Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 CorrespondenceSTATE Cl COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 222 So. 6th St., Room 232 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 June 13, 1989 ",; Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Court House 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs CO 81601 1989 t RE: Ranch at Roaring Fork, Preshana Farms PUD, Garfield County Dear Mark: Roy Romer Governor Thomas M. Vernon, M.D. Executive Director Ronald Liston requested that I update the Department of Health's position on proliferation of wastewater treatment facilities, as it relates to Preshana Farms PUD and the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Richard Bowman's letter of August 8, 1979, outlined our position on St Finnbarr Ranch and the Ranch at Roaring Fork and that position still appears valid with one exception. The Water Quality Control Division now makes the initial approval/denial of site applications, with any appeals of that decision going before the Water Quality Control Commission. The Water Quality Control Act directs "in evaluating the suitability of a proposed site location for any domestic wastewater treatment works, the Division shall: (a) Consider the local long-range comprehensive plan for the area as it affects water quality, and any approved regional water quality management plan for the area; (b) Determine that the plant on the proposed site will be managed to minimize the potential adverse impact on water quality; and (c) Encourage the consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities whenever feasible." If Preshana Farms comes forward with a site aplication for a separate system, then valid arguments and documentation must be presented to show that an equitable agreement could not be made. My experience has indicated that when more people are served by one plant; i.e., the better the economy of scale; then generally the plant is better managed to minimize impacts on water quality. If you have any questions, please call me at 248-7150. Sincerely, John R. Blair, P.E District Engineer Water Quality Control Division JRB/mb cc: Ronald B. Liston, Land Design Partnership Mike Romanus, Ranch at. Roaring Fork Tom Bennett, Planning and Standards Section File August 8, 1979 Richard Hunt, Chairman Homeowners Association for Ranch at Roaring Fork 14913 Highway 32 Carbondale, CO 81623 L: Wastewater Treatment for Ranch at Roaring Fork and St. Finnbarr Ranch - Garfield County Dear :•tr. Hunt: This letter is belly; sent toclarif7 the treatment of ,easteeeiter freL Ranch at Roaring Fork and St. Finnbarr Ranch. The owners of the St. Finnbarr Ranch have the option of applying for a Site Afrlicaticn fez a wastewater treatment plant from the Tdater ` uality•Control. Commission to serve only their ,3evelonmcnt. In determining the suitability of the site location, the Water Quality Control Commission Shall coneider the longi;-ran;e comprehensive plan for the arae and cousc&1i iation of yac. tre_:tmerit to avoi_ proliferation of small sewa a trsatment •rorKs. I have asked the owners of the St. Pinnbarr Ranch to cooperate with the Homeowners of the Ranch at roarin;., Forh, to utilize one wafttewater treat- ment facility. is the St. Finnbarr Ranch owners sic not cry to cooper- ate with the Homeowners of the Ranch at :'.oariez Fork, and a?plic€d for Site ppiicecioe for a wastewater treatment facility for their 4eve1o_'••-• tent, my recommendation to the Water Quality Control Canmissiar could ': s denial. Oe the otIzer hand, if an .3ar€ :Teat cannot r reached bete the tee entities, the St. Finnbarr owrees coule apply for a Siteli- cation for a wastewater treatment facility to serve their development. The Water Quality Control Cotmli saioti would solicit Coe raccrine ref a io:eS of Cae CCI"fielt. County Co::nif3sto'IE'rs, r; _rfleln Coanty CouTity '_ l; Council cf (JverLr_ents, ?t_a7,d toT Jr^ ro Division 7i3tricL%a7,ineer. Daae on_thea: reco eeertai0t3,lstlhiet y Water 1uality Control •.oemi3sion has tile_ option of �'-rintleg St. "ie, `,_err a C_te Approval or totally ee:ny'iez; :..'.:. l.ci' \pnro','11. If Cie Te'.CoL' .3i" i:y Control Oo _erasion approved a )ito ep lication, Ceere r :' waetewater treatelent f:.:iiities in very close proximity to each ot :r. At such time as one of the wastewater treatnent facilities reached capa- city, the Water Quality Control Co:::,I 1oa :odic' '"lave to decide -.het'.