Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.02 PC Staff Report 01.14.1998• • PC 1/14/98 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: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD, City of Glenwood Springs L 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 • • 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 138.77 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. II1. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zonin : 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 previously noted open space easement, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 2.3 acres of land to the City of Glenwood Springs for open space purposes. The property to be dedicated is between the river and County Road 163.. The City of Glenwood Springs has included the open space dedication in a pre- annexation agreement included in the application. 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 appeared to have substantial portions of the lot area with slopes over 40%. The applicant's engineer has provided an analysis of these lots and demonstrated that each lot hit least one (1) acre of buildable area with slopes less than 40% each. B. Comprehensive Plan: 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, gi • . 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. 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. 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). 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. 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 provide all types of housing that ensures current and future residents equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and that protect the natural environment. Objective 2.1 - To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable cost to residents throughout Garfield County. Policy 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 in appropriate areas throughout the County. Programs 2.1 - The County, by encouraging developers and landowners to use the Planned Unit Development regulations and other innovative tools, shall establish housing standards appropriate for the proposed scale of development which provide a wide range of housing types and costs. • • Staff Comment: This area is adjacent to the City of Glenwood Springs and has been designated for a large portion of the development area as high density development with "less than 2 ac./du". The proposed project has no lots less than 2 acres in size and did not use the PUD process to develop a more creative approach to a variety of housing types. The proposed lots will at best cater to the medium/high income buyers, given the extensive infrastructure to be developed as a part of the project. This is an area that was designated as having the potential for more creative design. Instead, the developer has chosen to utilize what many people perceive to be the easier process to get approved. Unfortunately, the City of Glenwood Springs did not encourage the annexation of the property, when the opportunity was presented to them. 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 did not have the recently adopted road impact fees. He estimated road impact fees based on the road impact fee formula adopted by the County would be approximately $2500 per dwelling or a total of $145,000. The Commissioners recently adopted a portion of the Capital Improvements Plan related to road impacts. (See enclosed resolution pgs. jq .11 ) Based upon that resolution, the applicants property is located in Area 8c and would have to pay $203/ADT or $2030/single family dwelling. Based upon the application, it would require a total contribution of $117,740 for the road impact fees, half at final plat and remainder due at building permit. • • 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 5.1 - 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: In general, the proposed development meets the previously noted objectives and policies. There is "dedicated" open space adjacent to the Roaring Fork river, proposed as a part of the subdivision, which has been tentatively accepted by the City of Glenwood Springs as a part of a pre -annexation agreement. There is an "open space easement" area throughout the subdivision that no structures will be allowed, to be owned by the individual property owner, but dedicated to the subdivision homeowner's association. There is a document submitted with the application that has plans for landscaping, the construction of 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 and amounts of vegetation for the landscaped areas. OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS Goal - Garfield County shall develop, adopt and implement policies that preserve the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing agricultural uses, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in a mutually beneficial manner that respects the balance between private property rights and the needs of the community. Objective 5.1(A) - To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development approved by Garfield County. Objective 5.1(A) - To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat. I r• j pPolicy 5.1(A) - All approved projects a roved adjacent to existing agricultural use shall be required to mitigate any adverse impact. These mitigation measures shall include some or all of the following: a) Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from common property boundaries; b) The use of open space to provide additional buffering; c) Dog restrictions, including limiting the ete of Ocr of of dogs and requiring kenneling, prior to issuance of a Certificate Staff Comment - The applicants have proposed to insert language on the plat and in the covenants that recognizes the potential for e offensive l buildingles on the envelopes and the oining agricultural property and a 200 ft. buffer property. The DOW applauded the applicant's efforts to address wildlife issues. Staff had suggested at the last discussion of this issue that the applicant only proposed lots at least six (6) acres in size adjacent to the adjacent agricultural operation and have at least 200 ft. of buffer. 