Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5.03 Exhibits L - P
Exhibits for Hunt Ranch Subdivision Sketch Plan Review (Public Meeting held on 05110/06) A Email from CDOT dated 4/12/06 B Email from County Sheriff's Department dated 04/12/06 C Memo from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 04/25/06 D Letter from the Carbondale & Rural Fire District dated 4/24/06 Letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated 04/25/06 F Letter from the Colorado Division of Water Resources dated 04/20/06 G Letter from Resource Engineering dated 04/25/06 H Email from CDPHE dated 04/26/06 1 Quit -claim Deed dated November 12, 1912 Public Service Company of Colorado Easement dated 12/09/97 K Revised Augmentation Plan submitted to water court form Balcomb & Green L Letters and emails from neighbors to Garfield County M Letter from the Town of Basalt dated 04/14/06 N Easement document recorded in Book 646, page 4 0 Memorandum from County Vegetation Manager dated 05/01/06 P Letter from the Colorado State Forest Service dated 05/02/06 AMS Development, Inc. 500 South Frontage Road East, Suite 112 Vail, Colorado 81657 Missouri Heights Well Users Alliance P.O. Box 1346 Carbondale, CO. 81623 To Whom It Concerns: December 12, 2005 Thank you for your letter and invitation, dated November 29, 2005. AMS Development, Inc., is serving as project manager for the Hunt Ranch, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company that is reviewing the development possibilities on the Hunt Ranch property. Your letter stated that fly opinion about appropriate densities and aquifer depletion under c A, i eratio x for the Hunt Ranch property is at odds with the majority of Missouri. Heights residents. I question this statement as I am very interested in the potential effects of this development on the residents of Missouri Heights. I believe the subdivision plan being considered will address the concerns of a majority of the residents in Missouri Heights. I acknowledge that the proposed densities are a major concern to those ridge line property owners within the Panorama Estates (located directly above the Hunt Ranch). I would like to invite and encourage these residents as well as Alliance members to attend the public review process at Garfield County to see what measures this development team has taken to minimize the visual impacts of residential and infrastructure improvements proposed in this project while maintaining an admirable amount of irrigated open space and wildlife/trail corridors. The proposed subdivision plan is progressive and very proactive in its approach to development. The plan includes: • Building envelopes to limit site disturbance • Height limitations on select lots to minimize potential visual impacts • "Dark sky" lighting restrictions • Strict architectural guidelines • "Green building" guidelines ▪ Strict dog fencing restrictions - 1 dog per household maximum, stiff fines and on-site HOA manager to enforce regulations • Maintenance of big game wildlife corriders • Trail system around the perimeter of the ranch - possibility for connections to adjoining subdivisions. • Contribution to the Missouri Heights Community Center for future improvements The water plan proposed for the Hunt Ranch not only takes into account potential depletion of existing aquifers, it is an example of how alI future developrnents should do their water use plans. The major focus of this development plan is sustaining the irrigated pasture (approx. 200 acres) - an integral part of preserving existing aquifers. The development plan started with this as its priority! No other development in the immediate vicinity of Missouri Heights has followed this approach (preserving irrigated meadows). Many of the subdivisions in Missouri Heights, both new and old, utilize use of individual wells and open space tracts are not irrigated for replenishment of the aquifer. The hay production and cattle operation will remain the central theme of this property. Each of the two test wells drilled at the Hunt Ranch produced 50-gpm sustainable flows without effecting output levels on neighboring wells (which were simultaneously monitored). These two wells, coupled with an underground water distribution system (includes a 250,000 - gallon storage tank tucked into the existing topography at the NE corner of the Hunt Ranch to eliminate visual impacts), will adequately service both residential and fire safety needs of the development being proposed. I would welcome the opportunity to participate in matters of community importance and development impacts regarding Missouri Heights. 1 served on the Town of Vail Planning Commission for seven years and realize the importance of such participation and involvement. it is my understanding that the review of any amendments to Study Area 1 of the Master Plan is scheduled for the fall of 2006. My contact information is as follows: Greg Amsden 500 S. Frontage Road East, Suite 112 Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 476-8610 office (970) 845-7325 home (970) 401-2837 cell amsden@a vail. net 1 look forward to hearing back from you. Please include a name, phone number and email address for the contact person at the Missouri Heights Water Users Alliance so 1 may adequately reply to future correspondence. President Cc: Fred Gamin - Garflekl Cppnty Planning Department John McCarty - OTAK Sara Dunn - Balcomb & Green, P.C. Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:56 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch development Original Message ------ From: Jack 0. O'Neill [mailto:onocolo@rof.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:08 AM To: Larry McCown Subject: Hunt Ranch development Nov 16, 2005 Dear Commissioner McCown, I am writing you as a citizen concerned about the major development being proposed for the Hunt Ranch parcel on County road 102. While the harm that development at it's proposed density will do to the traffic on County roads 100 and 102 is significant, I'm particularly concerned about the demand an additional 94 homes will put on the fragile water supply of the area. When the homeowners of Panorama Ranches ( a smaller development located north [above] the proposed Hunt Ranch development) petitioned to get approval for outside irrigation of 3000 square feet at each 5 acre lot to provide a "green belt" around each dwelling for fire protection after several local wildfires we were denied that additional use from our existing three community wells. The reason for the denial was that the aquifer the wells draw from was determined to be tributary to Cattle Creek which was already oversubscribed (an earlier determination determined that the aquifer was•tributary to the Roaring Fork). I'm sure the water lawyers will have fun with any further determination of additional water use, but I'M concerned about ANY additional subsurface water use. 94 additional homes on that space is WAY too many. I respect a property owner's right to use his property, but I also respect the rights of neighbors, and the County's responsibility to look out for the common good. Sincerely, Jack O'Neill 0331 Buck Point Road Carbondale, CO 81623 1 Becky Chase Page 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:58 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Development on Missouri Heights From: Jo Ashton [maiito:jo©cgg.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:15 AM To: Larry McCown Subject: Development on Missouri Heights Jo Ashton 435 Kings Row Carbondale, CO 81623 November 11, 2005 Larry McCown, Garfield County Commissioners 1.nrccown gprfield-county.cor a. Dear Mr. McCown: I am a county resident living in Missouri Heights. There is a 565 -acre ranch in this area, Hunt Ranch, under contract to be sold to a developer from the Eagle Valley. The developer, Greg Amsden, is planning to create a subdivision with 80 to 94 homes on the property. This type of development throughout Garfield County must be monitored or we will look just like Eagle County. Placing a moratorium on development after the open space has disappeared is .NOT an INTELLIGENT option. How many times have you driven through Eagle valley on your way to Denver and thought "Will this ever stop?" Let's think this out as neighbors before the fact rather than after. My two biggest concerns about the proposed density of this project and future projects are water and road safety. Given the history of water problems in Missouri Heights, it is inappropriate to have such density on that property, regardless of what the Comprehensive Plan allows. People who homesteaded in the area generations ago have seen their springs dry up. Many people have had problems maintaining well water supply in recent years. Several of the OLD subdivisions have had to re -drill and apply for new wells to maintain the current residences. More homes with more lawns means less water for all with the diminished supply affecting all residents sooner. Homes without water all are worth essentially the same: $0.00. Translate this to tax revenue - Garfield county has a considerable investment in assuring that NEW developments are SMART developments. The size of this proposed development is simply too big. The roads most affected by this proposed subdivision will be County Roads 100 and 102, as well as Upper Cattle Creek Rd. in Eagle County. If you have ever driven those roads, you know they are narrow, winding, and undulating. They have no shoulders or lines marking the lanes. During high traffic periods and fresh snows, they are dangerous. The size of this development could add 700 to 900 vehicle trips per day, which will greatly increase safety problems, for people and wildlife alike. Is the county prepared to keep these roads paved, painted and plowed? Currently these services are completed Becky Chase Page 2 of 2 on a minimal schedule. I drive down Katherine's store road every morning before 6:30 am and can assure the road is seldom. plowed. Will the county sheriff and other 911 type services be able to support the proposed density? Missouri Heights is a rural, agricultural part of the county. It has grown a great deal in the last 20 years. But, there comes a time when the level of growth and increase in density cannot be sustained without compromising water, safety, and quality of life for existing residents. Now is the time to begin to consider these issues for Missouri Heights. What was appropriate thirty years ago is no longer sustainable: Panorama, King's Row and Aspen Mesa Estates are too dense for today. More of this type of subdivision is not the solution for long term sustainable growth on Missouri. Heights. We have more information now to make better decisions for the environment and generations to follow. Please do not approve dense development for Missouri Heights. Rural Areas should remain rural — Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns. See you at the meetings! Jo Ashton Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:58 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Missouri Heights From: RosseinRazzore@aol.com [mailto:RosseinRazzore@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 10:50 PM To: Larry McCown Cc: John Martin; Tresi Haupt Subject: Missouri Heights Dear Larry McCown: As homeowners in Missouri Heights who live directly across from the Hunt Ranch we wanted to express our concern to you and the other County Commissioners about the potential danger we see if responsible growth is not enforced. The potential for a terribly serious problem with inadequate well water for the community is the first most obvious situation that will develop in our community if 94 homes were to be developed on the Hunt Ranch. In addition the impact on wild life, the environment and the quiet rural life style in our area will certainly be inevitable because of a dramatic increase in traffic from so many new homes. We would like to recommend that the county consider a more responsible development plan more like the new Stirling project which borders our property as well and would seem a much more desirable and responsible approach to growth in both our community and the county. Please consider this when reviewing this proposed project. Thank you. Yours, Katha Rossein and Ron Razzore Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:59 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch From: Amy Shapira mailto:amys@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:52 AM To: Larry McCown Subject: Hunt Ranch Dear Commissioner