( :: •� �� • tr tele facility toel=and, ask teat CO allow the @::i.ititli3 wastewater ,..ea�. !14 1.e:eCl j-j� r eny additional sTaetewater flow frcu the :•'aet at c.?i.acity be pipe:: to the plant t'1at }las additional ca;)npity, or ask that the two ?lama 74 Cof.,Anad into one regional type facility to Beards? }ot:i ate elopTi'.iets. Letter to Homeowners for Ranch at Roaring Fork August 6, 1979 Page Two It is my opinion that the ;. v .t ,aoiclon to the wastewater ater treatmen t proulefor this area is to utilize one wastewater treat:aent plant to aerve both developments. I sir,cercly hope that both entities will wor% to;�et.1,'_r to solve the rlaste'.7atar cr2attient problem for the area. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 245-2400. Very truly yours, r ♦. •'!TnTn•T )i3tr i..: L:1;,1naer • • 1 tfy� r ak I 1939 !'d June 6, 1989 John Blair 222 South 6th, Room 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 RE: Preshana Farms Planned Unit Development Dear John: land design partnership Per our conversation the other day, I believe it would be very valuable if you could update the letter that was prepared by Richard Bowman, August 8, 1979, regarding a joint wastewater treatment facility between the Ranch at Roaring Fork and the property, which is presently referred to as Preshana Farms. The letter, as it was worded in 1979, was very valuable in clarifying the Department of Health's position and also providing the encouragement which resulted in an agreement for joint use of the treatment facility, at that time. I believe a reiteration of that letter will also be very valuable in our efforts to again reach an agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork. I would request that you address the letter to Mark Bean at the Garfield County Planning Department, with a copy to myself and to Mike Romanus, President of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association Board of Directors. It would be useful if Mark received the letter by June 14"s P & Z Meeting. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Ronald B. Liston RBL:fq P.O. Box 517 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 918 Cooper Avenue (303) 945-2246 1 !r{ -q13 hLy e'2 (32(6 2-3 Mount oris Soil Conservation District P.0. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 May 5, 1989 Garfield County Department of Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Staff: At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the two packets of material that you had recently sent to them for comments. They felt that the additional submittals and revised mapping for the Pinyon Peaks Subdivision Preliminary Plan did not raise any further issues on this project. They found that all of the concerns they had mentioned before were adequately addressed and they had no further comments to add to their previous letter. Preshana Farms was also reviewed by the Board, and their concerns with this sketch plan included the high water table, the sewage disposal systems, whether it encroached on the flood plain, and what kind of foundations were being planned for the project. In discussing the presentation from Preshana, they found most of these issues addressed properly in the Land Design geology and soils report and felt it was very important that all concerns listed by the engineers and geologists in this report be noted and followed closely. Of prime concern was numerous sewage systems in the area, and they would hope that a central system connected with the existing one at the Ranch at the Roaring Fork could be accomplished. Sincerely, Jim Grange, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT h7 r; z' 8 1989 ROY ROMER Governor OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 May 12, 1989 JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer MAY 19 1989 I' �ahfli ELL COUNTY Re: Preshana Farms Sketch Plan W 1/2 Sec_ 31, T 7N, R87W, 6TH P.M. We have reviewed the sketch plan material submitted for the above referenced subdivision which includes 34 dwelling units on a 57.9 acre tract. The Ranch at Roaring Fork, an adjacent development has been proposed as the source of water. Unfortunately, we have no current information available to determine the capability of the Ranch to serve this subdivision. We request that the Ranch at Roaring Fork submit the following information to you and this office at the preliminary plat stage: 1. A summary of water rights owned or controlled by the Ranch. 2. The yield of these rights both in an average and a dry year. 3. The present demand on the system and the anticipated demand based on its existing commitments for service_ 4. A map of the service area. 5. A copy of the agreement to serve the Preshana Farms Subdivision. When this information is submitted for review, we will return comments to the County. Until that time, we must ask that this preliminary plat approval be held in abeyance. Sincerely ev)d .