HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 07.06.98PROJECT IIYFORMATION AI\iD STAFF COMMENTS
PC 6/10/98
Revised 716198
The Englurd/IVtoore Subdivision Preliminary
Plan
Charles Englund, Luther & Diana Moore
A tract of land situated in a portion of Section
32, T7S, R87W of the 6th PM; more
practically described as a tract of land located
approximately one (1) mile east of State Hwy'
82 and County Road 100 intersection.
The site consists of 13.964 acres.
Individual wells
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)
Highway 82 Frontage Road
A/R/RD
A/R/RD
REQUEST:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
I.
II.
RELATIONSHIP TO TIIE COMPRETIENSTVE PLAN
The subject property is located in the Low Density Residential (10 and greater ac./du) Area
on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1995, Proposed Land Use Districts Map,
Study Area I.
DESCRIPTION OF TTIE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is a vacant parcel generally located between the
Highway 8i Frontage Road and the Roaring Fork River There are no dwellings on
the property on the property. There are four (4) ponds on the property that used to
J
be a part of a private fishing club and a recently filled pond. There are various
wetland habitats on the property, related to the ponds and the river. On the southern
boundary of the properly is the railroad right-of-way'
B. project Description: The applicants have revised the proposal to subdivide a
property originally identified as being 22.6 aqes in size and now being 13.964 acres,
into two (2) tots (See revised plan riap /application pgt. I l' l4 j. The lots are
still proposed to be 6.474 and7.490 acres in size and will have only single family
dwellinjs on them. Each of the proposed lots has a building envelope in an area of
an existing pond, filled by dredged material from the other ponds. The 4.378 ac. of
Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA) right-of-way and a tract
separatid from the proposed lots by the river and the RFRHA R.O.W. 4-283 acres,
ilre no longer a partof the application . It was determined that the RFRHA R.O.W.
is a fee simplelitte, resulting in the other piece of property being legally separate
already from the rest ofthe property on the north side of the railroad. The residential
lots are to be served by water from individual wells. Each of the lots require an
engineer designed individual sewage disposal system. Access will be directly off
of State Hr"y. 82 Frontage Road, using an existing drive and an additional access
easement that crosses over an adjacent property owned by one of the applicants to
widen the easement to meet the minimum right-of-way standards for such a road.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AI\ID CONCERNS
A. Zontng: Each of the lots proposed meets the two (2) acre minimum lot size required
for lots in the A/R/RD zone district. The lots do contain very specific building
envelopes, located in the area of the filled pond'
The application states that there will be two building sites created as a result of this
application. The well permits indicate a single family dwelling with an attached
caretakers gnit. This is tJchnically a two family dwelling/accessory dwelling. There
are no provisions for a "caretaker" unit as a use by right in any zone district. If the
applicants intend to build the accessory dwelling and not have to go through a
Special Use permit process, the intent needs to be clearly spelled out as apart of this
application and appioved specifically as apartof the subdivision approval. At the
last meeting, the applicants stated that there was no intent to develop accessory
dwellings.
B. Comprehensive Plan: Until recently, the recommendations of the Comprehensive
planiere only advisory and carried no legal weight as a basis for a decision in a
standard subdivision that meets the zoning resolution requirements. In Larimer
County vs. Conder, the court determined that the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan can be used as a basis for approving or denying a subdivision,
.r.nifth. zoning resolution supports the application. One of the requirements noted
in the decision is that the Subdivision regulations must include language requiring
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Garfield County Subdivision
regulations in Section 4:33 does require "conformity or compatibility" with the
Garfreld County Comprehensive Plan.
One of the most significant issues addressed in Conder, that is subject to the most
controversy is the applicability of the land use designations in a Comprehensive Plan
and the enforcement ofthose provisions over the underlying znnng. The applicant's
planner has presented an argument that the designation for the property is more
appropriately the medium density residential (6-9 ac.ld.u.), rather than the low
d;rity residential (10 ac. /d.u.). He also notes that the Comprehensive Plan is only
intended to be advisory in nature by the language contained in the document' Staff
acknowledges that the language in the Comprehensive Plan does state that the
document ii advisory, but this was based on the legal precedents in existence at that
time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Conder supercedes those precedents and
arguably n.gut.r the language in the plan, particularly given the previously noted
SuUaivision Regulation language requiring "conformity or compatibility" with the
Comprehensive Plan. Staffcan identiff the location of the property in relationship
with the proposed land use districts and can within a reasonable level of accuracy
identiff the property as being within the "low density residential" density area. The
determination that needs to be made is general conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan. All of the lots are over 2.0 acres each, which is consistent with the underlying
zoning minimum lot size, but not consistent with the recommended low density
residential. The applicant's planner has made a number of statements based upon
"minor" constraints, as opposed to the "major" constraints identified as being a basis
for the low density residential determination. Staffs response to the statements in the
application are as follows:
Soil Constraints: Staffwould argue that any time an engineer design is required, due
to unusual soil conditions, that the constraints due to soils is significant, therefore a
"major" constraint. If we were accept the argument presented, there would only be
"minor" constraints, since in theory, any problem can come up with an engineered
solution. That, of course, assumes that money is no object.
