Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 09.28.99n- l/*fu *g),n6 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: PIID and Preliminary Plan Review APPLICANT: Coryell Ranch Company, LLC PLANNER: Rock Creek Studio _ENGINEEBS: Water: Resource Engineering Civil: Schmueser Gordon N,[eyer Geotechnic al. CTLlThompson Wetlands. ProfessionalWetlandConsulting Traffic: Felsbburg Holt & Ullevig LAWYERS: Balcomb & Green LOCATION: 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 PLID S-[T.]E-D{TA: WATER: IRRIGATION WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: 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 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is located one mile northwest of the Town of Carbondale, west of the Roaring Fork River and State Highway 82, and is 260 .r- 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 property is steeply sloping. (See location map pg. - & Illustrative Site Plan map pg -)B. Project Description: The project anticipates the creation of 72 residential units as indicated in the following development summary: Rural Residential Lots 29 2.001 - 5.348 76.548 Medium Density Lots 36 13,939 - 37,940 16.377 Affordable Housing nla 11,000 - 14,800 1.167 Right of Way 3 Duplex nla 17.372 I SFR .622 - 69.04 138 491 Open Space 7 6.294 6.294 Conservation Easement 1 6.294 .622 Utility Zone District 4 .027 - .503 2.567 Conveyances 2 1.468 - 1.099 2.567 Total 259.438 Land coverage is anticipated at the following rates: USE ACRES o/o Rural Residential Lots 76.548 29.51% Medium Density Lots 16.377 6.3lYo Affordable Housing 1.167 0.45oh Open Space 144.785 55.61Yo Roads 17.372 6.70Yo Expansion Parcels 2.567 0.99Yo utilities 0.622 0.24yo Total 259.438 100.00% tr. REYIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS a. The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District - states in a letter dated 5-l l-99 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. b. The Distria 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. The District finds that the proposed 200,000 gallon storage tank will deliver fire flows of 1,00 gpm. The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) 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 forth in the LIFC Appendix Itr-A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings and with fire hydrant locations in accordance with IIFC Appendix III-A: Fire Hydrant Location & Spacing . The State of Colorado Depnrtment of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife: reports in a Ietter 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 fuver sewer line crossing should be timed to protect the Brown Trout egg population. DOW recommends that the construction take place ideally on April I, but if flows are too great a second alternative is the last week in November tkough 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 acceptable Dow recommends that no deck hangovers be permitted. 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. Of the three ponds proposed for the site, two lie within mapped subsidence depression c. areas while the third does not. CGS is concerned that standing water may exacerbate water introduction into the evaporatic bedrock and increase rates of dissolution and subsidence. Also noted was if the ponds were to be lined. If they are to be, 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. Lot26 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 should be required. CGS stresses the importance of potential lot buyers being informed about the risks associated with subsidence in this development and further nots that except for a short note in a letter dated3-?-99 concerning roads and utilities, no mention has been made for recommendations in foundation design to mitigate this hazzard. 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 lead to pond water displacement and flooding of adjoining areas. The Countv Ensineer: has noted the followine conditions: The trafficgeneration 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 for 72 units. The County Engineer would like to see the basis and justification that assumes the lower peak numbers. 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 should be required. 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, channel changes, or unforseen erosion. A more definitive description should be added to the typical cross sections to assure that subgrade compaction or fill will be accomplished at 95o/o per ASHTO- 180 and include the depth of this compactive effiort. A debris flow similar to that which occurred in 1998 may occur again. The deflection berm system should be certified by an engineer to assure that in the event of debris e. flows the velocity of the debris slurry will not compromise the berm. The RoaringF'ork School District RE-1: has noted that the District has developed a formula for determining school site land dedication or fees-in-lieu-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 approval of the PLID, the District requests that it be applied. The Roarine Fork Railroad Holdins Authoritv: sees no impact 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 trail alignment connecting the tracks to that portion of the river. The applicant may wish to consider a future connection of the PUD to the proposed trail. The Roaring Fork Transit Agency: has estimated that the proposal will create the need for l0 park and ride spaces and generate7,99l one-way passenger trips annually at full build out. RFTA estimates the park and ride spaces to cost S50,000 with an annual maintenance fee of $2,438. The transit costs to RFTA are estimated at 54,375 annually. Fare box generation is estimated to be $14,819 RFTA requests that the developer dedicate $750 per unit for a total of $54,000 to construct the park and ride spaces. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSTVE PLAN Section 4.04 requires that a PtrD cannot be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The following three definitions Goals, Objectives and Policies are the basis of review for comprehensive plan compliance. l. Goals: A goal is a statement of values des:red by the citizens of Garfield County. Since it is expressed as an ideal, it is difficult to obtain. For example, a goal might be "to provide adequate housing for all residents." This wording is sufficiently broad to encompass all subcategories although it does not provide for the methods to accomplish the goal. Therefore. all -eoals provide the basis for subsequent objectives, policies and programs. The order in which goals are stated does not suggest any rank or priority. 2. Objectives: An objective is a realistic and achievable statement of intention. It sets out what is proposed to be accomplished and relates to a particular issue within the goal statement. An objective of the previously stated housing goal might be "to provide the means to encourage housing that is more responsive to the needs of the residents." These statements indicate second order steps needed to carry out the housing goal without going so far as to specify the actions to be taken. o m. Policies: A policy forms the basis upon which detailed decisions must be made. It is a precise statement of an action or guideline to be followed in carrying out the goal or objective. For example, the policy of eliminating practices that restrict housing production might be fulfilled by "providing a greater range of zoning districts and lot sizes affordable by families of all income levels." This policy, used only for an example, suggests specific actions to be taken without detailing the exact procedural steps involved. The application generally conforms to the Plan as described below. HOUSING GOAL: To provide all types of housing that ensures current 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. StaffComments are highlighted in bold. Some sections have not been included as they have no bearing on the application. 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 nffordable 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 may preclude development. 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 2t 2.2 23 .A covenants. The large size of the estate lots preclude them from this policy. The Midland Point units are oriented 19 of the 36lots in a true north south orientation. Solar power generation units are permissive under the proposed Covenants. TRANSPORTATION GOAL: Ensure that the County transportation system functional, appropriately designed to handle existing and future traffic levels and options for the use of modes other than the single-occupant automobile. OBJECTTVES: To encourage the development of a regional public transit system that respects the interaction between emerging land use patterns 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 County roads to adequately handle the traffic generated by the proposal. The development includes a traffic study which estimates 670 vehicle trips per day (VTD) with a peak average of 55 VT expected in the morning and 70 VT in the evening. Staffhas concerns that these projected counts are low, especially for the higher density Midland Point portion of the PUD. The study further indicates that the long term impacts to CR 109 and 108 are relatively minor. By 2001, the intersection at CR 108 and the two CR 109 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 llYo. Again, staffhas concerns that these projected counts are low, especially for the higher density Midland Point portion of the PUD. Proposed developments will include street designs that will reduce adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, respect natural topography and minimize driving hazards. is safe, includes 3.t 3.2 J.J 3.4 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. 