% Hal D Simpson P.E. Deputy State Engineer HDS/JTS cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Roaring Fork School District RE -1 Box 820 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-0820 Telephone (303) 945-6558 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Dept. of Building Sanitation and Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: P.U.D. Dear Mark: DWIGHT L. HELM Superintendent DR. JAMES L. BADE, Assistant Superintendent ROBERT COLLETT,'Assistant Superintendent April 25, 1989 nrf� ? r l..�l�cn ! 1 APR 26 1989 IL! GAR EL) COUNTY The Roaring Fork School District Re -1 has no concerns regarding the above -referenced subdivision and would ask for a donation of $200 per dwelling in lieu of the land dedication. This is in line with our recent request of other P.U.D.s. We should arrange to get together some time soon to discuss updating our present land dedication policy. If you have any ideas or concerns, I would like to hear them. I will contact you in the near future. Sincerely, Dwight Superi- DLH/jct Helm endent Garfield County Commissioners July 27, 1989 Page 2 The proposed project enters and exits off County Road 100, which we feel is inadequate for the amount of traffic and present condition of County Road 100, plus the already over -crowded Highway 82. Will these homes be affordable housing or merely expensive homes for the rich, which will force the working class to move further down valley? Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to ask to ask these very important questions. We hope you will remember your constituency. Thank you, THE RANCH AT ROARING FORK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Xc2uc.-2 Michael E. Romanus, President Board of Directors 1 CAT ROARING FORK XPRESHANA FARMS PUD APPLICATION • In reviewing the Preshana Farms PUD Application, many questions and concerns are raised. These are identified below. DISTRICTS . Open Space District There is concern regarding the possibility of public equestrian events to be attended by up to 300 spectators or, under special uses, more than 300. 1. What is the estimated frequency of such events? 2. The impact of any such event on access roads would be major. Will special traffic control be required? 3. The impact of any such event on water and sewer facilities would also be major. Will portable restrooms be required or will water and sewer systems have to be built to accommodate these high demand periods? Equestrian Center District Apparently up to 12 employee housing units would be located in this area. In addition, the following uses could be located here: Tack shop, veterinary clinic, kennel, a day nursery, camp and school. How much traffic would this generate and how much impact on water and sewer systems? C. Residential/SingleFamily District This area is pretty straightforward, consisting of 13 single—family housing units. However, customary accessory uses includes "buildings for the enclosure of animals or property." There is concern as to the visual impact of such "buildings" and also to the possible adverse effects of "animals" being stabled, kenneled or whatever on these private lots. Residential/Cluster Housing District This area is to be composed of 9 patio homes with little outdoor maintenance. Here, again, there is the same concern regarding the customary accessory uses of "buildings for the enclosure of animals or property" as stated in "C" above E. Lodging_District 1. According to the "Concept" section of the application, the first alternative would be: a) A bed and breakfast inn composed of 24 lodging units, plus b) A restaurant with seating capacity of 80. 14913 Highway 82 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (303) 963-3500 -2- E. Lodging Districontinued) 2. The second alternative would be 8 townhouses occurring in the form of duelexes, threeplexes, or fourplexes. Just how many actual living units does this represent: a) Surely it must mean a total of 8 living units composed of 4 duplex buildings/or 2 threeplex buildings and one duplex (8) or 2 fourplex buildings (8). b) But could it mean 8 duplexes (16 units) or 8 threeplexes (24 units) or 8 fourplexes (32 units)? 