HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.09.1998REQUEST:
APPLICANTS:
pie
BOCC 2/9/98
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Four Mile Ranch Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
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
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 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.
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 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 ha at 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,
2
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 precedents
and arguably negates the language in the plan, particularly given the previously note
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.
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 Proposed developments will be evaluated in terms of the
ability of County roads to adequately handle the traffic
generated by the proposal.
3.6 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;
4
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 Ca italImprovements Plan related to road impacts.
(See enclosed resolution pgs. / / ) 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
contribution of $117,740 for the 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 5.1 - 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".
5
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.
Policy 5.1(A) - All projects approved 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 number of dogs and requiring
kenneling, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Staff Comment - The applicants have proposed to insert language on the plat and in
the covenants that recognizes the potential for offensive activities on the adjoining
agricultural property and a 200 ft. buffer between building envelopes and the
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.
6
Objective 6.2 - Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher -intensity
adjacent uses.
Policy 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.
Program 6.4 - Designate buffer zones of at least 300 feet between farmed /ranched
lands and residential lots unless a lesser amount can be demonstrated as a practical
buffer.
Program 6.8 - Require that all Final Plats carry a pat note that notifies prospective lot
owners that Garfield County has adopted a Right to Farm and Ranch Policy, 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.
7
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
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. The present
8
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
of the application. As noted previously the actual fees would be $117,740 based
upon the recently adopted portion of the Capital 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 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 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.
9
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 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
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
10
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. City of Glenwood Springs: Enclosed is a letter from the City Planning
Commission. (See pgs. /9 ) 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.-?/a".2i2%)
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. 'e? 3 ")
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..Zy"r�9'
5. Colorado Department of Health and Environment: The Department provided
no written comment, which is technically approval of the proposed method
of sewage disposal.
6. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Based on the information provided
to the Division, stated that there will be a legal and adequate water supply
available for the subdivision. (See letter pgs. JO '.3 / )
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. .3-7 -35
11
•
8. Neighbor's Comments : The Morgans and Lucas submitted a letter objecting
to the development of the roperty due to impacts on the County road and
wildlife. ( See pgs. y� if
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
A. That the proper publication, public notice and posting were provided as required by
law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners; and
B. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that 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 been submitted and, in addition, have
been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL, 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.
12
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.
5. That the lots contiguous to the Bershenyi ranch have building envelopes at least 200
ft. from the common property line and that a cattle fence with woven wire along the
bottom of the fence, be built along the entire section of the project.
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 ith such
engineering recommendations, which shall be a condition of "moi_.=
-
rchitectural Control Committee approval and the building permit.
(B) 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 residential use proposed by this
subdivision. The established agricultural uses adjacent to the subdivision are
pre-existing and are deemed to have priority over any subsequent residential
use within the subdivision.
(C) No open hearth solid -fuel burning fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within
this subdivision. All dwelling units will be allowed unrestricted number of
natural gas -burning fireplaces or appliances.
All dwelling units will be allowed no more than one new wood -burning stove
as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et.seq. and the regulations promulgated
thereunder.
Only one dog is allowed for each dwelling unit.
All exterior lighting shall be oriented downward and inward, to prevent glare
on adjoining property.
13
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 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
9. All property owners will be given a copy of the County Subdivision "Right to Farm"
policy included in the County Subdivision regulations.
10. The applicant shall protect the ditches on the adjoining property from damage and
provide a mechanism to guarantee that the subdivision will participate in the
maintenance of the ditch. �� 2<74/2-.4t
74 4e– P•'44r
u,‘",
74/1.4
ri • °/j/1 alLZ
°-
�,z 4on.—
/(.
/2- .
,�caGzc�
/2- nleifi'ts.
"t7- ne- Ac
14
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
111111111111111111111111111111111 I14 111 11111 1111 Ilii
517936 12/17/1997 02:01P B1046 P808 M ALSDORF
1 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
At a REGULAR meeting of the Board of -County Commissioners for Garfield
County, Colorado, held at the Courthouse in Glenwood Springs on MONDAY the 8th day
of DECEMBER A.D. 19 9 % , 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. 97-11 1
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 goveming 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;
•-• /L'"
(50
0
�► 1111111 1111 111111 11111 11111 111[14III III 1111111111111
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 nPrPmt,P,- , A.D. 19 97 .