3.5 Proposed developments will provide a minimum number of access points on through streets and highway corridors. Two access points are planned for CR 109. The applicant is also proposing a fisherman's easement along an existing drive. POLICIES: Staffwill foster a cooperative relationship with cities, counties and transit providers in addressing regional transportation issues. Staff has referred this application to both R-FTA and RFRA. RFTA has requested that the developer provide cash for impact mitigation, RFRA 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 patterns and transit amenities into project design. The applicant is proposing fishermen's easements / accesses and a bike path. There are no internal sidewalks proposed. There are no transit amenities, bus stop or park and ride areas proposed. 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. Development proposals will be required to mitigate traffic impacts on County roads proportional to the development's contribution to those impacts. Mitigation may 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; 3l 32 J.J 36 A. B. Both access points will require intersection improvements to the standards set forth by the County. C. Transit amenities; Although RFTA does not contemplate future selryice along CR 109, the applicant could provide a future transit amenity. D. 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. E. Alternative traffic flow designs, No alternative plans or scenarios were submitted by the applicant. F. Funding mechanism to implement necessary mitigation. Engineers cost estimates will be required prior to approval of any subdivision improvements agreement. RECREATION & OPEN SPACE GOAL: Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLN{/USFS policies and preserve existin-q recreational opportunities and important visual corridors. OBJECTTVES: 5.1 Encourage the location of active recreational opportunities that are accessible to County residents. The proposal is granting a 10 foot fisherman's easement along the entire river frontage of the PUD. A 6.2 acre parcel along the Crystal river is proposed for a conservation easement. 5.2 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision and PLrD 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 will be strongly encouraged during the development review process. 5.1 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: Developments that propose densities above one ( I ) dwelling unit per acre and exceed 50 dwelling units will be required to provide adequate recreational opportunities to serve the residents of the project. Alternatives for meeting this requirement will be defined in the Subdivision Regulations. The proposal calls for over 140 acres of open space for use by the residents of the PUD. Additionally river access and a bike path meet this policy. 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 Hrvy. 82 View Corridor as identified in the 1984 Comprehensive PIan has been respected in terms of lot layout and design. The fisherman's access easement allow some contiguity of river open space access. 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. 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. 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 52 53 5.5 56 l0 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.o(A) OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS GOAL: Garfield County shalldevelop, 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. I (A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development approved by Garfield County, 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 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 (CDOW) Wildlife Resource Inventory System and the Gar-field 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 identilied along river corridor. The proposal calls for preservation, through dedicated open space, of the entire river frontage areas nffected by the development. CDOW and the applicant have created the following conditions which have been integrated into the PUD. Coryell Ranch Lots l- 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. Coryell Ranch Lots 7 - 12 will a 75 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. The 2 designated points of accessing the 1. 7 3. ll 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. fisherman's easement are indicated on the Public Access Plan (Exhibit 7) and are located at the southeast and southwest corners of the site. The river park area will be closed to snowshoers, cross county skiers, etc, from December through March. Fencing shall comply with all CDOW 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. 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 Wildlife brochures shall be given to all property owners at closing. The CDOW 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 licencing 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 protect the Brown Trout egg population. DOW recommends that the construction take place ideally on April l, 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. 10. 11. t2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 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; t2 The Development of the bike trail and any other trail should coincide with Carbondale's comprehensive bike path plan. POLICIES: 5.1(A) AII 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 common property boundaries; b) The use of open space to provide additional buffering; c) Dog restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs and requiring kenneling, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The application complies with all above-named mitigational measures. 5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado Division ofWildlife Resource Information System flMRIS) 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. 6.0 AGRICULTURE GOAL: To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review. OBJECTIVES: 6. I 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 l3 6.2 6.3 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 AND SEWER SERVICES GOAL: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development. OBJECTIVES: 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 yields in excess of 1,000 gpm are possible. Staff has concerns that the current water storage at 200,000 gallons will not be suflicient for fire protection or for caretaker units as nnticipated in the application. 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. 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. 7.0 7.1 74 l4 8.0 NATURAL EN\IRONMENT GOAL: Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land and is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of Garfreld 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. Portion of the lots are located on treas with moderate soil hazards. 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. The site design identifies all physical features, including topographl, geology, vegetation, view sheds, adjacent development and wildlife. Garfield County will ensure 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 conserryation 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 uniclue 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 resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected. 8.2 83 84 85 8.6 15 Iv. The Division of Wildtife and the applicant worked extensively to ensure that the potentially impacted habitat and other sensitive areas have been protected. 8.7 Development will be encouraged in areas with the least environmental constraints. The Midland Point portion of the PUD falls within a potential mudflow/debris hazard area. 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. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERI\S Subdivision Resulntions. Planned Unit Development: fu 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 a.00) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. The applicant is requesting simultaneous review of a PUD rezoning application and a Preliminary Plan as provided for by Section 3:00 of the Zoning Resolution. Design and improvements standards for the planned unit development are defined in Section 4:00 of the Zorung Resolution. 