HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application3.S.HANA
F A R M S
PR3 S HANA
1
1
1
1
PRESHANA FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PUD REZONING AND SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
1 APPLICATION AND OWNERSHIP
LETTER OF APPLICATION
' OWNER'S STATEMENT
TITLE POLICY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PUD OBJECTIVES
EXISTING SITE
VICINITY MAP
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
PUD MASTER PLAN AND SKETCH PLAN
PUD ZONE DISTRICT MAP
LAND USE SUMMARY
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (Land Use Concept, Access, ` 3gnage,Jtilit��.,
Services, Traffic Generation, Wildlife, School Dedications, Home Owner's
Association, Protective Covenants, Development Phasing)
PUD ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS
ENGINEER'S STATEMENTS
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER RIGHTS
WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND D 'AIN,4 :'E
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET
PRESHANA FARM
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REZONING AND SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION
AUGUST 29, 1997
APPLICANT:
BRUCE ROSS - 927-0313
P.O. BOX 935
BASALT, CO 81621
PROPERTY OWNER:
HENRY & LANA TRETTIN
PLANNER: LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
Ronald B. Liston - 945-2246
918 COOPER AVE.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
ATTORNEY: NICHOLAS W. GOLUBA JR.
802 GRANDAVE.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
CIVIL ENGINEERING: HIGH COUNTRY (ENGINEERING, INC.
Tim Beck - 945-8676
923 COOPER AVE.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
WATER ENGINEERING: ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Tom Zancanella - 945-5700
1005 COOPEER AVE.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ENGINEERING: LINCOLN DEVORE
1000 WEST FILLMORE ST.
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80907
APPLICATION AND OWNERSHIP
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
July 28, 1997
Eric McCafferty, Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eight Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development
Dear Eric:
The owners of the Preshana Farm Planned Unit Developmenr have contracted for the sale of their
property to Mr. Bruce Ross. I have worked with Mr. Ross to update the existing Preshana Farm.
PUD zoning to create a project that is economically feasible and consistent with current market
conditions in the Roaring Fork Valley while preserving the overall concept of the existing
Preshana Farm PUD.
Attached herewith is a combined application for the modification of the current PUD zoning and
for Sketch Plan including required supplemental information. Please advise me if you require any
additional information or documentation.
Sincerely,
Ronald B. Liston Bruce Ross
Project Planner Applicant
Garfield County Commissioners
c/o Garfield County Planning Office
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
July 21, 1997
Re: Preshana Farms
To whom it may concern
TTI � AR , -
,
T�\QRS
A
This letter is authorization for Bruce Ross the contract purchaser, to represent Henry Trettin /
Lana Trettin the owners of Preshana Farms, in applying for a Planned Unit Development approval
for the property.
Thankin you in advance for your cooperation.
:4150 OCEAN PAPic 80 0. l VAN! ;'. j:: !Ii(; `SAN I!. mONICA Com: froANIA 9ub05 • (310) :19% 95O0 • FAX (`170} 300 r' u
hewYi)IIK I.0N[)+.)"• ^'drt,q+1; MIL AN MAJAII) VANCOJVEP IIONC,KiJN(;
It • •
••.•:••.-•'••-..'!:'-.•—.7.;....-7..-:.^...
'- •-=---1.-.,..-.-.'",.•'-',......•-••7...-r--.,.;,•,.:•,0";:'•ltra',;:::7'.• .•'--.!-J.."-.--1'•'-":•%.s:•:.:!'l:•\'�:•'.2:t:."�,,:--'...-.4:
'++err•�-+ r�� �"rt� a�'.!�Y^�+`_'`r.«.. -�:i �,r--.✓ r-'�".v^� yr.:. s•r y.r ✓+ v.•r.-�;�+"•• -ani-,
-, i_Y_ r',0 2� Y:+ ✓" rte. ,r..rt+-►•.-t.� '•a. ,`.-f ` '.�-
> J. .y! 7. .tip ►.•r + -. .. vim "._S^: •� 'r -«:y s .s—..�- _r•.vLvv :` ',FTZ.r> .•
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY
GUARANTY COMPANY
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM•COVERAGE CONTAINED IN
SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas
corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against Toss or damage, not
e xceoding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of:
1. T!e :o i': estate or interest G:SC•'Ded in Schedule A Jti;g vested other than as stated therei
n;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title;
3. Unrnarketab!lity of the title;
4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land.
The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but cn!y
:c fila extent piovided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stei.:art Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be sgned and sealed by 'ts
c : r authorized officer as of the Date of Policy shot.vn in Schedule A.
tea
O /
ti'3'E9,"r ITEE
GUARANTY COMPANY
C laa,rrfari of tn' Boa,rt
C.a..i:ersigned:
:utnor�S� O�Cl8!�Springs, Inc.
Compai OX 430, Glenwood Spnnos, CO 61602
City, State
—*—
Tc X AS,r°•
w aril„
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The =::'lowing matters cre expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will net pay Toss or demage, costs, attorneys fees or
expenses which arise by reason of:
1. !o) Any low, ordinance cr governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning lows, ordinmues, or regulations) restrc:ng,
rocsating, prchibiting or reictina to (1) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or
i`tr^-iter erected on the land; (iii;; a separaticn in ownership or o change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the lond is or was a
=crit;or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of eny violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental reguleticns, except to the extent that a
n,..' of the enforcement thereof or notice of o defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violction cr elleged vioiction affecting the lend hes been
recorded in the public records ct Dote of Policy. •
.,b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) ebove, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or o notice of a defect, lien
cr encumbrance resulting from o violction or elleged violation affecting the Iced hos been record=d in the public records ot Date of Policy.
2. ?: hts of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records ct Dete of Policy, but not excluding from
:-^ any tcking which hes ^:carred prier to Dote of Polk ••hich would be binding on the rights cf o purchcser for so;ue without knowledge.
liens. enc: „ rer:es. edverse c'cin s or other raet _rs:
:reated,c
suffered, es:...d or cgreec to r the icsure c' inapt,
ctknown to the Cor -piny, not recorded 'n the p.bli; records at Dara of Policy, but known to the insured claimant end not disclosed in writing to
::cmpeny by the insured ciclmcnt prior to the date the insured claimant became. cn insured under this policy;
:melting in no loss cr-a..age to the inscred oras ..cat;
.::.r. or c, . _ a.. -. _ ueat tc . c'. of Policy; cr
!J3• in les: der 'whkCh wC'!d not hove bee, ...,.I:f. ,. if 'rr .'d : oiman; h.d pc!:;•ic.ue for the estate or interest insured by ''is
Pr' 1i
, ! •.1:
•
D ` f
•
•
•
••.
t..,,
1,r; .•
•
t•
r
C
•
•
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY
RLH/RM
SCHEDULE A
Order No.: 15577-G Policy No.: 0-9941-37587
Date of Policy: September 08 , 1933 At 4:13 F .MAmount of Insurance: $ 575,000 .. 00
1. Name of Insured:
LANA TRETTIN AND HENRY TRETTIN, AS JOINT TENANTS
2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is:
FEE SIMPLE
Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in:
LANA TRETTIN AND HENRY TRETTIN., AS JOINT TENANTS
4. The and referred to in this policy is described as follows:
SEE PAGES "72-1
A JTHOF: :ED C'- _:ii___SI
CUAR.'.`:TY Cr;'IPANY
cScazzoW and 1 Vaav't, .lnc.
Reg. Land Surveyors and Engineers
811 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-8664
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land situated in a portion of Lots 3, 4, 6, 17, 18 and 19 of
Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian,
County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said parcel being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Witness Corner to the Northeast Corner of said Section 31, a
stone in place; thence S.60°01'05"W. 2350.39 feet to the Southeast Corner of
Reception No. 279416, also being a point on the westerly right-of-way of County
Road No. 100, a rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 in place, the True Point of
Beginning; thence S.00°11'29"W. along said westerly right-of-way 827.14 feet to
a rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 in place; thence continuing along said westerly
right-of-way S.03°56'29"W. 117.74 feet to a rebar and cap L. S. No. 10732 in
place; thence continuing along said westerly right-of-way S.11°37'27"W. 299.44
feet; thence leaving said westerly right-of-way N.72°41'32"W. along a line
being northerly of Blue Creek 136.34 feet; thence continuing along a line being
northerly of Blue Creek N.77°44'52"W. 317.09 feet; thence continuing along a
line being northerly of Blue Creek N.62°48'46"W. 375.98 feet; thence continuing
along a line being northerly of Blue Creek N.41°30'29"W. 89.74 feet; thence
continuing along a line being northerly of Blue Creek N.81°01'17"W. 2.85.92
feet; thence N.13°12'20"E. 120.00 feet to a point in an existing fence; thence
N.76°47'40"W. along said existing fence 1038.73 feet to a point on the easterly
line of Parcel B of Reception No. 375658 (from whence rebar and cap L.S. No.
10732 bears S.00°00'18"W. 263.28 feet); thence N.00°00'18"E. along said
easterly line 1013.61 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of Colorado
State Highway No. 82 as evidenced by existing right-of-way monuments and the
existing centerline (whence a rebar and cap L.S. No. 3317 bears S.00°00'18"W.
3.99 feet); thence S.79°56'55"E. along said southerly right-of-way 1982.77
feet; thence S.10°30'58"W. along the easterly line of said Reception No. 279416
133.47 feet to a rebar and cap L.S. No. 10732 in place; thence S.79"44'32"E.
along the southerly line of said Reception No. 279416 247.29 feet to the True
Point of Beginning; said parcel containing 57.889 acres, more or less.
Together with a perpetual easement being a portion of Parcel "B" shown in
Reception No. 375658 situated in a portion of Lot 17 of Section 31, Township 7
South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State
of Colorado; said easment being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Witness Corner to the Northeast Corner of said Section 31, a
stone in place; thence S.81°10'28"W. 4257.59 feet to a point on the southerly
right-of-way of State Highway No. 82, the True Point of Beginning; thence
S.00°00'18"W. along the easterly line of said Parcel "B" 1013.61 feet to a
point on an existing fence; thence N.76°47'40"W. along said fence 67.27 feet to
a point on the westerly line of said Parcel "B"; thence N.00°07'35"E. along
said westerly line 1009.48 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of
said State Highway No. 82; thence S.79°56'55"E. along said southerly right-of-
way 64.35 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said easement containing 1.496
acres, more or less.
December 2, 1987
PUD OBJECTIVES
PRESHANA FARM PUD
PUD OBJECTIVES
1. Update the Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development that was approved in
1989 to achieve a fiscally viable residential development that is consistent with
the single family residential market in this area of the Roaring Fork Valley.
2. Preserve the general density and land use patterns including open space along
Hwy 82 established by the existing Preshana Farm PUD.
3. Encourage, as much as possible, the continued utilization of the Preshana Farm
equestrian facilities for the purpose of providing commercial equestrian services
to the residents of the Roaring Fork Valley.
4. Cooperate with area property owners to achieve a financially and operationally
viable approach to regionalized central wastewater treatment.
5. Provide a zoning context that creates a basis for the preservation of a large
portion of the agricultural, natural and visual resources of the property.
EXITING SITZ,
4368
7/25X
1•
0•
w
"67
u
— — -„7092
n
4I
25
X 6285
47
4-52228— s ATE
+6289
• I
36
v CARBONDALE ' •6234
11
11n
116348
6742
95X
•
7200
100
T. 7
T.
(----- -- 1 ( (f
TY MAP '1(
VICINITY
SCALE 1"= 2,000'
,It.
PRESHANA FARM PUD
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Preshana Farm is a fifty-eight acre site bounded on the north by Hwy 82, on the west
by the Ranch at Roaring Fork, on the east by County Road 100 and on the south by a
property known as St. Finnbar Farm. At the northeast corner of the site, the Catherine
Store property carves a corner out of the property. Improvements on the property
include a primary residence, secondary dwellings for employees, an indoor riding
arena, stable barn, horse paddocks and an outdoor riding arena. The majority of the
site is committed to horse pasture, polo field and equestrian exercise track. In the
southeast, the property extends down to Blue Creek. This is the only area of the site
with significant native vegetation consisting of cottonwood trees and underbrush of
generally riparian character. The site slopes gently (2-4 percent) from northeast to
southwest with no abrupt change of topographic character except in the area dropping
down to Blue Creek. With the exception of the areas around the barns and residences
almost the entire site has historically been flood irrigated from water rights out of the
Roaring Fork River that has provided irrigation water dependably for most of the
summer irrigation season.
The only floodplain and wetlands are located along Blue Creek in the southeast corner
of the site. The only other naturally limiting factor to development of the site is a
moderately high ground water during the summer irrigation season. This could restrict
the use of basements on residences built on the property.
The property was zoned as Planned Unit Development in 1989 providing for a total of
48 dwellings units including a bed and breakfast lodging facility, an equestrian center
and open space. The gross density of the approved PUD is 1.2 acres per dwelling unit.
The project proposed single family residential lots of Tess than half acre in size along
the southerly side of the project with a cluster of smaller single family lots extending
northerly into the central part of the site. The bed and breakfast was to be located
north of the proposed residential entry in the area of the currently existing residences.