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
•
Chairman
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the
following vote:
COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN MARIAN I. SMITH
COMMISSIONER JOHN F. MARTIN
COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
, Aye
, Aye
, Aye
1, 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, 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
_,a % 'r
`•-• • �.a•J�- / a •Y - -_•
•
1I
f, ,• I.•
t ' o
• I s
, r
I
`L,'1 I
z
I ▪ 1 ' •',"� in
‘s, 10
.; r• 10
I
�- Ir
I2
aye
J. 11 R O 3
•
e
ti
3 l 7 v
1!!
r
•
WO
OJ
h (D
.AM
r
• I—,
o J
OW
(D
o J
00
ON
MO
Dr
77
✓ mm
m
no
Coit
n=.
nm
OW
Z
-< - 3
0 D
or
N
0
0
m
1111111 IIII IIIII IIIII IIi111iI 1111111111111111111111
517936 12/17/1997 02:01P B1046 P811 M ALSDORF
4 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Exhibit B
Traffic Study Area
Estimated
Cost
Level of
service
(LOS)
Design
Capacity
(ADT)
Cost/ADT
Area 1 Totals/Fees
4,410,0001 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
17,0001 $104
**8c
790.0001 E
11,700
$68
**8d
710.0001 E
11,700
$61
**8e
1,600,0001 E
11,700
$137
**8f
1,810,000 E
11,7001
$155
**8g
2,220,0001 E
11,700
$190
**Area 8 Totals
8,706,0001 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
16,2001 $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,
., /jam
//Janet M. Buck
Planner
ao
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division or Minerals and Geology
Department or Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street. Room 715
Denver. Colorado 80203
Phone 13031 866-261 1
FAX 13031 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
Mile Creek and immediately East of Four Mile Road
(C.R. 117), Garfield County
Dear Mr. Bean:
)EPARTMTUENT OF
NARAL
RESOURCES
4uv Romer
•Governor
5 ! uc"hrad
E'r<.utrve Drrecor
v:cnaei 3 :,me
lin is:un D•reC'or
<:eo11,t :<1
and D.rector
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 ceolcgc 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 derivedfrom the drainage of ancestral Four
Mile Creek. These overlie the 'Eagle Valley (Evaporite) Formation
bedrock which consists predom_natly of sandstone, shale, and
gypsum. The overall topography cf the parcel is that of a small
valley between the bluffs above :he Roaring Fork River and the
alignment of Four Mile Road. There are a few, apparently unused,
ranch buildings approximately ac the center of the parcel.
(2) The most serious geologic cor-sz_aints to development of this
parcel as planned are the __ly 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 cualified 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
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 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.
i-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;
3 NOV 1 7 1997
LIJ
=.J 5
REFER TO
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 Wildl 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 ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO, 9709459240 P. 01
•
j y"
tp`
>.: . 14:
Roaring Fork Sohoal'District RE -1
1405'Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone (970) 945'-6558
December 1, 1997
eY
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Four Mile Ranch Preliminary Plan
Dcar Mark:
FRED A. WALL. Superintendent
JUDY HAPTONSTALL, Assistant Superintendent
SHANNON PELLAND. Finance Director
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.
ine rely,
_ taAvrtu efa-‘4_.
Shannon Pclland
Finance Director
Enc.
DEG -02-97 TUE 11 21 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO, 9709459240 P. 02
Roaring Fork School -:District RE -1
9•
•
1405 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone (970) 945-6559
,
MEMORANDUM
FRED A. WALL, Superintendent
JUDY HAPTONSTALL, Assis1Jnt 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 10 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.
lander such ordinance, the District requests that all fees in -hen 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
,rich as streets and utilities, but excluding the value of residential dwelling units and other structures on
the property. Market value inay 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 patsies. 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 which has
one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures,
Apartment: Units in structures containing two or more housing units that do not fit definition
townhomc, condo. duplex (above)
Mobile home, Trailer: Self-explanatory.
Please do nut hesitate to call Shannon Pelland at the Oistiia Office (945-6558) if you have any
questions.
DEC -02-97 TUE 11:21 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 03
oaring Fork School DistrIct RE -1
1405 Grand. Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone (970) 945-6558
July 25, 1997
Dear Council Members and County Commissioners:
JAMES C. PHILLIPS, Superintendent
JUOY HAPTONSTALL, Assistant Superintendent
SHANNON. PELLAND, Finrcepaector
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,
Fred A. Wall Bruce Matherly
Superintendent President, Board of Education
DEC -02-97 TUE 11:22 AM ROARING FORK SCHOOL DIST FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 04
RESOLUTION OF THE ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 BOARD
OF EDUCATION REGARDING STANDARDS FOR LAND DEDICATION AND
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 1088 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
1904/05 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 reflected 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, Cando, 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 following suggested Land
Dedication Standards:
Single Family
Townhome, Condo, etc.
Apartment. Duplex, etc.
