HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.01 PC Staff Report 05.14.1997• •
PC 5/14/97
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Four Mile Ranch Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
APPLICANTS: Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture
LOCATION: A tract of land located in a portion of
Section 34, T6S. R89W; located south
of Glenwood Springs off of CR 117.
SITE DATA: 138.773 acres
WATER: Central water from on site wells
SEWER: City of Glenwood Springs
ACCESS: County Road 117
EXISTING ZONING: ASD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD, City of Glenwood Springs
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is designated High Density Residential ( 2 or less ac./du) and Low
Density Residential (10+ ac/du) as shown on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan,
Study Area I, Proposed Land Use Districts , Glenwood Springs Quadrangle map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is located south of Glenwood Springs on a terrace
above the Roaring Fork river. The majority of the property slopes gently from the
northeast to the southwest and is used for grazing and crop land. The southeastern
portion of the property is a steep hill side adjacent to the Roaring Fork river with
1
• •
slopes in excess of 40% grade. There is an old farm house and a few other
agricultural buildings.
B. Project Description: It is proposed to split the 13837 acre site into 58 single-family
lots averaging just over two acres in size. The developers are proposing to serve the
developments water needs by a central water system supplied by a well or wells and
pumped to a 300,000 gallon storage tank. Sewage will be treated by the connection
with the City of Glenwood Springs sewage treatment system. Primary access will
be provided from County Road 117 via a looped road system with two cul-de-sacs
off of the loop, with a 20' wide emergency access easement to one cul-de-sac on the
north side of the development. The primary road system will be built to City of
Glenwood Springs standards.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: Each of the lots proposed meets the two (2) acre minimum lot size required
for lots in the A/R/RD zone district. All of the proposed lots do not contain any of
the proposed internal street access system, as it was proposed in the Sketch Plan.
The lots do contain a proposed "open space easement" that will restrict the building
area of each lot, since each lot owner will be prohibited from placing structures in the
open space easement.
It is proposed that there will be a homeowners association created for the purpose of
having an entity to dedicate the open space and to have the right to construct any
common amenities placed on the property in question. Each lot owner will be
required to maintain the portion of their lot in a natural state, but allow the
homeowners association to build structures such as trails and landscaping.
In addition to the previou • d open space easement, the applicant is proposing
to dedicate 2.3 acre of and t• the City of Glenwood Springs for open space
purposes. The grope : • - • edicated is between the river and County Road 163..
The City of Glenwood Springs was scheduled to consider an open space dedication
agreement on May 1,1997, but declined to do so since the City Attorney was out of
town on that date.
There is a zoning requirement that each lot have at least one (1) acre o f lot area, less
than 40% slope. Lots 15 to 20 appear to have substantial portions of the lot area with
slopes over 40%. The ap is is engineer has provided an analysis of these lots and
demonstrated that each 1 t ha t least one (1) acre of buildable area with slopes less
than 40% each.
B. Comprehensive Plan: As noted previously, the area proposed for development is
designated as a high density area due to the proximity to the City of Glenwood
2
• •
Springs water, sewer and road systems. High density growth is encouraged in areas
that have central water and sewer systems available or potentially able to annex to
a municipality.
Until recently, the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan were only advisory
and carried no legal weight as a basis for a decision in a standard subdivision that
meets the zoning resolution requirements. Don DeFord, County Attorney has
advised staff that 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, even if the 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 Garfield 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 of those provisions over the underlying zoning. The applicant's
planner argues that the land use densities shown on the Study Area I, Cattle Creek
and Glenwood Springs Proposed Land Use Districts maps are to general to be used
as a basis for determining the allowed density within the development. He also
argues 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 is advisory, but this was based on
the legal precedents in existence at that time. Conder supercedes those precede
and arguably negates the language in the plan, particularly given the previously n
Subdivision Regulation language requiring "conformity or compatibility" with the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff can identify the location of the property in relationship
with the proposed land use districts and can within a reasonable level of accuracy
identify the amount of land within the "high density residential" and the "medium
density residential" densities. Without getting into the exact acreage, it can be fairly
easily established that roughly half of the development is designated as high density
residential (2 or less ac/du) and the other half is medium density residential (6-9
ac/du). it is not clear in reading the document, but it appears that there was an
inconsistency in the designations, since this property is shown partially on the Cattle
Creek map and partially on the Glenwood Springs map. This may have been a
scribners error in the final editing of the Comprehensive Plan . Regardless, the
determination that needs to be made is general conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan. All of the lots are very close to 2.0 acres each, which is consistent with the
underlying zoning minimum lot size and the High Density designation, but not
consistent with the recommended medium density residential. Other arguments for
the larger lot sizes adjacent to the agricultural land are presented later in this report.
• 1
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 of the plan:
HOUSING:
Goal: To ensure the availability of housing including affordable housing in the
County where in short supply, subject to regulations, which ensure safety,
appropriate site design, compatibility and protection of the natural
environment.
Policies:
2.1
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 to appropriate areas
throughout the County.
Staff Comment: As proposed, the single family dwellings on this property will all
fall within the existing rural lot market with acreage. This market at best is an upper
middle to upper income market.
TRANSPORTATION:
Objectives:
3.3
3.6
Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the
ability of County roads to adequately handle the traffic
generated by the proposal.
Development proposals will be required to mitigate traffic
impacts on County roads proportional to the development's
contribution to the those impacts. Mitigation may include,
but not be limited to the following:
A. Physical roadway improvements;
B. Intersection improvements:
C. Transit amenities;
D. Signage requirements;
E. Alternative traffic flow designs;
F. Funding mechanism to implement necessary mitigation.
Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed to mitigate off-site road impacts by
upgrading County Road 117 to CR 117/Midland Road intersection. The applicant's
engineer has stated that the estimated road impact fees based on the road impact fee
• 1
formula recently adopted by the County will be approximately $145,000. He feels
that the cost of the proposed road improvements will more than offset the projected
road impact fees.
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE:
Goal: Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for
County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLM/USFS
policies and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual
corridors.
Objective
5.2
The County will support and encourage the creation of open space,
through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision
and PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance open space uses.
5.3 If physically possible, subdivisions and PUDs will be encouraged to
design open space areas to become contiguous with existing and
proposed open spaces adjacent to the project.
Staff Comment: There is "dedicated" open space adjacent to the Roaring Fork river,
proposed as a part of the subdivision. There is an "open space easement" area
throughout the subdivision that no structures will be allowed, owned by the
individual property owner, but dedicated the subdivision homeowner's association.
There is a document submitted with the application that has plans for landscaping,
asphalt and crushed gravel paths and other recreational amenities in the proposed
"open space easement". Also included in the application is a written description of
the proposed type of vegetation and amounts for the landscaped areas. The
applicants also propose to dedicate the section of land along the Roaring Fork River
to the City of Glenwood Springs, to be included in their river frontage open space.
AGRICULTURE:
Goal To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation
and compatibility issues are addressed during project review.
Objective
6.1 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing
farms and ranches.
6.2 Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher -intensity
adjacent uses.
• •
Policies:
6.1 Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated
impacts of higher -intensity land uses through the establishment of
buffer areas between the agricultural use and the proposed project.
Staff Comment: There is a proposed open space easement on each lot, that would
create some physical separation with the active farming operation to the south of the
proposed subdivision. It is suggested that the lots adjacent to the Bershenyi property
be increased to a minimum size of six (6) acres and that the open space buffer be at
least 200 feet in width. In addition to the open space easement, the propose plat
note needs to be strengthened to not only recognize the priority of agricultural use
s, the potential for odors, noise , dust and other agricultural practices that may be
offensive to residential uses adjacent and nearby the agricultural operation.
URBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE
Goal Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the
County that will affect a municipality are compatible with existing zoning
and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality.
Obj ective:
10.1 County land use policies will be consistent with local land use
policies and objectives.
10.3 Development in an Urban Area of Influence will have street patterns
that are compatible with the affected municipality.
Policies
10.2 Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities that require urban
services will be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction.