Development of the property has been delayed by the inability to achieve an agreemen'
with the Ranch at Roaring Fork for the provision of sewer treatment services. Since
that time the owner's of Preshana Farm and the owner's of the St. Finnbar Farm
property have rotated efforts to achieve and agreement with the Ranch for service. In
the summer of 1996 the St. Finnbar owners reached an agreement with the Ranch at
Roaring Fork Home Owner's Association Board of Directors for the provision of sewer
service, only to have the proposed agreement rejected by a vote of the Ranch property
owners. The State of Colorado subsequently acknowledged their willingness to accept
and application for a new wastewater treatment facility outside of the Ranch at Roaring
Fork if it served a regional area.
In June of this year a Site Application for a Wastewater Treatment Facility was
prepared by St. Finnbar Land Company and submitted for circulation and review by the
required agencies. As of this writing, the Site Application is scheduled for an initial
review by Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission at their August meeting.
This Site Application specifically included Preshana Farm as one area to be served by �"
the proposed treatment facility. The Applicant for the herein proposed Preshana Farm
PUD is currently in discussions with the St. Finnbar Land Company to enter into an
agreement for wastewater treatment services. It is anticipated that this treatment
facility could be under construction by the summer of 1998 following the issuance of all
necessary permits and land use approvals of the involved development projects.
DEVELOPEMENT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
:ONINNV1d 31IS
EASEMENT
..;•111111141,
bar
.1111111111111011111111/ AILASObr
COUNTY ROAD 100
E M M M - N - MI E N r - N NM M MI M M w
001 ovoa '00
NIM ININ MIN INN MN MN INN NEI NE NMI INN NMI NIM NE INN MN INN MN IN I
•
00l OVOitl 'O
1
1 PRESHANA FARM PUD
LAND USE SUMMARY
I 7/24/97
Dwelling Units
1 Open Space District
Equestrain Center District 4
1 R20 - Single Family Residential District 20
R10 - Single Family Residential District 30
I
Road Right -of -Way
Acres % of PUD
22.4 39%
9.2 16%
12.2 21%
8.9 15%
5.2 9%
1 TOTAL PUD 54
57.9 100%
IGross Density of Total PUD 0.9 UNITS/ACRE
1.1 ACRES/UNIT
1 Net Density of Residential Districts 2.4 UNITS/ACRE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PRESHANA FARM PUD
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Concept
The proposed Preshana Farm PUD presents a development concept very simila o the
currently approved PUD Zoning for the property. Both concepts (existing and
proposed) preserve the existing equestrian facilities and a Targe open space buffer
along Hwy 82, both provide single family residential development along the southerly
portion of the property with access from County Road 100. The current zoning calls for
48 dwelling units between single family, employee housing and lodging units. The
proposed PUD provides for a total of 50 single family Tots within the residential districts
plus a single family dwelling and three employee units within the equestrian district.
Following is a more detailed discussion of the proposed PUD concept.
At the heart of Preshana Farm is the existing equestrian complex. Since the time of th(9
current PUD approval significant improvements have been made to the equestrian
facilities including a new stall barn, tack shop and office space, paddocks and fencing.
This places Preshana Farm as one of the premiere equestrian centers in Colorado.
The proposed PUD identifies a specific zone district that encompasses the core 0/4 ti
equestrian improvements and limits the potential uses for this area. Our market �/
research indicates that the residential lot owners would not desire to own the �iav`-(
equestrian complex due to the expense and long term liabilities of such a facility. They
would, however, deem it desirable to be in close proximity to such a facility with the
potential for access to equestrian services but more importantly for the general
equestrian atmosphere and open space associated with the farm. Initially, the
Applicant will retain ownership of the facility but the equestrian property will eventually
be sold. The PUD encourages the continued equestrian use of the property by
inclusion of uses normally associated with equestrian activity such as a tack shop and
veterinarian clinic. The Open Space District accommodates pasturing of horses and
equestrian activities. The majority of the open space will be owned by the residential
home owner's association but some of the Open Space District will be included within
the same lot as the equestrian center to guarantee a minimum amount of pasture and
horse exercise space. Additionally, the Preshana Farm residential home owners
association (HOA)will be required to give the equestrian facility owner priority and jL41
preferential • • •ng for much of the remaining open space that will be owned by the
H ese provisions are included to encourage the long term viability of the
equestrian use as a commercial equestrian center or a private horse farm.
Consistent with the open space character of the horse farm, an alternate use as a golf
course with a clubhouse/athletic center is included in the zone district. The Equestri
Center District is not of adequate acreage to accommodate even a small golf course
but the HOA could choose to include the remainder of the Open Space District and
1
thus make a small par three course possible. This use would preserve the open space
qualities desired by the residential lot owners and provide recreational opportunities as
well. A limited number of other commercial recreational uses are included in the Uses,
Special category of the Equestrian Center District to allow options for the viable use of
the property in the long term. These uses will require a special use permit to be issued
by Garfield County following public hearings that consider the potential impacts the
specific characteristics of the proposed use may have on surrounding properties.
In the Equestrian Center District the maximum building height for a water storage tank
or the structure enclosing such tank is proposed to be 32 feet at its highest ridge line.
The typical maximum building height for the zone district in this area is 25 feet
measured at the mid -point between the eave and ridge line which easily results in
structures with ridge lines of 30 foot or higher. Since the water storage structure will be
of rather narrow design, the ridge line would be much lower than the existing arena
barn. The proposed building height will allow the water storage structure to be of
similar height as the existing Targe arena barn which has a ridge line of at least 30 feet,
The PUD Master Plan proposes the water storage tank to be located southwest of the
arena barn where it will be visually associated with existing barn and will be back -
dropped by cottonwood trees of greater height. Visually, the height of the water
storage structure will blend with the existing mass of buildings and will not have a
negative visual impact, cause detrimental shadowing or disruption of existing view
sheds.
In addition to the uses described above, the Open Space District identifies park as a
use by right allowing landscaping and improvements typical to a park if such are
desired by the HOA. With the exception of the area adjacent to the Equestrian Center
District, the lands within the Open Space District totaling approximately 17.4 acres will
be dedicated to the HOA. The HOA will own a minimum 70 foot wide open space buffer
between the R10 Residential District and the equestrian center such that the HOA has
control of the agricultural activities that occur adjacent to the residential Tots. By
ownership of the open space and by authority granted in the protective covenants the
HOA will be able to restrict inappropriate concentration of horse activities near other
residential areas.
t Ler y
The Open Space District also secures a permanent and interesting visual buffer along
Hwy 82 with its undulating spacial patterns and equestrian activities. At its narrowest
point, the open space buffer will provide a 200 foot separation between the closest
residence as restricted by building setbacks and the Hwy 82 right-of-way line. In wider
areas, the residences are in excess of 600 feet from the Hwy 82 right-of-way. It is
anticipated that the open space areas will, in large, continue to serve as pasture and
exercise areas for the adjacent horse farm. Landscape plantings along the Hwy 82
right-of-way have been discussed but rejected in preference to the maintenance of the,
current view of the pastures and equestrian activities. Tree plantings along Hwy 82
2
would tend to confine the Hwy 82 visual corridor too much as is being experienced
along 82 further to the west. All lots backing towards Hwy 82 will have Targe rear lot
setbacks allowing for significant landscaping to minimize the visual presence of the
residences.
The proposed Preshana Farm residential use is composed of two zone districts. The
R10 District is located south and west of the Equestrian Center District. These single
family lots are accessed from the main internal drive and from the secondary cul-de-sa
that runs north from the main drive. The minimum lot size in this district is 10, 0
square feet with Tots shown on the Sketch Plan ranging from 10,000 to 15 square
feet. Ten of these Tots back onto the open space along Blue Cree a lots on the
north cul-de-sac all back onto open space. The four lots along the south edge of the
equestrian area are shown at a larger than typical size to allow for buffer landscaping.
Existing spruce and pine plantings in this area have already begun to create an
effective buffer.
Lots in the R20 District range in size form 24,000 square feet to over 30,000 square
feet with the minimum for the district set at 20,000 square feet. These lots are
designed to provide spacious country living that looks out onto open space or areas
along Blue Creek. Along the west boundary of the PUD is a sixty foot wide strip of lane
that is owned by the Ranch at Roaring Fork but is preserved by easement for perpetual
use by Preshana Farm. There can be no construction in this area and thus it serves as
an open space buffer between the two residential developments.
Access
The residential areas will all be accessed from an internal drive that originates at
County Road 100. Approximately eleven hundred feet into the site this road Y's and
continues on to two separate cul-de-sacs. The loops at the end of these cul-de-sacs
have been significantly oversized to accommodate the safe, convenient and
uninterrupted movement of emergency vehicles. These roads are longer than the
County's adopted standard for cul-de-sacs so the Preshana Farm PUD requires that all
cul-de-sacs have a minimum right-of-way radius of 75 feet and a minimum outside
turning radius of 70 feet. This will assure a minimum inside turning radius of 56 feet.
These radii will also create large landscaped islands which will serve to provide an
aesthetic as well as functional terminus to the access roads.
All right-of-ways within the development are proposed to be 70 feet in width to allow a
gracious treatment of roadside ditches including slopes that allow the ditches to be
maintained as lawn. Street tree plantings will also be used to create a spacious,
boulevard type feeling along the internal roads. The roads and landscaped right-of-
ways will be maintained by the HOA. Extensions of the existing Preshana Farm
irrigation ditches may also be included within the right-of-way adding to the lushness
and character of the roadway experience. 1 j
3 0-4-r
t/16E9 v /'242-I 6i4 -re 7
The Equestrian Center District will be accessed from County Road 100 and from the
internal private road serving the residential areas.
Signage
Provisions have been included within the PUD Zone Regulations to limit signage within
the PUD to a greater extent than provided for in the County Code.
Utility Services
Domestic Water: Basalt Water Conservancy District contracts will be acquired to
provide legal protection for domestic, fire protection and on lot irrigation water. The
physical supply will come from wells drilled on the site into the Roaring Fork River
Alluvium. A water storage tank with capacity of for domestic and fire protection needs
will be constructed on site westerly of the indoor riding arena. There is no feasible
opportunity to provide a gravity pressurized water delivery system to the site. The
storage tank will be of narrow diameter and upwards to thirty feet in height. A pressure
boosting pump station will be added to the system to provide both domestic and fire
flows of appropriate pressure. In the event of a failure of the pumping system, there
will be enough pressure in the system to allow fire trucks to draw water from the fire
hydrants and boost the pressure with their truck mounted pumps. The water storage
tank will be treated with architectural detailing that allows it to blend with the
agricultural character of the equestrian center buildings. Raw irrigation water will SE
continue to be used on the pasture lands at Preshana Farm as well as on the 0
residential Tots. Irrigation water will be delivered to the lots by open ditches. %j'I 1 (4L
14fCR'
Sewage Treatment: Wastewater treatment services will be provided by the treatment,^.•�MErl'�1t
plant proposed for construction on the adjacent St. Finnbar property to the south. rte'
Negotiations are currently underway with the St. Finnbar Land Company for the
provision of these services. St. Finnbar has submitted a Site Application to the State
Department of Health for the proposed treatment facility. This sewer plant site
application lists Preshana Farm as being within the service area of the proposed
treatment plant. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District may become the owner/operator
of the proposed treatment plant upon its completion:—'All S
Public Utilities: Power, telephone and natural gas services are available to the area.
Traffic Generation
The proposed residential dwellings are projected to generate upwards to possibly 530
trips per day upon complete build out. This is in addition to historic traffic gene
the Preshana Farm equestrian activities. Something over half of this traffic i
to im•act onl that •ortion of County Roa
remainder of the traffic may u i ize e coun y roa
e project ent
The most recent traffic count on County Road 100 was taken in November of 1995 by
4
7
e
the County at a location east of the Carbondale Town Limits. At that time the one day
count was 3,386 trips. At this time no projections have been made as to the total daily
capacity of County Road 100 either in its entirety or in the newly rebuilt and paved
section from the river to Hwy 82.
It is anticipated that Garfield County will adopt a Transportation Impact Fee before this
project enters the subdivision review process. Given the confined impact of the
majority of the Preshan Farm traffic it is expected that the Transportation Impact Fee
assessed to this development will more than adequately compensate the County for
road improvements.
Wildlife
There is very limited large game animal activity at the Preshana Farm site. A few deer
reside in the area and there is some movement to the river by deer from other areas.
Fencing restrictions contained in the protective covenants and the open space
corridors through the residential area will facilitate the continued movement of wildlife
through the site. The addition of significant amounts of landscaping on the residential
lots will sharply increase the small animal and bird population at the site due to
increased habitat. Pets will be restricted by the protective covenants to assure minimal
conflict with wildlife.
School Dedications
At this date it is presumed that the Re -1 School District is not interested in a school site
at Preshana Farm and thejstandar(school impact fee will be paid at the final platting of
the subdivision.
Ail•tw--f" 2F-1. re:72444‘-
Preshana Farm Home Owner's Association
This association will be incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado and will
be responsible for the following general areas:
Ownership: To own and maintain the roads, water system, irrigation ditch
system, sewer collection lines and open space.
Design Review: Implement and enforce the design guidelines and other
provision of the protective covenants.
Protective Covenants
The protective for Preshana Farm will include the standard provisions for protecting th
values and quality of life within the development. Following is a listing of subjects that
will be included in the covenants that are unique to Preshana Farm or may be of
special interest to Garfield County:
Pets: Restrictions on the type and number of pets that may be kept in a
5
residence and regulations regarding the control of dogs within the project.