McCown, My husband and I moved to Missouri Heights in 1998. We were drawn to the area for its peaceful roads where we could walk and ride our bikes; surrounding ourselves with deer and elk herds, fox and coyotes. We moved for the quiet environment and dark nights and we feel blessed for the quality of life that Missouri Heights has offered. The Hunt Ranch is under contract and the developer plans to put about 94 houses on the property. There goes our well water. There goes the wildlife habitat, especially the elk herds. There go our peaceful days and dark nights. My husband and I implore you to help us preserve our quality of life. We thank you for your time and consideration regarding this critical issue. Amy & Israel Shapira 235 CR 17o Carbondale, N.Y. 81623 amys@sopris.net No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.302 r' Virus Database: 267.13.0 167 - Release Date_ 11[1 #;`2005 Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:59 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch development From: Mrszgdoc©aol.com [mailto:Mrszgdoc@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 8:17 PM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch development As a resident of Missouri Heights these past 5 years (living in a house that has been here over thirty years- 1 point that out to let you know that I didn't build new to be here) and as a resident of this valley since the mid - 80's, I would like to voice my concerns about the proposed Hunt Ranch development. While I realize that growth in the valley is necessary, I am also strongly opposed to overdevelopment for the sake of making a buck. I understand that the Hunt Ranch is under contract to developers (who don't even live in this valley) who are planning to place 94 (94!!!) homes at this end of Missouri Heights. Having lived through the drought/fires of 2002, I am so hugely concerned with 1) Water - water for 94 homes/families/yards - exactly how many homes can the water supply up here support? That is a HUGE concern for me and others. 2) Roads - our roads aren't exactly the best here - I always note when I am coming down Fender Road from the El Jebel side that exactly at the county line between Eagle and Garfield, it is obvious that little money is spent maintaining the on the Garfield side... Will Garfield take responsibility maintaining better road/fire protection/police protection in exchange for the money it perceives that it will make with permitting 94 new residences?? 3) Police protection - the first year that I was here a late night neighboring party had two drunk men chasing and threatening to kill a woman who was running through my property - it took almost 1 hour (!!!) for a police officer to finally show up and by then all parties of course were long gone (although I was more scared than I think I have ever been during the long wait for someone to show up) 4) Animal control - working at CMC, I know how poor the animal control was for Garfield county until CMC finally generously donated a place for the CARE facility to be built. Who will monitor and enforce any type of leash law with 94 homes up here??? The developers have stated that they plan to enforce no fences for any of these homes - wow , how will we keep those dogs at bay? And no, the invisible fence does not always work... And what will be the impact on wildlife? On neighbors? On livestock? 5) 94 homes means how many people?? lam all for Mr Hunt receiving money for his property and I have nothing against planned development - but let's be reasonable. Set a realistic amount for the number of homes that can be put up here - 94 is at least 3 times too many. If 1 wanted to live in Denver where every square inch is developed, I would move back to that area...Why would Garfield county permit this?? - Besides the obvious "money from taxes" •motivation. And to that end, with real estate prices increasing substantially, Garfield should be experiencing already a comfortable increase in taxes from all the exisiting developments and homes... I am hugely in strong opposition to this current proposed development and join my voice with so many others. Karen Kean -Hines DVM Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:00 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: we need you Original Message --- From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:11 PM To: 'Roberta McGowan, Cc: Fred Jarman; John Martin; Larry McCown Subject: RE: we need you Roberta, Thank you for sharing your concerns. I will make sure that your opinion is included with the materials we review. The Hunt Ranch development application has not come to the Commission yet. Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garfield-county.com -----Original Message From: Roberta McGowan [mail to:doublerainbowranch@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:56 AM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: we need you Hello Traci, I live in Missouri Heights and I'm am very seriously concerning about irresponsible growth and the threat to our aquifer, our wildlife our way of life. Please help us to safeguard responsible growth. The proposed Hunt Ranch development is a threat to smaller property owners and taxpayers. Roberta McGowan 227 Kings Row Carbondale CO 81623 http://www.equineimages.net Cowgirl Wisdom "Never believe anyone who says their horse doesn't kick" 1 Page 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:00 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Proposed development on Hunt Ranch From: Becky Chase {mailto:bchase@rof.net] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 7:30 AM To: Larry McCown Subject: Proposed development on Hunt Ranch Becky Chase 85 Kings Row Carbondale, CO 81623 970/963-9634 bchase@ro€.net November 10, 2005 Larry McCown, Garfield County Commissioners lniceown@garfield-count&on. Dear Mr. McCown: I am a county resident living in Missouri Heights. There is a 565 -acre ranch in this area, Hunt Ranch, under contract to be sold to a developer from the Eagle Valley. The developer, Greg Amsden, is planning to create a subdivision with 80 to 94 homes on the property. This is of grave concern to me and many of my neighbors. My two biggest concerns about the proposed density of this project are water and road safety. Given the history of water problems in Missouri Heights, it is inappropriate to have such density on that property, regardless of what the Comprehensive Plan allows. People who homesteaded in the area generations ago have seen their springs dry up. Many people have had problems maintaining well water supply in recent drought years. The size of this proposed development is simply too big, but the developers have already told the neighborhood they will not build a less dense project. The roads most affected by this proposed subdivision will be County Roads 100 and 102, as well as Upper Cattle Creek Rd. in Eagle County. If you have ever driven those roads, you know they are narrow, winding, and undulating. They have no shoulders or lines marking the lanes. During high traffic periods, they are dangerous. The size of this development could add 700 to 900 vehicle trips per day, which will greatly increase safety problems, for people and wildlife alike. Missouri Heights is a rural, agricultural part of the county. It has grown a great deal in the last 15 years. But, there comes a time when the level of growth and increase in density cannot be sustained without compromising water, safety, and quality of life for existing residents. Now is the time to begin to consider these issues for Missouri Heights. A density of 6 to 9 acre lots is no longer appropriate. Please Page 2 of 2 do not allow this kind of unchecked and irresponsible growth. Sincerely, Becky Chase Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:48 PM To: `Wewer Keohane' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Hunt Ranch Dear Wewer, Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garfietd-county.com Original Message From: Wewer Keohane mailto:wewer@sopris.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:54 AM To: Larry McCown Cc: John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch Dear Commissioners: I do not live on Missouri Heights, but E used to and several times the King's Row well went dry. There is NOT enough water to build 94 houses on the Hunt Ranch property. l urge you NOT to approve this development. Wewer Keohane 11/16/2005 J'RQN ROSE CARBONDALE November 23, 2005 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs CO 81601 To Whom It May Concern: As a resident of the valley and Garfield County, I feel there is precious little agriculture and ranching left in this valley. Therefore, I am opposed to a 94 home development on Hunt Ranch. If it has to be developed at all I would support a more moderate development with 20-35 acre plots that would fit in with the more pastoral nature of what Missouri Heights offers, Sincerely, IRON ROSE RANCH 1000 BLUE HERON LANE CARBONDALE COLORADO 81623 P. 970,953.4817 Cici Kinney From: Sent: To: Subject: Cici Kinney [skinney@sopris.net] Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:15 PM Imccown@garfield-county.com; jmartin@garfield-county.com; thoupt@garfield-county.com Hunt Ranch Dear Garfield County Commissioners, Are you sick of it yet? Are you sick and tired of watching the small bit of open space we have left in Garfield County get ripped to shreds by a bulldozer? Are you tired of developers coming to our valley to develop what is left of our ranches because they have already developed all of Summit County and there is no more room over there? Do you feel ANYTHING when you see 200 head of elk trying to cross a development to get to a grassy area to feed themselves, only to get there and find no grass? Come on now. Personally, T know you have lived in this valley for a long time and you must go to sleep at night and feel just a little guilty about where are all these people going to work, shop, send their children to overcrowded schools, and function in a valley that cannot take handle what we already have if you continue to approve these subdivisions. Just this once, think about what consequences approving the Hunt Ranch will have on our County Roads and the amount of people that will be going up and down them. Ninety four homes are leering on the Hunt Ranch in Missouri Heights. Do the math. That adds a couple hundred more people driving the Katherine Store road, Cattle Creek Road, and the road leading to E1 Jebel. We have watched Cattle Creek Road turn into a highway of trucks, fast drivers, and motorcycles dodging bikers and residents out for an afternoon walk. No longer is it a quiet place to live. By approving 94 more homes above us, it will be unbearable. If this doesn't sink in to your brains, think about the resources we will need up there like more water, power lines, lights from homes and roads. When are you going to slow down on these developments? Can't you see we have enough? Do you really want to watch our valley become what Summit County has become? Look at your mountains. Listen to your birds. Watch those beautiful elk and deer searching for land. Those are the things your grandchildren want to see someday. Sincerely, Steve and Cici Kinney Cattle Creek Road c, Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:23 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: The Hunt Ranch From: Leigh.Prebe@us,o-i.com [mailto:Leigh.Prebe@us.o-i.