ISDS Constraints: Again, an engineered system is required to deal with the turusual
soil conditions, due to the fill. Staffnotes that there may be other issues related to
the use of ISDS, that will be discussed in the section of this report dealing with
sewage. Stafi feels that any soil requiring an engineered ISDS is a "major"
constraint.
Floodplain Constraints: Staff concedes that the property is outside of the 100 year
floodfhin. This is due to the property being on fill material. The applicant's
geoteihnical engineer notes that the bank separating the pond that was filled for the
construction is not strong enough to support structures. Staffquestions, whether or
not the bank is stable enough to with stand the scouring action of flood waters,
should the Roaring Fork river change course during a flood. While there is no
identified flood threat, the closeness to the river of the houses, on fill. would indicate
a potential for problems. This would arguably, be a "moderate" constraint.
Land Use Considerations: Staff concedes that Road conditions and Distance to
Urban Uses are minor constraints. In terms of Land Use Compatibility, the
residential use is consistent with many of the nearby and adjoining lots.
Infrastructure Needs is non-existent in terms of impacts to existing systems. If the
systems were available, it would be staffs opinion that a connection to a central
sewage disposal system would be appropriate. As a gfoup, these areas are minor
to moderate considerations.
It is staffs opinion that the physical criteria and the "major" constraints associated
with these criteria, a reasonable basis for the "low density residential" designation.
Whether or not the applicant's density for the property is based upon the area
identified by deed orthe proposed lots, less the RFRHA R.O.W. and hillside, is the
issue by which compatibility with the land use map designations. If the property
originally included in the application were considered a part of the determination, the
proposed subdivision could be found to be compatible with the land use map. This
property was22.O acres and the gross density of the project would be one (1) d.u./
I 1.0 acres. Since the RFRHA ownership is considered a fee title, the property is
already split and the subdivision is 13.9 acres or an average density of one (1)
d.t./6.95 acres each. This would be consistent with the medium density designation
proposed by the applicants planner. There is the additional argument that there are
lots in the area that are less than 10 acres in size and have submitted a copy of the
map for the area that shows only the lots to the east of the project. Staff has
developed a GIS map, as discussed at the last meeting, that shows that there is a
significant portion of the propertywithin a mile of the project that are in excess of
ten (10) acres. (See map pg. /5 ) Many of the lots shown on the map were
created in small increments through the exemption process, which required very little
analysis of the cumulative impacts of small lots on the floodplain and ground water
through the use of ISDS.
In addition to the Land Use Districts Map designations, the Comprehensive Plan
contains a number of goals, policies and objectives applicable to the proposed
subdivision. The following discussion focuses on the applicable sections ofthe plan:
HOUSING
Goal - To provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents
equitable housing opporttrnities which are designed to provide safe, efficient
4
residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural
environment.
Staff Comment: The applicant identifies the proposed sites as being unique building
sites on which riparian areas are preserved. Staffwould contend that the trnique sites
are being placed in a unique location, adjacent to the river, that represent a potential
water quallty problems and require expensive engineering solutions to place the
houses on the lot. These lots will represent expensive, high income lots.
TRANSPORTATION:
Obiectives:
3.3 Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the
ability of County roads to adequately handle the traffic
generated by the ProPosal.
Staff Comment: Staffagrees that the transportation issues are minor in the case of
this proposed subdivision.
RECREATION A}[D OPEN SPACE
Goal - Garfield County Should provide adequate recreational opportunities for
County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLMruSFS policies
and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual corridors.
Objective 5.1 - Encourage the location of active recreational opportunities that are
accessible to County residents.
Objective 5.4 - Rafting and fishing access will be strongly encouraged during the
development review process.
Policy 5.3 - If physically possible, subdivision and PUDs will be encouraged to
design open space areas to become contiguous with existing and proposed open
spaces adjacent to the project.
Staff Comment: The proposed development meets the previously noted objectives
and policies in terms of the proposed dedication to RFRHA. The recreation
opportunities created as a result of the dredging of the ponds is only a benefit to the
applicants, since the ponds have always been and will remain, private.
OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
Goal - Garfield County shall develop, adopt and implement policies that preserve the
C.
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.
Staff Comment - The applicants have proposed to dedicate the property south of the
railroadto RFRHA. IfPJRHA develops atrailalongthe right-of-way, the dedicated
land may provide an altemate access to BLM property and the river's south side.
Soils/Topography: Included in the application is a current geology and soils study
done prior to the dredging of the old ponds and filling of the "River Pond". All of
the report is speculative, based upon a number of assumptions and minimal testing
of the site, prior to the actual placement of the fill. The engineers state, "the
conclusions and preliminary recommendations submitted in this report are based
upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated
on Fig. 1, the assumed type of construction and our experience in the area." The
applicant submitted additional statements from the engineer stating that the proposed
"pile foundation is feasible".