Design Guidelines: The covenants will provide procedures and criteria for the
review of all site, architectural and landscape improvements.
Open Space: Responsibilities and guidelines for the management of the open
space lands that will be dedicated to the home owner's association including
preferential polices toward the Preshana Farm Equestrian Center and the ability
to develop recreational facilities typical to parkland settings.
Development Phasing 'I bits # (,
It this time, because of the nature of the utility systems and the desire to offer the
market place a diverse product, the Applicant proposes to construct the project as a ////451' /L
single phase of development. If there is an anticipated softening of the market beforeAPv/L-ovt-0
the construction phase, the Applicant may desire to split the project into two or three
phases. The first phase would be the main access road and all lots fronting on it up to pi IN t
the R20 -Single Family Residential District. This would, of course, include all necessary/ 4
4-11
utility systems and a temporary cul-de-sac.
Phases two and three are interchangeable as to priority, depending on the condition of
the market at the time. One phase would be to construct the sixteen lot cul-de-sac to
the north within the R10 -Single Family Residential District. The alternate phase would
be to extend the main access road to its termination incorporating the twenty large lots
within the R20 -Single Family Residential District.
�rl d4rNG
6
iti(orte rt,t,
PUD ZONE REG:
LAT�
PRESHANA FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
P. U. D. ZONE DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
and
VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
August 28, 1997
I. ZONE DISTRICTS
A. ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED
To carry out the purposes and provision of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, Garfield County, Colorado, as amended, the Presh arrlw;
Planned Unit Development Zone District is further divided into the follovit
district classifications:
- O.S.
- E.C.
- R20-S.F.R.
- R1O-S.F.R
Open Space District
Equestrian Center District
R20 - Single Family Residential District
R10 - Single Family Residential District
B. O.S. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
1.
Uses By Right:
Open Space Greenbelt
Park .rG
Water Storage Tank
Golf Course 0.°Irj
Golf Driving Range
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
and
f. Pasturing of livestock including structures providing shelter for
Llivestock and livestock feed when the footprint of the structure-.,
600 square feet or Tess.
2
Uses, Conditional
NONE
\tjses, Special
NONE
4. Minimum Lot Area
43,560 Square Feet ( 1 acre )
1
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
a. Buildings: 5 per cent of net developable land d�6 S
b. All impervious materials: 10 per cent of net developable land Vi—
c. And as further restricted by Supplemental Regulations.
Acb‘-c
6. Maximum Floor Area
NONE
7 Minimum Setbacks
a. Front Yard
b. Rear Yard
c. Side yard
8. Maximum Building Height
16 feet
50 feet
35 feet
35 feet
C. E.C. Equestrian Center DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
Riding Stable, Equestrian Arena and Tack Shop
Agricultural, including farm, ranch, garden, greenhouse, plant
nursery, orchard, and customary accessory uses including
buildings for the enclosure of animals or property employed in any
of the above uses and retail establishment for the sale of goods
processed from raw materials produced on the lot.
c. Single family dwelling
d. Two family and multi -family dwellings for persons employed on the
premise Vita C; >4 111. -Het t.. 0,4 3 lot -5
e. Veterinary Clinic
f. Day nursery m
g. Park and open Space
h. Public Equestrian Event attended by less than 300 people
Indoor and Outdoor Golf Driving Range
j. Golf Course with associated clubhouse including customary
accessory uses including pro -shop, retail food and beverage
service, athletic facilities and tennis courts.
a.
b.
cater 7;1s
INSCAA he
nt,ti t.ntr/ 6 S
?Acetr.a,46
2. Uses, Conditional:
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Home Occupation
2
b. Athletic Club with indoor and outdoor facilities
c. Miniture Golf
d. Indoor Commercial Recreation
4. Minimum Lot Area
43,560 Square Feet ( 1 acre )
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
30 percent
6. Minimum Setback
a. Front Yard
35 feet
b. Rear Yard
25 feet
c. Side Yard
25 feet
Maximum Building Height
25 feet, Except that a water storage tank or a structure enclosing
such tank may be 32 feet to the highest ridgeline of the structure.
D. R20/S.F.R. R20/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of t
lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls P,::
similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Day Nursery (maximum of 6 nonresident children)
b. Home Occupation
4. Minimum Lot Area
20,000 square feet
3
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet except as depicted on the final plat
(Note: Lots 11, 12 & 13 to have 60 foot rear yard setback)
Side Yard: 20 feet
Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area
0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Parking Spaces 6
D. R10/S.F.R. R10/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building fos
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the
lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls ani
similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Day Nursery (maximum of 4 nonresident children
b. Horne Occupation
4. Minimum Lot Area
10,000 square feet
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet except as shown on final plat
(Note: Lots 16 - 19 to have 50 foot rear yard setback)
Side Yard: 15 feet
4
7 Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area
0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Parking Spaces
II. DESIGN STANDARDS
6
A. SIGNS
All signs shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended
except as listed below:
1. Open Space District
Type of Sign &
Structural Type Maximum Height
Maximum Sign
Area Per Face
Subdivision Identification
Freestanding 12 feet
v-rkz �' 2- t o f^
-I- Subdivision/Real Estate Sales
Conditions:
32 square feet
S a- f
1. One sign allowed adjacent to Hwy 8 and onesign
adjacent to County Road 100. y t$A n
2. All signs shall be removed within six months of the
all residential lots within the PUD.
Freestanding 12 feet 50 square feet
Temporary
Freestanding 12 feet
2. R20 - Single Family Residential District
50 square feet
Type of Sign &
Structural Type Maximum Height Maximum Sign
Area Per Face
Subdivision Identification
5
s9 Ft
Z Sq E�
/ se‘ #'c
/4OQr1dO'pee
allowed A___.'
Via.. (? d
initial sale of 611'1.4.
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed at the entrance to this District.
2. Sign may be located within the road right-of-way within the PUD
but shall be setback a minimum of six feet from the edge of the
traffic lane of the roadway.
Freestanding 6 feet 12 square feet
Subdivision/Real Estate Sales
kr.."--c) St 6NS?
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed at the entrance to this District.
2. This sign shall be removed within six months of the initial sale of
all residential lots within the PUD.
Freestanding 6 feet 32 square feet L
Construction �Freestanding 6 feet 32 square feet S
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet 46'44/Real Estate
/ �i 1vi�t ti
ti
Temporary s1l*Js
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
o/ a
Personal Identification
Freestanding 4 feet
2. R10 - Single Family Residential District
2.5 square feet
Type of Sign &
Structural Type Maximum Height Maximum Sign
Area Per Face
Subdivision Identification
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed on each side of the entry road into the PUD
from County Road 100.
2. Signs may be located within the road right-of-way within the
PUD but shall be setback a minimum of six feet from the edge of
the traffic lane of the roadway.
Freestanding 6 feet 16 square feet
Subdivision/Real Estate Sales
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed at the entrance to the PUD from County Road
100.
2. This sign shall be removed within six months of the initial sale gat
all residential lots within the PUD.
Freestanding 6 feet 32 square feet
Construction
Freestanding 6 feet 32 square feet
Real Estate
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Temporary
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Personal Identification
Freestanding 4 feet 2.5 square fe
2. Equestrian Center District
Type of Sign &
Structural Type Maximum Height Maximum Sign
Area Per Face
Business
Freestanding 18 feet 100 square feet
Wall 40 square feet
Projecting 40 square feet
Suspended 40 square feet
(Roof Mounted Signs Prohibited)
Construction
Freestanding 6 feet 32 square feet
Real Estate
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Temporary
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Personal Identification
Freestanding 4 feet 2.5 square teef;
7
B. FENCES
All fences shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as
amended except as listed below:
1 Fences within the Open Space District shall observe the following criteria
except for areas requiring protection from wildlife:
a) Maximum height:
Wire Fence or solid fence or wall - 44 inches
Rail Fence - 54 inches
b) Wire strand fences shall have a minimum of 12 inches between the
top two wire strands.
d) Fences higher than 54" designed to exclude deer and elk from
gardens, landscaped areas or storage areas shall meet the
required building setbacks of the district.
2. Fences within the Residential Districts shall not exceed 48" when located
within the Front Yard Setback. NoN v 11.-1_v g,. ,FEE i
C. LIGHTING
All site lighting shall be downward directed to avoid projection of the light beyonya
the boundaries of the lot. The luminar Tight source shall be shielded to minimize
glare when observed from adjacent lots.
III. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Except as defined below, all provisions of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations shall be applicable to the Preshana Farm PUD.
A. STREET DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Design Standards: Standard street design shall be as identified in the
attached chart titled Preshana Farm - Road Design Standards.
2. Cul-de-sac Length: Cul-de-sacs in excess of 600 feet shall observe the
following design standards:
a. Minimum Right -of -Way Radius 75 feet
b. Minimum Driving Surface, Outside Radius 70 feet
8
PRESHANA FARM PUD
Road Design Standards
7/28/97
ROAD NAME
R.O.W. LANE SHOULDER DITCH MINIMUM MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC
WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH C. LINE GRADE RADIUS
All widths & radii are in feet RADIUS R.O.W.
Primary Access 70 12 4 10' min. 100 6% 75
Secondary Access 70 11 4 10' min. 100 6% 75
NOTES: 1. All road surfaces are a minimum of chip & seal. IAA Cil VA L L. 1'4 Ir"s _a
2. All roads are two lanes in width. g"a Su.tZt.l c C,0-1.
3. Shoulders are gravel or a stablized structural section as approved by
the County Road Supervisor that allows grass to grow in the shoulder area.
4. Curb and gutter are not required on any road in the PUD.
5. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum paved, outside turning radius of 70 feet
ENGINEER'S STATEMENTS
July 28, 1997
Land Design Partnership
Attn: Ron Liston
918 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farm PUD
HCE File Number 89010.05
Dear Ron:
This letter is to transmit our observations regarding the general engineering issues required for the
Garfield County Sketch Plan review.
UTILITIES:
Some of the standard utilities are already available on or adjacent to the site, including natural gas,
electric and telephone, however, water and sewer systems will need to be constructed.
Water: Water for the domestic supply would be derived from on-site wells. Wells used for domestic
water are already existing on the site. In fact, they have been used for the existing house(s) and barns
for a number of years. Therefore, the quality of the water available can readily be determined.
General knowledge of the aquifer in the area would indicate that ample water is available for domestic
use, and the quality is apparently reasonable and acceptable. Please see the Zancanella and Associates
report dated July 24,1997, which is included with this application, for further information.
The domestic and irrigation water systems are proposed to be separate, however, a limited amount of
irrigation would be provided for through the domestic system. The bulk of the irrigation water will be
provided to each lot via open ditches adjacent to the lots. Each lot owner would be required to provide
and maintain their own pumping system.
Water for fire protection is proposed to be provided along with the storage needed for the domestic
923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: (970) 945-8676 • FAX: (970) 945-2555
Land Design Partnership
July 28, 1997
Page 2
water system. A tall, slender storage tank which could be made to resemble a farm silo is currently
envisioned for a water storage structure. The approximate volume of storage would be 150,000
gallons, which is based on a two hour fire flow at 1000 gallons per minute plus one normal day's
usage. Residences in excess of 3500 square feet will be required to be sprinklered in order to limit the
required fire flow.
The treatment system for domestic water will mainly consist of either a chlorination facility or an
ultraviolet disinfection facility in conjunction with a minor filtration system. The need for filtration
will be established by testing contemplated to be performed during the Preliminary Plat phase. The
remainder of the system, will consist of the controls for the pumps, disinfection, and filtration, as
required.
Sewage Disposal: This property is adjacent to the proposed St. Finnbar Subdivision which is
proposing to construct a wastewater treatment plant. The Site Application for this wastewater
treatment plant has been submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and is currently under
review. The Preshana Farm PUD is proposing to connect with the collection system for the St.
Finnbar Farm Subdivision so that both developments will utilize the same wastewater treatment plant.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND ROAD PROFILES:
No over lot grading is proposed by the developer, and none is expected to be necessary.
The roadway within the project will be designed to current County Road Standards, except for the
minor revisions suggested in the general text accompanying this application. The wide (70') road
rights-of-way are proposed in order to allow a wide shallow roadside swale on each side of the roads.
This area on the side of the roads will allow for a maintained landscaped strip which can be used for
treatment and detention of storm water runoff from the road surface.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
T othy P. Beck, P. E.
Pri cipal Engineer
TPB/soe
1
/<\\
P.O. Box 1908 (970) 945-5700
5 Cooper Ave. (970) 945-1253 Maar
Glenwood Springs,
81602 Z4NC4NELL4 AND 4S50CIATE5, INC.
1
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
1
July 24, 1997
1 Mr. Ronald B Liston
918 Cooper
1 Glenwood springs CO 80134
Re: Preshana Farm - Water Resources Investigations
1 Dear Ron:
1 At your request, Zancanella and Associates, !Inc. has conducted preliminary investigations
to evaluate the water resources available for the proposed Preshana Farm P.U.D. The
Preshana Farm P.U.D.will be located along the Roaring Fork River south of Carbondale,
1 Colorado. The results of our investigation have been summarized in this letter report.
' Water Demands
We understand that the Preshana Farm P.U.D. is proposed for the development of
approximately 54 residential units. We have separated the water demands for the
1 development into two categories. The first is the "In -House" or potable water supply fop
domestic consumption. The potable system would be supplied from wells constructed or
the property. The second category of the water supply is the "raw water" system which
will provide for the majority of the irrigation water demands for the residential lots. It is
assumed that the raw water supply would be physically supplied through surface
diversions from the Roaring Fork River through the Basin Ditch.