Mobile Horne
618 sq. 1.'t 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 cash payment in -lieu of dedicating; land, or may snake a cash payment in
combination with a land dedication to comply with the standards of this Resolution. The
formula to determine the 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:
5100,000 * .0142 * 1 = $1,420
I3. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ROARING
FORK SCHOOL, D1STIZICT RE -1 RESOLVES as follows:
1. 'Ihc 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 from 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 the 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 OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (3031866-3581
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:
ftoy korner
'Governor
• • James 5. 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,
teve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPL/JD
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, WD 38
fourmii2.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
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 Tots 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.
-
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
.. •
7VDIJA1
IV 0 II ac
• -1
,.-1.411.esTa
. - • • . . .
..- • -.4 t..71.t. •
.. • •
. •
•
•
- . • ..- '
•
MIXED f?0ADEll 1)/I II1GP ADE MA 1t- PIA'
N„)
1
.. •
c)
T \� V `
Gge (':.,11
toy,; ,7 C;-+
7 ECE VE
r �'
n7
Clef ►nr)V55 -e.
'J
2 ecas a(2 Ggrr, .,lk
clr‘vw Ki
0_ c f\ %.(1. -e- in— to "r k
rctvv p r o p o s h o►'►-\, ci c1/4.v.,
L c r 'M u.1 ro ob.. v. r cky-v , D p .2 - - o..w &
--rn , 42-w5 cAA- : ' 4 Yn: Li k.s s L -Q-•-,\ nn +11:-5 . r ct. v., k
r' ; v..` q •-e-n .Q. va.-}- en S ,1/4. S HS cl..e v_-..1 o ),a►r1'tn1 a (AWL
r20 V
1.1 S "0 oret_ t-t)4I Ji_. c. 1 5 ccs r
pr2 Jack n ; v` tiA Co k rl
fib, jiha"-
c., 4 y
b n l 7 o p.l fi:
k k V4.l t -i AN-
1.5 (-‘.L.,..1\, 4 . A"11rj
G,1bny
t"h.KAs C r
:5 c \Cr s S olf rLl.
544
07:- gt ,- WlS i- (?t Lax -Lt. ►,-k U r_ C0 U. V'S4s �I
C.5�1
(w\ q v�-4 f o.w\.ei C.V NY\ o n
Cl.vHA.I. ''� 1-t ci-e-v 1O;0N Uv CG -,n. nal`
Y--� ,O f4c,.,, proLvci- , ». 4 rah.c_.k �J1- Pcr+y
k.5 hof r -c-r- Lek o (L -c.-1- .4- C.l b {-h
fT� + �C S Co �� fir 45 4> a.d t tel-,- fL a.0 .`-(NA.S
1 �
.� V -A- b e •e v 5 8,, r (34- Pr o J � c.y n ('c•
-e-tri6 /os
LiRy I Y' .1. i -r t- Vt.,jui ��-) 0 Li cl.�- \,\ 2.Y --L -��.b r,� �v Cl,c.,� o, +11...`
Do + h S I...,e.,.? Loco..„ L 441-4.4' 47 4c.1C
C.i►'?est: PIT
WC o1
11-e7w owls
lqck -rc 1 3- Con c r.e,,`' -� v-�
Cc-s,), 4
1 qr.• �h D1-11,,kr C--(hs g(00v
s c1-4v,_1(1).> mw1S,.
1. s 1w, w . Ck", 4y.-�I \ Y,, 7-4e4-es t °r 1 e007-
�v c v k t,S ) \ ``i vY -ti , k Ji w.-k 5/Pi ; t-
8Lt,v "/ \(\.” W cui�e, bcd- ",/ h`Qh rls-k I.JQt.k.r CPp�otS
�oor, cvA h,a 70 fciwaR-av
5 d5 4s �7s �C w � kcoAr \ w
Civ ±�1. toro pos +0 5p ' do s rte, Z Sd 475
LuzA 5hom.5?
(-L9q_S fi...q,4--4A h 5 cc w s r uk.Y. Li 61:-)L4
Do tI4-e.7 ()wo p ► �c,5F,,� co cutu. Lk
60 not hDwm0,(a�rl�� Tv CCC Lt. I-
(% ro d.. b q S e m K �5. -w 4,h, q 4P ctrt s
Lu< <I 6 � falx Co,y, 6 y LI �n : 2a ►�� 1� .