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:35 PM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; thoupt@garfield.county.com Subject: The Hunt Ranch To: Garfield County Commissioners McCown, Martin & Haupt Page 1 of 1 The Hunt Ranch We consider the plan for the HUNT RANCH development to be totally irresponsible and really unbelievable. Please do what you can to prevent this disaster. Thank you. Betty and Bob Lanigan 5353 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 (419) 247-2121 office Leigh. Prebe @ us.o-i.com 12/1/2005 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:38 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch Development From: Denise Henderson[mailto:denise@forwardcomputer.biz] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:52 AM To: Larry McCown; jmartin@garfield-count.com; Tresi Haupt Subject: Hunt Ranch Development Page 1 of 1 Dear County Commissioners, I am very distressed that the county is even entertaining the idea of allowing 94 homes to be built on what is currently The Hunt Ranch. There should not be a high density subdivision placed right in the middle of our neighborhood. Not to mention that we need to stop developing land that is in agricultural production and sustaining an abundance of local wildlife and a way of life that western Colorado should respect and protect. I do not believe that we have enough water to sustain the unrestrained growth that has been going on in Missouri Heights. The traffic alone would be disastrous. Those roads are popular for biking, horseback riding, and walking and jogging sometimes including babies and pets. Coming from the Eagle county line it is at times of the year impossible to see oncoming traffic just before sunset, as all the residents currently up there now know, making it very dangerous to increase the traffic volume dramatically. What is the sense of a high density development there? Will it contribute in any way to the neighborhood and its character? What happened to the 35 acre parcels that it was originally subdivided into? We elect you to protect us from unrestrained and unconscionable growth. How about looking after the people who have been in Garfield County working, paying taxes, and voting instead of accommodating millionaires moving down from Aspen and second home owners from out of state? Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Denise Henderson Denise Henderson Forward Computer Inc. 970-925-3209 .-xa�-,�-��::•:: ��i�b.a�� ten, .46,��a Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:17 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch From: Susan Gibbs [mailto:susan©sopris.net] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:28 AM To: Becky Chase; Carol DueII; Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch Page 1 of 1 My name is Susan Gibbs and 1 live on County Road 103 Carbondale. This has been my primary residence since 1998. 1 am greatly concerned about the proposed development at the Hunt Ranch. This is a RURAL area, supporting an already abundance of people and alot of wildlife. The impact would be tremendous on the water situation, the available space for a large elk herd to live, along with numerous other wildlife, not to mention road damage, traffic influences on already challenged roads. Please see that this proposal is seriously approached with ALL concerns in mind. 1 understand that development is part of progress and this is why the developer purchased it, but this is MUCH, MUCH too high density for this area. Thank you for your attention. 11/22/2005 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:17 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: hunt ranch Original Message From: Mario Larouche Imailto:bonedoc@sopris.net1 Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 8:22 AM To: Larry McCown Subject: hunt ranch As a homeowner in Missouri Heights, 1 am concerned about the lack of water, traffic, and wildlife habitat that the proposed Hunt Ranch development will impact. Please feel free to contact me if you'd like to hear more: Nancy Kimbrell 10 Deer Path Carbondale, CO 704 0181 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:18 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: development From: carol rothrock [mailto:cjroth@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 10:58 AM To: Larry McCown Subject: development Page 1 of 1 Mr. McCown, I am writing you to express my concern for what I see happening in Garfield County in terms of development. I understand the financial concerns of the county and that consequently more is better", however, we seem to be exploiting our natural resources, rather than consciously developing this valley to preserve and conserve it. I request that our Commissioners further consider the natural environment, available water, and quality of life that we enjoy in this county before granting further permits to developers. Especially in consideration that developments begin without the financial backing suuficient to complete the projects and consequently, land is left denuded and exploited as presently I see on Hwy 82 in the Cattle Creek area. Please consider reducing the density of units on tracts of land, as in the case of the Hunt Ranch. Affordable housing must be clustered for expense considerstions, but at least 80% of housing units should be spread out to accomodate the spaciousness characteristic of Missouri Heights. Garfield County should exercise authority on large developments with stricter environmental considerations...1 would hope that more attention could be given to the character of the existing area, water availability, and the impact of traffic. Guidelines for open space in each development must address exterior lighting that preserves the nightsky, noise ordinances that give neighbors some say when confronted with inconsiderate neighbors, and respect for wildlife corridors. 1 realize that the county must address these considerations in some ways already, however, I think we need to strengthen policies to protect this valley from being raped by developers to the extent that it looks like mass development with open space a historical memory. I appreciate that you serve our community and that you have taken the time to read my concerns. Respectfully submitted, Carol Rothrock 4346 County Rd 115 Glenwood Springs 11 /22/2005 Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:18 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch From: KIMSG@aof.com {mailto:KIMSG@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 3:13 PM To: Larry McCown Subject: Hunt Ranch Dear Larry McCown: It has come to my attention that a neighboring ranch is in the process of being sold, and the purchaser wishes to subdivide this ranch into 94 homes. When will Garfield County realize that the residents of Missouri Heights do not want to have their entire plateau looking Iike the Valley floor. We love the rural feeling up here. There were subdivisions built up here in the 70's when there were still ranches, but the ranches are quickly being bought up by developers and being cut up into small parcels. When will the raping of our land be stopped? When will the quality of life for the residents be more important than tax dollars? We all moved here to enjoy the peace and quiet. The country roads, dark nights, wildlife habitat, and the open feeling will all be destroyed. I have seen enough accidents at the Catherine Store light and the El Jebel light since I've lived up here. There have been deaths on the Cattle Creek road and still no guard rail installed. Now the developer wants to add 94 homes each with approximately 5 car trips a day (94x5=470) to our rural roads. This would be suicide. Where will the bike riders go? Where will the horseback riders go? Where will the joggers and the walkers go? There aren't even any shoulders! We live on a high dry mesa. The ranches are going away, and what ranches are still here, have changed from flood irrigation to side rolls and guns which leaves nothing to replenish our aquifer. How can Garfield County not think that 94 additional houses with lawns, trees etc. not effect all our our wells. Please consider being cautious before we all will be affected! Please don't let the developer snow you with clustered homes and open space. Please rethink your land use plan. We love our area and don't want it ruined t t i tt Thank you, Kim Gerringer Resident of Missouri Heights 11/22/2005 November 18, 2005 Dear Commissioners; I hope this correspondence finds well and enjoying the Fall. I write to you out of concern for the proposed Hunt Ranch development. While I appreciate the desire to develop this land, I have deep concerns regarding the impact it will have on the quality of life for existing residents, specifically with regards to traffic and water usage. In addition, it is my understanding that this land is currently vital wildlife habitat. I think it is important to note that I am a property owner in Missouri Heights. As such, I have an agenda. I'd love to keep the area as pristine and low density as possible and, given my choice, would prefer very limited further development of the area. That said, I also appreciate that I, like many others, am part of the problem and the developers are just doing what those prior to them have done. It is important to note however that while their proposal may seem to be just an extension and continuation of what has gone on in the past, there are significant differences that warrant serious consideration. 1) The other developments (Missouri Heights included) were there first & being first has some element of domain of existing resources 2) There are limitations to availability of resources (i.e. water, traffic, fire & police protection etc.) 3) The impact on quality of life & wildlife increases exponentially as further development takes place 4) Finally, while the wants & needs of the developers & potential future residents deserve consideration, so do those of multiple current residents who are not fighting for the almighty dollar but rather a far more precious commodity; quality of life and pristine habitat. I don't suggest that they should not be permitted to develop the landat all. That would not only be un realistic, but unfair. But I do believe a development that takes into consideration both the present conditions and future challenges would be appropriate. I suggest that if the property is developed at all the developers be made to compensate for: 1) Water usage (provide their own well AND reduce the number of homes from 94 to 47) 2) Traffic (reduce the proposed number of homes from 94 to 47) 3) Impact on emergency services (reduce the number of homes from 94 to 47) 4) Impact on wildlife (reduce the number of homes from 94 to 47 & commit a certain percentage to open space) I admit there seems to be little information available re: the development, please make such available as possible so we can make educated decisions *& suggestions as opposed to reactionary ones. I thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate you are faced with difficult decisions ona daily basis andtrust you will act in accordance with the best interests of your constituents. Please don't allow this to become another "Denver suburb in a mountain town." Please feel free to contact me may I be of any service to you regarding this matter. Sincerely, Pete Ferrara Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:18 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch Development --Missouri Heights From: Sloowis@aol.com [mailto:Sloowis@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:54 AM To: Larry McCown Subject: Hunt Ranch Development --Missouri Heights Dear Larry McCown: Page 1 of 1 I have owned and lived at the Someday Ranch on Missouri Heights since 1999 and in the valley for 33 years. The proposed development of the Hunt Ranch has so many impacts to us, wildlife, water, services, quality of life, that I felt the need to write and voice the concerns of al] of most of us on Missouri Heights. I feel the Board, Planning and Zoning, and Garfield Counties' citizens need to decide how we are to treat the very resources that brought us here, and keeps us here. . 1 have started a business, raised a daughter, and enjoyed all the natural wonder that is our western slope. 1 have moved from Pitkin County, to Eagle County, and now Garfield County, seeking the space and rural feeling of our community up here. We are losing our green, our ranches, and our ranchers. The number of homes the developer wants is staggering. Ninety-four is unacceptable. The impact of construction vehicles, increased car trips, electrical, sewer, safety for hikers, horse riders, kids, etc., etc. will change us from rural to suburban. None of the services or infrastructures is designed for these increases. The developer has told us alI that he plans to cluster the homes and leave the fields as open space. It sounds fine, but there about 150 -plus elk (and many other forms of wildlife) that depend not only on the fields, but the Gullies, the sage and pinion covered hills surrounding these fields where the wildlife browse and rest. The wildlife use all the open space from the Strang Ranch, through the Hunt Ranch, up the gully, and over the ridge. 1 watch them daily from November on through the winter. The low density of Panarama Subdivision, and Spring Park neighborhoods do not form road blocks. 