Table 1 below provides a break down of the proposed 54 residential units. For the
1 purposes of this investigation, we have converted the domestic water uses in this project.
to EQRs (Equivalent Residential Units). In this manner we can provide for a specific
number of EQRs for resource planning. The actual mix of residential uses of the EQRs
1 can vary, so long as the total number of EQRs provided for in the plan are not exceeded.
1
1
1
' Page -1-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 1
Preshana Farm P.U.D. Water Requirements
Use
# of units
# EQRs/unit
EQRs
Equestrian
Center
4
1.0
4
R20
Single Family
34
1.5
51
R10
Single Family
16
1.25
20
Total
54
75
Use 80
The attached Table 2 presents the estimated water diversion requirements for the
proposed 80 EQR development. We have assumed that each EQR will have 3.5 people,
each using 100 gallons per person per day. In house use water consumption was
assumed to be 5% of diversions. We have allotted for significant outside uses for each
residential unit from the potable water system. We believe these uses would be equivalent
to 11,700 ft2 of irrigated area per EQR for a total area of 21.5 acres. The raw water
irrigation system open space irrigation dernands for approximately 22.5 acres will be
supplied from the Basin Ditch. As an alternative we recommend that you consider placing
at least some of the potable water irrigation load on the raw water irrigation system.
As summarized in Table 2, the potable water diversion requirements (Columns 1 ) total
31.36 acre-feet/year. Water consumed from the potable system (Columns 8 ) would be
approximately 1.57 acre feet per year. The irrigation consumption requirement was
estimated to be 2.13 acre-feet/acre and is distributed over the growing season based on
plant demands. The residential irrigation consumption from was estimated to be 45.7
acre-feet (Column 10). Assuming an application efficiency of 70%, the diversions would
be approximately 65.3 acre-feet. If the open space is completely irrigated 68.4 acre-feet
will be diverted and 47.9 acre-feet will be consumed.
Basalt Water Conservancy District
The legal water supply for the domestic system can be provided by contract water from
the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The contract water enables use of district water
rights to replace or "augment" diversions from the development, thus protecting any
downstream water rights. Diversions from either surface structures or wells would initially
Page -2-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Si
rYr
887
O
cn
0
as
�
Oa) N
0() I ae�
O Ih N O� N
C T
'V 4,
c E
O 7
E c aU
?ICO
UO
O n' 0 U
a. 014k CL
Water Use Calculations
. - . - Divecs of RequfresrieflI .,. .p,. x � :Consumptive Used ,
:(1)_ (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
e
Domestic Commerclal Dom\Comm Open Space Pond Average Domestic Commercial Dom\Comm Open Space Pond Average
In-house In-house Irrigation Irrigation Evap. Total Flow In-house In-house Irrigation Irrigation Evp. Total
(atalFlow
l (gpm)
(ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (gpm) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac-f)(ac-ft)
2.66 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 19.4 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0
2.41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 19.4 0.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0
2.66 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 19.4 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0
2.58 0.0 2.9 3.0 0.0 8.5 64.1 0.13 0.0 2.0 2.1 0.0 4.3 32.2
2.66 0.0 12.2 12.8 0.0 27.6 201.7 0.13 0.0 8.5 8.9 0.0 17.6 128.6
2.58 0.0 15.1 15.8 0.0 33.5 252.8 0.13 0.0 10.6 11.1 0.0 21.8 164.4
2.66 0.0 14.5 15.2 0.0 32.3 235.8 0.13 0.0 10.1 10.6 0.0 20.9 152.4
2.66 0.0 9.5 10.0 0.0 22.1 161.6 0.13 0.0 6.7 7.0 0.0 13.8 100.5
2.58 0.0 8.1 8.5 0.0 19.1 144.2 0.13 0.0 5.7 5.9 0.0 11.7 88.3
2.66 0.0 3.0 3.2 0.0 8.8 64.5 0.13 0.0 2.1 2.2 0.0 4.5 32.5
2.58 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 19.4 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0
2.66 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 19.4 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0
__ aeo. Rf® re a iaa1 lti1_P13 1.57 0.0 45.7 _ 47.9 0.0 95.2 58.65
Month
a
Z'a'z_ � s a`r28'
y
CLL2a24_' = aa►O c U
u) 2 a
5
c
do
Water Resources Enginean
be covered under a temporary exchange plan currently approved by the Division of Water
Resources. Use of the contract water will eventually require formal approval under a court
approved augmentation plan at which time only the consumptive portion of the water use
will have to be replaced. We recommend that a water court application be filed as soon
as final plat approval is obtained.
If ground water is used, well permits from the Division of Water Resources may be
approved subject to being covered by the Basalt Water Conservancy District temporary
exchange plan. The Preshana Farm P.U.D.. is located in area "A" of the Basalt District
which has historically been approved by the Division of Water Resources and Garfield
County
Physical Water Supply
We believe that the proposed Preshana Farm P.U.D. potable water supply may be served
by a groundwater source. The P.U.D. is underlain by the Roaring Fork River alluvium, the
Roaring Fork River alluvium has historically provided reliable ground water to other
subdivisions in the area. Prior to preliminary plat wells should be drilled and tested for
quality and quantity.
Based on a Basalt contract for water rights to provide a "legal" water supply, and ouv
experience with the physical availability of ground water in the area of the Preshana Farm
P.U.D. It is our opinion that an adequate water supply can be developed to serve the
proposed P.U.D.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at (970) 945-5700.
Very truly yours,
Zancanella and Associates, Inc.
Thomas A. Zancanella, P. E.
President
L:\recreptl .wpd
Page -3-
LINCOLN DEVORE GEOLOGY & SOILS REPORT
THE FOLLOWING REPORT WAS PREPARED IN 1979 FOR ST. FINNBAR FARM
WHICH AT THAT TIME INCLUDED ALL OF THE CURRENT PRESHANA FARM
PROPERTY. TEST PITS #1, #2, AND #3 ARE LOCATED ON THE UPPER TERRACE
WHERE HOUSING IS PROPOSED BY THE PRESHANA PUD. THE GEOLOGIC
INFORMATION AND THE DISCUSSION OF SOIL TYPES 1 & 2 ARE GENERALLY
APPLICABLE TO THE PRESHANA SITE.
A NEW, DETAILED SOILS REPORT WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE PRELIMINA.R''
PLAN.
Lincoln DeVore
1000 West Fillmore St.
Colorado Springs. Colorado 80907
(303) 632-3593
Home Office
Land Design
Village P1aza,Suite 208
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Ron Liston
April 4, 1979
Re: GENERAL & ENGINEERING
GEOLOGY & SOILS
ST. FINBAR PROPERTY
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is a
engineering geology and so
located at the St, Finbar
report concerning the general and
ils of the proposed development
Property, in Garfield County, Colorado.
Respectfully submitted,
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY,
By:
Robert L. Bass
Civil Engineer
By: i7 /g/tA,7^-1\
RLB
Michael T. Weaver
Professional Geologist
& MZW/vfb
LDTL Job No. GS -987
2 Highway 50 West
lo, Colo 81003
) 546-1150
P.O. Box 1427
Glenwood Springs. Colo 81601
(303) 945-6020
109 Rosemont Plaza
Montrose, Colo 81401
(303) 249-7838
INC.
Reviewed George D. Morris
Professional Engineer
P.O. Box 1882
Grand Junction. Colo 81501
(303) 242-8968
P.O. Box 1643
Rock Springs. Wyo 82901
(307) 382-2649
GENERAL AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
The proposed development area
lies primarily on the floodplain of the Roaring Fork River.
The potential for flooding has baready been addressed by
another firm; a hydrologic study was completed and a
protective berm was proposed to protect the majority
of the site from the flooding hazard. No bedrock out-
crops on the site,which is covered by alluvial sands and
gravels (Qal) and terrace deposits (Qt). Outcrops -in the
vicinity of the site,, however, indicate the underlying
formation to be the Permian Age Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pev),
(see figure 1).
No stability problems such as
landslides, debris flows, rockfalls, or soil creep exist
on this site. No unusual soil hazards were encountered in
detailed subsurface soils information will be discussed
later in the report.
Groundwater was encountered in
several test pits excavated on the site and varied in depth
from 3 feet to 7 feet from the ground surface. Running
surface water was observed in all drainages that crossed
the site. Several natural dams and ponds were also noted.
This high water table will probably rise as runoff increas
and may present a construction problem in some lower areas
No unusual radiation hazard existE
on or near this site. The seismic risk is assigned to haz-
ard Zone 1, in Section 2314 of the Uniform Building Code.
This is a regional risk and not specific to this site.
The sands and gravels present
on this site represent an extractable mineral resource,
however, with the tremendous amounts of gravel present through-
out the Roaring Fork Valley, removal of this deposit from
the over-all resource should not prelude the proposed develop-
ment.
LaBuil11'uRY TESTS ANL) RESULTS
Ten test pits were excavated on
this site at locations indicated on the enclosed Test Pit
Location Diagram. These test pits were placed in such a
manner as to obtain a reasonably good profile of the sub-
surface soils. While some variation was,noted from point
to point the subsurface profile encountered was judged
sufficiently uniform that no further test pits were deemed
necessary. All test pits were excavated with a hydraulic
backhoe. Samples were taken by bulk methods.
The soil profile encountered on this
site can broadly be characterized as a two layer system.
The upper layer of this system consisted of a reddish brown
silty clay material which was in generally low density,
high moisture condition. The second layer consisted of a
coarse grained poorly graded gravel which contained numerous
cobble and boulder sized particles. This coarse grain
material is representative of the alluvial river terrace
deposit, of the Roaring Fork River. A thin veneer of organic
topsoil material was encountered at the ground surface across
the majority of this site.
The samples obtained during our
field exploration program have been grouped into two soil
types. These two soil types axe representative of the
respective layers of the previously described two layer
soil profile. More precise engineering characteristics of
these two soil types are given on the enclosed summary sheets
The following discussion will be general in nature.
-4-
Soil Type No. 1 classified
as silty clay (CL/ML) with a considerable portion of sand
size particles. Generally, this material is slightly plastic,
of low permeability and was encountered in a low density,
high moisture condition. In the condition in which this
material was encountered, it should not have a significant
tendency to expand upon the addition of moisture. It will
however, have a distinct tendency to long-term consolidation
under load. Additionally, this material will have a very
low bearing capacity value. It was encountered in a rel-
atively thin layer across the site however, and it is recom-
mended that foundation penetrate through this silty clay
material and rest on the underlying alluvial gravels. Soil
Type No. 1 contains sulfates in detrimental quantities.
Soil Type No. 2 classified as
a poorly graded gravel (GP) of coarse grain size. This
material contained numerous cobble and boulder sized par-
ticles which obviously cannot be accurately represented
on the enclosed grain size curve. Generally, this material
is non -plastic, permeable and was encountered in a moderate
density condition. It will have no tendency to expand upon
the addition of moistu.re,nor.any tendency to long-term
consolidation under load. Granular materials such as this
often do exhibit settlement upon application of foundation
stresses or vibration, but if maximum allowable bearing
capacity values are not exceeded, and balancing and rein-
forcing recommendations are carefully followed, it is not
felt that settlement of this material will create any pro-
blems. At any rate settlement will be fairly rapid and will
probably be complete by the end of construction. Foundations
resting on the material cf Sail. Type No. 2 may be proportioned
on the basis of a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 3000
psf, with no minimum pressure required. Soil Type No. 2
was not found to contain sulfates in detrimental quantites.
As has been previously mentioned
in this report free water was encountered in several of the
test borings, at depths ranging from 3 to 7 feet beneath the
ground surface, at the time of excavation. This free water
level is the result of the presence of the Roaring Fork
River, of numerous ditches located on the site,and of local
seepage and runoff. The free water level can be expected to
rise from the elevations encountered during wetter seasons
and could conceivably rise virtually to the ground surface
in some locations on this site. The presence of free water
will require special consideration in the design and con-
struction of foundations. Basement type foundations are
not recommended and all floors of structures should be con-
structed well above the finished exterior ground surface.
Dewatering techniques may be required in the installation
of foundations.
At/dr 40,a
l
Tcs� Pit Loc.7on ®ioyr9m
s �isn Aire* O or44f/c o.wcr
LINCOLN
DeVORE
ENGINEERS•
GEOLOGISTS
COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS,
PUEBLO, GLENW00D SPRINGS ,
GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE ,
WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS
•'l �: 'ter
Qls
24
y
Tb
19
o 0
, 0 0
0
0
Tb
20
29
f"
ti
• •
0 •
r 0 0
0
1
1
1
o ...o.... a -• 0
0 s 0 • 0 • • • • QcW 0 00 •• •
o • • • • • , • • • 0
• 0 • 0• 0• e• 0
I3/29/79
LEGEND
Alluvium- sand a gravel
Terrace, I :younger, 2= older me stA L I4 >r w
Colluvial wedge- slopewash
Colluvium -gravity transported
Landslide deposit
Alluvial -debris fan
Basalt
Eagle Valley Evaporite
ST FINBAR FARM PROPERTY
1 GAR FIELD COUNTY,CALORADO
•
0
L)
MN
140
2000' 4000'
I t , , 1 ,
SCALE IN FEET
LINCOLN
DOV O R E
ENGINEERS•
GEOLOGISTS
Tb
32
6000
1 1 1
PROJECT # GS -987
COLORADO%COLORADO SPRINGS9
PUEBLO, GLENWOOD SPRINGS ,
GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE ,
WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS
FIGURE I.
