations for mitigation of
settlement and distresr to brritairrgs, roadways, and utilities as contained within the
CTL Thompson report of 29 January 1999 and shall be adhered to during site
construction. [Sections 4:60(E) and a:70(A)]
The final plat, shall include a vicinity map from the U.S.G.S. quadrangle on the final
plat map indicating the entire area of the PUD. [Section 4'50'E]'
The final ptat shall locate the proposed duplex structure building envelopes on the
plan sheet [Section 9.20].
The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of developing the 10'wide bike path
within the 15'wide easement on the preliminary plan'
The applicant shall post a letter of credit in an amount to be set by an engineers cost
estimaie to the satisiaction of the Board of County Commissioners prior to final plat.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
t4.
15.
t2.
13.
36
16.
t7.
18.
t9.
20.
Any proposed accessory structure as allowed by right in the Open Space Zone
District, shall obtain written site approval from the Division of Wildlife, District
Wildlife Manager.
The Roaring Fork River sewer line crossing shall be encased in a steel reinforced
system (concrete or steel) to prevent any possible separation of sewage lines in the
event offlooding, channel changes, or unforseen erosion.
A more definitive description shall be added to the typical cross sections to assure
that subgrade compaction or fill will be accomplishedat95%o per ASHTO-180 and
include the depth of this compactive effort.
At the time of final plat, the applicant shall provide evidence of the instrument
through which the 6.29 acre conservation easement will be created and conveyed.
All covenants shall indicate that no permanent structures, including those structures
physically connected to the primary building shall be permissive outside any
approved building envelope within any residential zone district within the PUD.
The applicant shall indicate on the final plat the ten (10) foot fishermen's easement.
The final plat shall indicate the forty (40) foot access easement to the expansion
parcels.
The existing access easements to the expansion parcels shall be abandoned at the
time of final certification of completeness of subdivision improvements.
The applicant shall obtain all necessary access permits from the County Road and
Bridge Department for access to County Road 109.
All on-site residential parking within the PUD shall be contained within the
individual lots, except for the fisherman's easement parking areas.
All road design standards shall meet County Requirements and obtain County
Engineer approval prior to final plat.
The final plat shall indicate all access to public rights-of-way and any proposed
easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
The applicant shall convey the seven (7) "affordable" units as indicated in the
application to the appropriate entrty at time of final plat.
2t.
22.
37
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.The following Plat Notes shall be incorporated onto the final plat:
"Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner."
"One (l) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision and the
dog shall be required to be confined within the owners property boundaries."
"No open hearth solid-fuel fueplaces wilt be allowed anywhere within an exemption.
One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All
dwelling urits will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves
and appliances".
"All exterior lighting be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting
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".
" Site specific engineering may be required to mitigate potential hazards identified
inthe Preliminary Geotechnical lnvestigation for Coryell Ranchby CTl/Thompson,
Inc.29 January 1999, Job. No GS-2647,Partln."
h r$4/ * y'-n lt qtul 2
L*y;, /tb
tu,# z
/Ul6-".?/rnr4.3
38
Garlrondale & Flural Fire Protection Distric;t
3@ Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
(s70) 963-2€1
Fax (970) 963-0569
May I l,1999
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: CorTell Ranch PUD, Preliminaly Plan
Dear Mark.
I reviewed the sketch plan application for the Coryell Ranch PUD I would offer the following
cornments.
EmergencY Resoonse
Err,.rg.*y response to the development would come from Station I in Carbondale and Station 4
located on County Road 154.
Access
The general road layout appears to be adequate for fire apparatus.
Addressine
fne .rrreni county policy is to address PUDs using the same system as for the rural county roads.
In the past varying systems have been used. Some existing subdivisions use more than one system
(i.e., Aspen Glen, Dakota Subdivision, Ranch at Roaring Fork). This has resulted in considerable
confusion in locating homes during emergencies (especially medical emergencies). The current
addressing system which is based upon distances can be especially confusing within PUDs which
often contain very short and/or looped roads. We would like to see addresses assigned uniformly and
sequentially within the PUDs rather than being assigned based upon distance. We propose that the
developer submit an addressing plan for review by the County and appropriate emergency response
agencies.
RECEIVEDltAY 121999 -a?-
Water Supolies for Fire Protection
The proposed water system consists of a 200,000 gallon storage tank with proposed minimum fire
flows of 1000 gallons per minute. The Uniform Fire Code requires a minimum flow of 1000 gallons
per minute for one and nvo family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 sqwre feet. I ttssume that dwellings
Iarger than 3,600 square feet will be built in the development, in which case higher flows would be
required depending upon building size and type of building construction. Required fire flows for the
project should be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) Appendix III-A: Fire Flow
Requirements for Buildings, with fire hydrants located in accordance with UFC Appendix III-B: Fire
Hydrant Locations and Spacing.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerelv. 4,///w
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
-40-
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 1 92
5-2-99
Garfield County Plarning
109 8th Sr, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Coryell RanchPUD
Dear John:
The Coryell Ranch lies within mule deer winter range wi0r use increasrng during the fall as deer come d
the mesa above to gra*- in the fields. It also lies within elk winter range. Elk use is throughout the wefland
and pond rea as rarcll as in the fields. Elk are also dtracted to the fields by the cdtle feed lines d the
agricultural operation Baldeagles use the properlyforfeedingandrest perch sites locatedalongtheriver
adjacent to the ponds and wetlands as well as in the cottonwood tree located along the access drive and the
ponderosa tee located along the top of the nver bank at the northwest corner of the property. Eagle use
begtns mid-late November and extends through N4arch/early April. A variety of other small mammals and
birds utilize the property, especially the wetlands and ponds. The rvetlands/ponds and the riparian area
along the Roaring Fork River and Crystal River are the most valuable and sensitive habiat tj,pes.
The applicant and I have met several times on site and agreed to the measures as outlined in appendix H
and on page 60 d the application. These measures will help to minimize impacts to wildlife. In addition, I
would like to make the following comments and recommendations der reviewing the final plan:
l. The wetlands and ripanan areas are the most sensitive and valuable habitat types, which are
used extensively by bald eagles in the winter. As we continually build along the rivers,
wildlife use, especially bald eagle use, will depend whether they can adag to the human
encroachment into these areas and the amount dhuman disturbance. Certain restrictions re
recommended to help minimize this disturbance. It becomes critical for the chance d
continued eagle use, as well as other wildlife, that these recommendations be implementd as
well as strictly enforced If they are implemented but not enforce{ eagle use especially will
be greatly diminished or cease.2. Dog restrictions and control wiU be important, especially during the winter and spring
months. This pertains to the ripariaxr/wetland/pond areas as well as the pinon-juniper hillside
along the southnest side d the development The P-J hillside receives heavy use by deer and
elk In addition, roaming dogs will cause problems for the adjacent working ranch on the
mesa above the P-J hiltside (Crystal River Ranch). I vrrculd also like to emphasize cat control.