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 that compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches. Objective 6.2 - Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher -intensity adjacent uses. Policy 6.1 - Agricultural land will be protected from establishmentinfringement and assocfferareas impacts of higher -intensity land uses through between the agricultural use and the proposed project. Program 6.4 -Designate buffer zones of at least ca 0 n be ddemonstrated as a practical eet between farmed /ranched lands and residential lots unless a lesser amount buffer. Program 6.8 - Require that all Final Plats carry a pat note that notifies prospective lot owners that Garfield County has adopted a Riaht to Farm and Ranch Polic , and that copies of this policy are available from local , land title companies. Staff Comments - The same comments noted in the prior section are appropriate for this section. The County has adopted a right to farm policy that is more lengthy than • • the applicant's proposed language and may be appropriate to reference on any plat approved by the Board. The proposed open space easement on each lot of 200 ft., would create some physical separation with the active farming operation to the south of the proposed subdivision. It was suggested in previous staff comments 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, staff had suggested that a proposed plat note needed to be strengthened to not only recognize the priority of agricultural uses, but the potential for odors, noise , dust and other agricultural practices that may be offensive to residential uses adjacent and nearby the agricultural operation. The current application includes the 200 ft. easement adjacent to the ranch and a strengthened agricultural priority statement. All lots are still roughly two acres each. 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 the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality. Objective 10.1 - County land use policies will be consistent with local land use policies and objectives. Policy 10.2 - Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities that require urban services will be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction. Policy 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 originally chose not to submit an application to the City of Glenwood Springs. The applicant subsequently submitted a request to the City that the City 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 City of Glenwood Springs signed a pre -annexation agreement that agrees to provide sewer service to the development; requires the developer to build all other infrastructure to City standards; the City accept the proposed land dedication and not require annexation of the property prior to development approval. The pre- annexation agreement did not preclude the City from commenting negatively about the project. C. Soils/Topography: 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 • I• • • 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. 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. The present application proposes to develop the roads to standards consistent with the City of Glenwood Springs requirements. 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 would be required to have a right-of-way of at least 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, according to County regulations. The proposed road design meets and exceeds the County road standards for the same level of development. 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 proposed for the road improvements 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 applicants state that the proposed improvements would exceed the maximum contribution that the County would impose as a road impact fee, which was estimated to be $145,000 at the time . f• • • of the application. As noted previously the actual fees would be $117,740 based upon the recently adopted portion of the Cap ital Improvements Plan. The County Road & Bridge Supervisor has noted that the proposed improvements may not be the be the amount estimated by the applicant's engineer, since the County already improved approximately 700 ft. of the road included in the estimate. 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 Couaty 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 the option to bring CR 117 down the Four Mile Creek drainage. 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 p:viewed 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 caring 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 separate easement for the water tank, to be owned by the homeowners association 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. Previously there was no commitment from the City to serve the development with sewer. Section 4:92 of the Garfield County Subdivision • • 1 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 pre -annexation agreement with the City commits to the provision of service for sewage treatment, in a manner consistent with the requirement noted. 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 an 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. I. Other Comments: 1. Cy of Glenwood Springs: Enclosed is a letter from the City Planning Commission. (See pgs. � • 1d1 ) There are a number of issues raised including an inefficient design; conflicts with the City Land Use plans; limited use of the open space by the public; wildlife impacts, traffic impacts and potential aviation 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 the surface and subsurface conditions in the development. (See letter pgs..?I-Z I ) • • 3. Division of Wildlife: Enclosed is a letter noting that the suggested design modifications for the project to minimize the impact to wildlife in the area have been included in the application.(See pgs. •J • ) 4. Roaring Fork School District RE -1: The enclosed letter requests a school site acquisition fee be collected as a part of the subdivision approval consistent with a formula adopted by the District in July, 1997. (See pg. a3 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 artd adequate water supply available for the subdivision. (See letter pgs. A•s 4 ) 7. County Road & Bridge Department: The Road & Bridge Supervisor recommends that the County accept the proposed upgrade of the County Road, but that the applicants build it to a standard consistent with the standard he noted in his letter. He also noted that approximately 700 ft. of the road proposed to be built has already been built by the County and the cost proposed may not cover the impact fee attributable to the project. (See letter pgs.) 8. Neighbor's Comments : The enclosed letters objecting to the development of the spr�opevldue to impacts on the County road, ranches and wildlife. ( See �►�� �f IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 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 conforlr►s to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; and E. That all data, surveys, analysis, studies, plan 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. V. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission can recommend DENIAL of the proposed subdivision based on noncompliance with the Comprehensive Plan recommended density, Agriculture protection through buffers, lack of compliance with the City of Glenwood Springs land use plans. If the Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL, should be 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. 2. 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 the road name change suggested by the Glenwood Springs Emergency Services Department be incorporated in any final plat submittal. 