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 Zoning Resolution, but also the standards found in Section I0:00 of the Subdivision Resolution. If there is a conflict regarding design and improvements standards for a PUD subdivision befween requirements of the Subdivision Resolution and Section 4.00 of the Zoning Resolution, the standards established by these Regulations in the Subdivision Resolution shall control. If there is a conflict regarding land use or development, the standards and specifications of the PUD section of the Zoning Resolution shall co ntrol. Zoningz The purpose of a PL-ID is to permit greater design flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative design for development than generally possible under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. It is intended that PIIDs 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 Agricultural/ResidentialiRural Density (A/R/RD) zone district. A. B. I6 C.Vehicular Impacts: Legal access will be provided by two access points along CountyRoad 109. Two parking areas are proposed for the fisherman's access areas located on the northwest and south ends of the site. Parking: Four ofF-street parking spaces per unit are proposed for the Coryell Ranch portion and two 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 2/99 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 (Updated 1997). The result of the study is a Level of Service Rating (LOS). The LOS rating is a qualitive assessment of traffic flow based on the total delay per 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 trafiic flow with excessive congestion an delay. The following summary outlines the projected traffic impacts: 1. By the year 2001, the signalized intersection of SH 133/Main Street, and the un signalized intersections at CR 108/CR 109 and the fwo site access/ CR 109 are expected to be at a LOS B or better durin_e both the AM and PM peak hours. By the year 2020, the signalized intersection of SH I33/Tvlain Street is projected to operate at a LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours: at the un signalized 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 of traffic 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, traffic along the CR 108 approach from the west to SH 133 is projected to increase by l1 percent as a result of the additional Coryell Ranch trips. This is significantly less than the 20 percent criterion stipulated in the State Highway Access Code which requires a new access to be obtained. ) 4. t7 At the rntersectlon of SH l33Avlain Street m the year Zo2o, comparrng background traffic delays (traffic through the intersection, not including site At the intersection of SH l33Avlain Street the 2020,companng generated traffic volumes) and total traffc 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. Stafffeels that this estimation is low considering the upgrades to CR 109 which the County is currently undertaking. 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 summary details the report: Water Supply: The Coryell Ranch Well No. l3 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 I l2 GPM and is limited for the serviceof 75 singlefamilydwellingunitsandtheirrigationof notmorethan5l,500 square feet ( l. l8 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 contract/lease with the West Divide Water Conservancy District (Contract #990220CPtC(a)) activated 1128199. The contract indicates an augmentation of 38.12 acre feet. As indicated on page 2 of the contract, states "It is understood 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 of the terms and conditions of this contract/lease." The zoning regulations require that a subdivision have a legal and adequate water supply in perpetuity. The language of the contract cannot guarantee this. The applicant has filed a water rights plan for augmentation Case No. 98CW3l0 and anticipates a decree in 1999. The plan anticipates the existing senior irrigation water and West Divide Water Conservancy District for all augmentation of the Coryell Ranch Well # l3. 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 of prioriry, 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-Srevers are anticipated for augmentation of evaporative losses during the irrigation season. Anticipated augmentation requirements at fullbuild-out will be 7 47 AF annually, with 5.2 AF is attributable to m l8 D evaporation loss and2.27 AF of domestic in-house use. The County considers an adequate source 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 irrigation 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 ofPublic 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 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. Equalization Use of 25 % of Maximum Day Demand 0.25Yo x 534 gpm x 1440 min/day : 19,080 gallons Ere Use 1000 gpm fire flow for a?-hr. Duration 1000 gpm x 2 hrs x 60 min/hr: 120,000 Emerqencv Use 2 x Average Day Demand 2 x 2l gpm x 1440 min/day : 60,480 gallons Estimated Required Storage: 199,560 gallons. The county standard for water use has been an estimation of 350 -eallons 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 units. Countv Estimation Use 350 gal per house hold per day 3 50 gal x 72 : 25,200 gallons Emer-eency Flows 2 x25.200 : 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 3,500 square feet due to a lack of emergency pressure for larger units. Additional, the Low Density Residential Zone District allows by ri-uht, detached guest and/or caretaker's quarters. If all 29 LDR lots have an l9 E accessory unit, the total number of units increases from 79 to 108. A general assumption of unit size in the LDR district is 3,800 square feet with an accessory dwelling unit bring the average square footage for the LDR District to 5,300 sf Distribution System: The delivery system is proposed to consist of a 200,000 gallon storage tank with a l0" transmission line conecting to a network of 8" distribution lines with l" seryice 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 lrrigation: The Coryell Ranch portion of the PLID will be served by existing raw water in the Southard-Cavanaugh and Kaiser-Srevers 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 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. AII 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. 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 efluent 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 20 F 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 for the 72 additional EQR proposed 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 convey and dedicate all facilities to the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District. State Health Standards. The Colorado Department of Health regulates the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District wastewater facility. The plant is currently operating under Discharge Permit # Co-0044750. G. 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 off site 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 fill in the floodplain. Construction of the force main will require a nationwide fumy Corps of Engineers Permit. Basins: The proposalcalls 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- Srevers 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 failure 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-Srevers Ditch and conveyed northward. Overflow controls are proposed for the Kaiser-Srevers Ditch to allow for substantial 2t 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 inigation ditches currently exist on site; the Kaiser-Srevers Ditch and the Southard-Cavanaugh Ditch. The Kaiser-Srevers 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 require a culvert. An overflow/turn-out structure is proposed to intercept the previously mentioned debris fan drainage and a separate overflow/turn-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 12.4 cfs. Historical flows in the ditch exceeded the current decreed flowage and will require placement of an overflow/turn-out structure to reduce flows through the southern entrance to the project. The ditch will require extensive piping and rerouting including up-sizing of pipe diameters nofth ofthe overflow/turn-out structure to carry potential increased flows created by runoff from overflow of the Kaiser-Srevers Ditch. On-Site: The Coryell Ranch Drainage Plan primarily utilizes dual purpose drainage elements for raw water irrigation 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 further 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 channel linings on steep slopes and at culvert outlets will be used to prevent scour. 22 H. 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-2647 Part II) which details the bedrock Iithology and the stratigraphy of overlaying unconsolidated materials and indicates 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 -eeologic 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-2647 PartI. 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 a surficial 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 laver 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 tbr 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 desi-en 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 occlrr at floor subgrade elevation it may be recommended to remove and replace the upper I to 2 feet of the clay with _qranular structural fill. 23 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 controlof surface drainage is important to the performance of foundations and interior and exterior slabs-on-grade. Surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid removal of surface runoffaway from buiidings and roads. 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 andPg.57 The 6 soils types identified in the report describe the tkee distinct areas of the property. The steep slopes to the west comprise Almy and Tridwell-Brownsto Loams commonly found on slopes of l-l?o/o and 12- 50%. The central portion of the site running north to south is comprised of Evenston Loam and Atencio-Azeltine Complex found on slopes of 6-25Yo and 3-6Yo. The lower river wetland and riparian areas are made up of Fluvaquents found on slopes of 0- l0%. The applicant has determined through studies of far greater 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 design. The applicant has provided a mitigation plan for deflection of debris flows which could potentially prevent another debris flow event from occurring across CR 109. 