1SOILS DESCRIPTIONS:
5YMSO4 VSCS OE-SCR/PT/ON
ROCK DESCRIPTIONS'
,SYMESOL 04-SCR/Pr/ON
SYMBOLS a NOTES'
SYMBO(, jESCR/PT/ON
Free
• water
9/12 Standard penetration drive
Numbers indicate 9 blows to drive
the spoon 12" into ground.
IST 2-1/2' Shelby thin wall sample
Wo Natural Moisture Content
Wx Weathered Material
Free water table
,O..p-po
SEDIMENTARY Rms.
Topsoil
:&9.'o,
;c7:Q •
CONGLOMERATE
Man-made FillSANDSTONE
L-7 _-
- • -•-
SILTSTONE
GW Well -graded Gravel
= - ='
SHALE
GP Poorly -graded Gravel
x x x
x x x
`' .
--lc.
CLAYSTONE
COAL
GM Silty Gravel
GC Clayey Gravel
SW Well -graded Sand
1 1
1 1
LIMESTONE
15' Wx
Yo Natural dry density
T.B.-Disturbed Bulk Sample
0 Soil type related to samples
in report
Top of formation
< I
/
SP Poorly -graded Sand
`// `
11
DOLOMITE
SM Silty Sand
' `,
,
MARLSTONE
SC Clayey Sand
rlTlil� r itt
GYPSUM
Other Sedimentary Rocks
ML Low -plasticity Silt.
/i1//
IGNEOUS ROCKS
CL Low -plasticity Clay
i i ' \'
/ -r, -.
GRANITIC ROCKS
Form.
t --Zir—+
Standard
by driving
sampler
1a0lb.
des.
Samples
spoon
thin
samples.
The
at the
not warranted
of subsurface
and times.
e Test Boring Location
mTest Pit Location
Seismic or Resistivity Station.
Lineation indicates approx.
length a orientation of spread
(S. Seismic , R. Resistivity )
Penetration Drives are made
a standard t.a split spoon
into the ground by dropping a
weight 30".ASTM test
D-1586.
may be bulk , standard split
(both disturbed) or 2-I/2" I.D.
wall ("undisturbed") Shelby tube
See log for type.
boring logs show subsurface conditions
dates and locations shown ,and itis
that they are representative
conditions at other locations
+++
4-+++4-i-
DIORITIC ROCKS
OL Low -plasticity Organic
Silt and Clay
MH High -plasticity Silt
:.'u`.- �/
GABBRO
RHYOLITE
\Ni.:),3
-ilsW,
CH High -plasticity Clay
.�
=-t
La
C.
eoa.;�
�
1
lit
wi I1f
, .
D U
:"
ANDESITE
BASALT
TUFF & ASH FLOWS
OH High- plasticity
Organic Clay
Pt Peat
GW/GM Well- graded Grovel,
Silty
0.•,,,-
•:.!°:(3,..!
••
BRECCIA & Other Volcanics
GW/GC Well -graded Gravel,
Clayey
^<,
rt ,; 4,
Other Igneous Rocks
METAMORPHIC ROCKS
GP/GM Poorly - graded Gravel,
Silty�
GP/GC Poorly- graded Gravel,
Clayey
GNEISS
//
�VJGM/GC
i���/ SCHIST
Silty Gravel,
Clayey
* PHYLLITE
GC/GM Clayey Gravel,
Silty
\
r, SLATE
SW/SM Well - graded Sond,
Silty
;4j;•; METAQUARTZITE
SW/SC Well- graded Sand,
Clayey
SP/SM Poorly -graded Sand,
Silty
0 0 0
oo.> MARBLE
o O o
�v
j/ HORNFELS
SP/SC Poorly - graded Sand
Clayey
ik�ly
i 4 SERPENTINE
SM/SC Silty Sand, Clayey
SC/SM Clayey Sand, Silty
CL/ML Silty Clay
11-, Other Metamorphic Rocks
L' LINCOLN
DevORE
TESTING
LABORATORY
COLORADO, Colorodo Springs, Pueblo,
GlenwoodlSprings, Montrose, Gunnison,
Grand Junction.- WYO.- Rock Springs
EXPLANATION OF BOREHOLE LOGS
AND LOCATION DIAGRAMS
1
1
1
TEST HOLE No.
FP ELEVATION
w
W
3
TEST PITS #1, #2, & #3 ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF PRESHANA FARM
roe
-r
Si/Yy e%ry,
Safe riaeSe
Red -271retzof
sed
61D
Avekely 0000
luded
eso-trWO
"ixe:c
,tar/ffrrcr
d0664rS' 2c.„,�
Dov
44 tee. voa
Y
DRILLING LOGS
1
LINCOLN
,DeVORE
ENGINEERS'
GEOLOGISTS
COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS ,
PUEBLO , GI.ENWOODFA SPRINGS
,
GRAND JUNCTION ,
WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS
1
' SUMMARY SHEET
Soil Sample Sr'/fy %ry f Z/Ai ) Test No. GS -967
1Location s{ i:.r r41r t� k",0 eitlDote 3J4 '/74
Boring No. Depth ///c
'Sample No. / Test by G�S'ls
1
SIEVE ANALYSIS:
Sieve No. % Passing
I 1 1/2"
1"
Natural Water Content (w) /G.Z
Specific Gravity (Gs) L-70
In 'lace Density (To) pcf
3/4"
1/2"
4
10
20
40
100
200
l00
99.4
98.Z.
97.6
91.3
7x. /
64,4
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS:
Grain size (mm)
.OZ
. 0e gir
SOIL ANALYSIS
Plastic Limit P.L. 2/.4 %
Liquid Limit L. L. z..( %
Plasticity Index P.I. . .Z %
Shrinkage Limit z/•B
0/0
Flow Index
Shrinkage Ratio
Volumetric Change
Lineal Shrinkage
MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD
Optimum Moisture Content - w°_%
Maximum Dry Density -Tri pcf
California Bearing Ratio (av).
Swell- Days_
Swell against psf Wo gain___%
BEARING:
Housel Penetrometer (av) psf
Unconfined Compression (qu) psf
Plate Bearing• psf
Inches Settlement
Consolidation % under psf
PERMEABILITY:
K (at 20°C)
Void Ratio
Sulfates /4140'
ppm.
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Soil SampleRaw,* dealt/gal dt-0 r '4 /
Project .5/ Fi�nbgr
Sample Location rW-/, 4'O.927ih
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Test No. 4s-9$ 7
Date ..r/27/79
Test by GAE
11"4" °' #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 - Sieve No.
1
Sample No.
Specific Gravity
Moisture Content
Effective Size o.4Z
(.0
Cc o./4,
Fineness Modulus
L.L. P.I. N"0 %
BEARING Sa4O paf
Sieve Size
% Passing
2'
1 1/2"
1"
3/4"
1/2 "
/oo
s..5 -
434
.S
47/
4/.9
3/8"
4 37/
10 14.9
20 as.Z
40 9.7
100 Z•4
200 4
/0
0200
c►. ao
Sulfates
4./c5 /y! Ppm
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT TO CLAY
Coarse
Fine
Co.
Medium
Fine
Nonplastic to Plastic
T
D ame
.er- (rt t
.01
.b
100Q
O
I
11"4" °' #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 - Sieve No.
1
Sample No.
Specific Gravity
Moisture Content
Effective Size o.4Z
(.0
Cc o./4,
Fineness Modulus
L.L. P.I. N"0 %
BEARING Sa4O paf
Sieve Size
% Passing
2'
1 1/2"
1"
3/4"
1/2 "
/oo
s..5 -
434
.S
47/
4/.9
3/8"
4 37/
10 14.9
20 as.Z
40 9.7
100 Z•4
200 4
/0
0200
c►. ao
Sulfates
4./c5 /y! Ppm
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PRESHANA FARM PUD
RELATIONSHIP TO THE ROARING FORK VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Following is a summary of how the proposed Preshana Farm Planned Unit
Development relates to Section III Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs of the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan dated September, 1994.
Section III -1.0 Public Participation
Goal: An integral part of County land use planning is the opportunity for citizens to b
involved in all phases of the planning process.
The rezoning process required by the Garfield County Zoning Resolution assures the
opportunity for the publics participation in the requested modifications to the current
Preshana Farm PUD Zoning. The public will have had more than the normal
opportunity for input in the zoning of this property. The original PUD review process
1989 opened the land use of the property to significant public input and again in 1997
the public will offer input to a plan for Preshana Farm that is very similar to the existing
PUD Zoning.
Section III -2.0 Housing
Goal: To ensure the availability of housing including affordable housing in the County
where in short supply, subject to regulations, which ensure safety, appropriate site
designs, compatibility, and protection of the natural environment.
Preshana will offer single family lots that are in the upper/mid range of the residential
market which is compatible and consistent with the character of the housing in the
immediate vicinity. Employee housing for the agricultural activities of the site are
accommodated in the Equestrian Center District. The orientation and size of the
proposed lots will allow all residences solar access. The location of the proposed lots
preserves the natural areas of the site while maintaining the visual open space along
Hwy 82.
Section III -3.0 Transportation
Goal: Ensure that the County transportation system is safe, functional, appropriately
designed to handle existing and future traffic levels, and includes options for the use o'
modes other than the single -occupant automobile.
Preshana Farm PUD is ideally located to utilize the existing transportation system with
out incurring significant impacts. The entrance to the residential development connect,
to the recently paved County Road 100 at a point only eleven -hundred feet from the
channelized intersection on Hwy 82. Also at that intersection is a RFTA Bus Stop and
parking lot making access to public transportation quick and convenient. There will be
some added traffic to County Road 100 resulting from trip destinations located in
Carbondale. The Roaring Fork Rail Corridor is just over a quarter mile to the south of
the Preshana Farm entry making the future services of this public corridor readily
available to the Preshana residents. It is anticipated that the County will adopt, in the
near future, a Transportation Impact Fee. It would seem that, given the less than
normal impacts on the County roads, that Preshana Farm will more than pay its share
of the cost of maintaining the County transportation system through payment of the
Impact Fee and through higher than average property taxes.
Section III -4.0 Commercial and Industrial Uses
Goal: Commercial: Garfield County will encourage the retention and expansion of
convenient, viable, and compatible commercial development capable of providing a
wide variety of goods and services to serve the citizens of the County.
Preshana Farm is related indirectly to commercial activity through two areas. First, dhr
Preshana Farm Equestrian Center has a long history of providing equestrian services
on a commercial basis to the public. Although the developer of the PUD can not
guarantee the future of the equestrian facilities, the PUD has been designed and
written to encourage the continued vitality of this commercial operation.
Second, the provision of residential lots will help supply the demand by the constructica
industry for home sites.
Section III -5.0 Recreation and Open Space
GOAL: Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for County
residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLM/USFS policies, and
preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual corridors.
Preshana Farm has long been an important recreational amenity to the Roaring Fork
Valley unfortunately the value associated with the facilities and land at the Preshana
site is extremely high. It is impossible for the commercial equestrian operation to
generate enough revenue to justify such high property liability with out some type of
subsidy. The proposed Preshana Farm PUD makes it possible to pay for a large
portion of the facilities and land value through the residential development. This makes
it possible for the equestrian operation to be valued at a level commensurate with the
ability of an equestrian business to generate revenues. This and the continued
availability of the Open Space District for pasture and equestrian activities is a strong
incentive for the preservation of this important recreational service. This approach also
preserves the historic visual corridor along Hwy 82 and County Road 100.
Section III -6.0 Agriculture
Goal: To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation, and
compatibility issues are addressed during project reviews.
This goal is achieved simultaneously with the recreation goal previously discussed. In
addition to the encouragement of the long term agricultural use, the PUD and the
protective covenants that will be adopted with the project take steps to encourage a
compatible relationship between the residential property owners and the eyestrain
center property owner.
Section III -7.0 Water and Sewer Services
Goal: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective, and
environmentally sound sewer and wa er services for new development.
Or'c.J Ns c;N302 (s (Detit,Th_ovE.
Preshana Farm will be served by a central sewer treatment facility and a central
domestic and fire protection water system. A portion of the residential lot landscaping
is proposed to be irrigated from the raw water sources that have historically served the
property.
Section III -8.0 Natural Environment
Goal: Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes the
environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the
land, is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County.
The proposed development area of Preshana Farm is completely free of natural
hazards. The riparian area along Blue Creek is protected by the Open Space District
and the land use plan preserves the scenic agricultural character of the site as viewed
from Hwy 82 and County Road 100. / J6 e z7. 4e. ,:5 Aa -t
Section III -9.0
N/A
Natural Resource Extraction
Section I11-10.0 Urban Areas of Influence
Goal: Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County
that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use
objectives of the appropriate municipality.