3. How many employee housing units will be located in this area? 4. What kind of recreational facilities will be provided here and how many people will they accommodate? Perhaps this facility will be used to serve the 300 or more guest spectators at equestrian events. In summary, there appear to be discrepancies between the "Proposed Development Concept", the "Land Use Summary" and the "Zone Regulations" sections which could greatly vary the number of dwelling and lodging units anywhere from a total of the 34 (as stated in the "Land Use Summary") to a total of over 66. In addition, the number of general public or guests making use of the facilities is unknown and could be extensive. The number of spectators at equestrian events, etc., would certainly have a great impact. It is critical to have a better estimation of users particularly for purposes of water and sewer facilities and for estimates of volume of ingress and egress to the facility from state and county roads. WATER & SEWER FACILITIES To date, only the most preliminary of contacts with the Ranch at Roaring Fork has taken place as evidenced by the minutes of the December 15, 1988, Board Meeting, attached. In view of adverse recent developments created by participation with other neighbors in a joint project on the river, the Ranch is understandably concerned about additional liability exposure. For example, suppose a toxic or polluting substance entered into the system at Preshana Farms and was detected through routine testing by government agencies in the Ranch effluent? What it, after tying into the Ranch system, Preshana Farms was dissatisfied with the service received, the matter could not be worked out, and a lawsuit resulted? The Ranch is also concerned about the ramifications of a larger plant in regard to: a) the need for additional employees, and b) unanticipated costs which would have to be absorbed by Ranch residents. ADDITIONAL POLLUTION According to a water analysis study done for the Ranch in 1985, we are already receiving discharge of pollutants from Blue Creek largely in the form of manure residues from farms upstream. Increases in Preshana's horse population due to this expansion would drastically affect Ranch at Roaring Fork waterways. OVERALL SUMMARY In our opinion, many of the above stated concerns and questions are extremely serious and could have drastic adverse effects on the Ranch and surrounding neighbors. We ask that the Planning & Zoning Department and the County Commissioners carefully study this PUD application, request clarification and impose restrictions where necessary prior to making their decision. • • MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING RANCH AT ROARING FORK HOMEOWNERS ASSN. December 15, 1988 PRESHANA FARMS Mr. Ron Liston of the Land Design Partnership had asked to speak to the Board regarding plans for Preshana Farms. He is working with the Trentons, current owners of the property, and would like to pursue the possibility of tying into our sewer plant and, potentially, our water system. He distributed an analysis of their needs compiled by Schmueser & Associates. He said expansion of the equestrian operation and barn is nearing completion, and they will have need for additional sewer service for employee housing and public restrooms. Also, they are planning some limited residential development along the southern tree line opposite the polo field. There is a small sub- division exemption in place. A total of 60 acres is involved. No plans are on paper, but they anticipate a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 20 very nice homesites (probably no more than 15) on half -acre sites. He said the only thing going into sewer system would be bathrooms. They use a dry well for washing down horses. If needed, their domestic water would be held in storage facilities on Lion's Ridge, and they have water rights to back up a well. ' He understands that to handle Preshana and our other commitments would require a major expansion of Ranch facilities. The consultant and the County have asked that the possibility of a district formation be considered. They will start the design process this winter, initiate the process with the County, and hopefully be ready to go a year from now. They do not foresee wholesale selling of lots and plan to maintain control. John Hochstedler stated that expansion would probably put us in a situation where we would need a full-time operator for the sewer plant and an additional discharge permit. Mr. Liston was also advised we would probably require metering and setting of a maximum volume. Mr. Liston said they are going to have the cost of water and sewer facilities regardless. The State and County are encouraging them to join another facility -- thus, the reason for approaching us. He will look into the requirements of forming a district and will keep us advised of their plans. Mr. Liston was then excused. AT ROARING FORK jj-DI F77:7 7rnnr?r7l L M AY 81989 60i.u►v I Y GARFIELD UUN►Y DEPI. UF BUILDING SANITATION AND PLANNING RE: PRESHANA FARM P.U.D. APPLICATION We as homeowners at the Ranch at Roaring Fork have many concerns about the proposed development that revolves around the environment and the ramifications on the Ranch at Roaring Fork infrastructure. The following are a list of questions we feel need to be addressed before proceeding. 