10.3 Development will be expected to design a street system that will meet
the affected municipality's street standards for construction and right-
of-way width
Staff Comment: The applicant has chosen not to submit an application to the City
of Glenwood Springs. The applicant has submitted information to the City to verify
that the City will serve the developments' sewer needs, accept a dedication of open
space along the river and to clarify the City's position regarding annexation of the
property. The application does include internal road improvement plans that are
intended to be consistent with the City of Glenwood Springs street standards.
Since the City has not made a formal response to the application at this time. it is
difficult to assess whether or not the application can meet the Urban Area of
• •
Influence goals, objectives and policies. Previous comments from the City have
indicated some conflicts with the City Comprehensive Plan in terms of what they
define as a rural character for the areas outside of their projected growth area.
C. Soils/Topographv: Included in the application is a current geology and soils study
done for the previously proposed Four Mile Ranch PUD.(See Section 9 application)
It was recommended at Sketch Plan that the applicant update the report to be
consistent with the proposed development plans. The updated report used a lot of the
information in the 1979 study and recommended that all recommendations contained
in that report are still valid. In addition, the geotechnical engineer recommends that
each structure have an investigation "to determine the site specific bearing value and
design recommendation required." This supercedes the previous recommendation
of an review of " bearing capacity values for any given structure should be
established by inspection of the open foundation excavation prior to construction."
The geologic information submitted at Sketch Plan, it was noted that the bedrock
beneath the site is the Eagle Valley Evaporite, overlaid by a river deposits of
rounded cobbles, gravels and sands. The river deposits are further overlaid by basalt
cobbles and boulders. As a result of core drilling on the site, the geotechnical
engineer identified four different soil types for the project area. All of the soil types
indicated the potential need for site specific structural design.
The recommendations contained in the Preliminary Plan submittal are "somewhat
general in nature". The geotechnical engineers made a number of different
recommendations based upon certain observed soil types noted in the analysis that
had no bearing on the proposed subdivision design .
D. Road/Access: The road system for the development consists of single loop, directly
serving 25 sites, with two cul-de-sacs off of the loop serving 10 sites in one and 23
sites in the other. The remaining lot will access directly off of an emergency access
road for the longer cul-de-sac on the northern portion of the subdivision.
Based on the County Subdivision Regulations, a roadway serving at least 20 single
family dwellings and not more than 40 units is classified as a secondary access
roadway and is required to have at a minimum of a 50 ft. ROW, with eleven (11) ft.
driving lanes and six (6) ft. shoulders and a chip seal driving surface. Roads B -D
meet and exceed these standards. The proposed entrance, Road A will be classified
as a Minor Collector and have a right-of-way has to be 60 ft., with twelve (12) ft.
hard surfaced driving lanes and six (6) ft. shoulders. These roadways will have to be
dedicated to the public for use, but be maintained by a homeowners association.
7
• •
Access to the site is off of County Road 117, which has been identified as needing
improvement to accommodate increased development demands. The applicant has
voluntarily agreed to "improve CR 117 from just south of the Midland Avenue
intersection to just south of the 4 -Mile Ranch Boulevard/County Road 117
intersection." The standard for the road is to a standard similar to the road approved
recently in a section between the development's proposed entrance and the Bershenyi
ranch house. The maximum contribution will be the equivalent to the amount that
the County would impose as a road impact fee. As noted in the County Attorney's
memo, the proposed alignment may not be the alignment selected by the County to
make the connection to Midland Avenue. The applicant has expressed a willingness
to pay impact fees, if the County chooses not to improve the existing alignment down
to Midland Avenue.
There is a 60' right-of-way shown for County Road 163, which be an adequate
amount of right-of-way to allow for the proposed CR 117 relocation, if the County
were to decide to pursue that option. .
E. Water: The applicant has drilled a test well to determine the quantity and quality of
the water supply for a central water supply. An additional well is proposed to meet
the total needs of the subdivision. The applicant's attorney has provided a copy of
a signed contract for 36 acre feet of Reudi Reservoir augmentation water from the
West Divide Water Conservancy District, for the project. Additional irrigation water
will be provided from water rights owned by the applicant in the Four Mile ditch.
Based on calculations by the applicant's engineer, the development will require 33.14
acre/ft. of water annually. The engineer has reviewed pump test data and determined
that the test well can provide sufficient water for the development, if the proposed
300,000 gallon storage tank is built to meet instantaneous demand. To meet dry year
requirements of the development, a second well is recommended. As a part of the
analysis, the engineer noted that the well casing needs to be upgraded to minimize
or eliminate the turbidity
The proposed water tank is to be located on a common lot line between lots 35 and
36, in the northeast corner of the subdivision. The area for the water storage tank
is shown as a portion of the open space easement. The proposed location is also in
a high spot on the property and could be very visible. There is a proposed plan for
landscaping around the water tank site that appears to minimize the visual impact..
F. Sewer: It is proposed to serve the development's sewage by connecting to the City
of Glenwood Springs system. A letter dated January 17, 1995 from the City
Manager was included in the application indicating that the City can provide sewer
service, provided the applicants can make certain system upgrades. In a subsequent
letter, from the City Engineer and the previously noted letter, it was noted that it will
8
• •
be necessary to receive approval from the City Council. Until the City Council has
approved the proposed sewer connections and a contract has been agreed upon, it can
not be stated that the City has agreed to provide service. Section 4:92 of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations requires the following if sewage treatment is to be
provided by an existing sewer system:
"Letter from an authorized representative of the facility or system stating that
the proposed development can and will be served."
The letter enclosed in the application indicates that the City has the capacity to serve
the proposed development, but until an agreement is presented to the City Council
there is no guarantee that the service will be provided.
A request was made to the City of Glenwood Springs to consider provision of sewer
system connection, along with the ac ptance of land dedication and annexation
issues. (See letters pgs. /J % ) Staff recognizes that the applicant has
attempted resolve the sewer service issue and we are willing to concede that the
Planning Commission action is advisory. A condition of approval should require that
the City of Glenwood Springs formally agree to serve the development's sewer
needs, prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
G. Fire Protection: The 300,000 gallon water storage tank is designed to meet the
domestic water needs of the development and provide 1000 gpm for two hours of fire
protection water. A letter from the Glenwood Springs Department of Emergency
Services states that the fire protection provisions are adequate, but one of the road
names needs to be changed to prevent confusion with a similarly named road in the
area. (See Tab 19 in the application)
H. Lot Layout: All of the lots are least two acres in size to comply with the A/R/RD
zone district requirements. Each lot has a building envelope and an area to be
dedicated as aii open space easement. The open space will be dedicated to the
homeowners association, but there is no indication that the easement will be
conveyed to homeowners association. This needs to be included in the final plat
documents.
It is the developer's intent to construct various improvements, including, a public
bike/walking path along CR 117. The applicant proposes to dedicate the path to the
County. Garfield County has no equipment or fiscal ability to accept the path for
maintenance and/or repair services. This path could become a part of regional
proposal for trails, if such an entity is ever formed. In the meantime, the path should
remain under the homeowners association control until it can be conveyed to the
other entity.
9
• •
1. Other Comments:
1. City of Glenwood Springs: Enclosed is a letter from the City Plann g
C m ission, Planning Department, and Engineering staff.. (See pgs.
) There are a number of issues raised with the layout lacking any
open space design consistent with City Land Use plans; water and sewer
infrastructure concerns and off-site road impacts.
2. Colorado Geologic Survey: Based on the documented geologic constraints,
the Geologic Survey recommends a lot by lot drilling program by a qualified
geotechnical engineer to establish • e ur . ce and subsurface conditions in
the development. (See letter pgs. ' • )
3. Division of Wildlife: Enclosed is a letter noting a number of suggested
design modifications f• . e • o - ct that will minimize the impact to wildlife
in the area. (See pgs. . a )
4. Roaring Fork School District RE -1: The enclosed letter requests a $200 per
lot site acquisition fee be collected as a part of the subdivision approval. The
recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Douglas and Boulder County
school impact fees did provide for the payment of si acquisition fees as a
part of the subdivision review process. (See pg. 3)
5. Colorado Department of Health: The Department recommends that the
sewage disposal lines be sized to accommodate the future expansion of
service further up the valley. Additionally, it was noted that the water system
will be subject to the State Drinking Water standard will require a storm
water discharge permit for the property. (See pg. op )
6. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Based on the information provided
to the Division, there will be a legal a s d . . e • uate water supply available for
the subdivision. (See letter pgs. - )
7. County Attorney: Don noted a number of issues that need to be included in
v r commendations made regarding this development. (See memo pgs. _
8. Neighbor's Comments : The Morgans and Lucas submitted a letter objecting
to the development o the operty due to impacts on the County road and
wildlife.. ( See pgs
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
10
• •
A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the County Planning Commission; and
B. 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
C. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area
of the County; and
D. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution; and
E. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the
State of Colorado, and Garfield County, have/fig been submitted and, in addition,
have been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations.
V. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of the proposed subdivision,
subject to meeting the following conditions of approval:
1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of
approval unless otherwise stated by the Planning Commission.
The common Open space easement shall be transferred from the developer to the
Homeowner's Association at the time of filing a final plat. The proposed public trail
will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association until such time that
a public entity willing and capable of taking ownership is established.
3. That prior to the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, a letter
or some other written confirmation of the City of Glenwood Springs willingness to
provide sewer service to the development will be provided to the Planning
Department. As a part of that approval will be an indication of the City's interest
or lack thereof to annex the property.
4. That the road name change suggested by the Glenwood Springs Emergency Services
Department be incorporated in any final plat submittal.
11
• •
5 At the time of each Final Plat approval, either a fee shall be paid to the County in
such an amount as shall be established by the Board pursuant the road impact fee
formula adopted by the County, if a fee has been established at that time. If no fee
has been established, the applicant will contribute the equivalent of $2500 per lot to
the County Road 114 impact fee fund. Any funds contributed in excess of a
subsequently established road impact fee will be refunded to the developer, if
applicable.
6. Include the following plat notes on any final plat:
(A) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare
and submit a soils and foundation report, a grading and drainage plan, and a
geologically acceptable building site prepared and certified by a professional
engineer. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such
engineering recommendations, which shall be a condition of Los Amigos
Ranch Architectural Control Committee approval and the building permit.
(B) All lots in this subdivision are rural in character agricultural uses have
priority over residential uses and the potential for odors, noise , dust and
other agricultural practices that may be offensive to residential uses adjacent
to nearby the agricultural operations. No complaints about customary
agricultural practices will be enforced.
7. All recommendations contained in the memo from Don DeFord, County Attorney.
dated May 8, 1997, shall be considered conditions of approval.
/a-t-ev ,@;e-toel ,6/kt do04.(
-a
12
74-40e-cr) 1-41
if:-=.''. 1.9'2? 11 .4.Ai+1
LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTOILN EYS AT LAW
LOY AL E. LEAV2NwORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
DAVID E. LEAVENWORTH, IR.
JOSLYN v. WOOD'
"'11::%IQ:z :A Haws( and Toss onIY
DONALD H. HAMBURG
Or Counsel
Don DeFord, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
May 5, 1997
Re: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan Submittal
Dear Don:
p
ir:(: GRAND AVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-226:
FAX: (970, 945-7336
As you know, the above -referenced matter is scheduled for public hearing before the
Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission on May 14, 1997. As you also know, the
Developer has been negotiating with the City_ of Glenwood Springs to resolve certain issues
raised by staff, as follows:
1. The provision of City sewer services to the Subdivision;
Springs; and
The dedication of open space along County Road 163 to the City of Glenwood
3. The City's position regarding the annexation of the Four Mile Ranch property by
the City of Glenwood Springs.
By letter dated April 3, 1997, to Michael Copp, a copy of which is enclosed for your
information, we requested time on the City Council agenda for April 17, 1997, to discuss these
three issues. These items were initially placed on the May 1, 1997 City Council agenda and,
as we were informed last week, ultimately "bumped" to the May 15, 1997 agenda due to the
unavailability of Michael Copp and the City Attorney on May 1, 1997. Unfortunately, due to
this scheduling conflict. the Developer will not have an opportunity to present these issues to the
City Council prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Thus, we provide the
following information regarding the status of these issues:
1. Sewer Services Agreement. On April 8, 1997 this office provided Michael Copp
a draft Sewer Services Agreement for review and comment. A copy of our transmittal tetter is
enclosed for your convenience. By letter dated April 23, 1997, a copy of which is also
enclosed, Teresa Williams. City Attorney, provided staff comments and her recommended
revisions to the proposed Agreement. Developer has no problems with the City's proposed
r•'DE QAn 2L7
r f /
iff . 1 9 7 11 i 4 AM L F.1 j EN',
LEAVENWORTH & AOCIATES, P.C.
Don DeFord, Esq.
2
May 2, 1997
•
NOis
. 2780
revisions, but has requested the City specifically identify the upgrades for which Developer will
ultimately be responsible and provide an estimate of costs associated therewith. Further, the
City and Developer are discussing the inclusion of a cost recovery provision, whereby Developer
would recover a percentage of its costs from developers of other property benefitted by the
upgrades. In any event, the City and the Developer have essentially agreed CO the terms of the
Sewer Services Agreement and are merely waiting to receive cost estimates and to develop a
formula for cost recovery prior to its finalization. These open items should be resolved within
the week and the Agreement approved by City Council on May 15, 1997.
2. Open Space Dedication Agreement. A draft of this Agreement was included in
the Preliminary Plan Submittal and hand delivered to the City with a transmittal lerter from this
firm on April 24, 1997. It is our understanding staff agrees with this concept. Inasmuch as the
parcel is contiguous to City property and no unresolved issues remain, approval by the City
Council is also expected on May 15, 1997.
3. Annexation. The final issue scheculed CO be heard by City Council is the
annexation issue. As was discussed at length in Sunny Vann's letter to Mark Bean dated April
25, 1997, the Developer is not obligated to apply to the City for annexation nor is such an
application likely to be favorably received. However, Developer will present the annexation
issue to City Council on May 15, 1997.
As outlined above, Developer has proceeded diligently in its attempts to present these
issues to the Glenwood Springs City Council. Through no fault of Developer, the issues are not
scheduled to be heard until May 15, 1997 which is, as previously noted, after the scheduled
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision. Thus, we
respectfully request that Developer be allowed to proceed on May 14, 1997 and if necessary,
approval cf the Preliminary Plat be contingent upon City Council approval of the Sewer Services
and Open Space Dedication Agreements.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions in this regard.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES. P.C..
.„;
Loyal E. Leavenworth
LEL:jp
Enclosures
cc: Four Mile Ranch Development Company, Inc.
Mr. Sunny Vann
Mr. Marg Bean enc .
E.%1)EFORD.7.LT
/ 4
4110
(-197 I 1 35AM i �' ! VW'ORTH & ASSOC
Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Associates, P.C.
P. 0. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Dear Lee:
`ID
April 23, 1997
RE: Sewer Services Agreement -- Four Mile Ranch Development
Staff has completed its review of the draft Sewer Services Agreement between the FOur
Mile Ranch Development Company and City, which you forwarded on April 8, 1997. There
remain several areas of concern that must be addressed before being. presented to City Council
for its consideration. Recommended revisions to the draft are as follows:
li
11
1. Rather than a three-way transfer of title of the sewer main, the developer will
construct the entire main, maintain it for one (1) year, and then dedicate to the City. This
is normally the method, for the City taking over maintenance and ov.Tiership of a privately
constructed system inside the City's corporate limits. In addition. this Agreement could
not bind the future homeowners' association to follow through on the dedication.
2. Paragraph 4 must be worded as follows: ''Prior to the Develooer connecting any
of the lots within the Four Mile Ranch project to the City sewer main on County Road
117, the Developer shall prepay to the City the total Construction costs for the upgrade to
the City's current sewer system to provide capacity increases to £ettrnents of the City's
sewer infrastructure that will convey wastewater from &e Four Mile Ranch project to the
City's treatment facilities. Should the Developer fail to prepay the construction costs,
none of the fiftti-nine (59) lots shall be connected to the City's sewer system until the
City can finance and construct the necessary improvements to Lhe sev,er infrastructure. as
its budget and workforce permits."