3.� � M:►� 2c L ; S C�se �r`e-Spon / r-or n,�.�� -
Tc.s. v\ "S � V� � e � r S %14/x. yr �" %1-` 3- -es ( kki, i n C � u � cok
h t c,k -k tc..1 Y : u LU 0. t row
Co'^3 1-6 Skct? h 1 h-` (V\q:ylTs.nq,C.,,
ro,,,N;toFF
'1Y\ \' 1. �e w) ; -e r er-R o V u,.r /—' (cap • le m w
/ -�-•c <5, •, 11-4— Ot1Ar F'10kiJ o►\ ��1•a i\� i
Cres (k):\
K \\ 1- i--. Vlc„u -
35— -
6
My prole r7�} '� S c Cin �-t r`c'Y1 rc
S Pr0.M o(�r C -1(0/0S( O r w�•+- l S c„IA1 60.1j5, f -0K -u �7 �vor. �
ci Str e7 in, out' Cirof5 LU ;\1 S��P45.� �ro� Trot/01.1 Cveln1 sp 540 /
\o -t. \'- or. -th, s, lc( -kr M:Iq �C.0
5 11..0 h0.t(-4. C,wG'roLOU W kis v
3-1-+14.2 K 6.e i r
r: 114 f iv S cu.,.•t\ Lu t \Iti h CO /7.- or 0.v
p p i o -vi
({): pr 04 u_ .e rt r ho -r"1,
T c�oabt T,
GQA
`ods' r { r o co( S 17 o k,1 l b c`d r.us.., 1 6 l -o r
vvor-- d ..e ✓� a rt�•k P. 1-11;s r64,1 t s vs -L1 dAv\%‘evoccS
hot oh\ tU +�� Pszo�o(� t.oi.o R.5. 1- 6 uT -o ok.
ct_A., (a: cr wIto v4uS1- Crops Ve\:S ro0.il, .:11 ,
T, `•V LLA f o lA.,t 1` \• 1a Rav-c--L S t I,- * vsn. o U ►�S T h_ -
So 61 (row Chi �ro �h� "� �� d u 57 w :cucfriS
l'gsk k : nq i t ; w, po s S7 b /K ct r tr r t k- c-ce 6
ks-t Cro�s wbtal ct ,‘v_LStoc.._k
-to 1`11, cw„.1 �-otS of=
rt Corm %-COY o( -Y (-.ot r''t 17 •
VCDFS ettt Qak,,�, 1 v.. sroc k.. Lk..):1(wok14
Prob/-tw , GS wdL.l rest Wow;K ; n To 1-k �; .old,
_36_
S -t r 0 rl / 1 Q 95(k to
__1_. b -tl AA:u..` i I -r tCty C:t , Co(Askh,
OU at- r•NM. w".t V � � � z.,,� ` t5
F'arh% -+ 2a -k round., TL you on 1 5 Fc -r pro rAzc-r;rts
(A.s. (-0110 .0 h., C o LLA KAY cv\4-
—1i
rl-& ci -sz V.A l o C42, r+A K I (,U dc't
51N
C rkki
rs tz. Av.7gym:`
ere r,
c !997 I
t;t•C"--* /
•
e 5 /
g
4 l
-
44.16"--00------
(Yr- /2---/Gt4 -11 1,4
jottio, /124t
'oez/v-4-4-4-sor-,
/1:4ei4 4/-2-7
cp.
/ tet u/
101,--74(
11;(71. 2 1997
, • '
!O. 1997 !I
) //7.7:2
01/RCM& ASSOCIATES, P.C. LA)t.N.TY
4eZ/ld•-•ert./1.4).-02—XtL
10,Jc)
r,0-te )1:1/ 1?
/
,--1,0-i __-e,g-di-li-4-74i--- _______
,,,L-6__ .„ 4 , c , __. (&.,
x -x-- ---/71,71,,
,. 62--
A444-41-A`;g--- il-1 ot-71._ c7foLee_,, -7-12;,?e_
"1 -td -4---
", a x -i;4-,::-----. 61E4 -cop,
Rer.x
›7eg-F'
• VED
1,1
of NPS
abeXj
/
97
Z
.tet --moo/
/6 Q/
/ 38%. 73
A.- 4:e4etGe
_-G
/yYLa
D o
,taz-e,2_, 2
• •
q
CC-
fitA T Q-) .
•
MAR 1 3 1997
•
aQ A. 40 y/l a► 4e•yt -ft(
A. 40 aticei 404 cj Aavc Ikvei `( �• 'c,
. -M 5 �L
o a4(
(: ti c
�poet-
.4;<, r,
/4.1., ,-44,-F.,6 42. dc 7i) GvIthi-4-#
- I ,04 _
at424;",a, .14 Mao( 441t4cZ "C
CO.70 iL: ACcik, e w
�a
C� .
001.1 /L illCGjiv'a
�3
........,,--7 ! :%.71CJT'aa+'�1'
1:7
lit MAY 1 2 1997 i
•:c_LD C3L flV
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,
y
x)/('/cn
ALAN NELSON
KATHRYN NELSON