1) Will there be an environmental impact analysis done before development, i.e., the effects on the Roaring Fork River? 2) Where will the discharge from the equestrian center and the housing development go? We do not believe that the Ranch's sewer package plant has the capacity to handle any of the proposed development. We also believe that much of the agricultural discharge is ending up in the Roaring Fork River, after passing through the Ranch at Roaring Fork property, which is a major pollutant to our upper eastern ponds, according to our water analysis done in 1985 by Stream Team Consultants. 3) Is any of the project entering or exiting on or off county roads? If it is, then will the project need an access permit from the County Road Department, plus the Highway Department? 4) Is there sufficient land for the development they are proposing? In review of the site plan it seems that the agricultural operation is being used for housing purposes. What will be the ramifications on the agricultural operation and is there any way of limiting the size of agricultural operation? 5) It is stated in the proposal that the development "...preserves the natural character and agricultural uses of the site. The general public will continue to benefit from the visual and open space quality of the site as it does now." We do not believe that the general public benefits from the open space quality just as the general public does not benefit from the Ranch at Roaring Fork's open space. This statement is misleading. 6) The applicant states that the "...character of the project and its location will combine to provide high tax revenue to the county with minimum impacts on county service." Is there any documentation to back this up? Again, this is just plain rhetoric. We would suggest that an economic feasibility study be implemented. 7) We feel this will create negative impact on the natural character of the area, and surrounding neighbors. Also, we feel at best the application is vague. We feel that it should contain detailed information on the effect this development will have on the Roaring Fork River and how the agricultural discharge and sewer from the housing development will be handled. We feel the proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding land uses. � 149 33 HHighwa82 •.Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (303).963-3500 8) Atte mach discussion wi nomeowners, itas peen determined that the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners would be opposed to Preshana Farm use of our water system or sewer facility. • • May 5,1989 Mr. Mark Bean �' T r ti Garfield County Planning Department Qf, ja� _... ,' i1 109 8th St. Suite 303 I(� .>, Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 MAY 731989 Dear Mr. Bean: I have reviewed the Preshana Farm P.U.D. application refered to in your letter dated 4/24/89. I am opposed to the approval of their applica- tion at this time. I believe there are some major issues that have not been adequately addressed. Preshana has implied that impact would be minimal but I strongly disagree. Preshana claimed that there was adequate access to Hwy 82 via County Road 100. Road 100 has got to be one of the worst hard surfaced roads in the county. The county cited poor condictions causing hazardous driving when they reduced the speed limit about two years ago and I'm sure you are aware of how severly the road has deteriorated since then. Access to 82 from 100 Road is extremely dangerous. Vision is obstructed by the Katherine Store to the north and by heavy tall fencing to the south. The southbcwnd acceleration lane is far to short. I remind you of the fatal accident that occured at that intersection just a few months ago as a sad testament to it's danger. Preshana claimed water and sewer were available from the Ranch at Roaring Fork and that on-going negotitations are taking place to that effect. According to Lewis Meyer, the Ranch's engineer, the sewer plant is running at capicity now and he told Mr. Liston that in a letter he sent in December. To say that negotitations are on-going is such a gross exaggeration that I would label it false. Preshana states that if water and sewer are not available