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. The District finds that the proposed 200,000 gallon storage tank will deliver fire flows of 1,00 gpm. The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) 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 forth in the UFC Appendix III-A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings and with frre hydrant locations in accordance with UFC Appendix III-A: Fire Hydrant Location & 24 I J. Spacing. The estate lot portion of the PUD allows, by right, accessory dwelling units. The water usage of these units and their affect on hydrant location, water supply and emergency access have not been addressed by the applicant. 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 characterized by introduced and native grasses typical of once-productive agricultural lands. The wetland and riparian areas along the Crystal and Roaring Fork rivers are 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. The application also indicates that the site plan intends to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation and to preserve the existing vegetation. Disturbance is anticipated only for the placement of the water tank and access road west of CR 109. Please see Exhibit 22,Yegetation and Pg. 58. Wildlife: The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Wildlife Resource Inventory System and the Garfield County Geographic [nformation 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 fronta,qe areas affected by the development. Natural Environment / Open Space: The Subdivision Re-eulations require that development plans shall preserve. to the maximum extent possible, natural features such as unusual rock formations, lakes, rivers, streams and trees. Where appropriate, the subdivider may be required to dedicate lands to lot 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 Regulations also require that public access and/or fishing easements to lakes, rivers and streams shall be provided as a part of any development proposal where it is determined to be appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant is providing a public l0'fishermen's easement to the Roaring Fork river with two points of access and parking and also providing a 6.2 acre conservation easement along the Crystal river. A bike path, separate d from CR 109 is also proposed. K L 25 M. 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 corridors. Areas ofsignificant slope and areas ofsevere soil hazards have also been included. Total open space dedication for the project is apx. 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 district, can require the applicant to provide sites and land areas or cash -in-lieu suitable for schools and parks when such are reasonably necessary to service the proposed subdivision. It has been the practice of the County to only require a $200 per lot fee. All maintenance of open space will be the responsibility of the Homeowner's association with the exception ofthe conservation easement, that is the responsibility of the Aspen Valley Land Trust. 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 ZorungResolution or PLID regulations which the applicant has complied with. The following lot restrictions by zone are as follows. Low Density Residential Zone District- (LDR Zone) Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) acres Floor Area Ratio: .25 Minimum Setback: Front 35 feet, rear 35 feet, Side Yard: 10 feet or ll2 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 ResidentialZone District- (MDR Zone)- Midland Point Minimum Lot Area: 13,000 square feet 26 N Maximum Floor Area Ratio: .25 Minimum Setback: Front 30 feet, Rear 20 feet, Side Yard = l0 feet or ll2 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: I l0 feet (at building setback) The Zoning 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. Streets & Roadway Design: The roadways within the PIJD are designed as two separate systems with the primary access to both Midland Point and to Coryell Ranch having separate entrances on CR 109. The roadways in the Coryell portion 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. [n 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 County Roadway Design Standards contained in Section 9:35 of the Subdivision Regulations. Typicaltun radii are25 feet at intersections and cul-de-sacs. Due to the lack of slope on the property, no significant cut and fill will be required. County access permits will be required for both access points. 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 turnaround radius of not less than forty-five feet (45') from the center of the cul-de-sac to rad edge and fifty foot (50') right-of-way for residential development and not less than seventy-five foot (75') right-of-way for commerciaVindustrial development where tractor trailer trucks will enter the property or by providing a T-shaped turnaround with a minimum turning 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- 27 desacs 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. The P{.ID 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 western reaches of the property, exceed the 600 foot limitation. The applicant has provided an emergency access easement from the western edge of Stonefly Drive cul-de-sac to an existing road which is located on the western edge of the property that connects CR 109 with near the bus turn around. All other roads terminating in cul-de-sacs will require redesign to provide emergency access. The request for the variance can not be approved by the Board. The request can only be allowed if emergency access and egress are provided d for topographical reasons. The applicant has not provided any evidence or addressed this issue. 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. P. Expansion Parcels: Two parcels identified as the Kennedy and Tomcat Expansion Parcels, are to be transferred to the respective adjoining property owners. Transfer of these lands do not adversely affect the overall scope of the proposal. a PUD Zoning: The purpose of a PtlD is to permit greater design flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative design for development than generally possible under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. The regulations require Zoning text to guide the development of the P(ID and to ensure that the high quality of design which the process creates, willbe 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: l. 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. AII building envelopes and road alignments should avoid site-specific geotechnical constraints to the maximum extent possible; 28 4. 5. 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; Steep slopes should be avoided to minimize disturbance to natural vegetation and drainage patterns; The project should include a mix of housing types, and integrate the necessary affordable housing mitigation requirements on-site if possible; The lot design should incorporate a sensitivity to adjacent land uses and the goals of adjacent communities. The Illustrative Site Plan (Exhibit B) has identified and mitigated the potential negative impacts to view-sheds, wetland and riparian areas, potential geohazard conflicts, comprehensive plan compliance and severe slope areas through placement of building envelopes, creation of open space and the siting of roads. The applicant is proposing five zone districts within the PLID. The Preliminary Plan submitted will also regulate the placement of houses but all setbacks need to be included in the zone text. The following summary identifies the five districts: I. Low Density Residential Zooe District- (LDR Zone) - Coryell Ranch 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: 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) 29 6. Maximum Height: Thirty Two (32) Feet Minimum OflStreet Parking: :4 spaces 2. Medium Density ResidentialZone District- (MDR Zone)- Midland Point Uses by right: Single Family residential uses plus accessory uses, except guest and/or caretaker's quarters; home occupation. Uses, Conditional: None Uses, 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 l/2 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: I l0 feet (at building setback) Maximum Height: Twenty Five (25) Feet Minimum OflStreet Parking: :4 spaces 3. Affordable Housing Zone District- (AH Zone) Uses by right: Deed Restricted, Appreciation-Capped Duplex and Single- family dwelling and customary accessory uses; home occupations Uses, Conditional: None Uses, Special: None Minimum Lot Area: .25 Acres Maximum Floor Area Ratio: .35 30 4. Minimum Setback: Front 25 feet, Rear 25 feet, Side Yard = 0 feet (Common Wall) or l0 feet for Single Family Lots. Minimum Lot Depth: 125 feet Minimum Lot Width: 85 feet Maximum Height. Twenty Five (25) Feet Minimum OflStreet Parking: = 2 spaces OPEN SPACE ZONE DTSTRICT 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 ZONE DISTRICT Uses by right: Utilities, including but not limited to pump houses, lift stations, water tanks and access roads. Uses, Conditional. None Uses, Special: None Minimum Lot Area: .10 Acres Minimum Setback: None Maximum Height: Thirty (30) Feet 3l v. The proposed PtlD text is insufficient to allow the County to enforce any provision of approval or provisions which may be contained within the covenants. Staffis uncomfortable with the vague language and would like to see information contained on the preliminary plan concerning setbacks and the recommendations of the DOW concerning accessory structures including porches, be included in the zone text. The application includes language allowing guest/caretaker units by right in the LDR zone district. The applicant has not provided sufficient information concerning traffic generation or water usage for these units. Internal Compatibility: The ZorungResolution 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 of the relationship and compatibility of the individual elements of the Plan, and no PIID should be approved which contains incompatible elements. The project contains a mix of residential lot sizes and housing types which appear to be compatible infernally 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 surrounding 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 contrast, vistas and open space; and (6) Uses within the proposed building. The Building height in the Coryell Ranch portion of the PUD proposes a height of 32 feet, which is the same as the adjacent portions of the Aspen Glen PI-ID. The Midland Point portion of the PUD proposes a height of 25 feet the same as the adjacent A./R/RD zone district. The applicant has not requested a variance in the application materials but it is assumed that such a request is their intent. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Garfield County Planning Commission. That the hearing before the Garfield County Planning Commission was extensive and J./. 3. 4. 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 plat 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 Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, and the Garfield County Subdivision Resolution of 1984, as amended. YI. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PUD ZONE REOUEST: Staff recommends CONTINUANCE, with the following findings/conditions: l. The following deficiencies which should be resolved prior to further action: A. Include all setback identified on the preliminary plan as language conrained in the PUD zone district text. Include all recommendations concerning porches and accessory structures from DOW as restrictions in the PUD zone district text The PIID zone district text shall define "home occupation". The applicant shall provide proof of sufficient water for the proposed guest house/ caretakers units or remove this use as a use by right in the P[,rD zone text. VII. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAN REOUEST: Staff recommends CONTINUANCE, with the following fi ndings/conditions: l. The following deficiencies which should be resolved prior to further action: 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 proposed Pre-lnclusion Agreement with the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation Disrict for water service must be completed prior to Preliminary Plan approval. B. C. D B. JJ is, The site plan shall locate the proposed duplex structures on the plan sheet. The applicant shall provide a letter from the Division of water Resources stating that no material injury will be caused by the preliminary plan. The applicant shall provide a detailed view shed study ro justify the thirty two (32) foot building heights in the Coryell portion of the proposal. 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 shall provide proof of sufficient water for the proposed guest house/ caretakers units. The applicant shall include the proposed guest housei caretakers units in a revised traffic impact study. 34 6y. i Garbondale & Rural Fire Protection District (e70) 963-2491 Fax: (970) 963-0569 May 11, 1999 Mark Bean Garfi eld County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Coryell Ranch PUD, Preliminary Plan Dear Mark. I reviewed the sketch plan application for the Coryell Ranch PUD. I would offer the following comments. EmergencY Resoonse errergency response to the development would come from Station 1 in Carbondale and Station 4 located on County Road 154. Access The general road layout appears to be adequate for fire apparatus. Addressins The-"urrent 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 uniforrnly 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. 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 RECEIVEDI'IAY 121999 ii Water Sunnlies for Fire Protection sofa200,000gallonstoragetankwithproposedminimumfire no*s of tO00 gallons per minute. The Uniform Fire Code requires a minimum flow of 1000 gallons per minute for one andtwo family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 square feet. I assume that dwellings iurg., 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 h.equi e*ents 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.,ruW Bill Gavette Fire Marshal /, -/b\* srare oF coLoRADO BILL OWENS, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 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 Garfreld County Planning 109 8e St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: CoryellRanchPUD Dear John: For Wldlife- For People The Coryell Ranch lies within mule deer winter range with use increasing during the fall as deer come off the mesa above to $awin the fields. It also lies within elk winter range. Elk use is throughout the wetland and pond area as well as in the fields. Elk are also dtractd to the fields by the cattle feed lines d the agricultural operation Bald eagles use the properly for feedirugand rest perch sites located along the river adjacent to the ponds and rrctlands as urcll as in the cottonwood tee located along the access drive and the ponderosa tree located along the top of the river bank at the northwest oorner of the property. Eagle use begins mid-late Nwember and extends throug[r Marctr/early April A variety of other small mammals and birds utilize the property, especially the wetlands and ponds. The wetlands/ponds and the riprian arca along the Roaring Fork River and Crystal River are the most valuable and sensitive habttat types. The applicant and I have met several times on site and agreed to the measures as outlhed in appendix H and on page 60 dthe aplication. These measures will help to minimize impacts to wildlife. In additiorU I would like to make the following comments and recommendations der reviewing the final plan: 1. The rrvetlands and riparian areas are the most sensitive and valuable habitat tlpes, 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 adap to the human encroachment into these areas and the amount of human disturbance. Certain restrictions are recommended to help minimize this dishubance. It becomes critical for the chance d continued eagle use, as urcll as other wildlife, that these recommendations be implemented as well as strictly enfored. If they are implemented but not enforce4 eagle use especially will be greatly diminished or cease. Dog restrictions and contol will be important, espocially duringthe winter and sprfug months. This pertains to the ripariar/wetland/pond treas as well as the pinon-juniper hillside along the southlrrcst side d the development. The P-J hillside receives heavy use by deer and etk In additiorL roaming dogs will cause problems for the adjacent working ranch on the mesa above the P-J hillside (Crystal River Ranch). I uould also like to emphasize cat control. Cats have a devastating impact on bird use of riparian and wetland areas. They also become easy prey for eagles, owls, etc. I u,ould encourage the homeowners to plant trees along the boundary d lots 1-11 overlmking the wetlands. This will help screen baclcyard activity and help to mininiza disturbance to the eagles using the urcflandVriparian arca Public access points should be properly signed These access points are specifically placed to help minimize disturtance to the wetlands and cottonwood area alongthe river. This will help continued baldeSe use duringthe winter. RoaringFork River serrvtr crossing- crossing strould be plmd so no cottonumod or ponderosa Sees are cut down or removed Those fees are impontant for bald eagle and other rapor feeding and restirqg perctr sites. Crossing strould also be done before fall brown tnout spawning (bdore Sepember t51 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chair . Mark LeValley, Vice-Chair. Bernard Black, Secretary . Rick Enstrom, Member. Philip James, Member Marianna Raftopoulos, Member. Arnold Salazar, Member . Robert Shoemaker, Member r- "-.',,\.'i,/!*rr \llV ' f, qrnq ffi Maintain as large of a rctback as posible for Mdland Point homesites M-6 - M-14 and A-1 - A-4 from tfrc br€ak dthc hill leadingdown to the petlands. There shoildbe no dsck hangorrcrs. The public pedestrian, fisherme& and equestrian easement should be placed at the topdthe hiU ard notbuilt into the hillside overlookingthe uptlandc Any areas of revegptation ofdisturted sites should also ha\re a ureBd control plan Water nells - what will be the impact d th€ unater wells and their use to the water levels in the Roaring Fork Rirrcr, especiatly drring peak demand periods and periods d low nater flow in the rivefl This nny be importart as it relates to the overall hedth d tho river ocosystem and its aquatic and fishery life. the wildlife bnochures which are to be handed out at closings should pertain to the seasornl and area restrictions for the protection of wildlife habitat (batd eagle use) as well as homeowners' responsibilitios they noed to irccept as ttrey build in wildlif€ habitat (including dealing with problem lvildlife such m racooolls, s*unl6, etc. and the reaons tot @cd control) all outside lighungbe dir€cted downward (down liehtin$ Thank you for the opportunity to comflent If you have any questions, please give me a call. 7. 