1 want my daughter and her daughter to know the beauty of our valley and the western slope. However, there won't even be a debate over the eroding quality of life if we don't protect our WELL WATER. WELL WATER is the biggest issue and the scariest. We live on a semi -arid shelf above the valley floor. Some years are good. Many are dry. What is the impact of unbridled growth on our aquifer? I frankly don't understand how you as a county government can continue to permit these projects without a better understanding about our WATER. If we don't know exactly how much water is down there, isn't it better to error on the side of conservation rather than tax revenue Even the big State water Pow -wow in Durango this fall concluded that both the lower and upper Colorado River Basin was under stress and over adjudicated. Let's step back before it is too late. We as a Missouri Heights community feel no obligation to tet a Vail valley developer profit at the expense of our lives or our livelihood. 1 am sorry he has used up the open space in his valley. It looks like it! The citizens of this county and valley should have a say in determining their future. This could be and should be an opportunity to revisit our land use codes before we can't go back. Please! Sincerely, Glen Sloop ].802 CR 102 Missouri Heights 11/22/2005 November 21, 2005 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Hunt Ranch — Carbondale, Colorado Commissioner McCown, My wife, Peggy, and I purchased approximately 41 acres of land in Missouri Heights in 2000 in a development referred to as Spring Park Mesa and designed and constructed a home in 2002. We are located at 1121 Spring Park Road, Carbondale, Colorado 81623. For the next few years our permanent residence is in St. Louis, Missouri where I am the managing partner of a 50+ architectural firm. My wife and I plan on relocating permanently to the valley in approximately 2010. We have recently learned of a potential development on the Hunt Ranch property located near our property where 90+ homes are planned. I have reviewed the Long Range Plan prepared by Garfield County and would encourage the commission to require a lower density than the 6-10 acres per lot. The potential development of 90+ home sites would have a negative impact on the entire area. While we are not opposed to development, we were attracted to this area of Missouri Heights because of the panoramic views, abundance of wildlife, quiet environment and the overall quality of life. We share the concerns that have been communicated by the Missouri Heights Well Users Alliance and ask that you consider all of our concerns as you render decisions on this property. Respectfully submitted, Dan s. Mitchell, FAIA Mackey Mitchell Associates 800 St. Louis Union Station, suite 200 St. Louis, Missouri 63103 314-421-1815 office Dan M@rnackeyrnitchell.com Colorado Address 1.121 Spring Park Road Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970-963-5902 dmitchell@sopris.net Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:26 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch Contract From: Sheila Brooks [mailto:sam23@zzip.cc] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:21 PM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Cc: bchase@rof.net; cwduell@rof.net Subject. Hunt Ranch Contract Dear Commissioners, I understand that the developer who has a contract on the Hunt Ranch plans to put ninety-four houses on the property. Please accept this as my notification to you that I am against this development. I've lived here for a number of years because of the environment as it is. I don't want to live in a noisy neighborhood where one sees only other people and has bumper -to -bumper traffic. I love the quiet and peacefulness, seeing the wildlife wandering and grazing, without interruption or fear. This is the reason I bought my home here and the reason I've stayed. Please do everything within your power to not allow this development. Justina W. McLean 1 1 /22/2005 Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:27 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch development From: Susan Edmonds [maiito;sedmonds@sopris.net] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:15 AM To: Tresi Houpt; Larry McCown; John Martin Subject: Hunt Ranch development Dear Commissioners, I have been a resident of Garfield County on Missouri Heights for over 20 years. During that time I have witnessed many changes, lived through several extreme droughts, been evacuated from my house twice during wildfires, and watched as our open spaces become developed. While I realize that development is inevitable, it has to be sensitive and in proportion to ecology of this dry land. The proposed 94 houses on the Hunt Ranch would be a catastrophe. The stresses on our water supply, our roads, the wildlife populations, and our way of life would be too great. The only reason for a project of this size is so that some Vail developers can make a lot of money. They are not people who live or vote in our County. They will not be here when the next extreme drought depletes our water supply. They will not be here when the elk herd is gone. They will not be here when you want to raise our taxes to 4 -lane Roads 100 and 102. While older subdivisions such as Panorama Ranches and King's Row may have higher densities per acre, they were approved in a time of much lower overall density. Newer projects such as The Ranch at Coulter Creek, and the Stirling Ranch have considerably lower densities. None of us knows for certain how many people the sensitive ecology of Missour Heights can support. Are we going to keep building until we all run out of water in the next drought? Bringing 94 homes on line is too large a step, and will set a poor precedent when the remaining ranches become developed. Now is the time to re-evaluate our priorities. Do NOT let these out -of -county developers ruin our lives for their personal profit. If they have paid too much money for the Hunt Ranch, that is their problem. Do Not let them turn their problem into our problem by creating a development of such enormous proportions. Sincerely, Susan Edmonds 0196 Sunlight Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 11/22/2005 Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:27 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: proposed Hunt Ranch Sub -division From: PjHealyl@aol.com [mailto:PjHealyl@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:27 AM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Cc: bchase@rof.net; cwduell@rof.net; ms77@ci.aspen.co.us; laff@sopris.net; KWA4100@aol.com Subject: proposed Hunt Ranch Sub -division Dear Garfield Country Commisioner, I own my home in Missouri Heights, on County Road 103, near the intersection of Catherine's Store Road, and have heard of the proposed Subdivision of the Hunts Ranch into high density housing. I strongly object to this subdivision on many grounds, as follows: - Depletion of the scarce water supply. I have been penalized myself for a well on my parcel, and watch with discomfort and alarm the lowering of the water tables in our area Just the growth in the low density building in our area has substantially impacted the water levels in recent years. This subdivision would be an environmental disaster. - Increased population density. All of the surrounding population area is based on a lower population density This increase would bring in a degration of the existing infrastructure, obvious heightened personal security issues, and a lowering of the quality of life in the area. The incredible negative impact of such a population increase are not justified. -Wildlife habitat impact. Such an increase of population in other places has demonstrated a terrible impact to the local wildlife. It is with energy and intensity that I, along with others in the area, will plan to strongly protest this invasion, and through this email, want you to be assured that my sentiments are shared with almost ALL of the inhabitants of Missouri Heights. It is important to note that this objection is not based on old or outdated viewpoints of the definition of growth in the area. Au contriare, I have never objected when my neighbors to the North decided to create small land plots of 8 acres, or when a neighbor at the intersection of 103 & Catherine Store rd created 2 each 5 acre plots. But this is something else altogether. High density housing in rural areas has been shown over and over again to be a detriment to the local inhabitants and environment and it cannot be allowed to occur at the Hunts Ranch. In addition to the above noted valid objections, the political impact of such a move should not be lost on yourselves, as the bad news and follow-on reporting will only bring negative sentiment to such a consideration. Therefore I must insist that you all reject this proposal, and through this email, I am filing my most stringent and vehement objections to this subdivision. Patrick Healy - Property owner - 4134 County Road 103. 11/22/2005 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:28 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch From: Robert Blattberg[mailto:r-blattberg@kellogg.northwestern.edu] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:46 AM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Cc: bchase@rof.net; cwduell@rof.net Subject: Hunt Ranch Dear Commisioners: Page 1 of 1 As a land owner and resident of Missouri Heights, 1 am extremely concerned about the proposed development on the Hunt Ranch. In particular, what studies have been conducted regarding the amount of water to be used, the effect on the water table, and the impact on traffic on County Road 100. I understand development will occur but there should be some limit on the size of lots that can be sold and its impact on the area. Since water is scarce and my house is downstream of the Hunt Ranch, I am very concerned about the impact on my well during periods of droughts as occurred two years ago. I am also extremely concerned about fire hazard which was also a serious problem two years ago when there was a fire set off by a contractor in Panorama. I would appreciate it if you would e-mail me explaining why the development will not pose serious problems to our water and why it will not adversely affect traffic and the wonderful environment we current have in Missouri Heights. If there are studies to which you can refer me regarding the impact on water availability, I would be very interested in receiving those. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robert Blattberg Rebecca Donelson 5329 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: 312-925-3022 (cell) 11/22/2005 Hunt Ranch Development Page 1 of 3 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:28 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch Development Attachments: hunt ranch.doc From: Susy Ellison [mailto:sellison@sopris.net] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 8:24 PM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch Development attached is our letter of concern about potential development of the Hunt Ranch on Missouri Heights. 1 am also including that letter in the body of this email in case the attachment does not open properly. thanks for your time, susy ellison SUSY ELLISON & MARTY SCHLEIN 4474 COUNTY ROAD 100 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 November 20, 2005 To the Commissioners. We are writing to express our concerns about the potential impacts of development on the Hunt Ranch. Our home is located on 100 Road, less than 2 miles from the Ranch. We purchased the property and built our home 13 years ago, and 11/22/2005 Hunt Ranch Development Page 2 of 3 have been watching the development -related changes around us throughout that time. We fear that the growth that would occur as a result of development of the Hunt Ranch Parcel would have long-term impacts on our property and lives. Over the past 13 years we have seen the daily traffic volume increase noticeably. While there are no specific traffic count figures available, a subjective observer could not help but notice the streams of cars up and down the hill daily. Development of 94 homes on the Hunt Ranch parcel would increase this daily traffic stream. During project build -out there would be a noticeable increase in construction -related traffic and noise; heavy equipment, delivery vehicles, and builder vehicles would add to an already well -traveled road. Once build -out has been achieved there will be an increase in traffic from the 94 new families traveling to town for schools, work, and shopping. The grade is steep, and the curves are sharp. We witness many 'near misses' on a regular basis, both between cars and between cars and wildlife. Last summer our well went dry and we had to bore the well hole deeper to reach water. While some of this could be attributed to our long drought, we feel that it is also attributable to the changing landscape above us. Agricultural lands are disappearing at a rapid rate, replaced by homes. In addition, irrigation techniques are far more water -efficient, putting less water back into the aquifer. We fear that development of the Hunt Ranch will further decrease aquifer recharge by removing acreage from irrigation while increasing demand for domestic water from deep wells. If you drive by the Hunt Ranch in the winter you may well see the large elk herd that winters in the area. Where will the elk go when this parcel is developed? Elk winter habitat is 11/22/2005 Hunt Ranch Development Page 3 of 3 decreasing at an alarming rate in our valley. Will the elk and other wildlife be gone from Missouri Heights, only to be replaced by streets named after them? We are fortunate to live where it is still dark at night. 