Road/Access: The proposed lots will have a single access point to the Highway 82
frontage road which is an access, shared by two adjacent residences. The applicants
propose to improve the common use section of the roadway to two 8'wide driving
lanes, consistent with the Semi-primitive road standard required for 3 to 10
dwellings. It is proposed to expand the right-of-way to 40' as required and meet the
other requirements for ditches and shoulders. Cross sections were provided as a part
of the plans to evaluate these criteria and as required by Section 4.93 of the
Subdivision Regulations at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Lot2,the westerly lot will be provided a 25' easement across the adjoining property
owned by one of the applicants. It is proposed to be a 12' wide, graveled drive. As
a driveway, it is not subject to the Cotrnty Subdivision regulation road standards.
Water: Enclosed with the application are two approved well permits for "ordinary
household use inside one (l) single family dwelling with an attached caretaker
apartment and the irrigation of not more than 6,000 sq. ft. (0.14 ac.) Of home
gardens and lawns". These well permits were issued based upon Water Allotment
contracts approved by the Basalt Water Conservancy District.
The applicants had Zancanella and Associates, Inc., review a pump test done by
Samuelson Pump Company, on a well on the applicants' property. It is not clear
from the letter, whether the tested well is on an adjoining property or is supposed to
be one of the two proposed wells. The location description is not consistent with the
descriptions noted on the approved well permits. Regardless, the well test indicates
D.
E.
that there is reason to believe there is an adequate physical amotrnt of water available
in the area and the approved well permits provide documentation of the legal right
to the water. Prior to any Final Plat approval, all of the wells will need to be drilled
and the following documentation provided:
That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used;
A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the
characteristics of the aquifer and the static water level;
The results of the four (a) hotr pump test indicating the pumping rate
in gallons per minute and information showing drawdown and
recharge;
A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well
should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots;
An assumption of an average or no less than 3.5 people per dwelling
unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day;
The water quallty be tested by an approved testing laboratory and
meet State guidelines conceming bacteria , nitrates, dissolved solids
and is deemed fit for human consumption.
Sewer: The applicants are proposing to use Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
(ISDS) for both of the lots. Percolation tests were performed by the applicant's
geotechnical engineer, after the pond was filled. The percolation tests indicated that
conventional ISDS are feasible, in the "upper, drier fill soils with proper design."
The applicant's engineer reviewed the information and recofirmended that the leach
field be of the "mounded type", due to the potential for high ground water and the
need to place the field on fill material. While the applicant's engineers note the need
to meet setback requirements, staffquestions whether or not the building envelopes
are going to be large enough to accommodate the residential structures, septic tanks
and leach fields. A leach field has to be 50 ft. from any water course or pond, 100
ft from any well. There is an additional 8 ft. of setback for each 100 gallons of
design flow over 1000 gallons. The applicants submitted a site plan, that shows a
proposed house and septic system layout meeting thgse requirements at the last
Planning Commission meeting. (See enclosed pg. I b I A 1000 gallon septic
tank allows for a maximum of three (3) bedrooms. If this limit is acceptable, it
should be noted on a plat.
Fire Protection: The applicants propose to use the remaining ponds for fire protection
purposes. The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District agrees that this will be
adequate.
Floodplain: Staff acknowledges that the proposed lots are above the identified
floodplain, but they are placed on an artificial fill. The geologic report is based upon
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
F.
G.
H.
I.
borings into the fill embankments surrounding the old pond. The applicant's
engineer notes that the proposed sites sit above the 100 year flood elevation and does
,roi f".l that there is any real threat from flooding. Staffhas seen a sudden change
in the course of the river during high waters in the early 1980's, that resulted in a
direct threat to a residence due to scouring. The floodway is identified as being
adjacent to the embankments, but only four (a) ft. below the top of the embankment.
t6is is an example of the river being a nice setting most of the year, but no real
concern about the potential hydraulic action that occws during a flood event'
The following issues
subdivision:
will need to be included in the covenants of the proposed
1. One (l) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision and
the dog shall be required to be confined within the owners property
boundaries. The requirement will be included in the protective covenants for
the subdivision with enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a
dog from the area as a final remedy in worst cases.
2. No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an
exemption. One (l) new solid-fuel buming stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-
401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in
any dwelling unit. All dwelling units witl be allowed an unrestricted number
of natural gas buming stoves and appliances.
3. Each subdivision shall have covenants requiring that all exterior lighting be
the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting be directed
inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may
be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property
boundaries.
4. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
5. All exterior lighting be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior
lighting be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the
property borxrdaries.
6. All residential construction will be consistent with the Colorado State Forest
Service (CSFS) recommendations for construction of homes contained in the
CSFS publications "Wildfue Protection in the Wildland/Urban Interface" and
"Model Regulations for Protecting People and Homes in Subdivisions and
Developments.