Preshana Farm is not located in the urban area of influence of any municipality.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Section IV METHODOLOGY
Purpose and Applicability of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: This section
describes the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Maps "as the foundation for
subsequent zoning or subdivision regulations that implement the goals and policies
developed by the Plan". It further states "that the County Comprehensive Plans are
advisory only, neither legislative nor judicial in nature, not the equivalent to zoning , and
not binding upon the zoning discretion of any county or municipal legislative body".
The Preshana Farm site is included on the map titled Proposed Land Use Districts
Carbondale Area following the Methodology Section of the Comprehensive Plan. This
map identifies the site as being in the Low Density Residential District (10+ acres/
dwelling unit) although the site is currently zoned at a density of 1.2 acres per dwelling
unit. The proposed Preshana Farm PUD has a density of 1.1 acres per dwelling unit.
The PUD's strong support for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan's goals
and policies present a much more accurate assessment of the compatibility of the
proposed project with Garfield County's planning objectives than the generalized land
use districts map.
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PRESHANA FARM PUD
HCE PROJECT NO. 97070.01
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
SEPTEMBER 3, 1997
2391-312-00-023
Trettin, Henry & Lana
1299 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90401
2391-312-00-009
Hughes, Lael E. & Eddie V.
3844 County Road 100
Carbondale, CO 81623-8808
2391-312-00-005
2391-312-00-007
Hyde, Mary Ann Revocable Trust
Attn: Mary Ann Hyde, Trustee
P.O. Box 1557
Aspen, CO 81612-1557
2391-312-00-021
Oliver, Stanley Lyle & Sarah K.
15524 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623-9556
2391-312-00-020
Reade, Brock C. & Cheryl L.
P.O. Box 418
Carbondale, CO 81623-0418
2393-361-00-005
Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowner's Association
Attn: Mike Lamontagne
14913 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
2393-361-00-001
Ranch at Roaring Fork
14913 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
2391-313-00-024
St. Finnbar Land Company
Attn: Morton Heller - Pitkin County Bank
534 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611-1955
2393-361-16-020
Turner, Collis H.
411 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-011
Rothe, Emanuel W. & Margaret J.
478 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9562
2391-312-16-021
Densmore, Martha J.
470 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9562
2391-312-16-012
Tucker, Robert E. & Glynn B.
369 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-013
Garwood, Vicki R. & Jerry D.
481 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-014
Costanzo, Michael T. & Luanne D.
477 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-015
Tindall, John A. & Susan K.
P.O. Box 2014
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-2014
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�1
'
2391-312-16-016
Vagneur, Geraldine R., Residence Trust
413 18th Street
Golden, CO 80401
2391-312-16-017
Elias, Barbara A.
451 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-018
Collins, Kenneth D.
437 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-019
Mortell, Michael & Gayle
425 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-311-00-011
Gilligan, William J. & Jayne M.
3400 Adams Road
Oak Brook, IL 60521-2708
RECEIVED
OCT 2 3 ifit •
October 20, 2000
Mr. Tom Zancanella
Zancanella and Associates
P.O. Box 1908
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
OCAll OM"
FIRE • EMS • RESCUE
RE: Aspen Equestrian Estates, Fire Protection Water Supply
Dear Tom:
On October 17th, I conducted an inspection and witnessed the operational and flow tests of the
fire pump system at Aspen Equestrian Estates. The system operated satisfactorily during the test
and is ready for use.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Sinc,rel ,
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Cc: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning
Arno Ehlers, Garfield County Building Official
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569
FEB 89 '98 02:54PM RANCH AT ROARING FORK
February 9, 1998
Garfield County Comm iioners
109 8th Street
Glenwood Spgs, CO 81601
Atm.: Eric Building & Planning Department
Vis fix: (970)945-7785
RE: Zone change amendment on Preshana Farms
Dear Eric:
The Ranch at Roaring Fork Board of Directors have no objection to the proposed
zone change on Preshana Farms. However, the Ranch would oppose any proposal for a
new wastewater facility placed on this parcel . The Ranch would be willing to provide
wastewater service under the same terms and conditions extended to the St. Finnbar PUD.
The Ranch does not wish to see another wastewater facility between our property and the
Catherine Store Road.
Sincerely,
Fra idin Hallowell
vice-president
cc: Board of Directors
14913 Highway 82 • Carbondale, CoIo ddo 8162:3 • (303) 963-3500
P. 1
LAW OFFICES OF
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PAut J. TADDUNE, P.C.
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C., OF COUNSEL
ANDREW H. BUSCHER, OF COUNSEL
Via Fax and U.S. Mail
945-7785
February 9, 1998
Don Deford, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 8th Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farms
Dear Mr. Deford:
TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190
FACSIMILE (970) 925-9199
As you know, I represent Henry and Lana Trettin, the owners of that property located on
Highway 82, commonly known as Preshana Farms.
A development application concerning the Preshana Farms property prepared and
submitted by Ron Liston is presently pending before the Garfield County Commissioners and,
according to my information, is scheduled to be heard today, February 9, 1998 at 3:30 p.m. Mr.
and Mrs. Trettin consent to Mr. Liston proceeding with the land use application this afternoon.
Please feel free to call me if you need any additional information.
Very truly yours,
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
Paul J. Taddune
PJT/asg
cc: Ron Liston
Henry & Lana Trettin
C;\W PPAUL\LETTER\OEFORD.o2
E'd S30Id30 MU1 133diS NIUW 1S3M Wd6E:2T 86, 60 E3J
LAW OFFICES OF
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C., OF COUNSEL
ANDREW H. BUSCHER, OF COUNSEL
Via Fax and U.S. Mail
945-7785
January 5, 1998
Don Deford, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 8th Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farms
Dear Mr. Deford:
TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190
FACSIMILE (970) 925-9199
As you know, I represent Henry and Lana Trettin, the owners of that property located on
Highway 82, commonly known as Preshana Farms.
A development application concerning the Preshana Farms property prepared and
submitted by Ron Liston is presently pending before the Garfield County Commissioners and,
according to my information, is scheduled to be heard today, January 5, 1997. This will confirm
that the Trettin's consent to Mr. Liston's request that the application be continued to a future date
and time that is mutually convenient for the Board and the Trettins.
Please feel free to call me if you need any additional information.
Very truly yours,
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
Paul J. Taddune
PJT/som
cc: Ron Liston
Nick Goluba
Henry & Lana Trettin
Ci W P\PAUL\LETTER\DEFORD.OI
4
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
FAX MEMO / TRANSMITTAL
Date: 12/7/98
To: Mark Bean
Fax #: 945-7785
From: Ron Liston
Project: Preshana Farm
Job #: 9814
Number of sheets transmitted including this cover sheet: 3
Mark:
Attached are the Trettin's original signatures on the letter requesting an extension of
the Preshana Farm PUD.
I /i971 72 -
e tie% -1 s
) /
fr)-2, /t4 tit P'-e-
Itt /-°;11,44
Xtetr/ilr)
NODEC 132 '9R 12:19PM NEST MAIN STREET LAN OFFICES
November 24, 1998
TEL: 970945406B
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.945-22481 Fax 970-945-4066
Mr. Mark Bean
Planning Director, Garfield County
'108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development
F'.3 P:02
Dear Mark:
The Preshana Farm PUD resolution of approval included a requirement that the
development secure a commitment for wastewater treatment services by February 9,
1999. Diligent efforts have been made to secure these services and were in fact
clearly anticipated to be provided by the Ranch at Roaring Fork until the State
Department of Health chose not to issue a site permit last August. As you are aware,
the State held off on approving the Ranch's Site Application in preference of achieving
a more regionalized solution to sewer treatment services in the mid Roaring Fork
Valley.
Since that time we have been working closely with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District
to develop plan for regional service which would expand their service down valley to
the westerly edge of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The District is currently involved in
of the tions for the rinFork. acquisition Iof a regional sewer treatment am told these discussions are iant site on the west side
moving forward in a very
of the Ranch at Roaring Fo
positive manner_
It is the District's intent. I understand, to have contracted for a plant site, to have
completed the preparation of a Site Permit Application for the treatment plant site and
to have compiled an application for the amendment of the District's Service Plan by
January of 1999. Also, Preshana Farm intends to have entered into a pre -inclusion
agreement with the District by that time.
Despite the above described progress toward provision of sewer service for Preshana
Farm PMQ, likely thot all conditions necessary to fully satisfy the County's
12-02-98
11:15 RECEIVED FROM:9709259199
p.03
NOtiEr_ 22 'q8 1 20PM WEST HAIN STREET LPH CI1FFICES TEL:97094540SE P.4 P:03
requirement for sewer service will not be in place by February 9, 1999. Therefore, on
behalf of the owner's of the Preshana Farm, l request a six month extension of the
sewer service condition of approval- We would also request a two month extension of
the required submittal date of the preliminary plan for the project
Sincerely.
Ronald B Liston
12-02-98 11:16
eshana Farm
RECEIVED FROM: 9709259199
P.04
•
•
•
LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
DAVID E. LEAVENWORTH, JR.
JOSLYN V. WOOD*
GREGORY J. HALL
*Admitted in Hawaii and Texas only
DONALD H. HAMBURG
Of Counsel
Eric McCafferty, Staff Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
October 1, 1997
(17717
OCT 031991.
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
Re: Preshana Farm PUD/Sketch Plan and PUD Rezoning Referral
Dear Mr. McCafferty:
Your referral to the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (the "District") of the subject PUD
sketch plan and rezoning application has been further referred to our office for comment by the
District. As you know, the Preshana Farm area is not currently within the District service area.
As I believe you are also aware, the District is currently considering a petition from
another party immediately adjacent to the District's service area (the Cerise Family), but within
Garfield County, for inclusion into the District. The District is currently in discussions with a
number of parties including Preshana Farms, St. Finnbars, and the developer working with the
Cerise family, to investigate the possibility of pursuing District management of the St. Finnbar
wastewater treatment plant, the site application for which is currently before the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment. Should those discussions prove successful, the
District would contemplate seeking approval through Garfield and Eagle Counties of a
modification of the District service plan to allow inclusion within the District of Preshana Farms
and the other areas involved.
Although the discussions between the parties have progressed beyond the point noted in
our prior referral letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment relative
to the St. Finnbar wastewater treatment plant site application, I believe the contents of that letter
remain relevant. A copy of that letter is attached for your review.
The matter of the Cerise Petition for Inclusion into the District is scheduled again for a
public hearing at the next Mid Valley Metropolitan District Board meeting in Basalt on
November 8, 1997, at which time this subject will be further discussed with the Board. Should
the Board take any action regarding this, or should there be further developments of significance
to the Preshana PUD site application, we will of course keep you informed.
C:\FILES\MCCAFF.1LT
LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Eric McCafferty, Staff Planner
III Page 2
October 2, 1997
•
•
It is our understanding that the District has also referred your PUD referral regarding
Preshana to Louis Meyer, the District Engineer. I believe that he will be responding separately.
If you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to call me.
DEL:lfk
Enclosure
cc: Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Louis Meyer, P.E.
Ron Liston
Tom Zancanella, P.E.
C: \ FILES \MCCAFF.1 LT
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
David E. Leavenworth, Jr
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
January 5, 1997
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eight Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development
Dear Eric:
I have been requested by the Owners/Applicants to request an extension of the 120 day limit for
processing of a planned unit development zoning application and to request a tabling of the public
hearing for a minimum of two weeks. By this letter the Owners/Applicants agree to waive the
120 day PUD processing time limit.
Sincerely,
onald B. Liston
Project Planner
1 •
TO: Ron Liston (945-4066)
FROM: Eric McCafferty
SUBJECT: Preshana Farms PUD
DATE: 3 December, 1997
Ron - Below, you will find the standard wording for the "Aspen Glen" fireplace restrictions. If you
have any questions, please call
"No new, open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the Preshana Farms PUD.
One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an
unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances."
OCT -03-97 FRI 04 17 PM ROARING FORK SCHOOLS REI FAX NO, 97 9459240 P. 07/11
Roaring Fork School District RE -1
1.405 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone (970) 945-6558 «'•
October 2, 1997
Eric McCafferty
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Sth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Eric:
et
,GiSFIFELDO`Nvj"Y
FRED A. WALL, Superintendent
JUDY HAPTONSTALL, Assistant Superintendent
SHANNON PELLANO, Finance Direclor
In response to the County's request for comments regarding the Preshana Farm PUD,
Roaring Fork School District would like to request that site acquisition fees be collected
in accordance with the attached resolution adopted by the Board of Education. Such fees
should be collected upon final subdivision approval.
Sin e>ely,
Shannon Pclland
Finance Director
Enc.
OCT -03-97 FRI 04:17 PM ROARING FORK SCHOOLS REI FAX NO. 9709459240
•
i.se t'+� � „
li 4 '•k>h�< %� Raj
Roaring Fork School District RE -1 a ° 1 >>
4 t.
. .1405 Grand.Avenue �, + .,,5 , _.
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
k,t
:Telephone (970) 945-6558
•3
M E M�O�R A N D U.M
P. 08/11
FRED A. WALL, Superintendent
JUDY HAPTONSTALL, Assistant Superintendent
• SHANNON PELLAND, Finance Drroctor
DATE: July 25, 1997
TO: Planners of: Counties of Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin
City of Glenwood
Towns of Carbondale and Basalt
FROM: Roaring Fork School District Office
RE: School District Land Dedication Standards
Many thanks to those of you who provided your time and assistance to the school district in its
efforts to define a land dedication standard for residential development. We have attached a
copy of the resolution adopted by the Roaring Fork School District Board of Education on July
7, 1997. The District is now requesting that each of the governments within its boundaries adopt
ordinances supporting the same. and we would appreciate your help in facilitating this process.