8. 9. 10. KevinWright DisfrictWildli STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ffiDIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John W. Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1 1 92 6-9-99 Garfield Couty Planning 109 8'h St., Suite 303 Glenwood Spriogs, CO 81601 RE: Coryell Ranch Der John: On 3-3-99 I met with Aspor Glen to discuss some issues I recommended for the Coryell Randl. l. Roaring Fork River sewer crossing - there are several issues that relate to the timing of the river crossing. Broumtrort o@urs approximatdy S€pt' 15 - Nov' 30 depen&ng on a variety of factors, bald eagle use increases mid - late Nove'meber as they use the tall cottonwoods and ponderosa pines in the wetland and riparian area, and recreational use of the river is greatest dring the sunmer months. The trorfl eggs wifl be in the gtravel beds of the river urtil they hatch ufuich is usually complAed by Jure 1. Ilntil that time ttrey are susceptible to siltation and smothering by fines deposited in the river. Ideally, from a wildlife perqpective, the best time to do the crossing would be April 1 v/hich would avoid most of the above. F{owever, ,,ryater levels may be incresing at that time malong the grqssing more difficult. The next best time would be the last week in Nov. througfr the first week in December. A lot of fines will be deposited in the river brlt their effects on the trort eggs will deperad on how close ttre crossing is to any spaunlng beds. Brorrun trottr population in the river is healthy and crossing at this time may not have a sigdficant iryact. Equetrian easement - I was r.mawarethat a trail already exists uihich is usedfor horsm. It would be best to rltilize the exiting trail, rather than create a newtrail' Fishermen access points for the midlandpoint area arc OK. Setbacks forthe midlandpoint area appearto be OK. I still maintain my recommendation of no deck hangovers, vrtrich should not be a problern, based rryon the home locations indicated to me by Aspen Glen. Again, the greate'r the setback away from the top of the hill, the lesser irrpacts to wildlife and the welands below' Cc: Ian, Aspor Glen R,r",'ir,! r*-. * u.i j, c,U ,-it,jt' f 0 lSSg DEpARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Walcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman . Mark LeValley, Vice Chairman. Bernard L. Black, Jr',Secretary Members, Rick Enstrom . Marianna Raftopoulos . Arnold Salazar . Robert Shoemaker . Philip James For Wildlife - For People J. If youhave any questions, please gtve me a call. not the case, we would like to see the original maps reference as Figure I and,2 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 tenace 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 attributed 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 westem 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 hazardreport made it quite clear that spontaneous subsidence can occur anywhere within this development. The preliminary geotechnical investigation does not even mention the subsidencehazard and, except for a short letter dated March 2, 1999 conceming roads and utilities, has made no recorlmendations 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 COTORADO GEOTOGICAT SURVEY Division of Minerals and Ceology Department of Natural Resources 1 31 3 Sherman Street, Room 71 5 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 FAX: (303) 866-2461 STA|E OF COLOTUDO GA-99-0017 May L7,1999 Mr. John Barbee Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Coryell Ranch PUD Sketch and Preliminary Plan Geologic Hazard Review Dear Mr. Barbee: 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 willhave. A field inspection was conducted on May 4, L999. 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 Hazardand Preliminary Geotechnical lnvestigations 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 property. 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 hazardmaps 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 Creg E. Walcher Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State CeoloBist and Director 6/,/ E-lt4r DEPARTMENT OF NAIURAL RESOIJRCES ,$ECrtvED llAY 2 7 IE:u, flooding potential and flow direction if the pond water was displaced by incoming mud if another earth-flow event of similar magnitude were to occur? The consultant has recorrmended that site specific foundation investigations be conducted for lots in this development. We concur. These investigations should occur with the understanding that differential settlements could occur and options that include foundation reinforcement or reinforced mats should be presented. Disclosure of risks to owners, not just builders, must be made prior to purchase. Though geologic hazards occur at this site, the developer has made a laudable effort in complying with their geologic and geotechnical consultant recommendations and restricted development or implementedhazardmitigation in many areas. Provided the concerns and questions we raised above are satisfactorily addressed, this office believes that development can proceed for the Coryell Ranch property. Ifyou have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866-3551. Sincerely, Jonathan L. White fifr.r-18-ss 1I:2IA Coto Geo surwesz!fl. H 303A662461 P. Ol STArE OF COLOTUDO coroRADo cEot octc^r suRvEY m L)EPA]$MENT (,)F Division of Miner.rls .trrcl Ge.ology DeP.rntnenl of Nalulal Rrsoun:es I Jl J Shcrrlran Street, Room 7 l i [)enver, (.tr lor.ldo 8020] Phnner (l0l) 866.261 I FAX: (10:l) tt(r(r-24{r I Post-h" Fax Nole 7671 o"';/;wii '" ( /l-Jz Co.4}cgl ('-o c€ g l'horro S '"'''oioJ-Dgss/'YIVVVG Fur I May 18, I999 Mr. Jolur Barbee Garfi ekl ()ounty Planrring l)epartmcnr [09 8"'Street, Suitc 303 Glenwood Springs. (:O 81601 RE: (,'orvcll Ranch PUD Sketch aud Preliminary Plan Geokrgic HazardReviow l)ear Mr, Barbee: My review lcttcr nristakenly said thrrt the (l'l'L Tlrcmpson, lnc. gcologio rnaps wcrcnot availablc. They werc, itt lhct. I have rcvicwetl thenr and thcy rftr co-nfotrir with the CISmaps showll in thc application contprchensive plan. Please disregard the request at the errtl ofParugraph 3 of thc rcview letter datcrl May 17. ll)gg. Sincerely, M NATUI(AL RESOUI\CES fJill ()wur, Cuvelr., Crr.11 E. Walcher I xr.'(Ulivr.' D iicCtol Mrr lurl ll. lqrn2 I )ivirirrt I )jrr..<lrlr Vi( Ii (.,rwirrl .\l,rtr,(.;(1,LlHist rrx, I )i1t{1rtr lrEVW..!:,... Jonathan L, White Engineering Gcologist Garfield CounQ 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 Table 1, Trip Generation, I still question the rationalization behind having an AM Peak of 39 exits and a PM Peak of 45 enters for 72 housing units. I would expect these numbers to be almost doubled since a typical residence will have 1.5 to 3.0 vehicles and you would anticipate at least one of those vehicles leaving and returning during peak times. I would tike 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 .047vs.0025, Chromium .013vs.01, Sodium 9.5vs.31, Selenium .0023vs.0006, and Naphthalene .09vs.07. Although these exceeded values appear minor, I woutd like to see Engineer ceftification that fhese values are suitable for a potabte drinking water supply and pose no threat to human health. The legal source water documents appear sufficient and proper. 1 109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3i63 Summary of Concerns: No Concern Major Concern tr tr tr ! ! ! n Critical Concern tr E E ! D E ! Access Water Wastewater Drainage Roadway tr n ! X! Geology/Soils a,. Wildlife/Ecology X nor ConcernVe' X'11 V,V tr Mi (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 94s-7785 F/, k L 3) Wastewater: The centralized waste treatment system appears sufficient and proper. would like to assure that any river crossing of sewer lines be encased in a steel reinforced sysfem (concrete or steel) to prevent any possible separation of sewage lines 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 sufficient and proper. A more definitive description should be added fo assure that subgrade compaction or fill will be accomplished at 95% 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 recently occurred in 1998. My concern is that any potential future debris flows (regardless of the cause) will not endanger life or property for this development. As a separation zone and protective berm is included in the plan, I feel that this will alleviate any potential damage in the event of a future debris flow event. I would like fo see Engineer certification peftaining to berm design details fo assure that in the event of debris ftows the velocity of the debris slurry will 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. 2 I1A.Y-13-99 THU 10:29 Al1 ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FA}( N0. 