94 homes will certainly 'brighten up' our neighborhood, with lighting that will be visible across the Heights. Eventually, this haven of darkness will be just like any other well -lit subdivision. Finally, we are worried about the ultimate loss of the rural environment that brought us here. 94 new homes would cause us to rethink the concept 'rural'. Subdivisions of that size belong within close proximity to urban areas, or as infill. This is not infill-- it's the creation of an entirely new neighborhood. Sincerely, Susy Ellison Marty Schlein 1 1 IT) r) (1(1 c Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:28 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Proposed Hunt Ranch Development Original Message From: Sylvia Wendrow [mailto:sdw jds@yahoo.comJ Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 8:15 PM To: Tresi Haupt; John Martin; Larry McCown Cc: lettersGpostindependent.com Subject: Proposed Hunt Ranch Development Dear Commissioners Houpt, Martin and McCown: As a resident of Missouri Heights and a Garfield County neighbor of the Hunt Ranch property I am very concerned about the proposal to develop 94 homesites there as could be possible under current Garfield County regulations. After having seen the developer's proposal at one of the meetings held by them at the Missouri Heights Schoolhouse, I ask the following: Will Garfield County be funding the improvement and maintenance of County Roads 102 and 100 which could be required by the increased traffic from a residential development this large in a rural area? Will Garfield County be funding and providing the increased public safety/protection (fire and police) required? Will Garfield County be doing anything to prevent another Bair Ranch type development fiasco (that has destroyed wildlife habitat and created the massive barren dirt piles along Hwy 82)on Missouri Heights should the developer's funding prove inadequate to complete the proposed plan? Will Garfield County continue to support zoning codes inimical to wildlife and the Western environment that it has been noted for? I hope you will give this your most serious consideration. Sylvia Wendrow Carbondale CO Yahoo! Mail -- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:29 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: HUNT RANCH development From: Jonathan Fitch[mailto:jolufitch@optonline.net] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 6:57 PM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Haupt Cc: bchase©rof.net; cwduell@rof.net Subject: HUNT RANCH development by way of placing me, let me take this opportunity ( even though it wasn't unanimous) to thank you folks for voting down mrs. blue's attempt to erect a 78 foot radio tower precisely bisecting our wonderful view of mt. sopris ( plus the views of others) that experience makes me feel you will give careful and hopefully favorable consideration to the arguments made at tomorrow's meeting concerning the 565 acres of the hunt ranch now under contract in missouri heights the concerns have primarily to do with overdevelopement in missouri heights and the fear that unbridled expansion will put future water availability in jeopardy, ultimately in the long run hurting the property values of existing owners a close second to that worry is the inevitability of one of the most beautiful human and wildlife habitats going in the direction of new york and los angesles suburbs;too many cars, too many houses, too many people, too few pastures and too few wild animals and birds it is my hope that all arguments toward slowing expansion ( growth is an inappropriate word here ) and toward establishing a master pian for the missouri heights area that addresses the available current and future water situation fall on sympathetic ears i think you have a thoughtful board and i hope my comments here make sense to you.....jonathan fitch, 0104 wooden deer rd, carbondale 111722/2805 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:29 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Hunt Ranch development -----Original Message From: Neal Pollack [mailto:nealstar@pressp1ay.net] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:12 PM To: Larry McCown Cc: John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch development Board of County Commissioners, My wife and I are strongly against the Hunt Ranch development for the following reasons: 1. It will have a negative impact on our water supply. 2. It will negatively modify the rural environment and quality of life we enjoy. 3. It will create more traffic on Cattle Creek Rd. (County Rd. 113) So far the Board of County Commissioners has failed to serve the best interests of the local constituency by: 1. Allowing the ill-fated Funland to be built, run and, as predicted by myself and others, fail, leaving a glaring blight on what was previously a pastoral setting. 2. Allowing Rudd Construction to do exactly as they damned well please at the junction of Cattle Creek Rd. and Hwy. 82, to include filling in a wetland and drastically modifying the terrain so they may build an industrial park. 3. Etc. I don't have any idea what your overall plan is for the area, but so far, your stewardship has turned a pastoral setting into something that resembles a cross between Rocky Flats and the aftermath of the Apocalypse. Neal and Jean Pollack 3266 Cattle Creek Rd. Carbondale 81623 970-945-6039 1 Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Larry McCown Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:29 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Missouri Heights Well Users Alliance From: BARBARA BRETT [mailto:bjb6956@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:49 PM To: Larry McCown Cc: John Martin; Tresi Haupt Subject: Missouri Heights Well Users Alliance Dear Commissioners, I have been a resident of this Roaring Fork Valley for nearly 30 years. Certainly progress and modification occurs anywhere that you live. However the magnitude of the change in Missouri Heights is mind boggling. The number of homes suggested to be coming into one subdivision alone, 94, I have heard, is absolutely going to diminish the water supply here, (that I might add is challenged already), it will impact the wildlife migratory patterns, (which are also challenged already), not to mention the negative impact on the road conditions, and quality of life in general up here. We all moved here years ago because of the open space and the glorious surroundings. If we allow these developers to continue to rape the land and diminish our wildlife, well shame on you! The larger homes on the market in this area have been on the market for up to 2 years! There is not a shortage of these higher end homes that you know that this person will build! Please bear everything in mind before you allow this horror to occur. We have everything at stake. Please at least limit the number of homes that can be built. The numbers seemvery out of control. Consider our water shortages. Some of the homes in my neighborhood were without water summer before last due to drought. There sometimes just has to be a line that is drawn. Please draw it now before it is too late. Thank you for your time and consideration. Barbara J. Brett 0657 Escalante Carbondale, CO 81623 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. 11/7.70005 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:04 PM To: 'DMorr86557@aol.com' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: (no subject) Page 1 of 2 Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945-8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garlield-county.com Original Message From: DMorr86557©aol.com mailto:DMorr86557@aoLcom] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:45 AM To: Imccown@garfield-county.com; imartin@garfield-county.com; Tresi Houpt Subject: (no subject) I am writing this letter regarding Hunt Ranch. As someone who owns and boards a horse up near the proposed development I want to share some of my experiences within the last year. While houses are being developed quickly in the surrounding area, I have been asked not to ride my horse on the roads (due to unsightly foot prints and/or horse manure, not good for sales you know), I have been asked not to bring my dog on my rides and finally, the trails are getting shorter and shorter. Here are my questions: Water - What happens when there is no water? During fire season, everyone in the surrounding area scrambled to keep their property moist at best. What impact will the addition of 94 more homes have? How will it effect the well water supply? Public Trail access. Will there be any? Habitat. I know the elk spend a lot of time on Hunt Ranch. What impact will 94 homes have on that? We've already taken away some important elk habitat along highway 82. We all live in this area for the same reasons. It's the group of people coming in droves from the cities who "don't want their dogs to roll in the horse 11/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 manure" or the realtors who "don't want the roads messed up with hoof prints" or the developers who will go back to where ever it is they came from, a lot richer while those of us who live here suffer their consequences. Please say no to Hunt Ranch. Thank you for your time. Deb Morrison 11/22/2005 Page 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:05 PM To: 'PjHealyl @aol.com' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: proposed Hunt Ranch Sub -division Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garfield-county.com Original Message From; PjHealyl@aol.com [mailto:PjHealyl@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:27 AM To: Larry McCown; John Martin; Tresi Houpt Cc: bchase@rof.net; cwduell@rof.net; ms77@ci.aspen.co.us; laff@sopris.net; KWA4100@aol.com Subject: proposed Hunt Ranch Sub -division Dear Garfield Country Commisioner, l own my home in Missouri Heights, on County Road 103, near the intersection of Catherine's Store Road, and have heard of the proposed Subdivision of the Hunts Ranch into high density housing. I strongly object to this subdivision on many grounds, as follows: - Depletion of the scarce water supply. l have been penalized myself for a well on my parcel, and watch with discomfort and alarm the lowering of the water tables in our area Just the growth in the low density building in our area has substantially impacted the water levels in recent years. This subdivision would be an environmental disaster. - Increased population density. All of the surrounding population area is based on a lower population density This increase would bring in a degration of the existing infrastructure, obvious heightened personal security issues, and a lowering of the quality of life in the area. The incredible negative impact of such a population increase are not justified. -Wildlife habitat impact. Such an increase of population in other places has demonstrated a terrible impact to the local wildlife. It is with energy and intensity that I, along with others in the area, will plan to strongly protest this invasion, and through this email, want you to be assured that my sentiments are shared with almost ALL of the inhabitants of Missouri Heights. It is important to note that this objection is not based on old or outdated viewpoints of the definition of growth in the area. Au contriare, I have never objected when my neighbors to the North decided to create small land plots of 8 acres, or when a neighbor at the intersection of 103 & Catherine Store rd created 2 11/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 each 5 acre plots. But this is something else altogether. Nigh density housing in rural areas has been shown over and over again to be a detriment to the local inhabitants and environment and it cannot be allowed to occur at the Hunts Ranch. In addition to the above noted valid objections, the political impact of such a move should not be lost on yourselves, as the bad news and follow-on reporting will only bring negative sentiment to such a consideration. Therefore I must insist that you all reject this proposal, and through this email, I am filing my rnost stringent and vehement objections to this subdivision. Patrick Healy - Property owner - 4134 County Road 103. 