IV.
7. Garfield County has adopted a "Right to Farm" provision in the Garfield
County ZonngResolution in Section 1.08, which states among other things,
that "residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights,
sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal
and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and
a healthy ranching sector.
J. Other Comments:
1. Colorado Geologic Surve)r: Based on the documented geologic constraints,
the Geologic Survey agrees with the I{P Geotech report and
recommendations. After a conversation with stafl the CGS still agrees that
geotechnical investigations of the actual fills will need to have frrther
investigation, ifthey are to used for structural support. They do not see any
geologic constraints that would prevent development, if the proper
geotechnical design is done. (See letter pgs. t?+ [g 1'
3. Division of Wildlife: Enclosed are letters noting that there will be a loss of
critical habitat as a result ofthe dredging and filling activities. A number of
recommendations were made regarding silt fencing, dog restrictions and
notification of property owners ofthg potential problems that can be created
by indigenous wildlife. (See pgs. /?dl ;
4. Roaring Fork School District RE-l: The enclosed letter requests a school site
acquisition fee be collected as a part of the subdivision approval consistent
with a formula adopted by the District. (See pgr"Irs)
5. Colorado Department of Health and Environment: The Department provided
no written comment, which is technically approval of the proposed method
of sewage disposal.
6. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Based on the information provided
to the Division, stated that there will be a legal and adequate water supply
available for the subdivision, provided th4t the water allotment contract is
properly maintained.. (See letter pgs. ? C t
SUGGESTED FII\DINGS
A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Cotlrty Planning Commission; and
C.
D.
That the hearing before the County Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that hearing; and
That the proposed subdivision of land is not in general compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area
ofthe County; and
That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zonrng
Resolution; and
That all data, surveys, analysis, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State
of Colorado, and Garfield County, have been submitted and, in addition, have been
found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission can recoflrmend DENIAL of the proposed subdivision based
on noncompliance with proposed land use districts map designation of a minimum density
of one aweiting/tO ac. of land. The applicants argue that there are a number of lots in the
area that are less than 10 acres in size and that the proposed subdivision is compatible with
that lot size. Staffconcedes that there are lots less than l0 acres in size near the applicants,
but all of these lots were created prior to the adoption of the Proposed Land Use Districts
Map by the Planning Commission in 1995. Additionally, all of these lots were created via
the exemption process, which requires a limited amount of information and analysis to gain
approval. thl Comprehensive Plan was developed, based upon a better analysis of the
constraints in the area and reflects the current intent of the Planning Commission regarding
land use densities along the Roaring Fork River.
V.
10
B.
Sketch Plan
PreliminarY Plan
Final Plan
xxxxxx
ST]BDTVISION APPLICATION FORM
SUBDIVISIoNNAME:ENGLUND/lvIooRESUBDIVISIoN
OWNER:
-CHARLES
ENGLUND, LUTIIER MooRE, DIANNAMOORE
ENGINEER/PLANNEwSURVEY oR:
-soPRIs
EN GINEERING & LAN D DESIGN PARTNDRSHIP-
LOCATION: Section: j2-Township: 7s-Range:-t7w
WATERSOURCE: INDTVIDUALWELLS
SEWAGE DISPOSAL METHOD:
-ISDS.PUBLIC ACCESS VIA: HWY 82 FRONTAGE ROAI)
EXISTING ZONING:
EASEN/IENTS: UtiIitY
AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL/RURAL DENSITY
Ditch
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA:
(1) Residential
Single FamilY
DuPlex
Multi'familY
MobileHome
(2) Commercial
(3) Industrial
(4) Public/Ouasi-Public(RAILROADROW)
(5) Ooen Space / Common fuoa
TOTAL:
PARKING SPACES:
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Number
2
Acres
13.964
Floor Area Acres
sq.ft.
,sq.ft.
13.964
-ll
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
n " " ""8%11?Eo3',"pH8ir:EllTafuo
I 1 60 1
June 17, 1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Director of Planning
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Englund/Moore Preliminary Plan
Dear Eric:
Attached herewith is a revised preliminary plan subdivision application form for the
englrnOllrloore Subdivision with a revised legal description for the boundary of the
subdivision and a legal description for an access easement that is located outside the
boundary of the subdivision. The revised boundary of the subdivision will invalidate the
original public notice. The Applicant is proceeding to republish a notice for a public
nelring on July 8th, the date'to which our original application was continued to by the
Fdnniig and 2oning Commission. The publication deadline for the July 8th meeting is
Tuesda!, June Zg. The revised plat drawings will be provide to the County by
Tuesday, June 23th.
The revised legal description excludes the land south of the railroad right-of'way. Don
DeFord raised a question as to the appropriateness of including this tract in the
subdivision since ihe raitroad has drbady created this southerly tract as a separate
parcel from the rest of the property. The most expeditious solution was to follow Don's
iecor*"ndation and to republish'the public notice based on the new boundary
description and the description of the proposed access easement'
The revised subdivision now contains two single family residential lots' The lots are
6.474and 7.4g0 acres in size. This is a gross density of one dwelling per 6.98 acres.