3. Regarding the sewer Imes to be constr uc.ed by the Develooer. Developer shall
provide the City with "as -built" Mylar drawings of the complete installation, as well as
�� ,.• LOOPER .1� ;::\ ►'� ).-=�`.1 I)R;•�!�
�. G1. -ENV. [.�1��� SI�\1�t:i. �.�)l.� •.\x..1(1 5l .7- 7 :\)-
� :�... ,r). l9 . 7 1 . ; '..;—'A:24
•
•
P. "1
certification from a professional engineer that the installation ;vas completed according to
approved plans and specifications.
4. Rather than specifying the fifty-nine (59) lots, all references to the numh:er of- lots
should be changed to "to the number of lots approved by Garfield County'.
If you have any questions regarding these concerns and revisions, please contact Mike
Copp or Robin Millyard at the telephone number indicated above. Once the Agreement has been
revised to address the City's concerns, it will be placed on the agenda for City Council
consideration and action.
Sincerely,
Teresa S. Williams
City Attorney
c.: Mike Copp
Robin Millyard
•
•
L.EAVENWORTH & ,-1SSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOYAL E. LEAvENW'ORT':t
CYNTHIA C. TESTE
SILA.`E T. HARVEY
10SLYN V. WOOD•
"Ataftused ia !4iw ui ud r:X2s ?ay
DONALD H. HAMBURG
Of Counsel
Mr. Michael Copp, City Manager
City of Glenwood Springs
806 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
April 8, 1997
Re: Sewer Services .Agreement
Dear Mike:
LP
1OI1 GRAND AVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2C10
GLENWCOD SPRINGS. COLOR.k00 e_602
TELE?MONE: ;97tH 94.5-2.26l
FAX: 970 945-73:6
tki/
V'IA FAX
Enclosed is a proposed Sewer Services Agreernent between the Four Mile Ranch
Development Company and the City of Glenwood Springs. i believe that the terms of the
agreement conform to our earlier discussions and incorporate the concerns raised by the City
Engineer as part of the development review process for Garfield County.
As 1 explained co you, the County requires from a central sewer provider an indication
that they earl (which your earlier letter already did) and will provide such service as a condition
of preliminary plat approval. Thus, the developer is left with two choices: (1) either go back
to an individual sewage disposal system proposal for each tot, or (2) enter Litt) an agreement that
the City will provide service, contingent on final plat approval.
You will acte in paragraph 2 of the agreement it is expressly contingent upon final plat
approval by Garfield County .within 18 months of the date of the agreement. In addition, we
have provided for the prepayment of all the sewer taps prior co the first connection co allow the
City to utilize that money for infrastructure upgrades. We have also provided that the main
sewer line will be dedicated to the City and the internal lines upon request.
Finally. 1 have included a paragraph that expressly states that the City reserves all right
CO comment or object to the approval of the project before Garfield County.
Although we see no reason to enter into a debate, I believe that the City's receipt of
federal money for its sewer plant requires the City to extend service to everyone within its 201
Plan service area, which it is nay understanding includes this property. Rather, we would prefer
to cooperate with the City by entering into this agreement.
I am providing this agreement to you today to allow adequate time for staff review SO
that we can make any changes that City staff desires before including a final draft in the packet.
C:%F.LES%COPP :LT
/7-
.kbv. 1997 11:36A
LE VVYWOR h & ASLA. ES. P.C.
Mr. Michael Coop, Ciry Manager
Page 2
April 8, 1997
•
After you and the_ other members of your staff have had a chance to review ;his
document, please contact me to discuss any changes.
LEL:rib
Enclosure
cc: Joe Hope w/enc.
Four Mile Ranch Dev. Co. wienc.
Torn Zancanella w• enc.
Sunny Vann wienc.
Teresa Williams, Esq. wienc.
. F;LE$tC3PP. 1:7
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
L al E Leavenworth
-/8
•
A L
•
LEAVENWORTH & .-ASSOCIATES, F.C. s J t
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOYAL E. �E.-1'.'=:`i:L'CRTH
CYNTHIA C. :ESTER
SHANE J. HARVEY
JOSLYN V. WOO*
*A we -d n Hawaii Ari TOMS n&y
oarr,D H. HAMBURG
Cf Counsel
Mr. Michael Copp, City Manager
City of Glenwood Springs
806 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
April 3, 1997
Re: Four Mile Ranch Subdivision
Dear Mike:
cUFY
:uti GRAND
P.O. DRAWER 3031)
GL2NWOOD S?RLNGS. COLORADO 81602
i cLEPHONE: (970) 945-226I
...X: ;970) 945-7336
l
As we discussed last week, we would like to reserve time on the Glenwood Springs City
Council agenda for April 17, 1997, to discuss the following items:
1. A sewer agreement between the City of Glenwood Springs and the Four Mile
Ranch Development Company, Inc., incorporating the terms of our letter to you and comments
provided by Glenn Thompson. Such an agreement would be contingent upon final plat approval
and would not preclude the Ciry of Glenwood Springs from commenting on the project during
the Garfield County preliminary plat approval process.
?. An agreement providing for the Four Mile Ranch Development Company's
dedication to the City of the open space along County Road 163 to the Ciry of Glenwood
Springs. In consideration of the dedication of this !and to the City, the developer would retain
an easement across the land -as access to the river for water supply pus Doses and obtain an
easement to the Roaring Fork River across adjacent City proper•.
3. The developer would like to generally discuss the annexation issue, as required
by Garfield Counry, with respect to the Four Mile Ranch project.
Please let us know as soon as possible whether these issues can be placed on the April
17, 1997, agenda. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
,r
LEL:rib Loy F. Leavenworth
C'rrt =5 e0PP !LT
9 ---
•
March 4. 1997
Mr. Mark Bean. Director
Garfield County P!anning and Building
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan
Dear Mark.
•
7,71.77'-;
11 ilAR 0 4 1997
The City of Glenwood Springs staff has reviewed the Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan
submittal recently_ forwarded to our office. City staff have the following comments on the
proposal:
Compatibility With City Land Use Plan: As you know. the City's Land Use Plan
encompasses lands within the current City limits as well as lands outside the City limits, roughly
overlaying the G.S. Rural Fire District boundaries. In this capacity, the plan functions as a "three
mile plan". The plan is premised on the notion of intensifying development within the existing
urban areas and discouraging sprawl elsewhere. The plan recognizes pre-existing development
patterns along the Roaring Fork and Four Mile valleys. In response to these patterns, the Plan
encourages the concentration of development in rural villages such as the intersection of Four
Mile and Dry Park Roads. In areas where the existing land use is agricultural, efforts should be
made to preserve this use.
The current Four Mile Ranch plan conflicts with the City's Land Use Plan in its desire to protect
rural character and discourage sprawl. By virtue of the linear layout of the lots. the entire ranch
is consumed with no productive reservation of open space. The plan takes agricultural land out
of production and further jeopardizes the viability of the Bershenyi Ranch adjacent to the south.
Rather than rural in character, the plan is the prototypical suburban development. We encourage
the Planning Commission and Commissioners to consider the development in the context of the
County's draft Conserving Open Lands for the Future.
Subdivision Design: While the plan appears to reserve significant open space, its location and
configuration will render it unproductive for open space purposes. The proposed configuration is
not beneficial to wildlife nor is it beneficial to the residents of the subdivision. It is unclear how
this open space will be managed. what type of access will be allowed and what type of
Za
SOO COOI'FIt IA F\I. F (;LENV.0Oi) 1'K1\(,. (:OI OR
.)-0,ik-i1;_1;-; FAN: 04-7-159"
• •
improvements will be permitted. If a similar number of units were concentrated into a smaller
portion of the property. productive open space could be preserved along with the rural character
of the site. The proposed pattern will only encourage large lawns and weeds at the expense of
wildlife movement and views. To whom will the "dedicated open space" along Prehm Ranch
Road be dedicated to?
The location of the building envelopes on Lots 14 through 20 are located at the crest of the ridge.
Building should be discouraged from ridgelines. Similarly, the off-site water tank should be
relocated as well. Burial of the structure may be an appropriate way to screen this large
structure. Has the adjoining land owner consented to this location?
No provisions appear to have been made for pedestrians and bicyclists within the subdivision.
The proposed number of residents justify pedestrian improvements. In addition. provisions
should be made for separated trail parallel to Four Mile. Road the length of the parcel. If the
right of way width is inadequate. then additional right of way (for road and trail purposes) should
be dedicated as a requirement of this development.