Cats harc a devastating impact on bird use d riparian and wetland areas. They also become
easy prey for eagles, owls, etc.3. I would encourage the homeowners to plant trees alongttre boundary dlots 1-11 orerlmking
the uretlands. This will help screen backyard activity and help to minimize disturbance to the
eagles using tlrc u,etlandVriparian :!rea4. hrblic access points strould be properly signed These access points are specifically placed to
help minimize disnubance to the wetlands and cottonurcod area along the river. This will
help continued bald eagle use dunng the winter.5. Roaring Fork River seqrcr crossing- crossing should be plrced so no cottonnrcod or
ponderosa ftees are cut down or removod These troes are imputant for bald eagle and other
raptor feeding and resting perch sites. Crossing should also be done before fall broum trout
spawning (bdore Setrember 15)
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chair. Mark LeValley, Vice-Chair . Bernard Black, Secretary
Marianna n"r,opo,rorii[:['jl".i.ffI3il;:llli#i]: s"#li
^*maker,
Member- 4l-, :. "
-' ,'-1r,i\-. - l;r.^ a
srere oF coLoRADo
BILL OWENS, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
For Wldlife-
For People
ffi
MainEin a large of a setback a possible for Mdand Point horresitss M-6 - M-14 ard A-1 -
A-4 from tho break d tbs hill leading &wn to tho uatlads. Therc shold be no deck
hangorrcrs. The public pedeshiar, fishermen, and equestrian easenrpnt shurld be plac€d d tre
tq d the hill and not built iro the hillside oierlookiry tbe crctlands.
Any area d revegehtion of disturbed sies should also have a weed control phn
Water rwlls - what will be the impt d the water nells ad their use to the water levels io
the RoaringForkRirrcr, especially furiogpeakdemandperiods mdperio& dlow waterflow
in the river? This rnay be imporat as it relates to the overall health dths river €cosystem
and its aquatic ad fishery life.
the wildlife bnochures which are to be haded out at closings should pertrin to ttrc seasonal
and area restistions fur the protection d wildlife habiE t (bald eryle use) a well as
horneowners' responsibilities they noed to irccept as ttrcy hild in wildife habitat (including
dealing with problem wildlife such a ftErooons, shml<s, erc. and the reantrs for @cad.
control)
all outside lighuqg be directed downuard (down lighting)
Thaik yor for the opportuniry to corffrrcnt If you have any questions, please give me a call
KevinWright
7.
8.
9.
10.
Carbondale
O y'Z-
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIry EMPLOYER
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
6-9-99
Garfield CourtY Plenning
109 8h St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Coryetl Ranch
For Wildlife -
For People
Dear John:
On 3-3-99 I met with Aspen Glen to discuss some issues I recommended for the Coryell Rmch.
1. Roaring Fork Rrver sewer srsssing - there are several issues ttrat relate to the timing
of the river crossing. Bro'*ar tror.t qpa',raring occurs approxrmately SAt. 15 - Nov. 30
depen.ling on a variety of factors, bald eagle use incr€sses mid - late Novemeber as
they r:se the tall cotronwoods and ponderosa pines in the wetland and riparian area,
and recreational use of the river is greatest &rring the sunmer montls. The trott
eggs witl be in the gravel beds of the river until they hatch \ /hich is usually
completed by June l. IJntil that time they are sr.rsceptible to siltation and smothering
by fines deposited in the river. Ideally, from a wildlife perspective, the best time to
do the crossing would be Ap.il I rrybrch would avoid most of the above. F{owever,
water levels may be ioosasing at that time malong the ctossing more difEcult. The
next best time would be the last week in Nov. through the fust week rn December. A
lot of fines will be deposited in the river hfr their effects on the trortr eggs will
depend on how close the crossing is to any spawning beds. Brovrm trottr population
in the river is healthy and crossing at this time may not have a sigDlficant iryact.
2. Equestrian easem@t - I was unaware that a trail already exists which is used for
horses. It would be best to ttilize the exiting trail, rather than create a new trail.
Fistrermen access points for the mrdlandpoim area are OK.
3. Sebacks for the midland point area appear to be OK. I still maintain my
recommendation of no deck hangovers, which should not be a proble'm, based r.pon
the home locations indicated to me by Aspen Glen. fuanr, the greater the setback
away from the top of the hill, the lesser irrpacts to wildlife and the wAlands below.
If youhave my questions, please gtve me a call.
Cc: Ian, Aspen Glen
Pi^ -,,,--.*r..ijyr.u,iuii f 0 fggg
DEPABTMENT OF NATUFAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman . Mark LeValley, Vice Chairman. Bernard L. Black, Jr',Secretary
ffi
Members, Rick Enstrom . Marianna Raftopoulos lArnold Salazar . Bobert Shoemaker. Philip James
-43-
STATE OF COLOTUDC
COI.ORADO CEOTOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Ceology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2511
FAX: (303) 866-2461
GA-99-0017
May 17,1999
Mr. John Barbee
Garfi eld County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RI: Coryell Ranch PUD Sketch and Preliminary Plan
Dear Mr. Barbee:
Geologic Hazard Review
At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the
submitted box of materials for this proposed subdivision with regard to geologic hazards and
the impacts such hazards will have. A field inspection was conducted on May 4,1999. At the
request of the developer this office also visited the location of the proposed water tank on
February l,1999 with their geotechnical consultant. The development application includes
several documents concerning the geology of the area. Those documents include Geologic
Hazard and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations by CTL Thompson, Inc. dated January
29,1999 and various letters related to debris flow hazards, subsidence, and the siting of
mitigation berms, utility lines, and water tanks.
Our understanding is that higher density residential units are proposed in the southeast
portion of the property and larger estate lots are proposed for the remainder. Centralized
water and sewer services will be provided.
Frorn our knowledge of the site and review of the consultant's report, the geologic
hazards that may affect this development proposal are debris flows, earth flows, and
subsidence and sinkholes relating to dissolution and collapse of underlying Eagle Valley
Evaporite. During the summer of 1998, this ranch was the site of a well-known earth failure
at the terrace above that resulted in a debris flow of some 60,000 cubic yards of material.
That flow buried County Road 9 and fanned into the development properfy. The geotechnical
consultant has made a laudable attempt to identify and locate those areas that are susceptible
to the above hazards. The geologic and geologic hazard maps referred in the CTL Thompson
Inc. report were not included so we are assuming that the GIS maps shown in Exhibit 10 and
1la of the comprehensive plan are digital versions of CTL Thompson's maps. If that were
Bill Owens
Covernor
DEPARTMENT OF
NAIURAL
RESOURCES
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
.fiECEIVED I'1AY 27 19'''
,'44-
\
not the case, we would like to see the original maps reference as Figure I and? in the
Geologic Hazard Report.
Please consider the following observations and recommendations in your
consideration of this development application.
The development has evidently been well thought out with regards to the
geologic hazards. No-build zones have been placed where subsidence features have
been mapped and adjacent to the high terrace to the west where earth flow-type
landslides have, or could occur. Where development encroaches upon the set-back of
the upper terrace, berms have been designed to retain and/or redirect an debris flow-
. type failure.
Three large ponds are proposed for this development. While one lies within a
mapped subsidence depression area, the other two are not. Standing water may
exacerbate water introduction into the evaporitic bedrock and increase rates of
dissolution and subsidence. While we could not find comment in the comprehensive
plan, will these ponds be lined? If so, will the liner be designed to accommodate
minor settlements?