4 At the time of each Final Plat approval the applicant's engineer submit plans for the upgrading of CR 117 to the intersection with Midland Avenue. The plans will be approved by the Board prior to recording of the plat. A fee shall be paid to the County in an amount equivalent to $2030 pursuant the road impact fee formula adopted by the County less the cost of roadway improvements agreed to as a part of the Final Plat approval. T lots con guous . e Bershenyi ranc •e at six 6) a sin size and ave build' , - elopes at leas ..:1 ft. from the co on p : • y line. 6. Include the following plat notes on any final plat: 401. 191 411. • 1 (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 Lus Auiiges -'ich 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. In connection with the Final plat, the applicant shall set forth the proposed method for transferring legal ownership and control of the water distribution facilities, water and water rights sufficient in quantity to service the approved to the Four Mile Ranch Homeowners Association. 8. At the time of final plat, the applicant shall be required to pay the applicable school site acquisition fee that has been agreed to by the Board of County Commissioners. g/aid moi 5 7'fe,6/4 c 4 4/-7, 5- • 11111111111111111111111111111Ilil I � 11111111111111111 517936 12/17/1997 02 01P B1046 P808 M ALSDORF 1 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a REGULAR meeting of the Board ofCounty Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the Courthouse in Glenwood Springs on MONDAY , the 8th day of DECEMBER A.D. 19 97 , there were present: Marian I. Smith John Martin Larry McCown Don DeFord Mildred Alsdorf Charles Deschenes , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 97-111 RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE ADOPTION OF A PORTION OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ESTABLISHING ROAD IMPACT DISTRICTS AND THE ASSOCIATED COST OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, Title 30, Article 28, Section 133, C.R.S., as amended, provides for the approval of all subdivision plans and plats, and the adoption of regulations governing such plans and plats by the Board of County Commissioners for the unincorporated areas of Garfield County, Colorado; WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 97-04, adopted a road impact fee requirement for subdivisions and a formula for the calculation of road impact fees; WHEREAS, the Board is required to establish a road cost based on a Capital Improvements Plan adopted by the Board, to establish a road impact fee for a subdivision; WHEREAS, the Board has held public meetings to consider the adoption of a Capital Improvements Program , which for the purposes of this resolution shall be known as the Garfield County Capital Improvements Plan; WHEREAS, this Board deems it necessary and advisable to adopt the portions of the afore mentioned Capital Improvements Plan addressing the Road and Bridge Infrastructure to establish a cost for the purposes of establishing a road impact fee; 008 • 11111111111111111111111111111 llhIII! 1111111111111111 517936 12/17/1997 02 01P 81046 P809 M ALSDORF 2 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO WHEREAS, the Board deems it necessary to divide the County into districts for the purpose of establishing cost of road improvements for an area and to establish a road impact fee for the area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, at its meeting held on the 9th day of December, 1997, that the County will be divided into traffic study areas shown on the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the aforementioned traffic study areas shall have road impact fees based on the road costs and road capacity by area identified on the attached Exhibit B and that the traffic study areas, road costs and road capacity may be modified by resolution at a future date if more current costs and/or capacities are provided to the Board through future study or actual expenditure of funds. Dated this 1 7 day of rh.r•amhPr ATTEST: Clerk of the Boa(d , A.D. 19 9 7 . GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: COMMLSSIONER CHAIRMAN MARIAN I. SMITH COMMISSIONER JOHN F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) , Aye , Aye , Aye I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 . County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners • • • I. f, r. • a .... • ' •ti Q1. _. ' . N'.... ' : . * 7\.."' 417 f....."1.2-1 • .1. N It 0 7 3 l 7 iL • 4-- NEIMNOOlagE10 :3. a - c = s a. Co, b y b c a • b - Co" t..7„ c7 b CA) O A (n J (O (t) (J) ✓ N CS) B J (0 (n m J CS) O N C I: � -o -n ►r C7 m .- r 0 v -a o v o o f= —1 -< 3 C) D or ( ) 0 -n • 11111111111111111 IIII III 111111 111 11111 1111 IIIi 517936 12/17/1997 02 01P 81046 P811 M ALSDORF 4 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit 6 Traffic Study Area Estimated Cost Level of service (LOS) Design Capacity (ADT) Cost/ADT Area 1 Totals/Fees 4,410,000 E 15,725 $280 Area 2 Totals/Fees 1,540,000 E 13,800 $112 Area 3 Totals/Fees 3,830,000 E 16,917 $226 Area 4 Totals/Fees 1,760,000 E 16,917 $104 Area 6 Totals/Fees 3,410,000 E 16,200 $210 **8a 520,000 E 17,000 $31 **8b 1,770,000 E 17,000 $104 **8c 790,000 E 11,700 $68 **8d 710,000 E 11,700 $61 **8e 1,600,000 E 11,700 $137 **8f 1,810,000 E 11,700 $155 **8g 2,220,000 E 11,700 $190 **Area 8 Totals 8,706,000 E Area 9 Totals/Fees 2,240,000 E 18,433 $122 Area 10 Totals/Fees 3,160,000 E 16,200 $195 Area 11 Totals/Fees 6,220,000 E 16,200 $384 ** All Area 8 road impact fees will be cumulative, based upon the area in which the subdivision is proposed to be located, i.e. , if you live in Area 8c, the cost/ADT is the sum of 8a + 8b + 8c or $31+$104+$68= $203/ADT. Each area cost/ADT is based on a calculation using the formula adopted as a part of the Subdivision Regulations to establish Road Impact fees. Also for the purposes of the calculation, Areas 8a and 8b are included in all calculations since they are areas common to the City and County related to Midland Avenue and a bridge crossing to Highway 82. January 5, 1998 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning and Building 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan Dear Mark: At their meeting on November 25, 1997, the Glenwood Springs Planning Commission reviewed the Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan. The following comments were generated at that meeting: The Commission questioned whether the design of the subdivision is efficient. The Commission noted that a subdivision with large parcels creates a need for more roads and utility lines than a subdivision with smaller, clustered lots. They noted that clustering homes would provide more opportunity to include attainable housing within the subdivision. The Commission noted that the subdivision proposal conflicts with City's Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan encourages development to be contained within an urban development boundary to avoid sprawl. Four Mile Ranch is outside of the urban development boundary. The Commission noted that this layout provides open space, though the bulk of the open space dedication would be for private use only. Out of the total 62.9 acres of open space, only 2.3 acres would be for public use. The Commission asked whether it had