11/22/2005 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:16 PM To: 'jd sturgill' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Please Consider Thank you very much for your letter, you raise some very important points about growth and planning, many of your recommendations are in place in our county. However, I am forwarding this on to our building and planning department for their review as well. I am very pleased that in Garfield County we have an intelligent staff that brings valuable concepts in planning to us. We have many challenges facing Garfield County in terms of current and future growth; hopefully we, as a commission, will heed the thoughtful recommendations that come our way. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garfield-county.com ------Original Message -- From: jd sturgill [mailto:jd_sw@yahoo.comj Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:10 PM To: John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Please Consider I'm a resident of Garfield County and live in the Roaring Fork Valley. As you know, there are over 6500 homes currently permitted for construction in the Valley. As you also know, we are coming off the worst drought in 300 years. Growth is essential to the economic well being of a community but uncontrolled growth can stress the infrastructure beyond its capability. This is to ask you, as Garfield County Commissioners, to consider the following: When reviewing permits for new construction consider the effect of a developer not having sufficient funds to complete the project. That could be addressed by requiring the contractor to post a performance bond sufficient to complete, or rectify, an uncompleted project. That could alleviate the problem faced by the County when a development is only partially completely or, perhaps even worse, completed unsatisfactorily. Other states require developers to improve the highways to accommodate the projected demand created by their new development whenever that development would create a decrease in the level of service. That concept could be expanded to include other aspects of the County's infrastructure such as fire and police protection. Implementing procedures encouraging developers to be more financially responsive to the larger picture of their developments would help protect the citizens of Garfield County from having to contribute to a developer's well being. That would be a valuable tool to be able to implement whenever it became desirable. Growth will result in an adverse effect on wildlife. There are ways to mediate the effect and it would be beneficial to the quality of life in Garfield County to add that consideration into your review of new construction. Water is an issue for everyone. The unfettered use of water is not a responsible use of a limited resource. Metering may not be a popular option at this time but it may become necessary within the very near future. It would behoove the Commissioners to be prepared and investigate ways to encourage the efficient use of this resource. In the meantime, when reviewing permits for new subdivisions please consider the effects on the water table by prohibiting inefficient use of water. If legitimate studies should indicate a proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the water supply for the area, it should 1 not be permitted. As the water level of the existing aquifer as depleted, the quality of life, property values, and attractiveness to growth in Garfield County also decrease. That would mean the residents of Garfield County are providing an economic benefit to a developer and that just isn't right. Lastly, density of development is an overlying concern of the above. There is an overall density beyond which Garfield County cannot continue to provide essential services and resources, That will become increasingly important as more and more ranches are sold to developers. Please keep that in mind when reviewing proposals. I close with the thought that when the natural gas reserves are depleted the drillers will move on to other fields. Hopefully they will have left behind a relatively undisturbed environment. But when the other resources of Garfield County such as water, highways, police and fire protection, and medical facilities, are stressed beyond their capability to recover, where will the residents of Garfield County move? Some of the above requests may be beyond the purview of the Commissioners but none are beyond your influence and concern. You can help, please do. Thank you, J D Sturgill P 0 Box 1500 Carbondale, CO 81623 Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com 2 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Haupt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:24 PM To: 'Neal Pollack' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Hunt Ranch development Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945-8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garfield-county.com Original Message From: Neal Pollack [mailto:nealstar@pressplay.net] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:12 PM To: Larry McCown Cc: John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch development Board of County Commissioners, My wife and 1 are strongly against the Hunt Ranch development for the following reasons: 1. It will have a negative impact on our water supply. 2. It will negatively modify the rural environment and quality of life we enjoy. 3. It will create more traffic on Cattle Creek Rd. (County Rd. 113) So far the Board of County Commissioners has failed to serve the best interests of the local constituency by: 1. Allowing the ill-fated Funland to be built, run and, as predicted by myself and others, fail, leaving a glaring blight on what was previously a pastoral setting. 2. Allowing Rudd Construction to do exactly as they damned well please at the junction of Cattle Creek Rd. and Hwy. 82, to include filling in a wetland and drastically modifying the terrain so they may build an industrial park. 3. Etc. I don't have any idea what your overall plan is for the area, but so far, your stewardship has turned a pastoral setting into something that resembles a cross between Rocky Flats and the aftermath of the Apocalypse. Neal and Jean Pollack 3266 Cattle Creek Rd. Carbondale 81623 970-945-6039 1 Page 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:27 PM To: 'BARBARA BRETT' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Missouri Heights Well Users Alliance Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garlield-county.con Original Message From: BARBARA BRb t l maiito:bjb6956@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:49 PM To: Larry McCown Cc: John Martin; Tresi Houpt Subject: Missouri Heights Well Users Alliance Dear Commissioners, I have been a resident of this Roaring Fork Valley for nearly 30 years. Certainly progress and modification occurs anywhere that you live. However the magnitude of the change in Missouri Heights is mind boggling. The number of homes suggested to be coming into one subdivision alone, 94, I have heard, is absolutely going to diminish the water supply here, (that I might add is challenged already), it will impact the wildlife migratory patterns, (which are also challenged already), not to mention the negative impact on the road conditions, and quality of life in general up here. We all moved here years ago because of the open space and the glorious surroundings. If we allow these developers to continue to rape the land and diminish our wildlife, well shame on you! The larger homes on the market in this area have been on the market for up to 2 years! There is not a shortage of these higher end homes that you know that this person will build! Please bear everything in mind before you allow this horror to occur. We have everything at stake. Please at least limit the number of homes that can be built. The numbers seem very out of control. Consider our water shortages. Some of the homes in my neighborhood were without water summer before last due to drought. There sometimes just has to be a line that is drawn. Please draw it now before it is too late. Thank you for your time and consideration. Barbara J. Brett 0657 Escalante Carbondale, CO 81623 11/22/2005 Page 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:34 PM To: 'carol rothrock' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: development Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project, We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212. I believe your concerns about development in general are very valid, as we move forward in the update of our Comprehensive Plan, I know that they will be topics of discussion. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoup@ garfield-county.conx Original Message From: carol rothrock [mailto:cjroth@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:00 AM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: development Dear Ms. Houpt, I am writing you to express my concern for what 1 see happening in Garfield County in terms of development. 1 understand the financial concerns of the county and that consequently "more is better", however, we seem to be exploiting our natural resources, rather than consciously developing this valley to preserve and conserve it. I request that our Commissioners further consider the natural environment, available water, and quality of life that we enjoy in this county before granting further permits to developers. Especially in consideration that developments begin without the financial backing suuficientto complete the projects and consequently, land is left denuded and exploited as presently I see on Hwy 82 in the Cattle Creek area. Please consider reducing the density of units on tracts of land, as in the case of the Hunt Ranch. Affordable housing must be clustered for expense considerstions, but at least 80% of housing units should be spread out to accomodate the spaciousness characteristic of Missouri Heights. Garfield County should exercise authority on large developments with stricter environmental considerations...1 would hope that more attention could be given to the character of the existing area, water availability, and the impact of traffic. Guidelines for open space in each development must address exterior lighting that preserves the nightsky, noise ordinances that give neighbors some say when confronted with inconsiderate neighbors, and respect for wildlife corridors. 1 realize that the county must address these considerations in some ways already, however, I think we need to strengthen policies to protect this valley from being raped by developers to the extent that it looks like mass development with open space a historical memory. 1 appreciate that you serve our community and that you have taken the time to read my concerns. 1 1./22/2005 Page 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:47 PM To: 'G. Lewis' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Hunt Ranch -Missouri Heights Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212, We will be updating our Comprehensive Plan and look forward to having community members participate in the process! Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoutCga_rfield-county._com Original Message From: G. Lewis [mailto:someday@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:42 AM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch -Missouri Heights Dear Tresi Houpt: We bought our small ranch on Missouri Heights 6 years ago. We have .lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for 35 years. We settled on. Missouri Heights because it still had a rural. feeling. Within the last six years, we have seen most of the ranch land gobbled up by subdivisions. We have learned that the Hunt Ranch, the last large land holding on the front bench of Missouri Heights is under contract. The buyer plans to submit a development proposal to Garfield County for a 94 home subdivision. He will woo you with clustered homes and open space, but please listen to my reasons why this should never happen. Missouri. Heights used to be a ranch community where the landowners flood irrigated their lands. Since irrigation water is limited to a number of days on Missouri Heights, all the ranchers have gone to sprinkle irrigation hence spreading out their days of use. Flood irrigation recharges the aquifer; sprinkle irrigation only penetrates 6 inches into the ground. This has affected our wells. All of our wells have also suffered from the existing subdivisions already built on Missouri Heights. As a new subdivision is approved, the homeowner also installs massive lawns and trees to be irrigated. None of the Homeowners Associations have penalized their owners for irrigating their 20,000 sq foot lawns directly from their wells, and thus the aquifer has again suffered. No one knows how much water exists below the surface, but wouldn't it be wiser to be cautious about allowing 94 more straws drinking from the water source? Please don't let us become Silt Mesa, where the wells are already drying up due to over -development. Our roads are at the end of Garfield County. There are no guard rails, no caution signs for dangerous 11/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 curves, no deer crossing signs, no hidden driveway signs, and no graded turns. We have had numerous cars take our fences out during bad weather since the County doesn't sand us until the end of the day. The road is constantly patched instead of repaved. We are rural. They say each house has approximately 8 car trips daily to and from work and stores. Our rural roads cannot possibly handle this added traffic! (94x8=752 car trips) Garfield County needs to revisit its Land Use Plan. We don't need to have Blue Lake built on Missouri. Heights. Enough subdivisions have already been approved. Take this opportunity now to say no to irresponsible growth. Create guidelines to protect this rural feeling, and to protect the reason we all moved up here. Garfield County needs to learn from Eagle County who has put a moratorium on development, and Pitkin County who has stringent land use codes. Please don't let Garfield County become the area where all developers know they have an easy time of having their developments approved. We live in Garfield County. The developer who is buying Hunt Ranch lives in Vail. He won't care what happens to our water, our elk herds, our bike riders, or our horseback riders. Please take a stand now andsay no to this irresponsible growth, and please revamp the Land Use code which currently allows one house per two acres. Thank you, Gay Lewis Someday Ranch Missouri Heights 11/22/2005 Linda Hariem Page 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:49 PM To: 'Linda Harlem` Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Hunt Ranch Development Thank you for sharing your opinion an this proposed project, We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garfield-county.com Original Message From: Linda Harlem [mallto:l.harlem@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:45 PM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch Development Linda Harlem 12 Brown Court Carbondale, CO 81623 November 17, 2005 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ms. Houpt: As a resident of Garfield County, the proposed development of the Hunt Ranch on Missouri Heights has drawn my attention. It is with deep concern that I am writing to you. I have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for close to 35 years, and have sadly watched as ranches have been gobbled up by developers with little or no concern for the valley, but total interest in the all -mighty dollar. 1 have seen the valley floor go from open land to subdivision after subdivision of house on top of house. 11/22/2005 Linda Harlem Page 2 of 2 It has always made me cringe to drive thru the Vail Valley. It is frightening to think that is what is happening here. I have always felt that dividing ranch land into 35 acre parcels was a fair way to allow ranchers to profit but to contain development. It is horrifying to me that ranches in Missouri Heights are able to turn into huge subdivisions with as little as 2 -acre lots. I believe the impact of 94 houses on the Hunt property would be a nightmare for Missouri Heights. I cannot imagine how that country road would handle the impact of all those cars. It would forever change the peaceful atmosphere that currently exists, negatively impacting wildlife, threatening water supplies, and generally creating a pocket of suburbia where one does not belong. Please look at the long-range problems this development will bring. The subdivisions which currently exist up there were built a long time ago. Take this opportunity now to say no to irresponsible growth. Please create some guidelines to protect our valley, our wildlife, and the reasons we came here in the first place. Thank you, Linda Harlem 11122/2005 Page 1 of 1 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:50 PM To: T Macdonald' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Hunt ranch Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax tYoupt@garfield-courity.com Original Message From: T Macdonald [mailto:t macdonald@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:57 PM To: Tresi Houpt; John Martin; Larry McCown Subject: Hunt ranch We would like to let you know of our concern about the development of this property. The water supply alone in our area is enough reason to deny such a large development. The wildlife will be negatively impacted. Traffic will increase, making the area no longer safe to walk or bike as the roads are so narrow Please turn down the application for this development and protect the jewel in Garfield County that is Missouri Heights. Respectfully, Tina and John MacDonald 17 Sunrise Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 11/22/2005 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:50 PM To: 'Debby Flub' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Hunt Ranch Page 1 of 1 Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technical questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@garfield-county.com Original Message From: Debby Flub [mailto:debby@debbyl-lug.com) Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:17 PM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch I am opposed to the development of the Hunt Ranch due to the water issues, density, traffic, lights, wildlife habitat and the over all quality of life that we as property owners wanted when we chose to live here. Thank you for looking at this issue carefully. Sincerely, Debby Flug property owner. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/173 - Release Date: 11/16/2005 11/22/2005 Page 1 of 2 Fred Jarman From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:52 PM To: 'Jon Waterman' Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Hunt Ranch Thank you for sharing your opinion on this proposed project. We have not received the application, but will make sure that your comments are made a part of the project for review. Should you have any technic& questions, please do not hesitate to contact Fred Jarman, Assistant Director and Sr. Planner for Garfield County at 945- 8212. Tresi Tresi Houpt Garfield County Commissioner 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970,384.3665 970.945.7785 - fax thoupt@.garfield-cou_nty.corn Original Message From Jon Waterman [mailto:jon@sopris.net] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:18 PM To: Tresi Houpt Subject: Hunt Ranch November 17, 2005 Garfield. County Commissioners: Larry McCown, John Martin, Tresi Houpt 108 8th St Glenwood Springs, CO 861601 Re.: The proposed Hunt Ranch Dear Tresi, Beginning in 2004, my wife and I, acting as our own general contractors, began building a modest passive solar house in Missouri Heights. In 2005, we moved from Marble and became Garfield County residents. We must have done something right here, because the elk and deer herds still come and graze freely during the winters, often gazing into our windows. For a high and relatively dry mesa, we were lucky in being given a piece of land that already had a well. In as many instances as possible, we chose sustainable materials such as eco block, Hardiplank siding, certified lumber, and Trex decking. Of equal importance, we chose roofing and siding colors that allowed the low -profiled house to blend in with the landscape, rather than dominating the hillside. We seeded wild grass that does not need irrigation and we plan to install rainwater cisterns. in these choices, which may have added as much as 20 percent to material costs, we always felt that we had the support of Garfield County. Certainly, the recent adoption of a "green" building codes here in the valley provided the impetuous andavailability of sustainable building materials that did not exist prior to 2004. We were also pleased to note that the zoning and the large lots apportioned to the neighboring Stirling Ranch (a property abutting our 20 acres) were obviously done under the County's forward -thinking guidance 11/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 toward esthetics, wildlife habitat, and water conservation. After all, we know that the aquifer that lies beneath the homes and (dwindling) ranches of Missouri Heights is not limitless. So T am writing to applaud Garfield County for thinking wisely about growth, about the future of our children, and for adhering to a wise land use ethic. However, could you please tell me how the County plans to respond to the proposed 94 home development on the Hunt Ranch (less than a mile away from our house in Missouri Heights)? My neighbors and I are all opposed to so many homes being built on such a limited tract of land—the project does not match the careful development seen elsewhere in Missouri Heights. Such an extensive building project would diminish the aquifer, increase traffic on already narrow and winding county roads, deplete wildlife habitat, and destroy the tranquil quality of life that we have all sought out here. The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated. Sincerely Yours, Jonathan and June Waterman 176 Nighthawk Wood/ Carbondale, CO 81623/ 970 963-8544/ jon@soprr`s.net/ http//jarzathar}waterman.corn/ Cc: Becky Chase, Carol Duell 11/22/2005 Caroline W. Duell 64 Nighthawk Wood Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-2541 cwduell@rof.net Nov. 15, 2005 TO: Larry McCown RE: Hunt Ranch Development This letter is being sent to the commissioners to make sure each of you is aware of an upcoming development in eastern Garfield County. Although there have been occasions that the county has indeed taken developers to task when the size of a project was presented, the reality is that open land is disappearing nearly to the point of extinction, especially in the eastern part of the county. I moved here 21 years ago and bought a house that is in a rural area I love seeing deer, coyotes, fox, and sometimes a mountain lion. Elk roam over my property in the winter. I enjoy the raptors circling, the birds feeding on my deck, and the peace of country living. I love seeing horseback riders on the properties around me. That is why 1 am deeply concerned and very alarmed by the information about the development of the Hunt Ranch on County Road 102. There are some 94 houses planned on less than 500 acres! This is not even in the realm of realistic, let alone sensitive, considering the area: • Water is at a premium on Missouri Heights. Every summer I watch water consumption closely while trying to keep some green around the house for fire protection. Our wells would certainly be threatened, if not depleted, by so many new wells. • On the roads around here, people ride bikes, walk, run, walk with dogs and children, and ride horseback. There is also wildlife on the roads, year around. In the morning and late afternoon there is already a significant increase in vehicle volume. The addition of 94 residences would totally take away the daytime access and would be unimaginable during commuting hours. • Speaking of wildlife, the Hunt Ranch is contiguous to the Strang Ranch. in the