We basically concur with the delineation of the subsidence areas as shown in
the GIS map. There are other low-lying areas, but we are unsure whether they can be
atkibuted to subsidence. Two features occur within the building envelop of lot26, a
small rock-filled depression near the existing ranch road and a low-lying trough
running through the western end. Since this lot is so close to existing, well defined,
sinkholes that lie across the ranch road, additional investigation should be conducted
to determine whether the building envelop is viable with the appropriate risk. Very
careful building siting and subsurface investigations will be required for all lots
adjacent to subsidence areas. Geophysical methods may need to be employed.
It will be important that all prospective lot buyers understand the risk of
subsidence in this development. While we agree that the risks are low, the
consultant's geologic hazard report made it quite clear that spontaneous subsidence
can occur anywhere within this development. The preliminary geotechnical
investigation does not even mention the subsidence hazard and, except for a short
letter dated March 2,1999 concerning roads and utilities, has made no
recortmendations in foundation design to mitigate possible localized differential
settlements due to potential subsidence.
While not explicitly stated, it appears that from the master drainage plan the
deflection berm to mitigate debris and earth flows has been placed in the Alternative
"A" position. Is this berm 7 or 8 feet high? Our recommendation is that the county
require the berm height to be no less that 8 feet high." The main berm ends near the
top of the existing alluvial fan. One of the ponds is proposed on the distal edge of the
fan where the berm has ended. If the pond were in place at the time, the debris flow
from 1998 would have deposited mud into it. Has an analysis be done to examine
-4*
flooding potential and flow direction if the pond water was displaced by incoming
mud if another earth-flow event of similar magnitude were to occur?
The consultant has recommended that site specific foundation investigations be
conducted for lots in this development. We concur. These investigations should occur with
the understanding that differential settlements could occur and options that include foundation
reinforcement or reinforced mats should be presented. Disclosure of risks to owners, not just
builders, must be made prior to purchase. Though geologic hazards occur at this site, the
developer has made a laudable effort in complying with their geologic and geotechnical
consultant recommendations and restricted development or implemented hazard mitigation in
many areas. Provided the concerns and questions we raised above are satisfactorily
addressed, this office believes that development can proceed for the Coryell Ranch property.
Ifyou have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866-3551.
Sincerely,
Jonathan L. White
,rfb-
:r-18-99 tI:21A Colo Geo Surwe5z 3038662461 P. Or
STArE OF COLOTUDO
COLORADO GEOTOGICAT SURVEY
Oivision of Miner.rls .tncl Gt'ology
Dep.rnrnerlt r:f Nolurul Rusoun:es
I J I J Slrcrrrran Street, Room 7l 5
Denver, (-.nlor.'rdo 80201
Phnnet (l0l) 866.2t t I
FAx:(loJ)0(r(r-24(rI
Post-lt" Fax Nole 7671 '"' irts W,t""tz
'" t* 7lo)Tn From .? --. Va qt L-/h, 6eCo.4rc0t )o cGE
Photrc !,rrnr.O?OGr;r/
'*rrzo ?/s- zzgg Fru t
May 18, 1999
Mr, John Barbee
Garfi eld (lounty Planning Departmcnr
[09 E"'Street, Suitc 303
Clenwood Sprir:gs. C:O 8160l
RE: C'orvcll Ranclt PUD Sketch aud Preliminary PIan Geokrgic HazardReviow
l)ear Mr. Barrhee:
My review lcttcr n'ristakenly said that the C'l'L Tllompson, lnc. gcologic rnaps wcrcnot availablc. They were, itl lhct. I have rcvicwetl thenr apd thcy de co-nforrir with the CISmaP\- shown ilt thc application contprchensive plan. Please tlisregard the rcquest at the entl ofParitgraph 3 of thc rcview letter datcd May 17. lt)g9.
Sincerely,
M
m
L)EPAI$MENT (:)F
NATUI(AL
RESOUI(CES
6ill ()wurr
C()veIM
Grtl[ E. Walcher
I rr.,tutivc Dircctor
Mrr h;u.l ll. l qrn2
I )ivi\irtrr I )ir.'(lUr
vk li (.rpirrt
Sl,rlr. (.;rarl(rHlst
.rrl l)irrrtor
ru-u*v7\h,4 aa\
Jonathan L. White
En gineering Gcologi.st
- 47-
H
Garfield County
ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer
June 7, 1999
Letter of Review:
For: Coryell Ranch PUD
Material presented for review:- Coryell Ranch PUD Submittal Booklet of April 15, 1999- Resource Engineering - Coryell Ranch and Midland Point PUD Water Supply Plan
of March 9, 1999- Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Coryell Ranch- Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Midland Point Subdivision- Sketch/Preliminary Plan Submittal Blueprint Sheets 1-50
After examination of the presented material, I have the following comments:
1) Access: After reading the traffic analysis section, Appendix c rable 1, Trip
Generation, I still question the rationalization behind having an AM Peak of 3g exits
and a PM Peak of 45 enters for72 housing units. I would expect these numbers to
be almost doubled since a typical residence will have 1.5 to 3.0 vehictes and you
would anticipate at least one of those vehicles leaving and returning during peak
times. I would like to see the basis and justification that assumes fhe lower peak
numbers.
2) Water: Examination of the Resource Engineering Document - Appendix E, Water
Quality Test Results showed several concentration values in excess of
recommended levels such as Barium .O47vs.OO25, Chromium.013vs.01, Sodium
9.5vs.31, selenium .0023vs.0006, and Naphthalene .09vs.07. Although these
exceeded values appear minor, I would like to see Engineer certification that these
values are suitable for a potable drinking water supply and pose no threat to human
health. The legal source water documents appear sufficient and proper.
-48'
Summary of Concerns:
No Concern
Access
Water
Wastewater
Drainage
Roadway
n
D
!
X
D
Geology/Soils a -Wildlife/Ecology X
Minor ConcernV
H
X'!
V
,R.!
Major Concern
n
!
!
!
!
!
!
Critical Concern
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO gl60l_3363 (970) e4s-5004 FAX (970) 94s-778s
*_)
3) Wastewater: The centralized waste treatment system appears sufficient and proper.
would like to assure that any iver crossing of sewer lines be encased in a steel
reinforced system (concrete or steel) to prevent any possible separation of sewage
tines in the event of flooding, channel changes, or unforeseen erosion'
4) Drainage: The Drainage Plan appears sufficient and proper'
5) Roadway: The typical cross sections appear sutficient and proper A yor9..lefinrtive' desciption snoiia be added to assure that subgrade compaction or fill will be
accomplished at gS% per ASHTO T-180 and include the depth of this compactive
effort.
6) Geology/Soils: There has been debate on the cause of the debris flow that had'
recentl-y occuned in 1998. My concern is that any potentialfuture debris flows
lregardless of the cause) wilinot endanger life oi property for this development. As a
sefaration zone and proiective berm is included in the plan, I feel that this will
alleviate any potentiai damage in the event of a future debris flow event. I would like
fo see Enginier ceftification'pertaining to berm design detai'irs fo assure that in the
event of debris flows the velocity of the debris slurry witl not compromise the berm'
7) Wildlife/Ecology: Wildlife issues and concerns appear to be addressed in a sufficient
manner.
Summary:
This subdivision, as presented, addresses all major concerns in a clear and well
organized manner. There are several small details that need to be addressed prior to
approval.
Conclusion:
Based on the submittals presented, I recommend approval of this PUD after the above
concerns are addressed.