The application does not appear to address proposed methods of slope stabilization and
reclamation for road cuts and drainage swales. This should be clarified to encourage workable
solutions.
Infrastructure Issues: The attached comments from the City Engineer and Public Works
Director address the issues of roads and utilities in significant detail. Obviously, City Council
consent will be required for connection to City sewer.
City staff appreciates the opportunity to respond to development proposals adjacent to the City.
If you. your staff or Commissions have any questions relative to these issues. please feel free to
call our office.
Sincerely,
Andrew McGregor
City Planner
•
March 4, 1997
Mr. Mark Bean. Director
Garfield County Planning and Building
109 8th. Suite 303
Glenwood Springs. CO 81601
RE: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan
Dear 'lark.
•
At their meeting on February 25. the Glenwood Springs Planning Commission reviewed the Four
Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan. The Commission felt strongly that the preliminary plan is
essentially a re-creation of the sketch plan presented to them last November. Since the plan is
essentially a reiteration of the previous submittal, the Commission felt it was appropriate to
resend their original comments to the County Planning Commission. All the concerns cited in
the original letter appear to still be applicable.
Thanks for your referral of this matter.
Sincerely.
Andrew McGregor
City Planner
)( i. \\ E.N1 1' (,I 1•.N\\()O1) SPR1\.Ts, C()l,t)R.A1)U'lot)1 9-0/945-25'5 FAN: 0 ;i,
• •
November 4, 1996
Mark Bean. Director, Planning and Building
Garfield County
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject: Four Mile Ranch Sketch Plan
The Four Mile Ranch Sketch Plan will be reviewed at the November 13, 1996, meeting
of the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission. Please make available to
your commissioners the following comments from the Glenwood Springs Planning and
Zoning Commission.
■ As proposed. the sketch plan is the epitome of the sprawling, suburban. auto -oriented planning
which will ultimately destroy our community. This approach to subdivision design promotes the
destruction of natural resources - ranch lands. ridge lines. wildlife corridors, visual corridors, clean
water. clean air - and encourages inefficient infrastructure - more pavement. more plumbing, more
vehicle miles traveled. and more light. air and water pollution.
■ There are goal and policy statements within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and
Glenwood Springs Land Use Plan which provide guidance to the commission as they review this
sketch plan. See attached summaries.
Planning tools and concepts exist to guide the development of rural lands in order to
preserve open space and achieve efficient, non-destructive design which is compatible
with the area. Please use them to guide your decision-making.
Sincerely,
Glenwood Springs Planning and Zoning Commission
Martha Cochran. Chair
Dick McKinley
Michael Blair Bruce Baier
Arrel Black Roger Garing
Sam Skramstad Bob Wolfarth
SENT F1'
3- 5-97 ; 2:37PM ;CITY, GLENPOOD SPGS.-' 9457785:# 1/ 2
. •
FAX TRANSMISSION
CITY OF GLENWOOI) SPRINGS
806 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2575
Fax: 970-945-2597
To: Mark Bean, Ciarrield County Bldg. Date: March 5. 1997
& Planning
Fax #: 945-7785 Pages: 2. including this cover sheet.
From: Larry 0. Thompson, P.L.
Subject: Four Milc Ranch Project
COMMI3NTS:
Attached are supplemental comments that address the referenced project's proposed street design
compared to the City's Street standards. Please call if you have any questions
cc: Andrew McGregor
SENT 3y:
3- 3-07 : 2:37P11 ;CITY. GLENWOOD SPGS.-' 9457785;# 2/ 2
o •
City engineer Supplemental Review Comments
Four Mile Ranch Subdivision Proposal
March 5, 1997
Road and Street Standards
City street standards for local streets (the internal streets in this subdivision) would require two
12' travel lanes, with curb and gutter and sidewalk on each side. The proposed lane width for
Road "A" is 12 feet while the remainder of the rods (except Road "E") are proposed to have 1 1
foot. lanes. Six toot wide shoulders with roadside drainage ditch are proposed in lieu of curb and
gutter, and it appears that no sidewalks are: included in [he proposal. it is our understanding that
the roads are proposed to be privately maintained by a Homeowner's Association, rather than
publicly maintained. In the past, the City has approved, for some projects, deviations from our
normal standards for sweets that are to be privately maintained. Such deviations are subject to
the approval of the Plaiining & Zoning Commission or City Council.
\'Vith the exception of Riad "E", all of the roads have grades no grcatcr than H%, which k
consistent with City standards. (if Road "E" is to he used for emergency purposes only, I think
its grade of just under 1()% is consistent with fire access standards.) Intersection grades appear to
meet a standard of not exceeding 4% for a distance of 50 feet from the intersection, with one
exception - the grade of Road "B" is K% at its intersection with Read "17".
The plans did not address proposed improvements to Co. Rd. 117 (Four Mile Road) or Co. Rd.
163, so no comments are offered at this time. As previously indicated. I would recommend that
the City have an opportunity to review and comment on these pians.
• •
City Engineer/ Public Works Director Review Comments
Four Mile Ranch Subdivision Proposal
February 12. 1997
Sanitary Sewer Service
The application includes a request of the City of Glenwood Springs to provide sanitary sewer
service to the project. I recommend that such a request to provide service outside the City limits
be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council.
The Four Mile Ranch property was included in the study area for the "Glenwood Springs
.Southern Service Area Water and Wastewater Master Plan" dated February 1994. Based on that
plan. I believe the City has the capability to provide service to this area in addition to serving
other potential development on properties currently within the City. The SSA plan assumed the
development of 500 EQR's on the Four Mile Ranch property. whereas the current proposal is for
59 EQR's. If given the choice among individual septic systems. a separate treatment facility for
this project. or service from the City. I believe that wastewater service provided by the City is
preferable for development of this site.
Depending upon how you interpret the City's 201 service area boundaries. this site is either
mostly or entirely within those boundaries. I don't know if this implies an obligation to provide
service to the property.
The SSA plan recommended line sizes for future interceptor lines to serve this property and
others south of it. The recommended alternative was for a 10 inch main to extend from the Four
Mile Ranch property north to the existing lines at Glenwood Park. However. that
recommendation was based on the assumption of 500 EQR's being developed on the Four Mile
Ranch site. If only 59 units are developed on this property. an 8 inch main will be adequate to
serve this development and the other potential development up the Four Mile corridor that was
assumed in the SSA plan.
If the City is to provide sewer service. I would recommend that it be done under the following
conditions (which would be in addition to the provisions contained in the 1/20/97 letter from
Leavenworth to Copp):
A. Plans and specifications for the off-site extension of the sewer from the project to
the existing sewer near Midland Avenue and 3 Mile Creek should be submitted to
the City for review and approval. The developer shall be responsible for
constructing the sewer and for securing permits and/or easements as needed for
the construction and maintenance of the sewer.
B. The prepayment of system improvement fees as proposed in the 1/20/97 letter
from Leavenworth to Copp should be required so that the City can repair or
provide capacity increases to certain segments of the Central Valley interceptor
• •
sewer which will convey wastewater from this project to the City's treatment
facilities.
C. The Municipal Code provides that sewer main extensions become the property of
and responsibility of the City. I support this requirement. However. if we have
the opportunity to refine it for this project. which is outside the City. I would
suggest that the City take over ownership and responsibility of the sewer mains
after at least 25% of the lots in the project are receiving sewer service. Prior to
that. the Homeowner's association would own and be responsible for maintenance
of the mains. The Homeowner's Association would be responsible for
demonstrating that the mains meet City standards and the condition is acceptable
to the City before the City would take over ownership and maintenance. A one
year warranty should be provided starting when the City takes over maintenance
responsibility.
D. It appears that the building envelopes on lots 42 through 49 are likely to be below
the elevation of the sewer. Lots 10 through 13 may be marginal for providing
gravity service. Is it the intent that pumping will be required for service to these
lots? If so. I would suggest that the project plans and plat acknowledge this. If it
is not the intent. I would suggest reviewing the design to determine if the sewer
needs to be lower to serve the indicated lots.
E. The sewer should be stubbed out beneath Road A at MH -A7. A sanitary sewer
easement should be dedicated across Lots 1 through 7. generally following the
natural drainage way to the southerly boundary of the property to provide for the
potential future extension of the sewer to serve the property to the south.