been demonstrated that the 50 ft. setback would indeed avoid skylining of homes. They also noted that it appeared on the plans that some of the land which would be dedicated to the City was actually County Road 163 right-of-way. 806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970/945-2575 FAX: 945-2597 • • The Commission expressed concern about the impact of the development on wildlife. They wanted to point out that clustering the homes would provide more room for wildlife. They noted that the underpass, as recommended by the Division of Wildlife, was not included in the plans. They suggested that the developer install signage if there is a concentration of deer and elk crossing County Road 117. They also suggested that if fences are constructed, they should be designed so deer are still able to migrate through the subdivision. The Commission expressed concern about increased traffic impacts on Midland Avenue and Sunlight Bridge. The Commission acknowledged that there is a need for immediate improvements to County Road 117. The Commission hopes that improvements to County Road 117 would be extended past Four Mile Boulevard to the southern edge of the subdivision. The Commission questioned whether the new development would be affected by airplane flyover patterns. They suggest that, if so, future residents should be advised and that there be a note on the subdivision plat that the subdivision is affected by aircraft flyover patters. Another suggestion from the Commission would be to establish an aviation easement. The Commission asked if the water supply was sufficient for irrigation. They also questioned how the water tank would fit in with the City's future infrastructure plans. Thank you for your referral. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on projects in the greater Glenwood Springs area. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, y � Janet M. Buck Planner • • STATE OF COLC)3O COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Depanment of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street. Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 March 4, 1997 GA -97-0010 Mr. Mark Bean, County Planner Garfield Countyn Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Proposed Four Mile Ranch Subdivision North of Four Mi la_ Creek anra Tmrlerli ately East of Four Mile Road (C.R.V117), Garfield County Dear Mr. Bean: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Rov Romer Governor lance. S. Lochhead Executive Director Michael 3. Long Division Director vici.t 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, 1 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 Eac=e Valley (Evaporite) Formation bedrock which consists predominatly of sandstone, shale, and gypsum. The overall tonography 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 buildings approximately az 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 adequately dc this, in our opinion, especially for the potential ground -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 tha: 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 11-10-97 Garfield County Planning 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark; NOV 1 .7 1997 GAFe=rRLD l:vuN I Y REFER TO G OR oF For Wildlife - For People I will refer you to my past letters of 2-12-97 to you and my 4- 20-94 letter to the city of Glenwood Springs regarding Four Mile Ranch Subdivision. The preliminary plan submission contained a letter from Mr. Bryan Barnes which addresses the wildlife issues I discussed with him. I applaud their efforts to implement these recommendations. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Kevin Wright District Wildly' Manager Carbondale 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 aa- DEC -•02-97 TUE 11:21 AM ROA• FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO. 911,9240 P. 01 •• ,r�. , �i .6 Roaring Fork Sehocl 'District RE -1 ;i, 14 5'Grdnd Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • . Telephone (970) 945%558 December 1, 1997 • Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suitc 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 FRED A. WALL. 5uperinfendent JUDY HAPIONSTALL, Assistant Superintendent SHANNON PELLAND. Finance Director Re: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Pian Dear Mark: The following is submitted in response to your request for comments on the Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan. As you arc aware, the District's Board of Education adopted a formula for land dedication in July, 1997. Application of this formula (see attached resolution) results in total land dedication of an amount less than thc minimum requirement for a school site. Accordingly, the District is requesting cash in lieu of land dedication to be calculated in accordance with thc attached resolution. Please note that this land dedication standard has not yet formally been adopted by the County. At the County's request, we are now working with Garfield Re -2 (Rifle) and Garfield 16 (Parachute) in hopes that we can all agree on a formula for land dedication and cash -in -lieu so that the County can apply one standard. We believe that a new standard will be forinally adopted by the County prior to final approval for Four Mile Ranch, and therefore request application of the formula described in the attached resolution. 1n rely, Shannon Pclland Finance Director Enc. aekk i • STATE OF COLORADO 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 November 14, 1997 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 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: ' /991 f 9Y komer • •CoYelnor .las. Lochhead L� t�Yry�-6�ecutive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer We have reviewed the above referenced subdivision proposal to create 58 single-family lots on approximately 127 acres located just south of Glenwood Springs. We have previously commented on this proposal in a letter dated March 10, 1997 (copy enclosed). Our comments from that letter still apply to this proposal. Should you or the applicant have further questions or comments regarding the water supply for this project, please contact Jeff Deatherage of this office. SPUJD Sincerely, bizt-32_14,07 1-c" Steve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, WD 38 (ourmil2.spl • STATE OF COLORADO 1FFICE 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 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 March 10, 1997 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: Roy Romer Governor James 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 Toss 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. f • • Mr. Mark Bean March 10, 1997 Page 2 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, Steve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer SPUJDrd cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, WD 38 fourmile.spl IP a c r • • GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-2254 Phone 945-6111 DATE: January 6, 1998 TO: Mark Bean FROM: King RE: Four Mile Ranch Sub -Division The proposal