Sincerely,
Ga d-'re ld Cou nty E n g i nee r
-41-
mo:294H ROARING FORI( SCHOOL DIST FA){ N0. 9709459240 P, 02
FRED A. WNL, SalFidntendcil
JUOY l{^Ff ONSTALL. Assrirla nt g)Ntialanclont
SHAiINQI{ PEL|AND, Fitnncc Dtoctot
Roaring: Forlr Sihoot Dist?tct RE.i
1405 Grand Avenue
Glc[wood Springs, Cotorado E1601
' Telephone (970) sl5-essb
May 13, 1909
(inrlicld County Planning Dcpartnrcnt
l0t) Sttr Street, Suite 303
Clcnwood Sprirrgs, CO E l60l
lte: Corycll Rurch PUI)
-l'o Wttorrr It Mny Coflcern:
'l'lrc fbllowing i.s subnrilted irr rusponsc to your rcqucsl for cotnments otl the Corycll Ranch
PtJI).
As you arc awarc' Roaring lrork School f)istrict lras developcd a forrnula (br tleternriling schoolsite lcnd tlcdicotiott or fees-in-lieu-of lillrd dedicrrtion for rcsidcntial dcvctopnrent within the
tli.strict's lrouttdsrir.'s. '[his forrrrulil nrorc accuratcty rcllccts thc cost of lalcl 6ctluisiti6rr lhan ttrc
Arlroullt cttn'ctttly collccred by thc County ($200 pcr unit). For thc Coryell I(onctr !,UD,
application ol'rhis fornrrrla (see ottached rc.solulion) reiult.s in total land dedication oI a1ntlt.snl
lc.ss tltarr thc tttininruttt rcquiremcrtl flur a sclrt:ol site. .Shorrld thc Currnty adopt the District's
ftrrttrttlq prior to firtol approvol of this PUD, the District is rctlucsting tlrat cash-in-licu of lencl
clctlicatiorr hc salculatcrl in acr.:orduncc witll thc nttachctt rcsoluiion.
Shannotr
Financc l
lilrc.
Pulland
l)irr:c(or
-60'
I1AY-I3-99 THU IO:29 6Y ROARING FORI( S0HOOL DIST FA)( N0. 9709459240
A. TIIIS RIISoLU'rroN IS pRF.MrsL,D oN .l'HE FoLLowrNGr
RI,SOLU'I'I()N Or THE RoARIN(; F'OITK SCIIOOL DISI.RICT RI|.I IIOAITI)() T' Ii) I)UC A'I'ION RITG A R DI NC irArr DA IIDS rONJ,ErrD D RDI CATION A NI)CASH IN LIEU oF LAND nUUrertft<lN
r998
P, 03
l. Roaring l?ork School Distr.iotsLurlcnt enrollnrcnt
avcraging a*%,Juritl;il:lTi.,.,Jlnging rro,r 1's%
("District") ha.s expcricnoed annualto 6.9% Iionr lggg ro 1997 ancl
Ycgr UfrroilmeUf
1 988/8e
t989t90
t990/91
t99t/92
1992/93
t993/94
1994/95
t995t96
te96t97
l9e7/98
3301
34es
l70E
392t
401 3
4288
4473
4668
4737
4863
2' The l)istrict rccognizes thc inrpact of ncw dcvckrpnrcpt 6n thc ,ccdlirr ptrblic Inrrd fo' ttcw sch'ols nnd I*, pr*1ror.d rtre firllowing formula to calculate astandard for .schr.rol land dcdication:
l,and area providecl pcr.student x .students generatcd
per dwc.lling unit - Laud Dcdication Standard
3.
1^r:,:,10]r.t ro. crm.cnt school site sizc rccomrnendorions and
;:1.._",,i:5 i,,..,,1;-.::tTl'j:'j ,'i,o niri,i.;h;r;;;,,rr.i,i,li",,iiffiil::",fi:11ffXpcr 'studcnt s'otrld be providctl For furrrre school .sitcs as,.,r#;Jil;;iilffi]
4' The District has detennincd thc nurnber of stuclents gcnerntcd pertypc of dwclling tlnit accorcling to clata proviclcd by 'l HK A.ssociate.s as folkrws:
Single Iiarnily
Multi-Iamily
Mobilo I lornc, Tr.ailcr
0,49
0.38
0,71
- 5/-
IIRY-]3-99 THU IO: 30 AH ROARINC FORI( SCHOOL DIST
5. Applicatiorr ot'rhc fbrnrulaDctlicatiou Stanclards:
Singlc Farnily
Multi-larnily
Mobile Ilomc, Trailcr
FA){ NO,9709459240
rcsults in tho following suggcstcd l,anct
870 .sq, ft pcr unit or. .020.rcrcs
675 sq. Ii pcr unit or .015 acrcs
I,261 sq, ft per unit or .029 acrcs
P. 04
6' At the District's cliscrction, a clevelopcr or'residcntial housing nr.ytllake' a cash payntcnt in-licu of clcdicaring land, o, ,noy rnakc a casS paynrc't incotnbirrati,n with a lond tleclication to co,.,ptiJiillh;',u,;arrts of this Rcsoiurion. ,l,hc
lbrnrulo ro dtrternrinc thc casrr-in-ricu-payrncnt i.s as foilows;
Markct valuc of thc land (per acrc) * I,sud Dcdication
Standard t # of units = Ca.sh-in-l,ieu
lior cxamplc, lirr a property lrav.ing a market valuc ol.$50,000 pcracre and I singlc lhn:ily unit on it, ihc paymcnt woulcl bc.;
$50,000 + .020* I = $1,000
I)' NOw" ]'HEItllPoRE. TIIII tloARD or.' F.DLicrnTIoN or; RoAr(rN(il;ollt( scHool DIS'[RIC'I'RE-l ItEsor,vus as foilows:
l' 'lhc corrntics of'[aglc, Garficld and Pitkin, Coloraclo; lhe city ,flilj"Yi"'1 springs. colorado; and thc Towns tll' Basalt antl carbondalc, cokrruclo("lintilics") adopt a ['rrncl Dcdicaliorr stanilard a.s sct forth in part A rlf rhis ttesolution.
2' .. .l.ht [ntilies rcqtrire tund tledication or a pnyment i1 licu of La,tltledicalion as spccilied by the District in rcsponse to specific subdivision rcqucsts c:,- setforth irr Pa.ts A. 5 und 6 ah.vc from arr *sidentiar tan,ticrctopers.
3' 1'hc provisions of this Resolution shall sel'vc as the gencral critcriafor lhc ittrpo'sition of school [e'es to hL requircd t:f arr residcntial laucl dcvclopcrs as setlhrrth in c'R's' 30-28'101, etscq., as amcndccl. wirh specific nrocliticatiorrs or rleviation.s
ffT#:lll"
bc maclc as tltc oistiict rcspc,nas to speciric rulaiur.rion ,.q,*,, o, rcquirecr
4' This Rcsolution shall bo anrcncled pcriodically by rhc District toaccuratu'ly rcflcct the studcnt yierds existi'g within rtre uis.'.i.t.