F. For those sewer segments not accessible from a roadway, a satisfactory access
road needs to be provided within the dedicated easement to allow sewer
maintenance vehicles the ability to drive between manholes. If fences are
constructed across the easement. gates should be provided to allow vehicular
access along the easement.
G. A sewer line easement is needed between Lots 50 and 51.
Electric Service
Power will originate from the switch gear located at Midland Avenue and Mt. Sopris Drive. The
entire run will be installed underground. It appears an easement will be needed from the cul-de-
sac on Road C. through Lot 14 to the southerly property line. then westerly over Lots 13.9. 8 and
7 to the right-of-way of Four Mile Road.
• •
Water Service
Although the proposed water service will not be from the City of Glenwood Springs. I'd like to
offer comments at least on the water storage. The application proposes to provide a 300.000
gallon water storage tank at an elevation of about 6200. This is not consistent with the master
plan of the SSA. which proposed a 600.000 gallon tank at a base elevation of 6290. which would
provide service to a proposed Lower Fourmile Service Zone serving properties at an elevation
between 6020 and 6210. Perhaps the 300.000 gallon size of the tank would be consistent with
the master plan if it were located at the desired elevation and on a site suitable for the addition of
a future tank if need warrants. Providing a tank at an elevation of 6290 would require the
acquisition of a site off the Four Mile Ranch property. but it appears that the applicant already
proposes to locate the tank off his property (I believe on property that is within the city limits of
Glenwood Springs).
According to the application. the water storage tank location will provide working water pressure
at the highest building envelope of only 18 psi. This pressure is certainly less than desirable.
The typical practice for measuring fire flow capabilities is to do so while maintaining a minimum
residual pressure of at least 20 psi at. all service locations within the system.
Is any consideration being given to the City either taking over the water system in the future. or
providing water if the proposed wells are not capable of meeting the project's needs? If so. we
would recommend that all components be built to current City standards.
Count/ Road 163
The 40 foot right-of-way of County Road 163 is not adequate for construction of the future road
improvements recommended in the joint City / County Four Mile Road and Alternate Route plan.
I recommend that additional right-of-way and construction easements be dedicated with the
approval of this plat. of sufficient width and in a location as recommended by that plan. In this
section of the roadway. it appears that a permanent right-of-way of at least 60 feet will be needed.
along with additional width for temporary easements to accommodate retaining wall construction
and side slope grading. If a future trail or sidewalk is included. the needed width is greater.
Four Mile Road (Co. Rd. 117) Improvements
The preliminary design work done for the Four Mile Road / Midland Avenue / Highway 82
Connection project provided for some modifications to the grades of Four Mile Road. Before
road improvements between the project and the 4 Mile / Midland intersection are undertaken, I
would recommend that this preliminary design. or possible modifications to it. be reviewed to
determine if it is feasible and practical to modify the road grades in this area to improve safety. I
would also recommend that the City have the opportunity to review and comment on the road
improvement plans to assess compatibility with future improvement needs at the 3 -way
intersection of 4 Mile Road, Airport Road and Midland Avenue (County Roads 117 and 116). If
the sanitary sewer extension is to be constructed within this roadway, it will be important that it's
• •
depth be compatible with the future road elevation and grade.
Off -Site Traffic Impacts
This project will generate traffic which will impact the City's transportation system. Being
located outside the City. it will not be subject to the traffic impact fees that would be collected
from development within the City. (At 1997 fee rates. the City's traffic impact fee in this area
would be about $2.500 per unit.) I would recommend that the City seek an arrangement with
Garfield County for the County to collect appropriate traffic impact fees and apply those toward
projects which would mitigate the traffic impacts of the Four Mile Ranch project. such as a new
Roaring Fork River bridge in the South Glenwood area.
Other
The location of the chlorination building on Lot 6 would appear to be inconsistent with the plat
requirement for no structures within the typical open space.
We will require as -built drawings on all utilities that the City will be maintaining. and would
encourage that as -built records of all utilities be prepared and maintained.
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of ,Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street. Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-2611
FAX (303) 866-2461
March 4, 1997
Mr. Mark Bean, County Planner
Garfield Countyn Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
GA -97-0010
Re: Proposed Four Mile Ranch Subdivision -- North of Four
Mi 1 e Creek and Trnrnerai ately East- of Four M? l e Read
(C.R.-117), Garfield County
Dear Mr. Bean:
DEF?ART.IENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Rov Romer
Governor
lames 5. Locnneao
Executive Director
Michael B. Luno
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
state Geologist
and Director
At your request and in acordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have
reviewed the materials submitted for and made a field inspection of
the site of the proposed residential subdivision indicated above.
At the time of site visit, there was about 4 in. of snow cover
which effectively prevented meaningful field work on Ferbruary 19.
However, I did study the geologic conditions of the site by
consulting with Robert M. Kirkham of our staff who investigated
them during recent geologic mapping of the Glenwood Springs and
Cattle Creek 7.5 -minute quadrangles which include this site.
(1) The surficial and bedrock geology of this site is quite complex
and consists of loess (wind -deposited sand and silt) which overlies
alluvial -fan deposits derived from the drainage of ancestral Four
Mile Creek. These overlie the Eagle Valley (Evaporate) Formation
bedrock which consists predominatly of sandstone, shale, and
Gypsum. The overall topography of the parcel is that of a small
valley between the bluffs above the Roaring Fork River and the
alignment of Four Mile Road. There are a few, apparently unused,
ranch hui ldincs approximately at the center of the parcel.
(2) The most serious geologic constraints to development of this
parcel as planned are the highly variable subsurface conditions and
their potential complications for foundation engineering and
changes in the surface and subsurface drainage after development
which might destabilize the subsurface materials by settlement
and/or sinkhole formation and collapse in the Eagle Valley
Formation. Because of these conditions, we recommend that a
drilling program be undertaken by a qualified geotechnical engineer
on a lot -by -lot basis to characterize the present surface and
subsurface conditions for "soils", rocks and water. The submitted
1979 engineering -geologic report by Lincoln DeVore, Inc., does not
adeauately do this, in our opinion, especially for the potential
around -failure hazards. A submitted well log for the Four Mile
• •
Mr. Mark Bean
March 4, 1997
Page 2
Ranch [water] Well No. 1 demonstrates the variability in subsurface
conditions at its location near the southwest corner of the parcel.
(3) The general concept of this development proposal, including
central water and sewer appears to be feasible. However, for the
geology -related reasons indicated above, we recommend that better
and more detailed site characterization should be done. I will
visit the site again as soon as the (lack of) snow cover will
permit meaningful field work.
Si'cerely,
mes M. Soule
ngineering Geologist
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
•
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
2-12-97
Garfield County Planning
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan
Dear Mark:
FE6 1 8 1997
GiA, -4 , : i.: _ ) c -.'
For Wildlife -
For People
Four Mile Ranch lies within mule deer and elk winter range with
heavier use by mule deer. Mule deer will cross 4 -Mile Road in
several places along the subdivision from the steep hillside to
the west. The primary crossing area during the winter is along
the north end of the proposed subdivision to the sagebrush fields
to the north and east as well as to the hillside which overlooks
and leads to the Roaring Fork River. Other crossing areas occur
primarily during the spring and fall as the grass greens up in
the field to the south and center of the subdivision. The most
important crossing is the northern one, as winter forage areas
are much more important than spring/fall areas. Other wildlife
use includes but is not limited to mountain lions (may follow
deer), black bear, coyote, red fox, raccoon, striped skunks,
various other small mammal and neotropical birds.
The DOW applauds the reduction in density and removal of the
pedestrian trail from the eastern hillside from the original plan
submitted to Glenwood Springs in 1994. These changes will help
to minimize some of the wildlife impacts. Impacts to wildlife
will include direct loss of winter range, displacement of
wintering animals (from habitat loss and disturbance), harassment
of big game by dogs (lead to direct and indirect mortality), and
increased vehicle/deer collisions. In addition, conflicts may
arise with deer browsing of ornamentals/landscaping plants,
mountain lion predation of pets, black bear/trash or garbage
problems, and other nuisance wildlife conflicts with raccoons,
skunks, etc.