by the developer to improve County Road 117, as the county has recently completed adjacent to a portion of the development, would add considerably to the serviceability and the safety of that stretch of road. Which would be affected directly by the development from the standpoint of all the construction traffic and then later the home owners. I have attached a copy of the county standard for that portion of County Road 117 that was recently improved. You may notice that there is a slight difference in their proposal. We built 11" lanes and the barrow ditches were in addition to the six foot shoulder. Three years ago, the county made improvements to the intersection of Midland Avenue, and County Road 117, so I would propose that the developer improve the roadway between these two sections utilizing as a minimum the attached road section and the same design life criteria. Within the section of roadway to be improved, the county would like to have input as to some design considerations relative to needed grade changes, and as suggested by the applicant, the submittal of these documents for approval at the final plat. An additional note, the county has already rebuilt slightly over 700 feet of roadway as proposed here. So that would reflect a change in their road improvement estimate, but I feel something that would add to the safety of the proposal would be a turn lane for vehicles entering the development. This would facilitate travel for the vehicles going past this project. cr 1 1 7fmp -a7- :::.-7•Pri!,=7: • r 4. • • - - 41".;714‘;67•V 74"4.***, .. • • -4,74110.0 - • .-• • ••. • . . • '• •• 74- 7 T77 DIcIALL AI 0 I 3 a ,SI • IVIZJAIVig 101/elDilliS/U.JOCIV02.1 4.1 Th • . • N.... • fts, a7t-g4-4 • • 0 !irisc 2 4 19V r2, • —745 / - C_. er— 734k efra/7- tCa—reez )-7 LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES,P.C. • 0 6 1997 IL. L.4.) qieJo 4 CiePrA.40 -7- UJ dip / ,t4 1-- 04' • — 4-0 _Zi(1 CA - Lt. -La -442 ,V 0"4"44._ 7 Q 7 tsk I�/ , A 1 C,+ 7E7iv`�d;`(^-QLl+u�1 4 e.4,r,./,e,;17 a,,� �.. ,` tU'' h. ' �� � J.I • f 1: MAR 1 3 1997 ., • , i a:. _. ..(� . 1, - r .i.,,•...,•s I Y D a! 'P c(a � 1' ( :4(: (IC fit, ). r; ,;.;2"kr," ( ,vkbt,ve 4.44c4. -Z G - a.,.,/ 4 , 4r.ortfrie,t g4o) 4/4. .-. tvvt. ‘-xe—et-;faces /ha-,✓(. A, 44 /H rf,C 061-70 /L: icq h w U', e w Grp Cdr;, C� . • :; •- •\ •-"1'+.,$•,i•, • ) • • , 0r&c, 1,9 LY 11 RECEIVED MAY 1 1997 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1_70;111.4.,, :12L )1 K ck.rt vui I+ s. 2 .eis C& . 0(44 cLxv\;1 w -r VIC." c1, ,(1 /-0ik xvvkity._rcsd S? h Li0,2 11\tr 00,A -R- ;t (0; ro 0 (-k- 6ve-vc-1,, 640 -2 I- c,,i-Lco,,__Q_Kv__•L_ 1‘_em-r_ PQ 6 -a -a -N -t-11L-5 r Jz_n CI -0- 11-4-I e tit _ _0(:; Pe_.S r ci_rar2 Q -a r \*A_ 5 Co .4_ rt. z- 5 cvn P.44.3 ___ 4 sp_Goitr— Cos4S.71.1. 5.14.gaik:SSe\ C-5 4'L O.otA.144 CV—MI C/Q$ h L tv1.-4.. to t tr4.2 .0i- ± s u,,,,Ntr7 co kJ c1/41 12 -A -VA yo_tev_s__Lc-t- c\-\ - 41.413 Ls_ .4.2.-V-41 6-1— CI - - --CIO -a ---r.k1L7&r r. _ 3 3 a- CQi-st,y, 4r 4.12.v,s-r7 M -Qo,l . 1 h •e.v— cur, ts'A.. c, hI D S cl O o v r- iv 04.2, 'Ifl,N ``J .W\: i.; c.11 w.k _5p] : t 8 (A.v: V : 51\ W q,� �t r - 6 (xt Le) 11,0, .-t- 4.�.tr - c roe, �S 1 �. ooT 4.>�. Y1. CI -.7d +CIL wC L- 5 des . �, 4 s d t f er _�: �, w :' � gc,►�.-i,., 1-10(4) C c� 't" kL er o po s ±o. 5p (0- S. d a.is d `' J5 Lu 5' h 6)7 1.57 D0 ttrt�y r-o/26S.� 't'o .� (v � w— for k -v ct.s ie„ w a , LU Ls— C� c rot L<) h o Own-ets Civ► -m o1,5 TO (4. q..(rv��- qd.. 4. b 4.S ,e ►71 �t y � �-(i -� 4 w �^ 4 qck4 N cift *-cy S 3 t{r M z 2co,Ac_AN i g _ G ( so ' -S Pon S %(/-e.... f' o r 1 .. Tcc rt : "T ± IA - e ; r S k41L. vr' t �-ti . c-11 �eS W �i n c. `tJ ,-- Cc* h Sci f." C- (AD ckfi rorYN. Shy \ h 1 h.._ Cwt �G M�;n�LnQtic� S.T,(-7 r o -t kbS-L h q -S (YNo.kS!- `1 \ l.(_) : v1 } e r `ftp Pr- -'- - -t— 0 U -.r vr\ W AA -t W R•-t.N `-t 1-r-�-e �y , 1 1 C -t otr-tr F'fo \\A\--1 Crow (-kJ \ 1nc‘t 4( rn : 2 anC1\ d r: 11.a. n - "1'O 'y ero12e rrt1 5 S. Cbz. Serol o( -kr C vop, I-01' _41). �....j S CI.GSfY •7 l' ocky `ro15 i\\ r-tr h fp 4 LI , L{Ju. I'LC�v c ,1 6 4s, to K.--A-L-0 gyo Spey — /roi4.\ ?rout n1 ct--- Sho t,1 04 b114-Ict to 51. r, t V1i �• (1-C Lt `•CG'R (--1‘ 5 It.a wAwl hay. 11,1 d. r; 114 o 19 v o- T • cl o (JO' : T. 6 0.w 0. rv� _ ¥' 6r o u`�lL W 0. �+v S. -a --May && 6 2 f pr SC /7. -- u - T D, 1:odr r tY\ kA roc, 51704_1( b,A0,4 \&or--- Ci..e t. T�; S roe, .5 V- rl Gv % Yok 5 hof 0v\\`1 c06 mss, ;t 6 u.r 1 oa.r 1;v --s tccJ w ko 4_l -r Cross -t' r o0.,1 , drk .: 1 . Ljk,rt f„ w, (`,/v, la Ra,,, c --L. S N -I- V 0 u ; h T h r --t Cro` S w ok.l( Cau, ci (-ST t1Ru m mn 1 h 'C h� gra ',v. -0i Ili -A_ ci uT w :11 d es fi rQ our CyowS vn posS: 6/Kva r tr.air 7'k- C-v'op. Th,- LS r- . '.d-&. CO r -L s wA� .L.a,,..ktA To lit ‘01 C'71 -U {. oc.t, r 4 P : 17 . on 1v�Sfick 1 ock ?s Cttt ack,A2 J i v, sroc/c A-4.1 LC:11 woLl1 6-- C. Pro6/,4GS 4_6 Lt,1 r&si blow ;k5 n To 141. ; 3g. -'- Sir o n yJ_- —iaLl 1'4 ._ALLA . s.__ t' t it y C : t •3 .4.xs C (/‘ ac DiLaY ___tYx is ...t- "r _ro 57'd P cl Ja. S tr.a e Vitt AQ n 1 u s..1.4.,2 w U (2%-4-2-k��. C� N• �n� -��. ilfai .,OS - 7 1161- N.Q,V.R_ r ��Qr+-ct.L stbc%ks_i i MAY 1 2 1997 C.. • t L D COUNTY MAY 9, 1997 GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 109 8TH STREET STE 303 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO. 81601 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL FOUR MILE RANCH SUBDIVISION THIS LETTER IS IN RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC NOTICE WE RECEIVED REGARDING THE MEETING MAY 14, 1997, AS WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT 59 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS A MUCH HIGHER DENSITY THAN THE THREE EXISTING HOMES ACROSS THE ROAD ON APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES, AND SO DOES NOT COMPLIMENT THE ADJOINING LAND OWNERS SITUATION. BUT OF GREATER CONCERN, IS HOW THE SEWAGE WILL BE HANDLED, OR IF IT WILL CONTAMINATE THE FOUR MILE AQUIFER. ALSO, OF EQUAL CONCERN IS THE WELL THE OWNERS OF THE FOURMILE RANCH PROPERTY HAVE DRILLED AT A MUCH LOWER ELEVATION THAN THE TWO EXISTING WELLS SERVING THE THREE HOMES ACROSS THE STREET. IS THAT WELL WHICH WILL SERVE 59 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, PLUS OPEN SPACE, GOING TO DRAW THE WATER TABLE DOWN TO LEVEL WHERE OUR WELLS WILL GO DRY? THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ADD TO FOURMILE ROAD AT PRESENT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. WE FEEL THAT THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE CONCRETELY ADDRESSED, BEFORE APPROVAL SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THIS OR ANY OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY. SINCERELY, ALAN NELSON KATHRYN NELSON • • PUBLIC NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that M -R COLORADO INVESTERS, INC., AND ONE & A QUARTER MILE RANCH, INC., c/o FOUR MILE RANCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, MANAGING JOINT VENTURE PARTNER has applied to the County Planning Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a Preliminary Plan apl?r,'val for The Four Mile Ranch Subdivision in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: See Attached Practical Description: Located south City Limits of the City of Glenwood Springs, off of County Roa,' 117. Said Preliminary Plan is to allow the Petitioner to subdivide a 138.773 acre tract into 59 single family lots, on the above described property. All persons affected by the proposed Preliminary Plan are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter particularly if you have objections to such Preliminary Plan as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and nthers affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for Preliminary Plan. This Preliminary Plan application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the 'lours of 8:30 a.rn. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. That public hearing on the application for the above Preliminary Plan has been set for the 14th day of May, 1997, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County • 4r 10)01 igiR • January 5, 1998 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning and Building 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan Dear Mark: At their meeting on November 25, 1997, the Glenwood Springs Planning Commission reviewed the Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan. The following comments were generated at that meeting: \•-• The Commission questioned whether the design of the subdivision is efficient. The Commission noted that a subdivision with large parcels creates a need for more roads and utility lines than a subdivision with smaller, clustered lots. They noted that clustering homes would provide more opportunity to include attainable housing within the subdivision. The Commission noted that the subdivision proposal conflicts with City's Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan encourages development to be contained within an urban development boundary to avoid sprawl. Four Mile Ranch is outside of the urban development boundary. The Commission noted that this layout provides open space, though the bulk of the open space dedication would be for private use only. Out of the total 62.9 acres of open space, only 2.3 acres would be for public use. The Commission asked whether it had been demonstrated that the 50 ft. setback would indeed avoid skylining of homes. They also noted that it appeared on the plans that some of the land which would be dedicated to the City was actually County Road 163 right-of-way. 806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970/945-2575 FAX: 945-2597 • • The Commission expressed concern about the impact of the development on wildlife. They wanted to point out that clustering the homes would provide more room for wildlife. They noted that the underpass, as recommended by the Division of Wildlife, was not included in the plans. They suggested that the developer install signage if there is a concentration of deer and elk crossing County Road 117. They also suggested that if fences are constructed, they should be designed so deer are still able to migrate through the subdivision. The Commission expressed concern about increased traffic impacts on Midland Avenue and Sunlight Bridge. The Commission acknowledged that there is a need for immediate improvements to County Road 117. The Commission hopes that improvements to County Road 117 would be extended past Four Mile Boulevard to the southern edge of the subdivision. The Commission questioned whether the new development would be affected by airplane flyover patterns. They suggest that, if so, future residents should be advised and that there be a note on the subdivision plat that the subdivision is affected by aircraft flyover patters. Another suggestion from the Commission would be to establish an aviation easement. The Commission asked if the water supply was sufficient for irrigation. They also questioned how the water tank would fit in with the City's future infrastructure plans. Thank you for your referral. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on projects in the greater Glenwood Springs area. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Janet M. Buck Planner • • STATEOF COLORA3O 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 Trnrtlerdi ately East of Four Mile Rod (C.R. 117), Garfield County Dear Mr. Bean: Noto"-ri )EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor lames S. Lochhead Executive Director 4Lchael B. Long Uwnurn Director Vicki Cowart State Geologl<t 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, 1 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 (Evaporite) Formation bedrock which consists predomiratly 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 buildings 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 adequately 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. cerely, ,IrL 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 11-10-97 Garfield County Planning 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark; REFER TO GAF-*�tf~L.0 L, ii`i.l ,Y Rdtb lL� V OF For Wildlife - For People I will refer you to my past letters of 2-12-97 to you and my 4- 20-94 letter to the city of Glenwood Springs regarding Four Mile Ranch Subdivision. The preliminary plan submission contained a letter from Mr. Bryan Barnes which addresses the wildlife issues I discussed with him. I applaud their efforts to implement these recommendations. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Kevin Wright District WildlManager Carbondale 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 DEC -02-97 TUE 11:21 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO, 9709459240 P. 01 • • it' I,: : X49. sw� • Roaring Fork SChool `District RE 1 f`S r ' . „ <+f '1405 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 eh' Telephone (970) 945`-6558' fWe December 1, 1997 Mark IIean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 .°N FRED A. WALL, Superintendent JUDY HAPIONSTALL, Assistant Superintendent SHANNON PELLANO. Finance Director Re: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan Dcar Mark: The following is submitted in response to your request for comments on the Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan. As you arc aware, the District's Board of Education adopted a formula for land dedication in July, 1997. Application of this formula (see attached resolution) results in total land dedication of an amount less than the minimum requirement for a school site. Accordingly, the District is requesting cash in lieu of land dedication to be calculated in accordance with the attached resolution. Please note that this land dedication standard has not yet formally been adopted by the County. At the County's request, we are now working with Garfield Re -2 (Rifle) and Garfield 16 (Parachute) in hopes that we can all agree on a formula for land dedication and cash -in -lieu so that the County can apply one standard. We believe that a new standard will be formally adopted by the County prior to final approval for Four Mile Ranch, and therefore