Under such ordinance, the District requests that all fees in -lieu of land dedication he paid at the
time of subdivision approval. Further, the District is suggesting the following definitions for
terms included in the ordinance:
Current market value:
Current market value means the projected value of all subdivided lots. including site improvements
such as streets and utilities. but excluding the value of residential d cluing units and other structures on
the property. Marker value may be substantiated by a documented purchase price (if an inns length
transaction no more than two years old). a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to both parties. or
other mutually agreed upon recognized meals. The developer shall pay for the appraisal and all other
costs associated with dctennining the current market value.
Dwelling type:
Single family: A one unit structure detached from any other house.
Townhome. condo. duplex. etc.: A one unit structure that is attached to another structure but which has
one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures.
Apartment; Units in structures containing tr.o or more housing units that do not fit definition of
townhome. condo. duplex (above).
Mobile Home, Trailer: Self-explanatory.
Please do not hesitate to call Shannon Pelland at the 1:i>,t.rict Office (9=15-6558) if you have any
questions.
OCT -03-97 FRI 04:17 PM ROARING FORK SCHOOLS RE1 FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 09/11
•
RESOLUTION OF THE ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 BOARD
OF EDUCATION REGARDING STANDARDS FOR LAND DEDICATION ANI)
CASH IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION
1997
A. THIS RESOLUTION IS PREMISED ON THE FOLLOWING:
1. Roaring Fork School District ("District") has experienced annual
student enrollment increases ranging from 1.5% to 6.9% from 1988 to 1996 and
averaging 4.8% during that time:
Year Enrollment
1988/89 3301
1989/90 3495
1990/9 l 3 708
1991/92 3921
1992/93 4013
1993/94 4288
1994/95 4473
1995/96 4668
1996/97 4737
2. The District recognizes the impact of new development on the
need for public land for new schools and has prepared the following formula to calculate
a standard for school land dedication:
Land arca provided per student x students generated
per dwelling unit = Land Dedication Standard
3, The District has determined that the total land area currently
provided by the District is 1,042.8 square feet per student based on existing school site
acreage and reasonable capacities for each building as reflected in Exhibit A.
4, The District has determined the number of students generated per
type of dwelling unit according to data obtained from the State of Colorado
Demographer as follows:
Single Family 0.593
Townhome, Condo, Duplex, etc. 0,329
Apartment 0.185
Mobile Home, Trailer 0.474
OCT -03-97 FRI 04:18 PM ROARING FORK SCHOOLS REI FAX NO, 9709459240 P. 10/11
5. Application of the formula results in the following suggested Land
Dedication Standards:
Single Family
Townhome, Condo, etc.
Apartment, Duplex, etc.
Mobile Home
618 sq. ft per unit or .0142 acres
343 sq. ft per unit or .0079 acres
193 sq. ft per unit or .0044 acres
494 sq. ft per unit or ,0113 acres
6. At the District's request, a developer of residential housing may
make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land, or may make a cash payment in
combination with a land dedication to comply with the standards of this Resolution. The
formula to determine the cash -in -lieu payment is as follows:
Market value of the land (per acre) * Land Dedication
Standard * # of units = Cash -in -Lieu
For example, for a property having a market value of $100,000 per
acre and 1 single family unit on it, the payment would be:
$100,000 * .0142 * 1 — $1,420
B. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ROARING
FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 RESOLVES as follows'
1. The Counties of' Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin, Colorado; the City of
Glenwood Springs, Colorado; and the Towns of Basalt and Carbondale, Colorado
("Entities") adopt a Land Dedication Standard as set forth in Part A of this Resolution.
2. The Entities require land dedication or a payment in lieu of [..and
dedication as requested by the District in response to specific subdivision requests as set
forth in Parts A. 5 and 6 above from all residential land developers.
3. The provisions of this Resolution shall serve as the general criteria
for the imposition of school fees to be required of' all residential land developers as set
forth in C.R.S. 30-28-101, et seq., as amended, with specific modifications or deviations
herefrom to be made as the District responds to specific subdivision requests as required
by statute.
4. This Resolution shall be amended periodically by the District to
accurately reflect the student population and school land and building situation as it
exists within the District.
OCT -03-97 FRI 04:18 PM ROARING FORK SCHOOLS REI FAX NO. 9709459240 P. 11/11
• •
EXHIBIT A
Roaring Fork School District Re -1
Capacity Acres
Sopris Elementary 550 16.0
Glenwood Springs Elementary 775 10.2
Carbondale Elementary 500 6.2
Crystal River Elementary (when complete) 550 6.9
Basalt Elementary 750 5.8
Glenwood Middle School 675 15.3
Carbondale Middle School 380 8.3
Basalt Middle School 590 11.4
Glenwood Springs High School 750 15.0
Roaring Fork High School 600 26.3
Basalt High School 450 36.0
6,570 157.3
Total acres per student 0.02394
Total sq. feet per student 1042,8
•
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning
14 August, 1997
Mr. Ron Liston
Land Design Partnership
918 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Preshana Farms PUD Application
Dear Ron:
The Garfield County Planning Department has completed an initial review of the above -referenced
application and has determined the application to be incomplete. The following items are either
completely missing or deficient:
1] Parking - The proposed Open Space District and Equestrian Center District contemplate,
variously, the allowance of less than 300 people attending equestrian events and/or a golf
course. These allowances would obviously require substantial amounts of parking, which
must be addressed.
2] Although the provision of open space exceeds the minimum required, there appears to be no
provision for pedestrian ways connecting these areas with the residential areas, which violates
Section 4.07.03 (7).
3] The allowance for structures in excess of 25 feet requires additional information as contained
in Section 4.07.04.
4] The initial submittal contained no maps or graphical representations that conform to Section
4.08.03, showing general locations of the proposed zone districts. Further, Section 4.08.05
requires additional site, and topographic mapping, which is not included.
5] The completed application must contain the information required by Section 4.08.05 (D).
6] Based on the recent Planning Commission approval of the St. Finnbar wastewater site
application, it appears development in the area is imminent. However, I have concern for the
phasing of the Preshana development since it has everything to do with the installation of the
treatment plant. Please submit additional information detailing this component of the phasing
scenario.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, or if you are in disagreement, please contact this
office. At this time, the application is incomplete and will be removed from further consideration.
Further, please sign the attached agreement, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-67-105.5.
Sincerely,
Eric D. McCafferty
Senior Planner
109 8th Street, Suite 303
(970) 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
f
AGREEMENT
It is agreed by the undersigned applicant and the Garfield County Building and Planning
Department, that the Department will accept the submittal of the Planned Unit Development
application for the PUD on
Per CRS 24-67-105.5 (4), the PUD application will not be considered" filed", until the Board of
County Commissioners has detewiined that the application is complete and referred the
application to the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. For the
purposes of this agreement, the Board's action shall be preceded by the submittal of the
application for a determination of completeness, at least ten (10) working days in advance of a
regular Board meeting.
By accepting the application on the previously noted date, the Planning Department will present
the application to the Board on , if it is deemed complete.
The 120 day time to make a decision. will start the next day, and the Board of County
Commissioners will have to make a decision by
By the signature of the applicant on this agreement and submitting the signed agreement to the
Planning Department prior to the Board's acceptance of the complete application., the application
shall be agreeing to the timelines identified in this az•eement.
:Applicants Owner Date
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
July 21, 1997
Eric McCafferty, Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eight Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development
Dear Eric:
The owners of Preshana Farm have contracted for the sale of their property to Bruce Ross. I
have worked with Mr. Ross to revise the current Preshana Farm PUD zoning to create a project
that is economically feasible and consistent with market conditions in the Roaring Fork Valley
while remaining as true to the original Preshana concept as possible.
Attached herewith is a Sketch Plan and preliminary information describing our proposed revisions
to the Preshana Farm PUD. Prior to the completion of a PUD rezoning submittal, I would like
the opportunity to meet with you and discuss our plans. I will give you a call to set a meeting
time. Your brief review of the enclosed information will provide a basis of discussion when we
meet.
Sincerely,
Ronald B. Liston
• •
PRESHANA FARM PUD
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Concept
The proposed Preshana Farm PUD presents a development concept very similar to the currently
approved PUD Zoning for the property. Both concepts (existing and proposed) preserve the
existing equestrian facilities and a large open space buffer along Hwy 82. Both concepts offered
single family residential development along the southerly portion of the property with access from
County Road 100. The current zoning calls for 48 dwelling units between single family, employee
housing and lodging units. The proposed PUD provides for a total of 50 single family dwelling
units within the residential districts plus a single family dwelling and three employee units at the
equestrian area. Following is a more detailed discussion of the proposed PUD concept.
At the heart of Preshana Farm is the existing equestrian complex. Since the time of the current
PUD approval significant improvements have been made to the equestrian facilities including a
new stall barn, tack shop and office space, paddocks and fencing. This places Preshana Farm as
one of the premiere equestrian centers in Colorado. The proposed PUD identifies a specific zone
district that encompasses the core equestrian improvements and limits the potential uses for this
area. Our market research indicates that the residential lot owners would not desire to own the
equestrian complex due to the expense and long term liabilities of such a facility. They would,
however, deem it desirable to be in close proximity to such a facility for the potential for access to
equestrian services but more importantly for the general ambiance and open space associated with
the farm. Initially, the Applicant will retain ownership of the facility but the property will
eventually be sold. Thus the PUD attempts to encourage the continued equestrian use of the
property but also provides some compatible options for the future use of the property. Uses
normally associated with equestrian activity such as a tack shop and veterinarian clinic have been
included to facilitate the effectiveness of the equestrian center and to encourage the long term
viability of the complex either as a commercial equestrian center or a private horse farm. Some of
the Open Space District will be included within the same lot as the equestrian center to provide
pasture and horse exercise space. Additionally, the Preshana Farm residential home owners
association (HOA)will be required to give the equestrian facility owner priority and preferential
pricing for much of the remaining open space that will be owned by the HOA. These provisions
are included to encourage the long term viability of the equestrian use.
Consistent with the open space character of the horse farm, an alternate use as a golf course with
a clubhouse/athletic center is included in the zone district. The Equestrian Center District is not
of adequate acreage to accommodate even a small golf course but the HOA could choose to
include the remainder of the Open Space District and thus make a small par three course possible.
This use would preserve the open space qualities desired by the residential lot owners and provide
recreational opportunities as well.
In addition to the uses described above, the Open Space District identifies park as a use by right
allowing landscaping and improvements typical to a park if such are desired by the HOA. With
the exception of the area adjacent to the Equestrian Center District, the lands within the Open
Space District, approximately acres, will be dedicated to the HOA. The HOA will own a
• •
minimum 70 foot wide open space buffer between the R10 Residential District and the equestrian
center such that the HOA has control of the agricultural activities that occur adjacent to the
residential lots. The Open Space District secures a permanent and interesting visual buffer along
Hwy 82 with its undulating spacial patterns and equestrian activities. At its narrowest point, the
open space buffer will provide a 200 foot separation between the closest residence and the Hwy
82 right-of-way line. In wider areas, the residences are in excess of 600 feet from the Hwy 82
right-of-way. It is anticipated that the open space areas will, in large, continue to serve as pasture
and exercise areas for the adjacent horse farm.
The proposed Preshana Farm residential use is composed of two zone districts. The R10 District
is located south and west of the Equestrian Center District. These lots are accessed from the
main internal drive and from the secondary cul-de-sac that runs north from the main drive. The
minimum lot size in this district is 10, 000 square feet with lots shown on the Sketch Plan ranging
from 10,000 to 15,000 square feet. Ten of these lots back onto the open space along Blue Creek.
The lots to the north all back onto open space. Landscaping is proposed in those areas of open
space that act as buffers between the residential districts and the equestrian area. The four lots
along the south edge of the equestrian area are shown at a larger than typical size to allow for
buffer landscaping. Existing spruce and pine plantings in this area have already begun to create an
effective buffer.
Lots in the R20 District range in size form 24,000 square feet to over 30,000 square feet with the
minimum for the district set at 20,000 square feet. These lots are designed to provide spacious
country living that looks out onto open space or areas along Blue Creek. Along the west
boundary of the PUD is a sixty foot wide strip of land that is owned by the Ranch at Roaring Fork
but is preserved by easement for perpetual use by Preshana Farm. There can be no construction
in this area and thus it serves as an open space buffer between the two residential developments.
Access
The residential areas will all be accessed from an internal drive that originates at County Road
100. Approximately eleven hundred feet into the site this road Y's and continues on to two
separate cul-de-sacs. These cul-de-sacs have been significantly oversized to accommodate the
safe, convenient and uninterrupted movement of emergency vehicles. These roads are longer than
the County's adopted standard for cul-de-sacs so the Preshana Farm PUD requires that all cul-de-
sacs have a minimum right-of-way radius of 75 feet and a minimum outside turning radius of 70
feet. This will assure a minimum inside turning radius of 56 feet. These radii will also create
large landscaped islands which will serve to provide an aesthetic as well as functional terminus to
the access roads.