winter, there isa herd of elk, 200 to 300, that winter on these two properties. Where would they go if over half of their range were gone? It would be painful to us who enjoy this sight every winter to have the herd disappear because of too many houses. -2 - Developers who purchase or are contracted to develop properties, come in, do their damage and leave. Despite what they say, they do not care about the impact on the environment; they do not care about the quality of life of the neighbors; they do whatever they con get away with and then they are gone. Is there any way to make them accountable for what is to be done and to make sure they complete a project? I heard that the venture around Sopris Restaurant has ceased and left behind is a big mess. • In summary: water, traffic, wildlife, quality of life, impact on the area, and integrity of the developers. Each of theseissues must be seriously considered when the plans for this development are presented. Please, as a Garfield County Commissioner, consider what has happened in this most beautiful of valleys. Take a new direction toward conservation, preservation and sensitivity to the land here in the eastern end of the county. Those of us who live here will be listening and watching. Help us to continue to lovewhere we live:. Sincerely, Carol 6.1 \t GU,A-vc,t, V\,)\,,t,;(1) wk-. C L Okjj- QLOa ikvva t -t 9 aa � n �� r fiv,(A �v h 4 L jr DRAFT April 14, 2006 Garfield County Building and Planning Department Attn: Fred Jarman 101 8th St. , Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Hunt Ranch Sketch Plan Dear Mr. Jarman, Thank you for the opportunity to provide referral comments on the Hunt Ranch Sketch Plan Application. The Hunt Ranch is within our three-mile planning area and the Town appreciates the ability to comment on the development. Technical comments and issues associated with the project are noted below: Planning Issues: 1. The Division of Wildlife comments stated that lot perimeter fencing should be prohibited. The development plan shows that a central parcel will continued to be used as agricultural and ranch property. It is the Town's understanding that fencing might need to be provided to separate the ranch facilities from the individual smaller lots surrounding the agricultural use. More clarification at preliminary review may be needed regarding fencing associated on each individual lot. 2. The density of the development is suggested to be 1 unit/6-10 acres according to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Town supports clustering of homesites and also supports lowering the density to 1 unit110 acres in this rural area. It is not clear from the Application if the individual lots will be permitted to have ADUs. The Town feels that density could be increased overall, up to 1 unit/6 acres, by allowing for Additional Dwelling Units (ADU) on individual lots. 3. The Town suggests that the interior lots adjacent to the large agricultural parcel should be eliminated or moved. Creating a single loaded street would have more of a rural feeling, create less conflict between single family home sites and active ranching facilities, and allow for appropriate fencing to be placed to protect the ranching facilities. 4. The Application does not appear to address affordable housing. The Town suggests that this development mitigate for affordable housing as part of its development plan. 5. The Town suggests creating more of a buffer on the north and east areas of the overall development. This would create less of an urban feel for adjoining properties. DRAFT 6. It is stated in the Application that the HOA will retain ownership of the large agricultural/ranching parcel with one single-family home to be retained for the ranch manager. More detail is needed in regards to the relationship between the management of the ranch and the HOA and could be provided for the preliminary review stage. 7. The Application states that there will be two entrance points into the subdivision each developed as parks. More detail regarding timing of the development of these parks and irrigation for landscaping should be provided at preliminary review. 8. There is an existing red barn proposed to be restored and relocated, possibly to the pocket park area. The Town supports the retaining of historical structures within the development plans. More detail regarding this barn should be provided at preliminary to address historic preservation and/or designation. 9. It is stated that home occupations will be permitted on the individual lots. A. more complete list of permitted home occupations should be developed to assure the neighbors and potential buyers of the uses on each lot (i.e. landscaping business, construction business, etc...) and what materials could be potentially stored on each lot. 10. The Town supports providing pedestrian connections within the development. The trails outlined for the development are a nice addition to the neighborhood. Engineering Issues: 1. The level of service at the Highway 82 and El Jebel Road intersection is expected to deteriorate to unacceptable levels within the analysis period of the study (to the year 2025). This project by itself doesn't have a significant impact on traffic volumes and levels of service, but the cumulative impacts of traffic growth from this and other projects within the trafficshed during the analysis period result in deterioration in levels of service at key intersections. If physical improvements at this intersection by this project aren't practical, the Town suggests that traffic impact fees be contributed and that a portion of those fees go to Eagle County and/or the Town of Basalt to be used for future improvements at this intersection. 2. It is stated that a 250,000 gallon storage tank for domestic water will be provided for the development. The uses for this water will be for fire protection, domestic use and individual lot landscaping irrigation. Individual lot irrigation should be provided using raw water irrigation and would be consistent with Town of Basalt Policies. The overall development receives raw water rights and some of those could be diverted to individual lots for landscaping and other uses such as car washing. The comments above are referral recommendations made to Garfield County. The Town recognizes that Garfield County is responsible for reviewing all of the input on this matter and the Town does not have the jurisdictional authority to make decisions on DRAFT these issues. If you have questions about the above comments or need clarification, you can contact the Planning Staff at Basalt Town Hall, 970-927-4701. Sincerely, Susan Philp Town Planner CC: Basalt Town Council Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission Bill Efting, Town Manager M LIS P MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Hunt Ranch Sketch Pian Date: May 1, 2006 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Sketch Plan. My comments are as follows: Noxious Weeds • Inventory and mapping -The applicant shall map and inventory the property for Garfield County listed noxious weeds and one State listed plant, Absinth wormwood. • Weed Management -The applicant shall provide a weed management plan for the inventoried noxious weeds. This area is known to have Russian knapweed, plumeless thistle, whitetop, and absinth wormwood. It would be a benefit to county -wide noxious weed efforts if the applicant would implement a weed management program prior to the start of the project. This would help reduce some of the seed spread into future disturbed areas. Staff requests that the applicant verify that weed management is implemented by providing treatment records prior to June 30, 2006. Please send treatment records to: Garfield County Vegetation Management POB 426 Rifle CO 81650 • Common area weed management- Staff requests that the applicant should detail how the common areas will be managed for noxious weeds and designate a responsible party. • Covenants -Weed management needs to be addressed in covenants. The language should remind each lot owner that it is their responsibility under the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan to manage County -listed noxious weeds and State -listed noxious weeds, Revegetation • The revised Revegetation Guidelines from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) calls for the following: Soil Plan A. Plant material list. 13. Planting schedule. C. A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building envelopes). D. A revegetation bond or security at Preliminary Plan and prior to Final Plat. a The applicant shall provide a plant material list and planting schedule. Please provide a map or information, prior to final plat that quantifies the area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This information will help determine the amount of security that will held for revegetation. • The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. e The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management Plan that includes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more. Rare plant occurrences • The globally rare plant, Harrington's penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii) may be present in the project area. Staff requests that the applicant contact a qualified plant ecologist or botanist to conduct field surveys to determine if Harrington's penstemon is located on the property. if present, the locations shallbe identified in general terms as they pertain to building envelopes. • This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). This means that the plant, according to CNHP is "vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). This plant is found exclusively in Colorado and is known to be only in 37 locations centered around Edwards in Eagle County. May 2, 2006 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Hunt Ranch Project Mr. Jarman, 1 have reviewed the Sketch Plan Application submitted for Hunt Ranch. There was no wildfire hazard map or review included in the application; therefore I met with John McCarty of Otak at the property on April 28th, 2006. 1 have the following comments regarding wildfire hazard on this proposal. The primary vegetation is sagebrush, gamble oak, and juniper trees. All of these vegetation types pose a signification wildfire hazard to parts of the proposed subdivision. The areas 1 am most concerned about are: Phases 1-5 (exhibit 16 from plan) based on the slope and vegetation composition. Phase 6 is in an area of dryland pasture that would need to be monitored to keep the grasses at a reduced height. 1 believe the best methods to reduce wildfire hazard on this property would be to create fuelbreaks along the proposed right of ways, to enforce defensible space standards around all permanent structures, and encourage or require the use of firewise building materials (Firewise Construction, Design and Materials, 2000). Written standards for fuelbreaks and defensible space zones published by the Colorado State Forest Service obviously do not cover every situation encountered. Most of our publications are designed for forested areas, rather than lower vegetation types such as brush and shrubs. However, for fuelbreak vegetation modification for Hunt Ranch, l would recommend following the standards outlined in the recent revision of publication 6.302, Creating Wildfire Defensible Zones, Prescriptions, Zone 2. Obviously, removing all the sagebrush and oak brush by mowing/machine removal would also be an effective method. In terms of fuelbreak width, CSFS standards state a minimum of 300 feet wide (Fuelbreak Guildlines for Forested Subdivisions and Communities, 2005). However, this standard applies to forested areas, and there is no written standard for brush. Although sagebrush can bum intensely and move quickly, fires in this fuel type are typically of short duration with low spotting potential, and control is relatively easy using a well constructed handline, a dozer line, or utilizing roads and natural. firebreaks. For Hunt Ranch, 1 would recommend following Constructing the Fuelbreak contained in the Fuelbreak Guidelines for Forested Subdivisions and Communities, 2005. A 12 foot fuelbreak width on either side of the proposed road width of 24 feet, would be required in order to adequately mitigate fire danger in this development. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please call with any questions at 970-248-7325. Sincerely, Kamie Long Forester Cc:. Otak, Attention: John McCarty