Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 CorrespondenceMid -Valley Metropolitan District 0031 Duroux Lane, Suite A • Basalt, CO 81621-9357 Phone: (970) 927-4077 • Fax (970) 927-1017 February 22, 1999 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 109 Eighth Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana PUD Dear Commissioners: At the request of the owners of the Preshana PUD, I am writing to advise you of the status of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (hereinafter "MVMD" or "District") plans to expand sewer service within the Mid Valley area in Garfield County. As you know, the District has entered into a Pre -Inclusion Agreement with Clifford Cerise and Wintergreen Homes for the purpose of providing sewer service to the Cerise property in Garfield County. At the special meeting on February 9th, the District reviewed a draft Garfield County Service Plan that provided for the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant facility in the lower Mid Valley area. At the direction of the Board at its January meeting, MVMD's consulting engineer prepared a Garfield County Service Plan which includes the Preshana PUD property, among others, within the District's service area. At the regular meeting on February 16, 1999, MVMD discussed a Pre -Inclusion Agreement for the Preshana PUD property on terms and conditions similar to that entered into regarding the Cerise property. The Pre - Inclusion Agreement will provide for sewer service to the Preshana PUD property upon approval of the Garfield County Service Plan by Garfield County and a site application for a new wastewater treatment facility by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and upon execution of a Plant Development Agreement that would allocate the cost of plant construction among the various developers requesting service. Approval of the Pre -Inclusion Agreement is on the agenda for the March 16th Board of Directors Meeting. The final Garfield County Service Pim-Mvas conceptually approved by the Board at the regular meeting on February 16, 1999, and will4be submitted to Garfield County for review shortly. The process of developing a wastewater treatment plant proposal takes time, but the District believes it will, in the long term, provide a benefit to the Mid Valley area in Garfield County. F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos\M V M D-BOCC-Itr-1. wpd 111111141111111.1 RECEIVED FEB 4 1991 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Page 2 February 22, 1999 We look forward to reviewing the Garfield County Service Plan with you. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. cc: MVMD Board of Directors Louis Meyer, P.E. Kevin Patrick, Esq. Tim Thulson, Esq. Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq. Don DeFord, Esq. 4 F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos\M V M D-BOCC-ltr-1. wpd Very truly yours, MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Trod. e K. President J LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 FAX MEMO / TRANSMITTAL Date: 12/30/98 To: Mark Bean Fax #: 945-7785 From: Ron Liston Project: Preshana Farm Job #: 9814 Number of sheets transmitted including this cover sheet: Mark: Attached is the revised extension letter regrading Preshana Farm PUD and the updated list of property owners within 300 feet. You already have the Trettin's signature in your file. Let me if you require any additional information. LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 December 30, 1998 Mr. Mark Bean Planning Director, Garfield County 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development Request for Extension of PUD Dear Mark: On behalf of the owners of Preshana Farm, I request an extension of the Preshana Farm PUD approval. Specifically we are requesting at least a six month extension of the approval resolution's requirement that a commitment for wastewater treatment services be secured by February 9, 1999. We would also request an equivalent extension of the required submittal date of the preliminary plan for the PUD. Diligent efforts have been made to secure sewer 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 a plan for regional service by expanding their service down valley to the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The District is currently involved in negotiations for the acquisition of a regional sewer treatment plant site on the west side of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. I am told these discussions are moving forward in a very positive manner. It is the District's intent, I understand, to have identified 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 prior to the end of 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 PUD, it is likely that all conditions necessary to fully satisfy the County's requirement for a sewer service commitment will not be in place by February 9, 1999. Therefore, the reason for requesting an extension of the sewer service commitment requirement and of the date for the preliminary plan submittal. All other elements of the Preshana Farm PUD will remain as approved by Resolution No. 98 - 11. I understand that the Board of County Commissioners has determined their review of this extension application will require a public hearing. Therefore, a current list of property owners within 300 feet of the PUD boundary is attached herewith. If you require any additional information to facilitate the processing of this application, please contact me. Ronald B. Liston iir---- APR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP TEL:970949406E P:01 LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 FAX MEMO / TRANSMITTAL Date: 12/30/98 To: John Barbee Fax #: 945-7785 From: Ron Liston Project: Preshana Farm Job #: 9815 Number of sheets transmitted including this cover sheet: 10 John: Attached are the various letters and transmittals that will provide you with a little history on the requested Preshana Farm PUD extension. I have included both my original letter of November 24th and the copy that had been signed by the property owners simply for your ease of reading I would appreciate if you would get at least my latest extension request letter into the Commissioner's mail baskets as soon as possible. It would be helpful for them to have the basic information regarding our request prior to the hearing. Thanks! /d&7t9v) 4i2/Z2Z( �dL4/ fa/i/99 APR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP November 24, 1998 TEL:9709494066 P:02 LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945.2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 Mr. Mark Bean Planning