5z-
rlflY-t 3-99 I'HU 10: 30 AI1 ROARING FORI( SCHOOL DIST FA)( N0, 970e459240 P. 05
EXHIBITA
Roaring Fork Schoot District RE-l
Reasonable
Capacity
Elementary Schoot 5SO
Middle Schoot 600
High Schoot 8OO
Totals
-lE5d-
---!-
Total acres per student
Total sq. feet per student
Recommended
Acreage,
15.5
26.0
38.0
79.5
-_
0.04077
1,776
+ 1 acre per 100 students+ 1 acre per 100 students+ '1 acre per 100 students
f,.^"jff::?t::::g: for schoorsires is as foilows accordinsto the ies published in 199fby the councir of Educational racirty pffirs, rnternaflonar:
Elementary
Middle School
High Schoot
10 acres
20 acres
30 acres
-D {3-
s5/tz/gg }yED 13: J2 FAX s7 07 04s284
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDU-T,,!
John Barbee, Garfield County Planning
Tom Newland, Roaring Fork Railroad l-r.rldint Authority
Coryell Ranch PUD
May 12,1999
@ooz
I have reviewed the information submitted for the PLli'.), which consists of a7}-unit
housing dcvelopment on the opposite side of the Roa,'ing Fork River from the
railroad right-of-way. The righrof-way measlrreslO0-fr.et (SGfeet either side of the
tracks) in most of this po(ion of the corridor although there is a small section where
the corridor measures 200-feet in width (lOOJcet clth,:r side of the tracks). As there
are no proposed access over or encroaclrments upot'l tire railroad corridor, I see no
potential impacts to the railroad right-of way from rhe ;rpplication.
For the applicant's information, the railroad righrof-w'i!y was purchased for public
transportation and recreational uses. The current cJrafi of a valley-wide trail plan for
thc right-of-way that shows a public trail alignment bctween the railroad tracks and
the river in this portion of the corridor. Thc applicant nr:ry want to consider a future
connection to this trail during the development of thc t,tJD. The railroad corridor is
also being studied for potential passenger and freiglrt irain use in this section of the
corridor.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on rhis larr l use proposal. Please
contact me at 70+9282 if you have arry questions.
o 14-
RFRHA
ROARING FORK TRANS'T AGENCY
Memo
To: John Barbee, Garfield County Planning Department
From: Mike Davis, Roaring Fork Transit Agency
Date: 05/06/99
Re: Coryell Ranch P.U.D.
RFTA has conducted an evaluation of the Coryell Ranch PUD located one mile
northwest of the Town of Carbondale. Our evaluation includes an assessment of
potential transit trip demand, the number of additional transit buses required to serve
ihese trips, and the additional annual subsidy required to operate service that meets
these demands.
Summary of Key Findings for Goryell Ranch P.IJ.D.
Transit Trip Demand
Annual one-way passenger triPs:7,991
Transit Costs
FAkFeriod;peakdirectionannual marginaloperating subsidy: $11,078
Peak oeriod. peak direction annualfixed costs' + $2,800
Annual cost of 1/5th of a new bus: + $5,316
subtotal $19'194
Annual revenues generated through fare collection: - $14,819
TotalAnnual Cosis $4'375
Park-and-Ride Demand
Spaces:
Park-and-Ride Costs
Surface parking construction costs for 10 spaces:
Annual maintenance costs for parking spaces:
10
$50,000
$2,438
o Page 1 a-rr
Analysis
Transit Trip Demand
The Coryell Ranch P U.D is proposed to have 66 single family dwelling units and six
affordable housing units (most likely townhomes). The most accurate means of
estimating the num.ber of transit passenger trips that would be generated by these
new housing units is to compare the land use quantities with similar nearby activity
genters currently served by RFTA. Specifically, the transit trip generation rate of
Carbondale was applied to the proposed population of Coryell Ranln fl-able A). The
estimated transit trips generated by residents of the proposed development is 16
over a summer day and 32 over a winter day.
f1ryal ridership can be estimated by applying the existing observed ratio of annual
RFTA ridership on the Downvalley service in the Carbondale fare zone to the
average winter daily ridership. Using this ratio, Coryell Ranch can be estimated to
generate approximately 7,991 RFTA passenger-trips per year, at full buildout.
lmpact on RFTA Required Bus fleet
At present, all of RFTA's available fleet is required during peak periods. Buses areparticulary full southbound during the A.M. commute period and northbound during
the P.M. commute period. This full condition generalty occurs across all operational
seasons between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. lt is therefore necessary to
evaluate the potentialtransit capacity that would be used by Coryell Ranch residents,
in order to ensure that existing RFTA passengers are not precluded from transit
service by new Coryell Ranch passengers boarding first.
This part of the analysis took into account that not all Coryell Ranch passengers will
travel in the direction that has capacity limitations. RFTA survey information was
used to show the expected distribution of Coryelt Ranch passengers. As seen inTable B, 18 percent of the passengers will be traveling to anJ from Glenwood
S-prings and 82 percent are traveling Southward to Basaii, Aspen, and Snowmass
Village.
This analysis also took into account that not all passengers traveling in the peak
direction will travel during the peak period when capacity froblems arJmost severe.
RFTA's transit development plan indicates that 54 peicent of the ridership in the
upvalley direction occurs during the peak four-hour period (the cycle time of one
round trip).
\Mile the existing buses typically used for Downvalley Service have 42seats, it is not
reasonable to expect that all additional buses put into service will be futly util2ed, due
to variation in demand over the peak period. Assuming 35 passengers
"s "n
o Page2 - 56-
average vehicle load, 20 percent of one additional bus would be required to serve
Coryell Ranch residents. The annualized cost of 20 percent of a new bus is
approximately $5,300.
lmpact on RFTA Subsidy Requirements
Table C presents an estimate of the additional services that would be required to
accommodate the increase in passengers generated by Coryell Ranch. As peak-
hour buses are typically fullthroughout the year, additional service would be required
in all seasons. Ridership for non-winter seasons can be estimated based upon the
estimate of winter ridership presented in Table A, factored by the relative ridership for
the downvalley service in the various seasons. Dividing seasonal ridership by 35
passenger-trips per bustrip to identiff the number of daily bus-trips, and multiplying
by the number of days in each season, an increase in the number of bus round-trips
of 60 per year is estimated.
Assuming that these additional runs are operated between Aspen/Snowmass and
Glenwood Springs (in accordance with existing operating plans), RFTA buses would
have to operate an additional 5,395 vehicle-miles and 240 vehicle-hours per year.
The cost of this service (in 1999 dollars) can be estimated by applying RFTA's
current marginal cost allocation equation:
Marginal Operating Cost = $0.86 X Number of Vehicle-Miles +
$26.85 X Number of Vehicle-Hours
Using this equation, RFTA's operating costs would be increased by approximately
$1 1,078 per year in order to serve Coryell Ranch. This figure, moreover, does not
include any funds for RFTA';s "fixed" (or "overhead") costs, such as facility
maintenance, administration, or marketing. At present, these costs equal $11.65 per
vehicle-hour of seruice, which would indicate a total allocated overhead cost of
$2,800.
Coryell Ranch passengers can be expected to generate substantial farebox
revenues to offset a portion of the operating costs. Fare revenues can be estimated
by multiplying the annual passenger-trips between Coryell Ranch and various
destinations (as shown in Table D) by an average fare per passenger-trip to each
destination. \Mile the "base fare" for RFTA service ranges up to $5.00 per one-way
trip, a variety of discount fares are available (such as the half-fare puch pass, a
monthly pass, a zone pass, and free service for children and seniors) which reduce
the average fare substantially below the base fare. Factoring ridership figures by
average fare per rider estimates, the total annual farebox revenues generated by
Coryell Ranch passengers can be estimated to equal $14,819.