9709459240 P, 02 ,fi." t-- ' FRED A. WALL. Surrlrinlenctcnt JUOY l{ FfONSTALL, Isshlnnt g)Ntialandant SHANNqN FELIAND, Fi/id/ncc DiodorTelephone (gzo) sl5-Sssb , May 13, l9t)9 I (inrlicld County Planning f)cpartnrcnt l0q 8th Srreet, Suire 303 Clcnwood Springs, Ce Et60l Ile; Corycll Rnnch PUI) 'lb Wlrorl It Mny Concern: 'l'lrc fbllr:wing i.s subnrilted irr rcspon.sc to your lcqucsl for cotnnrents orr l5e Corycll Ranch PI,JI). lirru. As you arc awarc' Roaring Fork School f)islrict lras ctevelopccl a forrnula {br deter.nrirring schootsite land tlcdicotiott or fees-in'lieu-of lRlrtl tledicrrtion for rcsitlcntial dcvclopurent willin thetlish'ict's boul1dspl.',. '[his forrnulil nlr)rc accuratcly rcllects rlrc cost of talrcl acclgisitigrr lhan ttrcAlllount cttrrotttly collccted try the Courrty ($200 pc.r urrit). For the Coryell llnnclr l,UD,application ol'this fortnula (see attachecl rcsolutiorr) reiuhs in ioral land dedication,f a^ ntn(tunt lc'ss thalr thc tttininruttt rcquirenrclrt fur a sclroot site. Should thc County adgpt the Di.stricl,sfortnttla llrittr to filtal approval of this PUD, the District is rctlucsting tlrat cash-in-licu of tnncldctlicatiorr hc caloulatcrl in acr:onllncc with thc nttaclrctl rcsotution. Shannorr Pslland Finrtncc I)irus(or HAY-I3-99 THU 10:29 Atl ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FA){ N0, 9709459240 RITSOLU'I'I()N OI.' THE ROAITIN(; F'OIIK SCIIOOL DISI.RICT IIIi.I IIOAITI)()T' INI)LICA'I'ION RT|GARDING STANDATTTIS FOR I,AND DIIDICATION ANI) CASH IN I,IUU ()F LAND DEDICAI'ION t998 A. TIIIS IIESOLU,T'ION IS PREMISUD ON'I'HII FOLLOWING: l' Roaring Fork School Distliot ("Distriot") ha.s expcricnoed annualst'uclcttt errrollmcnt ittcrcases ranging fionr 1..5% io 6.g% Iionr lgllg [o IggT anclavcraging 4.4Y0 durirtg that tinrc: Yc.ar lhXmeut 1988/8e 330tt989t90 34est990t9t 370st99v92 392t1992t93 4013t993t94 4288t994t95 4473t991l96 4(168te96t97 4737l9e7/98 4863 2' The District rccognizes ttrc inrpact of ncw dcvcluprrrcpt on thc lccdlirr prrblic Inrrd for ttcw schools nntl lras prc'parcd the {irllowing fornrula to calcularte nstanclard lor .sclrool larrd dcdication: l,and area provided pcr stutlent x .sturleuts generatcd per dwclling unit - Land Dcdication Standard 3' According to cttrrcnt school site sizc rcconrrnendolions andrensottitblc trrrilcling capacities, the District has dcternriuccl thut t,776 -squorc lbcr .f lanrlpcr studcnt shorrld bo provic.lcd For fulrrre school .sitcs as rcl'lectccl in [lxhibit A, 4' The District has detenttinccl lhc nurnber of .students gcnerntcd pertypc oFdwcllirrg ttnit accorcling to clata proviclcd hy'l'ttK Associate.s as follrws: P, 03 Single lfarnily Multi-l;amily Mobilo I lonrc, Trailcr 0,49 0.38 0.71 I1AY-13-99 THU 10:39 611 ROARING FORI( SCHOOL DIST FA}( NO. 9709459240 P, 04 5. Application ol'thc fbrnrula rcsults in (trc lirllowing suggr,-.stcd Lancl I.)cdication Starrdards: Singlc Family Multi-lanrily Mobile Ilonrc. Trailcr 870 sq, ft pcr unit or .020 l.rcrcs 675 sq. Ii pcr unit or .015 at:rcs 1,261 sq. ft per unit or .029 acrcs 6. At the DistricL's discrctiur, a developcr ol residcntial housing nrayntakc a cash payntcnt in-licrr of dcdicating lantl, o, *oy makc a cash payrlclt in combinction with a lond cleclication to conrply with the staninrrls of thi.s R"soiuiiun. 'I'5c Ibrn:uln to drrtcrnrins thc cash-i'-licu poy,r.ttnt is as follows: Malkct valrrc of thc land (pcr acrc) t I,and Dctlication Standard * # of units = Cash-in-l,ieu ['or c.ranrplc, ltrr a property having a nrarkel valuc ol.gJQ,ggly p., acrc and I singlc l?urily unit on it, tlrc paymcnt woulcl bc: $50,000 * .020 * I = $1,000 I}. NOW" 1'HEIT.EPORE. TIID BOARD OtJ F,DI.]C]NTION OF RON RIN(i ITOIIK SCHOOL DtS'tRIC'l'RE-l ITESOLVES as follows: l' 'l'hr"'Countics of liaglc, Garficld ancl Pitkin, Coloraclo; the City of(ilcrtwood Springs, Colorutlo; antl thc Towns ol' Basalt and Carbondalc, C.krraclo("lintilies") adopt a l,nrrd Dcclicaliou Standard as sct forth in Part A rllthis ltesolutio,. 2, 'Fhe [ntitics rcquirc tr.rnd dcdication or a paymcnt in licu of Lalddedication a.s spccilied by the District in rcs;ronse to specific sutOivjsion rcqucsts as setforth irr Palts A. 5 und 6 abovc fronr all x:siclential tand dcvclopers. 3. 1'hc provisions of thi.s Resolution shnll .servc as the gencrat crilcriafor ths itttpo.sition ot' .school fces to be requircd t>f all residcntiat la'cl 6ciclopcrs as setl'orth in C.R.S' 30-28'101, etscq., ius amcndecl, with specific nroclitjcations or deviationshcrclioltt to bc madt: as thc f)istrict rcsponcls to spccitic .subdivi.sion rcqucsts as rcquireclby .statutc. 4' This Rcsoltltion shall bo arrrcnclett pcriodicully by rhc District toaccuratcly rcflirct the studcnr yields existing within rhe District. I{AY-13-99 THU 10:30 AIl ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST EXHIBIT A Roaring Fork SchoolDiskict RE-t FA}( N0. 9709459240 Recommended Acreage' 15.5 26.0 38,0 ---se 0.04077 1,776 + 1 acre per 100 students+ 1 aue per 100 studenls+ 1 acre per 100 students P, 05 Elementary School Middle School High School Tolals Total acres per studenl Total sq. feet per student Elementary Middle School High Schoot Reasonable Capacity 550 600 800 -leso- 10 acres 20 acres 30 acres Recommended acreage for school sites is as follows according to the cuide For Planning Ecuational Facirities published in 1991 by the Councit of Educational Facility planners, lnternational: 05/12/s9 ITED 13:32 FAX s70704s284 MEMORANDU_LI John Barbee, Garfield County Plarrning Tom Newland, Roaring Fork Railroad l-iol(:lint Authority Coryell Ranch PUD May'12,1999 @ ooz &.1 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: I have reviewed the information submitted for the PL.l:".), which consists of a7?-unit housing dcvelopment on the opposite side of the Roar'irrg Fork River from the railroal right-of-way, The righrof-way measuresl00-fr:et (5Gfeet either side of the tracks) in most of this portion of the corridor although tlrere is a small section where the corridor measures'200-feet in width (100-fcct cith,:r side of the track). As there are no proposed access over or encroachments upon tire railroad corridor, I see no potential impacts to the railroad right-of way from the application. For the applicant's information, the railroad right-of-w'iry was purchased for public transportaiion and recreational uses. The current clrafi 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 rtr;ry want to consider a future connection to this trail during the development of tlrc l'tJD. The railroad corridor is also being studied for potential passenger and freiglrt irairr use in this section of the corridor. Thank you for the opportunity to conrment on this lar;t,l use proposal. Please contact me at 70+9282 if you have arty questions. \lFOAFr rc FORK TRANSTT AaENCY .7ASPEN, COLONADO John Barbee, Garfield County Planning Department From: Mike Davis, Roaring Fork Transit Agency Date: 05/06/99 Rer 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 these trips, and the additional annual subsidy required to operate service that meets these demands. Summary of Key Findings for Goryell Ranch P.U.D. Transit Trip Demand Annual one-way passenger trips: Transit Costs Pilttiod;peak d irection an n ual marg inat operating su bsidy: Peak period, peak direction annualfixed costs: Annual cost of 1/Sth of a new bus: Sub-total Annual revenues generated through fare collection: TotalAnnual Costs Park-and-Ride Demandil Park-and-Ride Costs @truction costs for 1 o spaces: Annual maintenance costs for parking spaces: 7,991 $11,078 + $2,800 + $5,316 $19,194 - $14,819 $4,375 10 $50,000 $2,438 {X - 1,/ Memo o Page 1 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 number of transit passenger trips that would be generated by these new housing units is to compare the land use quantities with similar nearby activity centers currently served by RFTA. Specifically, the transit trip generation rate of Carbondale was applied to the proposed population of Coryell Ranch (Table A). The estimated transit trips generated by residents of the proposed development is 16 over a summer day and 32 over a winter day. Annual 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 are particulary full southbound during the A.M. commute period and northbound during the P.M. commute period. This full condition generally occurs across all operational seasons between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. lt is therefore necessary to evaluate the potential transit 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 Coryell Ranch passengers. As seen in Table B, 18 percent of the passengers will be traveling to and from Glenwood Springs and 82 percent are traveling Southward to Basalt, 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 problems are most severe. RFTA's transit development plan indicates that 54 percent of the ridership in the upvalley direction occurs during the peak four-hour period (the cycle time of one round trip). \f/hile the existing buses typically used for Downvalley Service have 42 seats, it is not reasonable to expect that all additional buses put into service will be fully utilized, due to variation in demand over the peak period. Assuming 35 passengers as an . Page2 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 bus-trip to identiflT 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 24O 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 $11,078 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 service, 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. \Nhile 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. o Page 3 Transit 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 and the other 25%will be dropped off or picked up. Assuming an average of 1.25 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 lripll .