request application of the formula described in the attached resolution. i•n rely, Shannon Pclland Finance Director Enc. aikk, - DEC -02-97 TUE 11:21 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 02 • • x' 41) Roaring Folk School District RE -1 1405 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 -: Telephone (970) 945-6556 N, • MEMORANDUM FRED A. WALL, Superintendent JUDY HAPTONSTALL, Assi4-tant Superintendent SHANNON PELLAND, Finance Director DATE: July 25, 1997 TO: Planners of: Counties of Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin City of Glenwood Towns of Carbondale and Basalt FROM: Roaring Fork School District Office RE: School District Land Dedication Standards Many thanks to those of you who provided your time and assistance to the school district in its efforts In define a land dedication standard for residential development. We have attached a copy of the resolution adopted by the Roaring fork School District Board of Education on July 7, 1997. The District is now requesting that each of the governments within its boundaries adopt ordinances supporting the same, and we would appreciate your help in facilitating this process. Under such ordinance, the District requests that all fees in -lieu of land dedication be paid at the time of subdivision approval. Further, the District is suggesting the following definitions for terms included in the ordinance: Current market value: Current market value means the projected value. of all subdivided lots. including site improvements such as streets and utilities, but excluding the value of residential dwelling units and other structnres on the property. Market value may be substantiated by a documented purchase price (if an arms length transaction no more than two years old). a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to both parties. or other mutually agreed upon recognized means, The developer shall pay for the appraisal and all other costs associated with determining the current market value. Dwelling type: Single family: A one unit structure detached from any other house. Townhomc, condo, duplex. etc.: A one unit structure that is attached to another structure but has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining stniclures. Apartment: Units in structures containing two or more housing units that do not fit definition n townhomc, condo. duplex (above) Mobile glome. Trailer: Self-explanatory. Please do not hesitate to call Shannon Pclland at the District Office (945-6558) if you have any questions. - DEC -02-97 TUE 11:21 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 03 • • Roaring Fork Scho01 • District RE -1 ' 1405 Grend.Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 •• Telephone (970) 945/6558 July 25, 1997 Dear Council Members and County Commissioners: • JAMES C1 'PHILLIPS, Superintendent JUpY HAPTONS1ALL, Asistant Superintendent • SHANNON PELLAND, FmtncePkector During the course of several months, the school district, with input from planners of the various governments within the District's boundaries, has researched and evaluated land dedication fee formulas to be applied in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes. This research culminated in a resolution which was adopted by the Roaring Fork School District Board of Education at their regular meeting on July 7, 1997. The District encourages the counties of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin, the City of Glenwood Springs, and the Towns of Basalt and Carbondale to adopt the provisions of this resolution to be applied to residential development occurring within the District's boundaries. The District will continue to evaluate and respond to specific subdivision requests, and will determine whether land dedication or cash -in -lieu of land dedication is appropriate given the nature of each request. if a meeting with our Board of Education would be helpful, please call us at your earliest convenience, Sincerely, %\f\‘‘ Fred A. Wall Bruce Motherly Superintendent President, Board of Education DEC -02-97 TUE 11:22 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 04 • r RESOLUTION OF THE ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 BOARD OF EDUCATION REGARDING STANDARDS FOR LAND DEDICATION ANI) CASH IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION 1997 A. THIS RESOLUTION IS PREMISED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. Roaring Fork School District ("District") has experienced annual student enrollment increases ranging from 1.5% to 6.9% from 1988 to 1996 and averaging 4.8% during that time: Year Enrollment 1988/89 3301 1989/90 3495 1990/91 3708 1991/92 3921 1992/93 4013 1993/94 4288 1904/95 4473 1995/96 4668 1996/97 4737 2. The District recognizes the impact of new development on the need for public land for new schools and has prepared the following formula to calculate a standard for school land dedication: Land area provided per student x students generated per dwelling unit = Land Dedication Standard 3. The District has determined that the total land area currently provided by the District is 1,042.8 square feet per student based on existing school site acreage and reasonable capacities for each building as reelected in Exhibit A. 4. The District has determined the number of students generated per type of dwelling unit according to data obtained from the State of Colorado Demographer as follows: Single Family 0.593 Townhome, Condo, Duplex, etc, 0.329 Apartment 0.185 Mobile Home, Trailer 0.474 DEC -02-97 TUE 11 22 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 05 • • 5. Application of the formula results in the foliowing suggested Land Dedication Standards: Single Family Townhome, Condo, etc. Apartment, Duplex, etc. Mobile Horne 618 sq. ft per unit or .0142 acres 343 sq. ft per unit or .0079 acres 193 sq. ft per unit or .0044 acres 494 sq. ft per unit or .0113 acres 6. At the District's request, a developer of residential housing may make a dish payment in -lieu of dedicating land, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication to comply with the standards of this Resolution. The formula to determine thc cash -in -lieu payment is as follows: Market value of the land (per acre) * Land Dedication Standard * # of units = Cash -in -Lieu For example, for a property having a market value of $100,000 per acre and 1 single family unit on it, the payment would be: $100,000 * .0142 * 1 = $1,420 I3. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD O1' EDUCATION OF ROARING FORK SCHOOL, DISTRACT RE -1 RESOLVES as follows: 1. The Counties of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin, Colorado; the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado: and the Towns of Basalt and Carbondale, Colorado ("Entities") adopt a Land Dedication Standard as set forth in Part A of this Resolution. 2. The Entities require land dedication or a payment in lieu of Land dedication as requested by the District in response to specific subdivision requests as set forth in Parts A. 5 and 6 above frons all residential land developers. 