. Page 3 -57-
Tra nsit Center/Park-And-Ride Lot Req u irements
Since Coryell Ranch is not directly on a transit line, we have made the assumption
that during the winter 75% of the Coryell Ranch passengers will drive to a park-and-
ride lot an-d the other 25o/o will be dropped off or picked up. Assuming an average of
1.2S passengers per vehicle, the 32 winter daily transit trips generated by Coryell
Ranch residents would require ten parking spaces, as shown:
32 one-way trips X 75 percent access by auto X 0.5 round trips/one-way
tript1.25 passengers per auto = 10 vehicles at peak
Experience in other mid-valley areas indicates that, if these spaces are not provided
as part of the project, Coryellilanch residents will dirve to other nearby park-and-ride
lots thereby exacerbating existing parking shortages at these other locations' ln
addition, nFrn wilt havjto ,aca[e'the Cowen Center park-and-ride in Carbondale
around July of this Year (1999).
Even if land is available at no cost to the transit system, surface parking spaces cost
on the order of $5,000 per space to construct as indicated by the recent construction
on CDOT right-of-way in Basalt of 105 park-and-ride spaces for approximately
$SOO,O0O. The.e r[".". would therefore require on the order of $50,000 to
construct.
ln addition, plowing and pavement maintenance for surface parking costs on the
order of $.75 p"r.{urr" foot per year. Assuming an average of 325 sglale feet per
parking space, annual maintenance costs would require approximately $2,400'
Recommendation
RFTA recommends that the developer dedicate $750 per unit to RFTA for a total of
$54,000. This money can then be used to construct ten park-and-ride spaces. This
number is based on iransit mitigation provided by the Rose Ranch development as
well as figures in this analYsis.
. Page 4 -58 -
'able A: Coryell Ranch PUD's lmpact on RFTA Ridership and Fleet Requirement
Population
5,000 (1)
Average Daily RFTA Ridership
Residential Land Use
Daily Transit Trip Generation Rate
(One-way Psgr-Trips per Capita)
Ranch PUD 187 (3)
Summer
427 (2)
0.09
16
\Mnter
844 (2)
0.17
32
13
7
35
0.20
Ratio of Annual Ridership to Average Winter Daily Ridership on Carbondale Service 253 (4)
Estimated Transit Trips per Year 7,991
lmpact on Required RFTA Bus Fleet
Proportion of Transit Demand in Peak Direction
Daily Passenger Round-Trips in Peak Direction
Proportion of Transit Demand in Peak 4-Hour Period
Daily Passenger Trips in Peak direction in Peak Period
Average Vehicle Occupancy
Required Number of Additional Transit Buses
82Yo
54%
ingDepartment.lncludespopulationofnearbyunincorportatedareas.
:2 RFTA Counts, adjusted by passenger surveys to identify location of residence (rather than location of
: 3 Assuming an average of 2.6 persons per dwelling unit
.- 5?-
EEiAEaWinter 1998 RFTA Downvalley
Trip Pattern From Garbondale Stops
Surveyed Trip
Distribution (1)
Estimated 1-Way
Passenger-Trips
Daily Annual
Unincorporated Pitkin CountY
Snowmass
Basalt
Eagle County
Carbondale
47o/o
60/o
15o/o
6%
8o/o
1o/o
2o/o
160/o
100Yo
82o/o
18%
15
2
5
2
2
0
1
5
603
90
151
1282
7991
6559
1432
SoLrrce-FTA survey of ridership trip pattern from
Carbondale stops on downvalley services
-60-
otal Upvalley of Project Site
otal of Project Site
26
6
able c: lmpact on RFTA operating costs and subsidy Requirements
Summer Offseason Wintei Total
Estimated Daily Peak-Season, peak-Direction 4 S T
Ridership by Season (1)
,verage Vehicle Occupancyventcre uccupancy 35 35 35
I Bus Trips per Day 0.12 0.16 O.2O
Days perYear 1OO 121 144
'otal Runs per Year
Miles per Run
Hours per Run
Service Quantity per Run (2)
Service Quantity per year
Mile-Related Costs per Vehicle-Hour
Vehicle Vehicle
Miles Hours
90
5,395
4
240
0.86 4,640'-Related Costs per Vehicle-Hour 26.85 6,
Total Marginal Operating Cost per year $11,078
Summer and offseason figures e 1997 ridership by season
lncluding deadhead travelto and from bus maintenance fi
for existing service.
-,> S/-
Table D: Estimated Transit Fare Generation
Annual Average
Psgr- Fare per Fare
Trips Psgr-Trip Revenue
Snowmass
Unincorporated Pitkin County
Basalt
Eagle County
1206
482
452
603
90
151
1282
7991
$2.34
$2.34
$1.54
$1.07
$1.07
$0.50
$0.50
$1.00
,- 62-
STATE CF COLOTUDO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 8.1 8
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3581
FAX: (303) 856-3589
http //water.state.co.us/defau lt. htm
May20,1999
Bill Owens
Covernor
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
RESEIVEDI',IAY 2 +19s
KWI(JD/coryell.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
MR JOHN BARBEE
GARFIELD COUNTY PLANN ING DEPARTMENT
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
Re. Coryeil Rarrch PUD
Sections 28 &29,T7S, R88W, 6TH PM
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Barbee:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide approximately 260 acres loca.ted
one mile northwest of the Town of Carbondale. This project proposes to create a total of 72 residential
units. The water supply is to be provided through a cential distribution system supplied by the CoryellWell
No. 13. permit no. S144T-F was issued on Maich 9, 1999 for the Coryell Well No. 13 pursuant to a water
,ltotr"nr"ontrict (contract #ggO22OCRC(a)) from the West Divide Water Conservancy District (District).
The conditions of approval on permit no.51447-F allow the well to serve a maximum of 75 single-
family dwelling units and aliow for the irrigation of not more than 51,500 square feet of lawns and gardens.
permit no. 51447-F is currenfly valid through March 9, 2OOO. lf a Statement of Beneficial Use is not
submitted for this well prior to ine permit's expiration date, the permit will expire and be of no effect.
Additionally, this well may be opeiated only ii a valid contract is maintained with the District, or if the well is
included in a water court decreed plan for augmentation.
According to the engineering report dated March 1999, submitted by David M. KoE, P.E., of
Schmueser Gordon Meyer,-lnc., thJmaximum day demand for potable water for this project is estimated at
53 gallons per minute. Fermit no. 51447-F was constructed as a monitoring and observation hole under file
no. MH-3S367 on February 16, 1ggg. The well construction report submitted for MH-35367 reported the
well produced 200 gallons per minute in a 72-hour pumping test conducted in February 1999. With
adequate storage capacity this well should provide an adequate supply for the proposed project.
pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1XhXl), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed water.supply is
physically adequate and will not cause mateiial injury to decreed water rights provided the applicant
maintains a valid well permit for the Coryell Well No. 13 and operates the well according to the terms and
conditions of the well permit. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please
contact Jeff Deatherage of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
/M-u 2/v
Kenneth W. Knox
Assistant State Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissio ^"r,
rr"y
b3_
PETER NICI{OTS 325 CR 106/Carbondale, CO 81623
August 24,1999
John Martin, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield Counry
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Coryell Ranch PUD
Dear County Commissioners:
I have been following with interest The Coryell Ranch Company's proposal to subdivide
the ranch because it is located directly across the Roaring Fork River from my house.