As the area around Glenwood Springs and the Four Mile corridor
develope it becomes important to try and maintain as much winter
range as possible as well as travel routes/migration corridors.
For this proposed development, I believe it is important to
maintain the integrity of the northern travel route/highway
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice -Chairman • Mark LeValley, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member
Louis F. Swift, Member • John Stulp, Member
-3z-
crossing, as much of the sagebrush areas as possible, and the
steep hillside on the east side which leads down to the river.
In order to do this I would recommend a slight shift of the
proposed layout.
Preservation of the travel route and sagebrush foraging areas can
be accomplished by shifting the same layout to the south slightly
and shifting it to the west toward Four Mile Road. This will
create a wider travel route on the north end and shift some of
the homes from the sagebrush hillside/bench down toward the
meadow area. In essence, it would remove some of the open space
on the south and west and place it on the north and east. There
would be no reduction in number of lots or lot size and the basic
layout could still remain the same.
In addition the following recommendations will help to minimize
impacts to wildlife:
1. Placement of a small berm from excavated material along
the open space boundary of lots 15-22, 38-41. Plant trees
and shrubs on top of the berm to create a small screen to
help maintain the intergity of the travel route on the north
and the hillside which leads down to the river on the east.
The berm will help the vegetative screening be more
effective.
2. Encourage tree and shrub landscaping along the open
space boundary for remaing lots 23-37 to help screen
foraging areas. Vegetative screening can be very effective
in minimizing disturbance from human activity.
3. Limit dogs to 1 dog/home with a kennel restriction.
This is imperative to minimize harassment and direct
mortality to wintering wildlife. Uncontrolled dogs can be
one of the greatest negative impacts to wildlife not only
within the boundaries of the subdivision but also on
adjacent winter ranges. Other developers have also offered
to restrict the size of the dog to the smaller breeds which
also helps in this matter.
4. Establish a building envelope for lots 15-23 to prevent
these homes from hanging over the crest of the hill and
impacting the hillside below. A 50' setback from the crest
would be beneficial.
5. All utilities be buried
6. Maintain the native vegetation in the open space areas
along the north and east sides of the development.
7. All fences be 48", round or split rail type, 3 rail or
less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. Any wire
fences be 42", 4 strand or less with at least 12" between
the top 2 strands.
8. If horses are kept, all haystacks be fenced at the
owners' expense with 8' mesh game proof fence.
9. Homeowners be educated and be responsible for living in
a wildlife area with the potential conflicts which may
occur. Homeowners be responsible for preventing damage to
their property which may occur from wildlife and remove
wildlife which may die on their property. Homeowners be
made aware that bears or lions are not removed just because
they may be in the vicinity or observed in their
neighborhood.
10. If bears become a problem with trash/garbage then
homeowners install an approved bear proof garbage container.
I can provide specifications, design, and prices if you
wish.
11. Installation of deer/elk overpass or underpass at the
north end of the development should be considered. This
will allow the animals to cross the road to get to the river
and other foraging areas. It will also help decrease the
amount of vehicle/deer collisions and increase public
safety.
I have included some brochures on living with wildlife which I
would encourage the proponent to provide to the homeowners. I
have a supply of these and would be happy to provide them to you
or the proponent.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your
consideration to minimize wildlife impacts. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Kevin Wright
District Wi
Carbondale
F_S-25-1997 17:42 •RORRING FORK SCH. DI .
Roaring Fork School District RE -1
1405 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone (970) 945-655a
February 26, 1997
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mark:
F.
JAMES C. PHILLIPS, Suoenn(cn0ert
JUDY HAPTONSTALL, Arsostsnt Supenrtendent
SHANNON PELLAND. Finance Direnror
In response to the County's request for comments regarding the Four Mile Ranch
Preliminary Plan Submittal. Roaring Fork School District would like to request that a
minimum of $200 per unit be collected as site acquisition fees consistent with the
County's collections on behalf of the District in the past. As you know, we are working
with. ow ztttut ueys to dcvclop an amount for fooc in lieu of land dedication whirh era
reflective of true site acquisition costs, and will forward the same to you as soon as it is
available. In the meantime, please continue to collect $200 per unit.
Shannon Pelland
Finance Director
TOTAL = . O 1
dwatson@wic.net, 05:37 PM 2/5/97 , Four Mile Ranch Land Use 1
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dwatson@rodin.wic.net>
From: dwatson@wic.net (Dwain Watson)
To: garcopin@rof.net
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:37:34 -0700
Subject: Four Mile Ranch Land Use Request
Reply -to: dwatson@wic.net
CC: Richard.Bowman@state.co.us
X -Confirm -Reading -To: dwatson@wic.net
X-pmrqc: 1
Return -receipt -to: dwatson@wic.net
Priority: normal
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Director
Dear Mark:
We have reviewed the subject proposal and have the following
comments:
1. The porposal intends to connect to and contract with the City of
Glenwood Springs for sewer service. We would recommend that any
sewer
line placed near or along the Four Mile Road right-of-way be sized
for
ali future potential flows from the Four Mile Basin and in
conformance
with the newly revised Glenwood 201
2. The proposal's drinking water source will become a community
public
water system. As such,- it will be regulated by our drinking water
section. In addition, _S_ =ec ion eauipmen:, certified operator,
and
appropriate sampling will be required.
3. The proposal will be required to obtain a construction s ormwater
permit.
If you have any questions, please call me at 24-7156.
Sincerely,
Printed for garccpin@rof.net (Garfield Co Planning Dept) 1
STATE OF COLORAD�
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
March 10, 1997
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Building and Plannl�g
109 8th Street, Suite 303 \\
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Four Mile Ranch Subdivision
Sections 27 & 34, T 6 S, R 89 W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Bean:
Rov Romer
Governor
lames S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced subdivision proposal outlined in the preliminary
plan submittal by High Country Engineering, Inc., dated January 22, 1997. A total of 59 single-
family lots are to be created on approximately 127 acres located south of Glenwood Springs and
west of CR 117. The proposed water supply for this development is to be provided by a central
water distribution system supplied by two wells and a storage tank. Total annual water demand
at buildout is estimated at 33 acre-feet for 59 single-family dwellings and 2,500 square feet of
lawn and garden irrigation per dwelling.
A letter from Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth, dated January 21, 1997, indicated that the
applicant has filed an application with the West Divide Water Conservancy District (District) for
a water allotment contract for approximately 36 acre-feet (annual water demand of approximately
33 acre-feet plus estimated transit loss of 10%) of water from Ruedi Reservoir . The applicant
proposes to obtain well permits pursuant to an approved water allotment contract and the
District's substitute water supply plan. The proposed location of the wells is within Area "A" of
the District's substitute water supply plan.
Ground water withdrawn by the proposed wells would be tributary to the Roaring Fork
River and the Colorado River systems, which are over -appropriated. Typically, issuance of new
or expanded use permits would cause material injury to senior water rights unless a plan of
augmentation was obtained to remedy the injury. The District has a valid substitute water supply
plan, approved by the State Engineer on December 28, 1995, which provides replacement water
for allotment contract holders to prevent injury to decreed water rights. Allotment contract
holders must obtain a water court approved plan for augmentation to secure a permanent water
supply.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed water
supply will not cause injury to decreed water rights. We recommend this development not
receive approval from the county and lots not be sold until the developer has an approved water
allotment contract from the District for 36 acre-feet, and well permits are obtained for the
proposed uses.
Mr. Mark Bean Page 2
March 10, 1997
The physical availability of ground water for use at this development was addressed by
a letter from Zancanella and Associates, dated January 22, 1997. This letter provided well test
data on the Four Mile Ranch Well #1 (constructed as a monitoring hole on January 15, 1997,
under file no. MH -29828). The letter indicated that the well produced 50 gallons per minute in
a 72+ hour test with a maximum drawdown of 16 feet. It is our opinion that at this sustained flow
rate and with appropriate storage capacity, this well can adequately supply the proposed uses.
Please note that the long term adequacy of any ground water source may be subject to
fluctuation due to hydrological and climatic trends.
Should you have further questions or comments regarding the water supply for this
project, please contact Jeff Deatherage of this office.