All right-of-ways within the development are proposed to be 70 feet in width to allow a gracious
treatment of roadside ditches including slopes that allow the ditches to be maintained as lawn.
Street tree plantings will also be used to create a spacious, boulevard type feeling along the
internal roads. The roads and landscaped right-of-ways will be maintained by the HOA.
Extensions of the existing Preshana Farm irrigation ditches may also be included within the right-
of-way adding to the lushness and character of the access experience.
• •
The Equestrian Center District will be accessed from County Road 100 and from the internal
private road serving the residential areas.
Signage
Provisions have been included within the PUD Zone Regulations to limit signage within the PUD
to a greater extent than provided for in the County Code.
Utility Services
Domestic Water: Basalt Water Conservancy District contracts will be acquired to provide legal
protection for domestic, fire protection and on lot irrigation water. The physical supply will come
from wells drilled on the site into the Roaring Fork River Alluvium. A water storage tank with a
minimum capacity of 120,000 gallons will be constructed on site westerly of the indoor riding
arena. There is no feasible opportunity to provide a gravity pressurized water delivery system to
the site. The storage tank will be of narrow diameter and upwards to thirty feet in height. A
pressure boosting pump station will be added to the system to provide both domestic and fire
flows of appropriate pressure. In the event of a failure of the pumping system and any backup
systems, there will be enough pressure in the system to allow fire trucks to draw water from the
fire hydrants and boost the pressure with their truck mounted pumps. The water storage tank will
be treated with architectural detailing that allows it to blend with the agricultural character of the
equestrian center buildings. Raw irrigation water will continue to be used on the pasture lands at
Preshana Farm.
Sewage Treatment: Waste water treatment services will be provided by the treatment plant
proposed for construction on the adjacent St.Finnbar property to the south. Negotiations are
currently underway with the St. Finnbar Land Company for the provision of these services. St.
Finnbar has submitted a Site Application to the State Department of Health for the proposed
treatment facility. This sewer plant site application lists Preshana Farm as being within the service
area of the proposed treatment plant. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District may become the
owner/operator of the proposed treatment plant upon its completion.
Public Utilities: Power, telephone and natural gas services are available to the area.
• •
21
•
NORTH
SCALE 1"-= 100'
7/20/97
ce
15.000 sq.f t.
SITE PLANNING:
LAND DESIGN PARTNE.
Glenwood Springs, C
945-2246
PRESHANA FARM PUD
LAND USE SUMMARY
7/21/97
• •
Dwelling Units
Acres % of PUD
Open Space District
Equestrain Center District
R20 - Single Family Residential District
R10 - Single Family Residential District
Road Right -of -Way
4
34
16
22.4
39%
9.2 16%
12.2 21%
8.9 15%
5.2
9%
TOTAL PUD 54 57.9 100%
Gross Density of Total PUD 0.9 UNITS/ACRE
1.1 ACRES/UNIT
Net Density of Residential Districts 2.4 UNITS/ACRE
PRESHANA FARM PUD
7/21/97
Road Design Standards
ROAD NAME
R.O.W. LANE SHOULDER DITCH MINIMUM MAXIMUM CUL-DE-SAC
WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH RADIUS GRADE RADIUS
All widths & radii are in feet R.O.W.
Primary Access 70 12 4 10' min. 100 6% 75
Secondary Access 70 11 4 10' min. 100 6% 75
NOTES: 1. All road surfaces are asphalt.
2. All roads are two lanes in width.
3. Shoulders are gravel or a stablized structural section as approved by
the County Road Supervisor that allows grass to grow in the shoulder area.
• •
PRESHANA FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
P. U. D. ZONE DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
and
VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JULY 20, 1997
I. ZONE DISTRICTS
A. ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED
To carry out the purposes and provision of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, Garfield County, Colorado, as amended, the Preshana Farm
Planned Unit Development Zone District is further divided into the following zone
district classifications:
- O.S.
- E.C.
- R20-S.F.R.
- R10-S.F.R
Open Space District
Equestrian Center District
R20 - Single Family Residential District
R10 - Single Family Residential District
B. O.S. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Open Space and Greenbelt
b. Park
c. Water Storage Tank
d. Golf Course
e. Golf Driving Range
f. Pasturing of livestock including structures providing shelter for
livestock and livestock feed when the footprint of the structure is
600 square feet or Tess.
g. Public Equestrian Event attended by less than 300 people/day.
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special
Public Equestrian Event attended by more than 300 peopl/day.
4. Minimum Lot Area
43,560 Square Feet ( 1 acre )
• •
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
a. Buildings: 5 per cent of net developable land
b. All impervious materials: 10 per cent of net developable land
c. And as further restricted by Supplemental Regulations.
6. Maximum Floor Area
NONE
7 Minimum Setbacks
a. Front Yard 50 feet
b. Rear Yard 35 feet
c. Side yard 35 feet
8. Maximum Building Height
16 feet
C. E.C. Equestrian Center DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Riding Stable, Equestrian Arena and Tack Shop
b. Agricultural, including farm, ranch, garden, greenhouse, plant
nursery, orchard, and customary accessory uses including
buildings for the enclosure of animals or property employed in any
of the above uses and retail establishment for the sale of goods
processed from raw materials produced on the lot.
c. Single family dwelling
d. Two family and multi -family dwellings for persons employed on the
premise
e. Veterinary Clinic
f. Day nursery
g. Park and open Space
h. Public Equestrian Event attended by less than 300 people
I. Indoor and Outdoor Golf Driving Range
j. Golf Course with associated clubhouse including customary
accessory uses including pro -shop, retail food and beverage
service, athletic facilities and tennis courts.
2. Uses, Conditional:
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Home Occupation
b. Public Equestrian Event attended by more than 300 peopl/day.
• •
4. Minimum Lot Area
43,560 Square Feet ( 1 acre )
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
30 percent
6. Minimum Setback
a. Front Yard
35 feet
b. Rear Yard
25 feet
c. Side Yard
25 feet
7 Maximum Building Height
30 feet
D. R20/S.F.R. R20/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the
lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Day Nursery (maximum of 6 nonresident children)
b. Home Occupation
4. Minimum Lot Area
20,000 square feet
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet
Side Yard: 20 feet
• •
7. Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area
0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Total Parking Spaces Per Lot 6
D. R10/S.F.R. R10/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1. Uses By Right:
a. Single family and customary accessory uses including building for
shelter or enclosure of animals or property accessory to use of the
lot for residential purposes and fences, hedges, gardens, walls and
similar landscape features.
b. Park and Open Space
2. Uses, Conditional
NONE
3. Uses, Special:
a. Day Nursery (maximum of 4 nonresident children)
b. Home Occupation
4. Minimum Lot Area
10,000 square feet
5. Maximum Lot Coverage
40 percent
6. Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard: 25 feet
Rear Yard: 25 feet
Side Yard: 20 feet
7 Maximum Building Height
25 feet
8. Maximum Floor Area
0.40/1.0 and as further provided under Supplemental Regulations
9. Minimum Off -Street Parking
Total Parking Spaces Per Lot 6
II. DESIGN STANDARDS
•
A. SIGNS
All signs shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as amended
except as listed below:
1. Open Space District
Type of Sign &
Structural Type Maximum Height Maximum Sign
Area Per Face
Subdivision Identification
Freestanding 12 feet 30 square feet
Subdivision/Real Estate Sales
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed adjacent to Hwy 82 and one sign allowed
adjacent to County Road 100.
2. All signs shall be removed within six months of the initial sale of
all residential lots within the PUD.
Freestanding 12 feet 50 square feet
Temporary
Freestanding 12 feet 50 square feet
2. R20 - Single Family Residential District
Type of Sign &
Structural Type Maximum Height Maximum Sign
Area Per Face
Subdivision Identification
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed at the entrance to this District.
2. Sign may be located within the road right-of-way within the PUD
but shall be setback a minimum of six feet from the edge of the
traffic lane of the roadway.
Freestanding 6 feet 12 square feet
Subdivision/Real Estate Sales
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed at the entrance to this District.
2. This sign shall be removed within six months of the initial sale of
all residential Tots within the PUD.
Freestanding 6 feet 20 square feet
Construction
Freestanding 6 feet 20 square feet
• •
2. Equestrian Center District
Type of Sign &
Structural Type Maximum Height Maximum Sign
Area Per Face
Business
Freestanding 18 feet 100 square feet
Wall 40 square feet
Projecting 40 square feet
Suspended 40 square feet
(Roof Mounted Signs Prohibited)
Construction
Freestanding 6 feet 20 square feet
Real Estate
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Temporary
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Personal Identification
Freestanding 4 feet 2.5 square feet
B. FENCES
All fences shall be subject to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as
amended except as listed below:
1 Fences within the Open Space District shall observe the following criteria
except for areas requiring protection from wildlife:
a) Maximum height:
Wire Fence or solid fence or wall - 44 inches
Rail Fence - 54 inches
b) Wire strand fences shall have a minimum of 12 inches between the
top two wire strands.
d) Fences higher than 54" designed to exclude deer and elk from
gardens, landscaped areas or storage areas shall meet the
required building setbacks of the district.
2. Fences within the Residential Districts shall not exceed 48" when located
within the Front Yard Setback.
C. LIGHTING
• •
Real Estate
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Temporary
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Personal Identification
Freestanding 4 feet 2.5 square feet
2. R10 - Single Family Residential District
Type of Sign &
Structural Type Maximum Height Maximum Sign
Area Per Face
Subdivision Identification
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed on each side of the entry road into the PUD
from County Road 100.
2. Signs may be located within the road right-of-way within the
PUD but shall be setback a minimum of six feet from the edge of
the traffic lane of the roadway.
Freestanding 6 feet 16 square feet
Subdivision/Real Estate Sales
Conditions:
1. One sign allowed at the entrance to the PUD from County Road
100.
2. This sign shall be removed within six months of the initial sale of
all residential Tots within the PUD.
Freestanding 6 feet 20 square feet
Construction
Freestanding 6 feet 20 square feet
Real Estate
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Temporary
Freestanding 4 feet 6 square feet
Personal Identification
Freestanding 4 feet 2.5 square feet
• •
All site lighting shall be downward directed to avoid projection of the light beyond
the boundaries of the lot. The luminar light source shall be shielded to minimize
glare when observed from adjacent Tots.
III. VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Except as defined below, all provisions of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations shall be applicable to the Preshana Farm PUD.
A. STREET DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Design Standards: Standard street design shall be as identified in the
attached chart titled_Preshana Farm - Road Design Standards.
2. Cul-de-sac Length: Cul-de-sacs in excess of 600 feet shall observe the
following design standards:
a. Minimum Right -of -Way Radius 75 feet
b. Minimum Driving Surface, Outside Radius 70 feet
TRETT
1 \ P PART B=Rs
Garfield County Commissioners
c/o Garfield County Planning Office
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
July 21, 1997
Re: Preshana Farms
To whom it may concern
x.2;;.3:1997
This letter is authorization for Bruce Ross the contract purchaser, to represent Henry Trettin /
Lana Trettin the owners of Preshana Farms, in applying for a Planned Unit Development approval
for the property.
Thankin
you in advance for your cooperation.
rettin Lana
3350 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD, SUITE 100. SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90405 • (310) 396-9500 • FAX (310) 3995130
NEW YORK LONDON HAMBURG MILAN MADRID VANCOUVER HONG KONG
PRESHANA FARM PUD
HCE PROJECT NO. 97070.01
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET
SEPTEMBER 3, 1997
RE -CHECKED ON NOVEMBER 7, 1997
2391-312-00-023
Trettin, Henry & Lana
1299 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90401
2391-312-00-009
Hughes, Lael E. & Eddie V.
3844 County Road 100
Carbondale, CO 81623-8808
2391-312-00-005
2391-312-00-007
Hyde, Mary Ann Revocable Trust
Attn: Mary Ann Hyde, Trustee
P.O. Box 1557
Aspen, CO 81612-1557
2391-312-00-021
Oliver, Stanley Lyle & Sarah K.
15524 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623-9556
2391-312-00-020
Reade, Brock C. & Cheryl L.
P.O. Box 418
Carbondale, CO 81623-0418
2393-361-00-005
Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowner's Association
Attn: Mike Lamontagne
14913 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
2393-361-00-001
Ranch at Roaring Fork
14913 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
2391-313-00-024
St. Finnbar Land Company
Attn: Morton Heller - Pitkin County Bank
534 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611-1955
2393-361-16-020
Turner, Collis H.
411 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-011
Rothe, Emanuel W. & Margaret J.
478 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9562
2391-312-16-021
Densmore, Martha J.
470 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9562
2391-312-16-012
Tucker, Robert E. & Glynn B.
369 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-013
Garwood, Vicki R. & Jerry D.
481 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-014
Costanzo, Michael T. & Luanne D.
477 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-015
Tindall, John A. & Susan K.
P.O. Box 2014
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-2014
2391-312-16-016
Vagneur, Geraldine R., Residence Trust
413 18th Street
Golden, CO 80401
2391-312-16-017
Elias, Barbara A.
451 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-018
Collins, Kenneth D.
437 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-312-16-019
Mortell, Michael & Gayle
425 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623-9515
2391-311-00-011
Gilligan, William J. & Jayne M.
3400 Adams Road
Oak Brook, IL 60521-2708