from the Ranch then they will provide it themselves. This is a very bold statment considering the fragile riverplain the develoment is located in and the lack of a proposal detailing this acomplishment. In conclusion I hope that you agree with me that you can not recoiuunend an approval untill these critical issues have been addressed properly. ctfuJly, Milt Wright 0100 Stagecoach Cir. Carbondale, Co. 81623 AT ROARING FORK 111 .1. IY, MAv ' 1989 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE ANYONE OR ANY ADDITIONAL USE TO OUR WASTEWATER AND WATER FACILITIES. ALSO, WE FEEL THAT MORE IMPACT STUDIES SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT IS EVEN CONSIDERED. ADDRESS k)1eir 6 etAz.J., Cotic ' q=.LCJ Ccm.4.113,- / _ A '9'4 / Grtionek9/ 0 LC 7' r5— a3a3 DA. 12 diAi-owd_eze_ calza. at -,7 IL.114:7e4e-tc, eif)_ c71- - co cjeL C. AT ROARING FORK • ii If it -0- ',ITT^F t { 4 3 S .i ..i1 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE ANYONE OR ANY ADDITIONAL USE TO OUR WASTEWATER AND WATER FACILITIES. ALSO, WE FEEL THAT MORE IMPACT STUDIES SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT IS EVEN CONSIDERED. NAME ADDRESS a;4. 21-t-/ 7;')/* 37 of 2k{ OIs_. c24(6 3 doZe v y7 3 77 _. otigi otot Q tI 14ijkitta.*JadU a 5 S(4' e li g ocq .a‘y '1/4. �i ,A/ /1 �t .4., /41 cP/ c(N RECERfEDfi hi AUG 4 1989 AUG..2 1989 GARFIELD COUNTY COMICSS1ONE4 GH ELL) LAiLii4TY 1, /9,9 4_41 8,44./4'&J6‘04 ceili66-e,71044„ 471.41,6,,v4 -4/ 2f4e, azel Jolaa 7/ /00, CaAloi-t2.4 446 X77/4/4.44.eL71,4et-ce,Lg, _4)0,14,eurn A 2 • flee /S ai lea<A4td kef-jc491 aot4/ A2detze,w,h/ .64 71-~d7 dA;z4 4 AJ if.a4AWO/ dActm. . •,,,etee,6i .1q/ 4,6614 .4244/ • 1.--e4 Zh) 7f4.04kA4‘xti 4- 13/ ,a4 A_eatzt. .7Yieku ci,-6(Jv-et20/_4:eA6 , ,z1412,0- ,4/,44-6,4entx,‘L d4z4 7ao7244.4-Zi;lu „6(/-e:// ,AdiA44./ -ez,eziza4,€) • (cifi zilLe.44 ,z400;c° /6- ./2.4(.ii, ,Aa41.1/.1zeqd io.o/240 ,zote:( /a4J6a-t/ ,dcy. a4s4LeXe4 19,./exo,& o`e ,e(a _1/ eeizzi4 7e41 /00 , • • • • a -a to -6,2g Q.1/�- ,4,44),A4, di/ 4,6-eA,C/ .-46€1/Mel cik 14V2i e/ 411-4-itz ,e,€*�S-4-O-.lam 412z&e4 .irk -e, . , 72 , %ma/ ✓ .,/ 7a4a.de, _tel' . ,✓ a f /C874%PYf i -d- • te)'e �a WILLIAM V. HODGES, III ATTORNEY AT LAW 86 SOUTH THIRD STREET CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (3031963 3777 August 7, 1989 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Garfield County Courthouse 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana Farms P.U.D. Application Dear Commissioners: I represent William J. and Jayne M. Gilligan, the owners of the Blue Creek Ranch at 3222 Road 100, Carbondale, Colorado, located to the east and across County Road 100 from the Preshana Farm. It is the Gilligan's position that the proposal for a recreation/athletic club, a bed and breakfast inn, and a restaurant may be inappropriate for the property in question. Therefore, in the event that the zone district amendment is approved, that these facilities, namely, the recreation/athletic club, bed and breakfast, and restaurant be a special use and not a use by right in either the single family district or the lodging district as proposed by the applicants. It is our understanding that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application, subject to a condition that the "bed and breakfast" be a special use and not a use by right. Sincerely, J t, William V. WVH/jc ges, III June 8, 1989 Mark Bean, Planning Director Garfield County Court House 109 8th Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: Preshana Farms P.U.D. Revised Submittal land design partnership Dear Mark: Attached, herewith, please find the following documents which reflect revisions to the original Preshana Farms P.U.D. Application: P.U.D. Zone Map, Scale 1" = 200', 8 copies. P.U.D. Master Plan, Scale 1" = 200', 8 copies. P.U.D. Land Use Summary, 8 copies. P_U.D. Zoning Text, 8 copies. These revised documents reflect the addition of two dwelling units in the Single Family District; the addition of two dwelling units in the Cluster Housing District; the removal of eight dwelling units and two lodging units from the Lodging District, and the reduction of two employee -housing units from the Equestrian District. You will also note on the P.U.D. Master Plan that the recreational facility has been moved from the Lodging District to the Single Family District. This location is much more convenient to its primary users - the single family and cluster unit residents. The P.U.D. Zoning Text has been revised to accommodate these various modifications, as well as some changes to the building heights. As of this date, I am submitting to