No accessory dwelling units are requesteA. Rlttrough it has no technical relationship to
the revised subdivisio-n, the Applicant still proposes to dedicate the land south of the
railroad to the rail authoritY.
The proposed lots are not inconsistent with existing lots in the area. Attached is a copy
of a poriion of the County Accessor's map that reflects the general.size of lots in the
area relative to the two proposea lots. When all factors are considered, we believe that
the proposed subdivision is appropriate and consistent with the character of
developrnent in the sunounding area, even though it may not be in strict compliance
with all elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
- /)_-
lf you have questions or require any additional information please contact myself or
Luther (Lou) Moore.
Sincerely,
Ronald B. Liston
fu{42ru
Z!91'29a'OO'llt
Uqldr.l
S c-h.
--_xoxv .:tL'.I
r{ o.t :ERi*;
@ scru
Eirh-
@
@
@
n+)
t
a to!.
C
a
_ao *bp
e\6{;
*t Nb/lMoor
>uEOrutktoN
r\c"atsre\
@
3\^rr
@ @
@
suC
@
>\
,yx
H
14+L @
rl
--
A.
\
q
I
F\s
il
Nh
s
{
I
f-sil
FN
'g
$F
l.tts
- )5-
-:r
Pl.aEi{l
UND DEIGN PffiNEEBIP
918 CooP.. Av"
6l"..ood Sp.l.gs, C0 81501
Ph 970-9a5-??46 aox 9.5-a066
1}
\
Englund /Moore
SKETCH PLAN
OITCH(m.).
_ 6JrO
- llo-
BX r01J
PC a2J-a24
It
T
Y
I,
tt^tirJrl
-
JUN-@2-94 A3:3e Am COLO-GEO-SURV.3A3A942174 P-Ot
COTORADO GEOTOGICAT SURVEY
Division of Mincrals ,rnd (icolo1Y
Ocparlment ol N0ttlrill Rt'soutct's
l.)11 Slrernrarr Strcct, Room 7'l 5
f)grrvcr, Color;.rtlr.r 801O3
Phorrc (10-l) B(r(,-26 I I
tAx (l0l) 866 2461
Junc 2, 1998
sTArE OF CCLpRADO
Fost-iti Fax Noto 7671 )^" 6/2 lJ"Ett /ro fit,"J, R.=',,Ftwtt -'i;^ l^.r["r.[e
CoJD€Pt.c". e)9
Phoncr qls- zTgg *ono ''=.'3 br/- e/6 7
Far t c6r I
Mr. Mark Boon
Carljetd County Dcparttnent Buikling and Ptanning
109 8rh Strcct, Suitc 303
Clernvood Springs, ()O 81601
RE:tr)nglundMoorcsubdivisionGcrrlogicllazlrdRcvicw
Dear Mr. lJean:
Bast,d on o*r convcrsation Mondily, Junc t, l9?8, I would like to clarily and cxpotln9 ?n o.Yt
rcvicw 4atcd May 26. 199g. As statcd i";i;;i;n .l"l'his oflicc ha. revicrvcd the I'rctiminary subsoils
Stutly hy l"lp ccotcch dare<l March 3 l, lggd ;ii.r *. g.n"r"lly concur with its cc)ntcnt' we agrcc thot thc
bar,:ktill antl cnrbnnkrnent nraterials arc unr,iitnbla for-rcsirjcniial structule suppo-rt.t' ['atcr statetncnts werc'
..l,roviclccl thc dccD lirrrndatiorr and nroundJ rype septic systenls ,cco,rr,rrendations arc cornplicd with for
this .sitc, this oflice ljnds rro orhcr major g.i,ii'girll;znrcli that would prccltrtlc dcvcloprncnt.''