I believe The Coryell Ranch Company has made a responsible proposal for the
development of the property. In particular, I think that their site plan and densities are
reasonable.
I particularly like the site plan and proposed building envelopes that will minimize the
visual impact from my property. Designating building envelopes is a much better
approach than just letting lot purchasers build where ever they choose, which I fear would
be on the edge of the bluffacross the river, overlooking my house. It is my understanding
that the building envelopes are an integral part of the plan, and thus mandatory. Thus, any
change to a building envelope would require amendments to the subdivision plan and plat
that would have to be approved by the County Commissioners. I urge the Board to
include language in its resolution to that effect in order to protect the integriry of the
subdivision plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
k-h"G
Peter D. Nichols
cc: Larry Green
- 64a
RECEIVEDAUS26l9S
PREVIOUS COMMISSION
ACTION:
REOUEST:
APPLICANT:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQ
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMIV'I'n r s
lL,W:N
At the July 14, 1999 regular meeting, the
Planning Commission chose to CONTINUE
this matter.
PIJD and Preliminary Plan Review
Coryell Ranch ComPanY, LLC
L
Staff requested that the applicant provide additional information prior to the special
meeting. Staffhas reviewed all presented information and finds it to be acceptable.
(Staff Comments in bold.)
A. Include all setbacks identified on the preliminary plan as language contained in the
PUD zone district text.
The setback areas have been included in the amended zone district
regulations. It important that this information is easily disclosed to a
potential buyer.
B. Include all recommendations concerning porches and accessory structures from
DOW as restrictions in the P(JD zone district text'
The applicant indicates that the covenants and plat notes in addition to the
zone district regulations have been included. Staff would like to recommend
that language be included in the covenants requiring contact with the
Division of wildlife regarding any questionable placements.
C. The PUD zone district text shall define "home occupation"'
The term is now referenced by the definition found in the Garfield County
Zoning Resolution of 1978 aa.
D. The applicant shall provide proof of sufiicient water for the proposed guest house/
caretakers units or remove this use as a use by right in the PUD zone text.
The caretaker units have been eliminated from the zone text.
tr. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
That proper publication and public notice is not required for this type of action
before the Planning Commission.
That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters, and issues were submitted, and that all interested
parties were heard atthat meeting.
That the proposed re-zone of land is in compliance with the recommendations set
forth in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County.
That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
of 1978, as amended.
That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Subdivision
Resolution of 1984, as amended.
That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans, and designs, as required by the
State of Colorado and by Garfield County, have been submitted, reviewed, and
found that said information will meet all sound planning and engineering
requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations upon full compliance with
the conditions contained herein.
For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use, will be in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County.
1.
2.
trr.
J.
5
I
2.
RECOMMENDATION FOR TIIE PUD ZONE REOUEST:
Staffrecommends APPROVAL for the Planned Unit Development designation With the
following conditions.
All representations made by the Applicant at the Public Hearing and in the
Application shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified othenrrise
by the Board including, but not limited to, the following items listed below.
That the development shall not occur in stages.
That the access road to the storage tank adhere to the revegetation and
geotechnical plans ( CTL Thompson report 29 January 1999) as submitted.
The maximum height of structures within the Coryell Ranch portion of the PUD is
limited to thirty two (32) feet.
4
4
6.
7.
J.
6.
7.
8.
9
l0
The maximum height of structures within the Midland Point portion of the PUD is
limited to twenty five (25) feet.
The construction of all community facilities shall be undertaken in a single phase.
The PUD shall contain no fractional time ownership of any dwelling unit.
The PUD Plan as indicated as Exhibit 16, shall not be altered without County
approval and full amendment review.
The maximum number of dwelling units within the PUD shall be seventy two (72)
with sixty five (65) free market and seven (7) affordable units.
No commercial uses, other than those defined as Home Occupation, shall be
permissive uses within the PUD. /Zrul4-q4r
The PUD Plan as indicated as Exhibit 16 shall prohibit any access, either public or /
private to the islands identified north of Lots l, 2 and 3. Sl}rufr'?
The PUD Plan shall prohibit non-maintenance oriented access to the water tower
access road south of County Road 109.
The applicant shall provide a more detailed single phase construction schedule- ?
The applicant shall adhere to the requirements and recommendation of the
Engineering Report prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, March 1999 as
submitted in the application for the development of the preliminary plan.
The development and construction shall follow Best Management Practices and " I fin
:li,ilil;ilfi ff Hx::ntpossibre'potentiarimpacts*'*_*r-ffi ffi
The maintenance of all open space, including public acces(6eas-)hall be the ' fh.? u{/
responsibility of the Midland Point and Coryell Ranch Homeowners Association. 4V12qtl
The applicant shall compensate the County for retention of an independent
geotechnical engineer to review and monitor all debris flow mitigation measure
installations and all improvements affecting County Road 109 as identified in the
CTL Thompson letter dated 3 March 1999 and as identified on the Master
Drainage Plan.
/g, ilt/1b uD/// /u' s/f?L?u /4'u'1,h@ k'//h'4 'dc' ry- 'h-u"^- 'l'?Q'<
l3
t4
I l.
t2.
l5
16
t7.
5.
PRELIMINARY PLAN REQUEST
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING
PC7t28t99
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PREVIOUS COMMISSION
ACTION:
REOUEST:
APPLICANT:
At the July 14, 1999 regular meeting, the
Planning Commission chose to CONTINUE
this matter.
PUD and Preliminary Plan Review
Coryell Ranch Company, LLC
L PREWOUS PUD DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED BY STAFF:
Staffrequested that the applicant provide additional information prior to the special
meeting. Staffhas reviewed all presented information and finds it to be acceptable.
(Staff Comments in bold.)
A. Indicate an agreed method of financial security, from the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District for the committed number of taps as proposed for the project.
The District will sell 169 EQRS at $3,900/EQR in Phase I, to Aspen Glen
with the proceeds to the District totaling $657,580.This amount is sufficient
to pay for Phase II, bringing the total capacity to 356 EQR. Included with
the submittal is an engineers cost estimate for the plant upgrade, which
indicates a total cost of $657,5E0. Aspen GIen has committed to pay for the
costs of the up grade prior to reimbursement thereforE will continue to
provide the method of security for the taps, ie. Plant capacity, through the
in-place upgrade cost arrangement.
B. The proposed Pre-lnclusion Agreement with the Roaring Fork Water &
Sanitation District for water service must be completed prior to Preliminary
Plan approval.
The applicant has removed the caretaker units from the PUD which reduces
the overall water demand. The applicant has provided a sufficient water
supply plan, however staff is still concerned about the amount of storage
available for fire flows in the PUD if sprinkled buildings over 3,500 sf are
constructed.
C. The site plan shall locate the proposed duplex structures on the plan sheet.
The applicant has included building envelopes for the duplex structures on
the preliminary plan.
D. The applicant shall provide a letter from the Division of Water Resources stating
that no material injury will be caused by the preliminary plan.