the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association Board of Directors, a proposal for contracting for wastewater treatment to serve the Preshana Farms development. I am attaching a copy of this proposal for your information. I would anticipate the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association Membership to formally vote on our proposed service agreement at their annual Membership Meeting on July 8. I have also requested a letter to be sent to you from the Water Quality Control Division in Grand Junction, of the Colorado Department of Health, which hopefully will clarify the States position regarding the wastewater treatment facility. P.O. Box 517 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 918 Cooper Avenue (303) 945-2246 • • Page 2 Mark Bean, Planning Director Preshana Farms P.U.D. Revised Submittal I would request that the Planning & Zoning Commission, at their June 14 meeting, recommend the Preshana Farms P.U.D. onto the Board of County Commissioners. Moving the P.U.D. Zoning forward does not in any way sidestep the necessity to provide for adequate wastewater treatment at Preshana Farms. At this time, we have not requested to utilize the domestic water system at the Ranch at Roaring Fork to serve Preshana Farms. We are presently pursuing discussions with the Lion's Ridge Homeowners Association, in regards to contracting for domestic water services to Preshana Farms. The advantage being that the Lion's Ridge water tank is at a much higher elevation and would provide better pressure to the Preshana Farms property. In both the case of wastewater treatment and domestic water service, if service agreements cannot be reached with the Ranch at Roaring Fork and/or the Lion's Ridge subdivision, Preshana Farms would construct its own wastewater and domestic water systems. I assure you, Preshana Farms will make every possible effort to achieve equitable agreements for the utilization of the existing adjacent utility systems. Please give me a call if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Ronald B. Liston C-' attachments PRESHANA FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY June,89 DWELLING ACRES % OF UNITS PUD Open Space District 30.6 52.85 EQUESTRIAN CENTER DIST.(Emplovee Housing) 10 10.2 17.62 SINGLE FAMILY DIS'1'RICT 15 10.9 18.83 CLUSTER HOUSING DISTRICT 11 3.6 6.22 LODGING DISTRICT DWE1LING UNITS 2 2.6 4.49 LODGING UNITS 10 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS TOTAL LODGING UNITS GROSS DENSITY(Dwelling Units) .66 Units/Acre 38 57.9 10 100.00 • • Page 3 Mike, Romanus, President Proposal for Wastewater Treatment Services 2. The addition of the flow -equalization tank will significantly increase the capacity of the Ranch at Roaring Fork's Wastewater Treatment Plant. As is identified in the WestWater Engineering Report, the plant will not only have adequate capacity for Preshana Farms, but also for the commercial lands at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. This would provide the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowner's Association the opportunity to discretionarily utilize the revenues from the connection of the future development of the commercial tract at the Ranch. Thes capacities also incorporate the infiltration water. If the infiltration is controlled, there will be additional capacity in the plant. If possible, I would appreciate some feedback from the Board before their regular meeting on June 28. My goal would be to receive the Board's comments, in the next ten (10) days to two (2) weeks, and then prepare the Draft Agreement for presentation to the Board on June 28. On the subject of the proposed development, at Preshana Farms, I have enclosed two (2) copies of the original P.U.D. submittal to Garfield County; and, ten (10) copies of the revised documents that were submitted to Garfield County, this week. If the residents still have questions about the proposed development, or the proposed wastewater service agreement, I would be happy to meet with them at the Ranch some evening. I look forward to hearing from you or John Hoxsteller, in the near future. Thank you for the assistance you, John and the Board, have provided. Sincerely, Ronald B. Liston Enclosures cc: Mark Bean Henry & Lana Trettin Jerry Hartert AT ROARING FORK WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE ANYONE OR ANY ADDITIONAL USE TO OUR WASTEWATER AND WATER FACILITIES. ALSO, WE FEEL THAT MORE IMPACT STUDIES SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT IS EVEN CONSIDERED. NAME ADDRESS /773 (s›,z .iii 040,4.4 V9/3 /7/tfl Fz '13() d6t4,41,4 Celk--11-e