Our slaternclrts trbove prcsLrmc adttitional site-spccific scrils work wilt bc tlonc' Sinse thc
backlilling has alreatly occurretl, sitc sp"ciio gctrtcchniciJ invcstigotions will tre rctluired to dctcrntine
minirrrurn bearing ctcnrrtions of ttrc deep founUltiqns and the engirricring properties of the backfill' Wc
hav* pres.rucd that dccp frrunclariorrs *iiirr. Jesigncd.berau.i'*" trivc no inlbrmation whethcr tlre
backlill was propcrly placcd arrtl colnpacted structu-ral fill, as rcquired in thc.preliminary subsoils stutly
to c.rrrer,platc shall.w fourrdations rvrrc,nr.-Eu.iitt.,,,gtt thc.rcsitlenccs wili bc fbuntled on dccpr pilcs
bcari,g .n rhr.. packed rivcr grnvcl, t.to*l'.Jr .ngi^.iring ontu is still rcquired of thc huckfill rvlrerc
c.ncrctr,. flat work antl pavcnrcnls are contcrnplutecl. Ttrcsc nralerials, if not-pliccd.as enginccrcd till, will
he soft. saturarcd, nn,r p"*itiv.u,i',prcssitii.:.;.1 likcly rcquire a period of corrsolidatiott ttt'surcharging
iri,,i: iL .onstnrciiori' piuririco tlrc enginei:rin! and invesiigatioirs tasks arc dotte propc:rly wc fintl no
tond it i on s th at rvou I d prcvL:nt dcvt:lopnrent'
If you havc any qucsliorrs plcasc corltact this oflice at (303) 894-2167 '
Sinccrely,
M/Jonatlran L. White
DEPAI(IMENTOFNATUI{At
RESOLIICES
Rny Ntlntct
(iovernor
l,rrrr,.,. 5. I rtt hlrcu,l
Itr.r rttirt' l)irctttx
ivlrr h,r+l ll, Iurtti
I )tvi!i(rtr I )tl(1 ltrr
Vt( kr (rl\$,lrl
Slit(. Ciqal.,Airl
rrr.l l)itttlur
-l
Enginec'ring Gcologist
1-
fEIIIIIrrttrrrrtlrlrrtIrr
il{t-H
STATE OF CCLOI\ADC
COTORADO GEOTOGICAL SU RVEY
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
}l4ay 26,1998
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Department Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
GA-98-0025 DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Covernor
Janres S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Drvision Director
Vrcki Cowart
Slate Ceologist
and Director
RE:En glu nd/lVloore Su bd ivision Geologic Hazar d Review
Dear Mr. Bean,
At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the materials
submitted for this proposed subdivision. A site inspection was conducted on May 20,1998. The site lies
on river alluvium near Highway 82. Proposed residences are planned where ponds have been backfilled.
This office has reviewed the Preliminary Subsoils Study by HP Geotech dated March 31, 1998 and
we generally concur with its content. We agree that the backfill and embankment materials are unsuitable
for residential structure support. ISDS design must also be engineered on a site specific basis. Shallow
ground water may be a concem so engineered, non-conventional, systems will be required. Provided the
deep foundation and mounded type septic systems recommendations are complied with for this site, this
office finds no other major geologic hazards that would preclude development. As stated in the Subsoils
study there is low risk of potential bedrock dissolution and subsidence of the Eagle Valley Evaporite
underlying the river gravel. Potential lot buyers or builders should be made aware of this risk.
If you have any questions please contact this office at (303) 894-2167.
Sincerely,
M/ Jonathanl. White
Engineering Geologist
- lt-
.4s
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPOBTUNITY EMPLOYER
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
. .i,r.P,ip.s
s-14098
Garfield County Planning
1-09 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Bean:
I refer you to my past letter to you dated L2-3-97 regarding th9
Englund/Moore suldivision. fhe o'nly additional comment I have is
that the property owners do need to obtain a private lake license
from the coloraa-o oivision of wildlife. certain requirements are
associated with this to prevent disease transmission to the fish
in natural systems such as BIue Creek and the Roaring Fork River'
This license-needs to be obtained prior to any fish stocking'
I have included a coPY of mY Past
Thank you for the oPPortunity to
questions, please give me a call.
Since Y,
tDistriitatire Manager
Car
IILLi't-... --- -
q{AF}&Lt) O-tril{'lY
. letter for Your convenience'
comment. If You have anY
- lq-
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, JAMES S. LOChhEAd, EXECUIiVE DTECIOT
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chair o Rebecca L. Frank, Vice Chair o Mark LeValley, Secretary
Louis F. Swift, Member o Bernard L. Black, Member
Chuck Lewis, Member o John Stulp, Member o James R' Long, Member
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
L2-3-97
Garfield County Planning
LO9 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-
Dear Mr. Bean:
The Englund/Moore property is mainly comprised of ponds and their
associated wetlands and riparian type vegetation. A variety of
wildlife species utilize the area including small mammals
(beaver, muskrats, raccoon, skunk, coyotesretc. ), song birds, and
waterfowl. The proposed development area is most valuable to
waterfowl. fne siftation of the 2 easterly ponds have, in fact,
created better wetlands for waterfowl r^rith the variety of wetland
vegetation present.
The property across the river on the steep hitlside contains
winter range for mule deer and elk. It is adjacent to other
parts of the Crown which contain critical winter range for deer
and eIk. The current proposal designates this as open space
which hrill continue to benefit wildlife.
fmpacts to wildlife wiII result from the dredging of the 2
easterly ponds and fill of an existing pond. There wiII be
direct loss of valuable wetland habitat. Deepening the 2
easterly ponds to create a better fishery does not mitigate the
Ioss of wetland and riparian vegetation.
If the proposal is approved as designed, the following
recommendations will help to minimize witdlife impacts:
1-. It would be best if there r^ras a no net loss of wetlands.