Staff has received a letter dated 20 May 1999 from the Office of the State
Engineer stating that no material injury to decreed water rights provided the
applicant meets the conditions of the well permits.
E. The applicant shall provide a detailed view shed study to justify the thirty two (32)
foot building heights in the Coryell portion of the proposal.
A view shed study has been submitted by the applicant. Stafffeels that the
request for building height variance has been justified given the minimal
impact to adjacent properties.
F. The applicant shall provide emergency egress for all cul-de-sacs within the
subdivision which are in excess of six hundred (600) feet.
The applicant has proposed a gravel surface emergency access easement
connecting Spirit Mountain Road with Midland Point Road. The access will
be blocked to non-emergency traffic with break-down gates.
G. The applicant shall provide proof of sufficient water for the proposed guest house/
caretakers units.
The caretaker units have been eliminated from the PUD zone text. [n a letter
dated July 20, 1999 from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, the Carbondale Fire
Protection District has indicated that homes in excess of 3600 sf will be
required to be sprinkled per the 1994 Uniform Fire Code. It is anticipated
that the PUD will eventually be included in the Roaring Fork Water &
Sanitation District to allow for homes in excess of 3600 sf.
H. The applicant shall include the proposed guest house/ caretakers units in a revised
traftic impact study.
The caretaker units have been eliminated from the PUD zone text.
tr.RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAN REOUEST:
Staffrecommends APPROVAL for the Preliminary Plan Request with the following
conditions:
1. All representations made by the applicant at the public hearing and in the
Application shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise
by the Board including, but not limited to, the following items listed below.
2. At final plat, the applicant shall make ,ffin"ationy'"on the north west and
southeast ends of the PUD available for public access for fishing including
improvement of the public parking area identified on the site plan.
The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of the Division of Wildlife as
6rL bqlh
indicated in the letters dated 2 May 1999. and 6 June 1999
?p o,a*<tL"oln 1*, "At the time of f,netp*at, the applicant shallpeg.qqffift
6
7
payment of the tap fees for the entire project.
The applicant shall pay the appropriate impact fees as determined by the
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District prior to recording of a final plat.
[Section 5:31 (H)]
The applicant shall pay fifty (50) percent of the appropriate road impact fees at the
time of final plat approval with the remaining fifty (50) percent due at the time of
issuance of a building permit. [Section 4:92]
The applicant shall pay the appropriate school site acquisition fee as determined by
the RE-l School District and adopted by Garfield County at the time of final plat
approval. [Section 5:31 (H)]
All development shall conform with the water system design as set forth in the
Coryell Ranch and Midland Point Water Supply Plan from Resource Ensineerins j ^ f
dated 3 March leee [Section 4:91 (B)] Zrrr;n dUk .b,-rbq? f -ru*#f;EYdd*64[)
The Subdivision Improvement Agreement at the time of final plat shall compensate
the County for retention of an independent geotechnical engineer to review and
monitor all debris flow mitigation measure installations and all improvements
affecting County Road 109 as identified in the CTL Thompson letter dated 3
March 1999 and as identified on the Master Drainage Plan.
10. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations contained in the letters from
the Colorado State Geological Survey dated 17 May 1999 and 18 May 1999.
9
5
plan sheet [Section 9.20). /O/
14. "fne4pplynt shall be responsible for the cost of developing thefbite path ar
-itdibated:asa l5 foot bike path easement on-thp preliminary plan.uldl a.L+
II
t2
l3
15.
16
17
18
19
20.
At final plat, the design shall comply with the recommendations for mitigation of
settlement and distress to buildings, roadways, and utilities as contained within the
CTL Thompson report of 29 January 1999 and shall be adhered to during site
construction. ISections 4:60@) and a:70(A)]
The final plat, shall include a vicinity map from the U.S.G.S. quadrangle on the
final plat map indicating the entire area of the PUD. [Section 4 50.8].
The final plat shall locate the proposed duplex structure building envelopes on the
The applicant shall post aperfernraneebend in an amount to be set by an engineers
cost estimate to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners prior to
final plat.
Any proposed accessory structure as allowed by right in the Open SpaceZone
District, shall obtain written site approval from the Division of Wildlife, District
Wildlife Manager.
The Roaring Fork River sewer line crossing shallbe encased in a steel reinforced
system (concrete or steel) to prevent any possible separation of sewage lines in the
event offlooding, channel changes, or unforseen erosion.
A more definitive description shall be added to the typical cross sections to assure
that subgrade compaction or fill willbe accomplished at95o/o per ASHTO-180 and
include the depth of this compactive effort.
At the time of final plat, the applicant shall provide evidence of the instrument
through which the 6.29 acre conservation easement will be created and conveyed.
All covenants shall indicate that no permanent structures, including those
structures physically connected to the primary building shall be permissive outside
any approved building envelope within any residential zone district within the
PUD.
The applicant shall indicate on the final plat the ten (10) foot fishermen's easement.
The final plat shall indicate
parcels.
the forty (40) foot access easement to the expansion
2t.
22.
"/ //t'-'
oned ynior+o '
041 ??rvel4?c7, h'E
'/,/
23. The existins access easements to the expansion parcels shall be aband
-g,"+dat HL { o/A/u/L+'t^ { u*,/b|lu?1
r(
24. The applicant shall obtain all necessary access permits from the County Road and
Bridge Department for agcess to County Road^l
L
25.
26.
All parking f,rithin,the fUOfnaU be contained within the individual lots.d 3fii rdS, AtL
27.
28.
29.
AII road design standards shall meet County Requirements and obtain County
Engineer approval prior to final plat.
The final plat shall indicate all access to public rights-of-way and any proposed
easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
The applicant shall convey the seven (7) "affordable" units as indicated in the
application to the appropriate entity at time of final plat.
The following Plat Notes shall be incorporated onto the final plat.
"Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner."
"One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision and the
dog shall be required to be confined within the owners property boundaries."
"No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an
exemption. One (l) new solid-fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et.
seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling
unit. A.ll dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas
burning stoves and appliances".
"All exterior lighting be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior
lighting 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".
"That in the the pr,yd
gunicip system, the
ce remove
I said
Fina
tonnect
G)*ng sewage
within onE year ofthe ive date of availability."
@.Sitespecificengineeringmayberequiredtomitigate
potential hazards identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for
Coryell Ranch by CTllThompson, lnc. 29 January 1999, Job. No GS-2647,Part
III."
"The soils and generel geolngi. conditiens-
J**
#sh,h n
c
%*k4#n- 1/*/?
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
ENGINEERS:
LAWYERS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
IBBIGATION WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
PROJECT INFO OMMENTS
PLID and Preliminarv Plan Review
Coryell Ranch Company, LLC
Rock Creek Studio
Water:
Civil:
Resource Engineering
Schmueser Gordon N,[ever
Geotechnical: CTl/Thompson
Wetlands. ProfessionalWetlandConsulting
Traffic:Felsbburg Holt & [Jllevig
Balcomb & Green
A tract of land located one mile north.yest of
Carbondale, south and east of Hwy 82 and the
Roaring Fork and south of'the Aspen Glen
PLTD
259 44 Acres
Augmented Coryell Well #13, Central system
Kaiser-Sievers & Southhard-Cavanaugh
Ditches
Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District
Two Access Points on CR 109