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, Coryell Ranch residents will dirve to other nearby park-and-ride lots thereby exacerbating existing parking shortages at these other locations. ln addition, RFTA will have to vacate 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 $500,000. These spaces 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 per square foot per year. Assuming an average of 325 square 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 transit mitigation provided by the Rose Ranch development as well as figures in this analysis. . Page4 Table A: Goryell Ranch PUD's lmpact on RFTA Ridership and FIeet Requirement Average Daily RFTA Ridership Pooulation 5,000 (1) Summer Winter 844 (2) 0.17 32 Daily Transit Trip Generation Rate (One-way Psgr-Trips per Capita) Ranch PUD 187 (3) 427 (2) 0.09 16 Ratio of Annual Ridership to Average Winter Daily Ridership on Carbondale Service 253 (4) Estimated Transit Trips per Year 7,991 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 82o/o 54o/o 13 7 35 0.20 : 1 Source - Carbondale Planning Department. lncludes population of nearby unincorportated areas. 2 RFTA Counts, adjusted by passenger surveys to identify location of residence (rather than location of boarding). : 3 Assuming an average of 2.6 persons per dwelling unit lmpact on Required RFTA Bus Fleet able B: Winter 1998 RFTA Downvalley Seruice Ridership Trip Pattern From Garbondale Stops Surveyed Trip Distribution (1) Estimated 1-Way Passenger-Trips Daily Annual Unincorporated Pitkin County Snowmass Basalt Eagle County Carbondale Garfield County Glenwood 47o/o 60/o 15o/o 6% 8o/o 1o/o 2o/o 160/o 100% 15 2 5 2 2 0 1 5 Total Upvalley of Project Site Total Downvalley of Project Site Source: RFTA survey of ridership trip pattern from Carbondale stops on downvalley services 3724 482 1206 Table C: lmpact on RFTA Operating Costs and Subsidy Requirements Summer Offseason Winter Total Estimated Daily Peak-Season, Peak-Direction 4 5 7 Ridership by Season (1) Average Vehicle Occupancy 35 35 35 Additional Bus Trips per Day 0.12 0.16 O.2O Days perYear 100 121 144 Total Runs per Year 60 iles per Run Hours per Run Service Quantity per Run (2) Service Quantity per Year Vehicle Vehicle Miles Hours 904 5,395 240 ile-Related Costs per Vehicle-Hour 0.86 Hour-Related Costs per Vehicle-Hour 26.85 otal Marginal Operating Cost per Year Note 1 : Summer and offseason figures estimated based upon proportion of 1997 ridership by season for existing service. Note 2: lncluding deadhead travelto and from bus maintenance facility. 4,640 6,438 $11,078 : Estimated Transit Fare Generation Annual Average Psgr- Fare per Fare rip End Trips Psgr-Trip Revenue 1206 482 452 603 90 151 1282 7991 $2.34 $1.54 $1.07 $1.07 $0.50 $0.50 $1.00 $8,727 $2,827 $741 $482 $6+z $+s $75 $1,279 Pitkin County $14,81 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 'l 31 3 Sherman Street, Room 81 8 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3581 FAX: (303) 866-3s89 http ://water.state.co. us/defau lt. htm d9, o STA|E OF COLOIGDO May20,1999 MR JOHN BARBEE GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Re: Coryell R.arrch 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 located 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 central distribution system supplied by the Coryell Well No. 13. Permit no.51447-F was issued on March 9, 1999 for the Coryell Well No. 13 pursuant to a water allotment contract (contract #990220CRC(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 allow for the irrigation of not more than 51,500 square feet of lawns and gardens. Permit no. 51447-F is currently valid through March 9, 2000. lf a Statement of Beneficial Use is not submitted for this well prior to the permit's expiration date, the permit will expire and be of no effect. Additionally, this well may be operated only if 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. Kotz, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, lnc., the maximum day demand for potable water for this proJect is estimated at 53 gallons per minute. Permit no. 51447-F was constructed as a monitoring and observation hole under file no. MH-35367 on February 16, 1999. The well construction report submitted for MH-35367 reported the well produced 200 gallons per minute in a72-hour pumping test conducted in February 1999. With adequate storage capacity this well should provide an adequate supply for the proposed prolect. 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 material 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, Bill Owens Covernor Creg E. Walcher Executive Director Hal D. Simpson, P.E State Engineer /L*rt-D 21,?< Kenneth W. Knox Assistant State Engineer KWI(JD/coryell.doc cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38 RECIEtVEDt{AY 2 +19ffi rt,P PETER NIEHOLS 325 CR 106/Carbondale, CO 81623 August 24,1999 John Martin, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re. Corvell Ranch PLJD 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 integrity of the subdivision plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /#-h"G Peter D. Nichols cc: Larry Green RECEIVEDAUS26l9S GOLLEEN D. TRUDEN, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 159 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 September 13, 1999 John Martin, Chair Larry McCown Walt Stowe Garfield County Commissioners 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 re: Coryell Ranch PUD and Preliminary Plan Dear County Commissioners: GABf,|EID COU}JIY MMilI$fl O}Effi ROUTEtr Johntr Lorry El Wolt My client, Crystal River Ranch, LLP has the following concern regarding the above proposal. Contained within the plans submitted for consideration of approval are references to underlying reports or documentation concerning the July 1998 mudslide on County Road 109. We have attempted to review the underlying reports referenced generally in the lntroduction, and again in Appendix F Geotechnical section, of the Coryell PUD and Preliminary Plan, submitted. The proponents of the report have not been forthcoming with the underlying documentation despite the requests and the efforts by the County Planning and Zoning Department to obtain the information. The document requested is a letter dated July 28, 1998 by CTL, lnc. (CTL/T Job. No. GS- 2494\. This report concerns my client, Crystal River Ranch, particularly, because of the comments made by a Planning and Zoning Commission member during the meeting on July 28, 1999. Ms. Chandler made the blanket assumption and statement, based in part on the statements contained in the documents provided for their review, that the mudslide was a direct result from irrigation practices by my client. To the contrary, the County Attorney and County Engineer, attempting to clarify any misperceptions d-& P.C. Telephone: (970) 945-01 32 Facsimile: (970) 945-4955 718 CooperAvenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 SEP 13 Garfield County Commissioners Coryell PUD and Preliminary Plan September 13, 1999 Page Two in the summer of 1998, stated during the August 3, 1998 County Commissioners' meeting, as reflected in the minutes attached. Apparently those misperceptions continue, as a direct result of the continued use of documentation referred to, but not provided for my client's comment. We request the underlying documentation for my client's review and comment. We-also want to correct any misperceptions that my client's irrigation practices caused the mudslide in July 1998 on County Road 10g. Thank you for your attention to and consideration of this request. Very truly yours, Colleen D. Truden Enclosure cc: Crystal River Ranch, LLP 718 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 DRAFT COPY AUGUST 3. 1998 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO The regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners began at 8:00 A.M. on Monday, August 3, 1998 with Chairman Marian Smith and Commissioners Larry McCown and John Martin present. Also present were Interim County Administrator Dale Hancock and Mark Assistant County Administrator Allen Sartin; and Clerk and Recorder Mildred Alsdorf. Excerpt from Minutes COUNTY ATTORNEY County Road 109 - Mud Slide County Attorney Don DeFord and County Engineer Bob Szrot gave a report on the outcome of the investigation of the mud slide that occurred on County Road 109. Don stated a couple of weeks ago when we had the landslide on County Road 109, he had brought to the Board's attention the potential causes of that landslide. Since that date Bob Szrot has had a chance to look at that issue and has reached some professional opinions which were relayed to Don. Bob thinks there are various reasons why that slide occurred. The landowner for the Crystal Springs Ranch is concerned that the record be cleared up on this issue because they are showing what initially came to Don's offrce. Don said he thinks that it was inaccurately reported that there was the potential that irrigation practices led to this slide. Bob's conclusion at this point is that this is unlikely. Don asked Bob to make a statement to the Board and on the record. Bob Szrot presented a drawing on the board that illustrated his finding. tle said he went out there and looking at a top view; he saw the slide area generally looked like this (illustrated in a drawing). Another thing that was interesting was about 150 feet away from the slide area is a natural draw and drainage. So King and Bob were up there and looked at this. (Bob illustrated in a drawing the side view.) What he noted is in several areas, 15 - 20 feet down from the existing surface, was a view of cobbles and what this represented to him is an underground water wayofsomesort. Lookingatthesoilontheedsesoftheslideareafhisannca"e.lrnhoo.lo,"oo.