Creating new wetlands on site may not be possible due to
property line constraints. Investigate the possibility of
creating wetlands off site to replace those lost
2. Maintain wetlands and riparian vegetation south of the
proposed buitding envelopes and along the river as well as
those along the westerly border and access route.
3. Install silt fencing along the south edge of the
development on the bench above the river and associated
wetlands (above the current chain link fence). This fencing
should be in place before any surface disturbance,
maintained throughout the development period, and removed
only after construction is finished and any disturbed
soils/sites revegetated.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chair o Rebecca L. Frank, Vice Chair o Mark LeValley, Secretary
Louis F. Swift, Member o Bernard L. Black, Member
Chuck Lewis, Member o John Stulp, Merber o James R. Long, Member-)o-
Sincqfely,
Kevin hrildlife ManagerDistri
Car
4.Allutitttiesbeburiedinaccessdriveways5. nestiic[-i" r aogZhome-with a kennel restrict'ion'
Kennel be cOnstructed before the c.o. is issued' This wiII
hetp minimize inpacts ["-*i"t.iing wtldlife across the river
6. Homeowners be made-"rit. of pioblems associated with
iivfnq .;.i"ilirAinq-rithin a ripirian zone with the
associated wildlLfe such as raccoons, skunks, beaver, deer,
and gees;: '-Th;-poW is-""i liable for damages to property
caused bryr these sPecies.
Thankyoufortheopportunitytocomment.Ifyouhaveanyquestions, Please glve me a call'
-a[ -
l1AY-29-98 FRI 01:14 Pl1 ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FA}{ N0, 9709459240
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 8160t
,TeTiiphone (szo) gl5:essb" :.:'.
P, 01
May 27, 1998
Mark Bcan
Ga rt'icld C'ourrty Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glerrwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Englund/Moorc Subdivision
f)ear Mnrk:
The following is subnriiletl in responsc to your request for cotnments on thc linglund/Moore
Subdivision:
As you at'e aware, Itoaring Fork Schoot District has clcvclopcd a formuta for determining school
sitc laud dcdication or fees-in-lieu-of tand dedication for rcsidcutial development within thc
district'.s boundnries. The District is requestirtg cash-in-licu of lend dedication to be calcttlated
in accotdottcc with the attached resolution.
Tlre District recogniz-es that this land dedication standard has ttot yet formally been adopted by
thc County. At tlrc Counry's rcquest we are working with Garfield Re-2 (Ritlc) and Garfield l6
(Paraclrutc) in an eft'ort to devetop a commolr standlrd which can be applicd for all three school
clistricts. The rrecessary data has been collected and incorporatcd into Roaring Fork's resolution
(attacherl) and has been provided to Garfield Re-2 and Garficld 16. Eaclr of their Boards of
Educntion witl need to adopt a resolution in support of the i'orntula. Because we believe tlre
attache(t rcsolution ctoscly approxirnatcs wtrat you will see in the final resolution, we arc
rcquestillg application of tlrc fonnula described thereirt. We hope to have a resolution lo you
soqn for all ttrrco districts so thst a urriforrn land-dedication standard nright formally bc adopted
by tlrc Courtty for oll three sctrool districts.
.__%_
l'inance [)irestor
'A)-
H
Enc.
HAY-29.98 FRI 01 :15 PIl ROARINC FORK SCHOOL DIST FA)( NO. 9709459240
EXHIBIT A
Roaring Fork School District RE-1
P, 04
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
Totals
Totalacres per student
Total sq. feet per student
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Reasonablil
Capacity
550
600
800
-T95-0
10 acres
20 acres
30 acres
Recommended
Acreage'
15,5
26.0
38.0
79.5
0.04077
1,776
+ 1 acro per 100 students+ 1 acre per 100 students+ 1 acre per 100 students
Recommended acreage for school sites is as follows according
to the Guide For Planning EducAtional Facilities published in 1991
by the Council of Educational Facility Planners, lnternational:
-)J -
Nny-zs-ge FRI 0l :15 Pl1 ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FA)( N0, 9709459240
5. Application of the fornrula results in thc following suggcsted [,ancl
Dedication Standards:
P, 03
Single Fanrily
Multi-family
Mobilc Homc,'I'railer
870 sq. ft per unit or .020 acrcs
575 sq. ft per unit or ,015 acres
1,261 sq. ft per unit or ,029 acrrrs
6. At the District's discretion. a developer of rcsidcntial housing rnay
nruke u cash payment in-lieu of dedicating larrd, or may nrakc a cash payurent in
cornbination with a laud dedication to courply with the standards of this Resolution. Thc
frrrurula to determine tlre cash-in-lieu payment is as lbllows:
Market value of the land (per acre) * [,arrd Dedication
Standard * # ofunits = Cash-in-Licu
For example, lilr a properly having a markct valuc of $50.000 pcr
acrc and I single family unit on it, thu paynrcnt would bc:
$50,000+,020t I = $1.000
B. NOW, TIIEREFORE, TIII] T}OARD OF EDUCATION OF ROARING
FORK SCTIOOI, DTSTRICT RE,-I RESOI,VES as follows:
l. The Counties of Daglc, Garficld and Pitkin, Colorado; thc City of
(ilcrtwoocl Springs, Colorado; arrd the Towns of Basalt and Calbondole, Colorado
('oDntitics") adopt a Land Dcdication Standard as sct forth in Part A of this Rcsolution.