Sincerely,
e4,,,l Steve Lautenschlager
j _ ' Assistant State Engineer
SPL/JD/jd
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, WD 38
fourmile.spl
TO:
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
109 8th Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
Telephone (970) 945-9150
Fax No. (970) 945-7785
MEMO
MARK BEAN AND
MEMBERS OF PLANNINh \COMMISSION
FROM: DON K. DEFORM
RE: PRELIMINARY PLAN - FOUR MILE RANCH
DATE: MAY 8, 1997
Last fall, property owners for this proposed subdivision submitted
a sketch plan for consideration by the Planning Commission. The
majority of the comments rendered at that time have been addressed
and resolved in the current application. I still have the
following concerns regarding the preliminary plan proposal:
1. On Page 3 of the Vann letter of April 25, 1997, the
Developer sets forth an open space proposal. Mr. Vann indicates
that the open space easement will be dedicated to the Four Mile
Ranch Homeowners Association at final plat. I concur in that
position, but further recommend that the open space be conveyed by
deed to the Homeowners Association. At other points in this
proposal, it is not clear that a conveyance of this open space will
go to the Homeowners Association. That lack of clarity should be
resolved in the covenants. They should provide that in the event
that individual homeowners fail to properly maintain open space on
their lots, that -the Homeowners Association has the final
responsibility for that maintenance, with the ability to recoup
any costs against that individual homeowner.
2. In the Vann letter, as well as other points in the
preliminary plan application, the Developer indicates that they
will dedicate the public trail to Garfield County. I would not
recommend that Garfield County accept such dedication. This trail
will not meet the definition of road or highway, hence removing it
from the current immunity enjoyed by Garfield County for public
ways. The County has neither the staff nor the equipment to
properly maintain this short stretch of trail. Should the City or
other public entity desire to control this easement, it would be
appropriate to dedicate the public trail to that entity.
3. Although minor compared to other subdivisions, the
statements on Page 4 indicate that portions of certain lots will be
under water.
V
• •
Memo To Mark Bean and
Members of Planning Commission
May 8, 1997
Page 2
4. On Page 5, Lot Area, Mr. Vann indicates that the term
"Minimum Building Envelope" does not really mean what it says. To
the extent that Mr. Vann may interpret our code to permit the
aggregation of one acre of less than 40% slope wherever it may lie
on a lot, they are incorrect. Our code requires that any lot
contain one acre of less than 40% slope, all of which is
contiguous.
5. On Page 6 of Mr. Vann's letter, he notes the willingness
of the Developer to reconstruct an extensive portion of County Road
117 as such proceeds north from his subdivision. As a note to the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, if you
accept this preliminary plan and this portion of the proposal, the
responsibility for identifying the location of this reconstructive
road lies with the Board of County Commissioners. The Developers
are proposing to reconstruct the road as it lies. Its current
location is not consistent with previous engineering studies for
this portion of County Road 117.
6. At Page 7 of the Vann letter, the Developer notes the
attempt to arrange sewer service with the City of Glenwood Springs.
By other attachments, we have been notified that the City has
taken no action regarding that request. While we recognize that
actual approval may now be out of the hands of the Developer, our
regulations require a firm commitment for service prior to approval
of a preliminary plan. Therefore, if the Planning Commission and
eventually the Board of County Commissioners desire to approve this
proposal, the Planning Commission can do so only upon condition
that necessary acceptance by the City is gained before review by
the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County
Commissioners cannot proceed without that guarantee.
7. On Page 9 of the Vann letter, an extensive discussion
of the recent Conder ruling, as well as our comprehensive plan is
undertaken. At this juncture, it is clear that the Board of County
Commissioners have adopted the comprehensive plan as part of their
review process for both PUD applications and subdivision
applications. Statements by the Planning Commission to the
contrary cannot override the decision of the Board of County
Commissioners. Notwithstanding Mr. Vann's statements concerning
the applicability of the density standards of the comprehensive
plan, recent case law would seem to indicate that the Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan is sufficiently specific in that area.
In his letter, Mr. Vann attributes to the County Attorney, the
statement that single parcels are not to be located in multiple
land use districts. I do not recall making that statement in
regard to the comprehensive plan. In regard to zoning districts,
that statement is correct. In regard to the comprehensive plan, I
• •
Memo To Mark Bean and
Members of Planning Commission
May 8, 1997
Page 3
did not participate in the formation of that document to any great
extent. Observation of the plan itself seems to indicate that any
number of parcels may have varied recommended densities. The
Planning Director does not agree with Mr. Vann's position that this
Developer's parcel is the subject of two density recommendations.
Nevertheless, two density recommendations for this parcel may be a
reasonable approach given the other objectives of the comprehensive
plan, particularly buffering from adjacent agricultural uses.
In short, the comprehensive plan, in regard to density
recommendation, appears to meet the current legal standard for
specificity. Under our code, both the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners are required to determine general
conformity of the density standard, along with all other provisions
of the comprehensive plan to the project that is before you. I
must emphasize that general conformity does not require a finding
of literal and complete compliance. As a general proposition, the
state of law concerning the applicability of specific comprehensive
plan provisions is in such flux, that application of requirements
to a specific subdivision must be dealt with on a case by case
basis concerning their specificity. Under the holding in the
Wilkinson case from Pitkin County, it appears that the appellate
courts will look to the method of application as well as the
literal terms to determine whether or not an applicant has
reasonable notice of the requirements.
8. Finally, in regard to the comprehensive plan provisions
on Urban Area of Influence, there is already a statutory definition
for that area, an area defined as two miles from the limits of a
municipality. (See Section 30-28-136(1)(b)). By agreement, that
area can be expanded,, To my knowledge, that has not yet occurred.
9. Covenants, Page 2, No. 3 - Common Elements - The open
space easement should be considered a common element under these
provisions.
10. Covenants, Page 19, No. 2 - Termination of Covenants -
Garfield County acceptance should be required for those covenants
essential to the approval of this subdivision.
11. Tab 8, Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan Submittal -
Utilities - As noted earlier, we must have assurance of the
willingness, not merely the ability, for all utilities provided by
the City.
In closing, I note that there are statutory requirements concerning
quantity and physical availability of water as well as water
quality that must be obtained from the Department of Health and the
State Engineer prior to preliminary plan approval. Additionally,
111
Memo To Mark Bean and
Members of Planning Commission
May 8, 1997
Page 4
a statutory requirement for response from school districts has
become more critical subsequent to the Douglas County litigation.
At this time, I have no further comments regarding this preliminary
plan proposal.
DKD:vlm
64,1
1
A R 1 3 1997 11
tiZA.1"
a,,,cu Aewe c(
tA 44. 1.40- 5 -
Gamic 7-../-
a,tw /64"4.4._ r 74c
a„,( ,u,vtnAc
4.„) prga__
-73
,tfx
fildi- d -C 7i) Gvz46-1-4-AZ
1(11,24 Art04\,
Lvtk{ -7 4-1-41--t-4"..,
t,.., -g44.
- /•
-' .4-,' re %''-� "!<,4, .ice
/-4-/'.[,<,%�, ;1Z tea... c !' .
J
I
• •
HJ.:('L; \
)
•
)i
I .1!
I Z.' w • • • •
• , 'ern rj"••:' I ''
7"I
zz;
/ • .••••?
(-4
2 1997
. f
cly_z_zi7 / 77 -7 ,j
FY
/2(:/.,,,,,,,r_ -_--L___
--) /7,7 ,-
/ f,, ---e/ iaa-A,--z--71-, ,, c.c. i .,..--
,..c. /. Z.
(
1 , .. ,
...,-..„,,..-...;
r - , •
''1, ".^, ...--?"%Lci---1-:;- Z -----.7--"../1..L-- .-,?Ve•'l-.%--;"--•
/
--•-• /f.":: ..-^ -7(7 .---44-<:-='...!c- -G-,--__ ,-.,,,,. :. --1<c;•-•••••"---e-/-e----..---
. -
----77-71..."
../ • • ,./ - •
..1,,,,..... ....,....... ..,,,o..... _e...,..,_ .„...ze---,/ 4,:..... Z—
• •/,
'''' .( 7. ''''. 2.11-•.-,77:le
/.7
L...e/
/ 777
•
/
/4—( /1" .C—
• .--f"
4..