3. The provisions of this Resolution shall serve as the general criteria for the imposition of school fees to be required of all residential land developers as set forth in C.R.S. 30-28-101, et seq., as amended, with specific modifications or deviations herefrom to be made as the District responds to specific subdivision requests as required by statute. 4. This Resolution shall he amended periodically by the District to accurately reflect the student population and school land and building situation as it exists within thc District. . DEC -02-97 TUE 11:22 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 06 • • EXHIBIT A Roaring Fork School District Re -1 Capacity Acres Sopris Elementary 550 16.0 Glenwood Springs Elementary 775 10.2 Carbondale Elementary 500 6.2 Crystal River Elementary (when complete) 550 6.9 Basalt Elementary 750 5.8 Glenwood Middle School 675 15.3 Carbondale Middle School 380 8.3 Basalt Middle School 590 11.4 Glenwood Springs High School 750 15.0 Roaring Fork High School 600 26.3 Basalt High School 450 36.0 6,570 157.3 Total acres per student 0.02394 Total sq. feet per student 1042.8 • STATE OFCOLORADO 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 November 14, 1997 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 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: -;r +'Roy KAmer yGoyernor • James S. Lochhead Executive Director i Hal D. Simpson State Engineer We have reviewed the above referenced subdivision proposal to create 58 single-family lots on approximately 127 acres located just south of Glenwood Springs. We have previously commented on this proposal in a letter dated March 10, 1997 (copy enclosed). Our comments from that letter still apply to this proposal. Should you or the applicant have further questions or comments regarding the water supply for this project, please contact Jeff Deatherage of this office. Sincerely, -52,6(wE f"'8teve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer SPL/JD cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, WD 38 fourmil2.spl • STATE OF COLORADO )FFICE 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 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 March 10, 1997 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: Roy Romer Govemor 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. t • • GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-2254 Phone 945-6111 DATE: January 6, 1998 TO: Mark Bean FROM: King RE: Four Mile Ranch Sub -Division The proposal by the developer to improve County Road 117, as the county has recently completed adjacent to a portion of the development, would add considerably to the serviceability and the safety of that stretch of road. Which would be affected directly by the development from the standpoint of all the construction traffic and then later the home owners. I have attached a copy of the county standard for that portion of County Road 117 that was recently improved. You may notice that there is a slight difference in their proposal. We built 11" lanes and the barrow ditches were in addition to the six foot shoulder. Three years ago, the county made improvements to the intersection of Midland Avenue, and County Road 117, so I would propose that the developer improve the roadway between these two sections utilizing as a minimum the attached road section and the same design life criteria. Within the section of roadway to be improved, the county would like to have input as to some design considerations relative to needed grade changes, and as suggested by the applicant, the submittal of these documents for approval at the final plat. An additional note, the county has already rebuilt slightly over 700 feet of roadway as proposed here. So that would reflect a change in their road improvement estimate, but I feel something that would add to the safety of the proposal would be a turn lane for vehicles entering the development. This would facilitate travel for the vehicles going past this project. cr 1 1 7fmp dr : - • •- • s- • • r, • : ; • - ..„ ..,..„...,......,... ..„...„... ..-..,..,,--.4.:,,...„.....-,,,,.-•-.I,-- . _ . ...,..s. .... .1:-..1 A.;•••:.- \ vii ,..-A ( Vt.A • )3> : 4 t4% r— cf) **41k cri cr) ‘14 > lit:11. co Ati :e > . (y) rn 1 ztfi:- ti c•-) V4, , 0 ‘1•;S.:1!‘ c •#fi.:- ' r -r) t!974 cf) **** •ip7.-:: 0,-....... \lap 0.#•°zi: V-1 lt4. • . ,:......„;,4 s„.. .v-..,.. pzi . z?... - v;,... ......,- .....,,,...., 1:.%.---- 4........ :Its :0....., • .., .4, N:1 , ,...-.. • MIXED ROADE311)/1_11-1C,PADE MAU' PIA, L. LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNTHIA C. TESTER DAVID E. LEAVENWORTH, JR. JOSLYN V. WOOD* GREGORY J. HALL 'Admitted in Hawaii and Texas only DONALD H. HAMBURG Of Counsel • • LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW September 8, 1997 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1011 GRAND AVENUE P.O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 Re: Four Mile Ranch Subdivision: Existing Agricultural Uses Dear Mark: VIA FAX 945-7785 As we discussed, we are submitting for your review and consideration a Plat Note and a provision to be included in the Protective Covenants for the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision regarding existing agricultural uses and the compatibility of the subdivision with such uses. 1. PLAT NOTE: Plat Note No. 8 shall be revised to read as follows: The agricultural uses of properties south of this subdivision shall be deemed compatible with the rural residential character of the subdivision. Such agricultural uses may produce odors, noise, dust, and other effects of agricultural practices that are offensive to the residential use proposed by this subdivision. The established agricultural uses of property adjacent to the subdivision are pre- existing and are deemed to have priority over any subsequent residential use within the subdivision. 2. PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: The Protective Covenants for the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision shall be revised to include the following provision: Adjacent Agricultural Uses. The agricultural uses of property adjacent to the subdivision shall be deemed compatible with the rural residential character of the subdivision. No owner may object to the dust, odors, or noise associated with normal agricultural uses of said adjacent property as noxious or offensive. C:1FILESIBEANC.1 LT • • LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Mr. Mark Bean, Director Page 2 September 8, 1997 In addition to the above referenced revisions to the Preliminary Plan Submittal, you will note that the Preliminary Plat has been revised to increase the open space buffer along the entire southern boundary of the subdivision to at least 200 feet in width. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any suggested revisions to the above referenced language or should you wish to discuss the foregoing. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. JVW:lfk cc: Four Mile Ranch Development Company, Inc. Sunny Vann Joe Hope C:\FILES\BEANC.1 LT