2. Thc Entitics rcquire land dedication or a payrtrent in lieu of l,and
dedication as specified by the District in responsc to spccific subdivision rcqucsts as sct
lbrth in Parts A. 5 and 6 above fronr all residential Iand developers.
3, The provisions of this Rcsolution shall servc as thc gencml critcria
for the inrposition of school fbcs to bc rcquircd of all rcsidential land rlevelopers as set
forth in C.R.S. 30-28-101, et seq., as amended, with spccific rnodifications or dcviations
hereFrom to be madc as thc District responcls to speoitic subdivision requests as requircd
by statutc.
4' 'l'his Rcsolution .shall be amended periodically by the District to
accurately rcflcct thc studcnt yielcls existing within the District.
')V-
HAY-ig-gB FRI 01 :rE Pr{ RoARING DIST FAX N0, 9709459240
RESOL[I'TION OF'THE ROARING }'ORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE,.I BOARI)
OF EDTJCATTON RE,G/TRDING STANDARDS T'OR LAND DEDICATION ANT)
CASH IN LIEU OT LAND DRT'ICATION
t998
A. ,I'TIIS RESOLUTION IS PREMISED ON"I]IE FOI,T,OWING:
t. Roaring Fork School District ('oDistricl") has experienced annual
.studcrlt crrrollrrrcnt increases rangirrg from l.5o/o to 6.9% fiorn 1988 to 1997 and
avcraging 4.4% during that timc:
Year Enrollmcnt
P.02silsI"ro
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
t99y92
1992t93
t993194
t994t9s
1995/96
t996t97
1997t98
3301
349s
3708
3e2t
40t3
4288
4473
4658
4737
4863
2. 'l'hc District lecognizes the impact rlf new dcvclopnrcnt on thc need
for public land [r>r new schools aud has prcparcd thc following fornrula to oalculate a
sLandard lbr school land dcdication:
Land arca providcd per student x students generated
per dwelling unit = [,and Dedicatiorr Standard
3. Acotlrding to cunent school site sizc rcconrmcndations and
rcasonablc building capacities, the District has deternrincd tlrat t,776 .square fcct of land
per student shtrulcl be provicled lbr future "school .sites a-s reflcctcd in Dxhibit A.
4, The District has cletermined the nnmbcr of studcnts gcncratcd pct'
type of dwelling unit according to data ptovided by TIIK Associates as follows:
Single Family
MultiJrarnily
Mobilc Home, Trailer
0.49
0.38
0.71
-Jr
JUN-41-1998 15:11 DIU URTER RESOURCES 3A3 866 3589 P.Ot/@z
STATE OF COLOTUDO
OF;ICE OF THE S'ATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department ol Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 8I8
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 856-3sB]
FA"\ (303) 866-).s89
Roy llomcr
Gorremor
jsmes S. rochh$d
Executire Dirertor
Hel D. Simpun
State Engincer
Mark Bean
Gadield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Englund /Moore Subdivision
S%NW% & N%SW% Sec. 32, T7S, R87W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Mr. Bean:
We have reviewed the additional information submitted in regard to the above referenced subdivision
proposal. The modified proposat is to subdivide a parcel of approximately 22.6 acres inlo 2 residential lots of 6.4
and7.5 acres, with one single family dwelling on each of the these two lots. The remaining 8.7 acres is
designated open space/common arca and railroad right-of-way. There are several existing ponds on the parcel.
The applicant proposed to provide water through individual on lot wells pursuant to a contract with the Basalt
Water Conservancy District (the District). A copy of the contract was provided. Sewage disposal will be through
individual septic systems.
Well permit nos. 49280-F and 492E1-F were issued by this office on December 1 , 1997, pursuant to
contracts with the District. The wells are each limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family
dwelling with an attached caretaker apartment and the irrigation of not more than 6.000 square feet of home
garden and lawns. However, we have not received a WellCompletion Repoft, Pump lnstallation Report, or
Statement of Beneficial Use for these wells. lf these documents are not receive prior to December 1 , 1998, the
well permits will expiie and be of no effect.
The April 21, 1998 report by Zancanella and Associates, lnc., indicates that the Englund and Moore well
produced an average of 7.5 gallons per minute over a four hour period on April 8, 1998. lf the additional wells
have similar production rates the water supply should be physically adequate.
Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1Xh)(l), that the proposed water
supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid well
permits, and is physically adequate. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please
contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
\St*,.-
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPUCMUenglund2.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38
May 29, 1998
e b-