Director, Garfield County 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development 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 negotiations for the acquisition of a regional sewer treatment plant site on the west side of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. I am told these discussions are moving forward in a very 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 PUD, it is likely that all conditions necessary to fully satisfy the County's RPR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP TEL:9709494066 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, I 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 Owner, Preshana Farm APR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP TEL:97094940E6 P:04 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. APR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP November 24, 1998 TEL:9709494066 LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP g18 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Sprops, CO 81601 970.945-22481 Fax 970-945-4086 Mr. Mark Bean Gadd County Planning Director, 10e 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Rc: Pre hang Farm planned Unit Development Dear Mark: The Freshens Fenn PUD resolution of approval for wastewater�ro intent seuded a rvices bthat ed February 9• the development secure a commitment 1999, Diligent efforts have been made to sure 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 permitlastAugtioni p . you you are of aware, are, the State held off on approving the Ranch's Site App ng a more regionalized solution to sewer treatment services in the mid Roaring Fork Valley. Metropolitan District Since that time we have been working closely with the d Valley aH service down valley to to develop plan for regional service which would expandinvolved o regional sewer treatment plant site on the west side the westerly edge of the Ranch at a oaring Fork. The District is currently a negotiations for the acquisition of 9 Of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. I am told these discussions are roving forward in very positive manner It is the District's intent. 1 understand, to have contracted for a plant site, to have completed the propagation of a Site Permit Application for the treatment plant site and e to have to have compiled an application for the amendment �nhavehentered � pre -inclusion s Service Plen by January � 1999, Also, Preshah;time. intends agreement with the District by for Despite the above described P r reSs toward provision of Sewer sandlots to fullnt�%� eshens � Farm PUD, it is likely that all conditions necessary y satisfy the 12-02-95 11:15 RECEIVED FROM:970925919' P:09 P.03 RPR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP TEL:97094940E6 requirement for sewer service will not be in place by February 9. 1999. There40ie, on benne of the vwnet'$ of the Preeohal abler would also request Mrouest a six month extension of rrwnth wcLen8� of sewer aired s condition ition of appwan tor the proje" the required submittal date of the preliminary P/ 441111P, reshana Farm sinosraly, Ronald g Lion 12 e2 -Y8 11 : 1fi Rlf_CE I VF:D FROM : 97092591 99 P:06 P-94 APR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP December 23, 1998 TEL:9709494066 P:07 GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department Ron Liston Land Design Partnership 918 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 8161)1 Re; Preshana harm I'UD extension request Dear Ron: On Monday, December 21, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners considered the Tretttin's request for an extension of the approval of the Preshana Farm PUD approval. The Board denied the request to extend the approval as a [Mimi' amendment without a public hearing. They did state that they would consider the request as a part of a public hearing as required in Section 4.09.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please feel free to call or write to this office_ Sincerely, ) /0. Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department. 109 Nth Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RPR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP TEL: 9709454068 P:08 LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 FAX MEMO / TRANSMITTAL Date: 12/30/98 To; Mark Bean Fax #: 945-7785 From: Ron Liston Project: Preshana Farm Job #: 9814 Number of sheets transmitted including this cover sheet: Mark: Attached is the revised extension letter regrading Preshana Farm PUD and the updated list of property owners within 300 feet. You already have the Trettin's signature in your file. Let me if you require any additional information. RPR -02-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP December 30, 1998 TEL:9709454066 P:09 LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 Mr. Mark Bean Planning Director, Garfield County 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development Request for Extension of PUD Dear Mark: On behalf of the owners of Preshana Farm, I request an extension of the Preshana Farm PUD approval. Specifically we are requesting at least a six month extension of the approval resolution's requirement that a commitment for wastewater treatment services be secured by February 9, 1999. We would also request an equivalent extension of the required submittal date of the preliminary plan for the PUD. Diligent efforts have been made to secure sewer 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 a plan for regional service by expanding their service down valley to the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The District is currently involved in negotiations for the acquisition of a regional sewer treatment plant site on the west side of the Ranch at Roaring Fork. 1 am told these discussions are moving forward in a very positive manner. It is the Districts intent, I understand, to have identified 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 prior to the end of January of 1999. Also, Preshana Farm intends to have entered into a pre - inclusion agreement with the District by that time. RPR -0E-99 13:49 LISTON HOUSE ENTP LDP TEL:97O94S4O66 P:1O Despite the above described progress toward provision of sewer service for Preshana Farm PUD, it is likely that all conditions necessary to fully satisfy the County's requirement for a sewer service commitment will not be in place by February 9, 1999. Therefore, the reason for requesting an extension of the sewer service commitment requirement and of the date for the preliminary pian submittal. All other elements of the Preshana Farm PUD will remain as approved by Resolution No. 98 - 11. I understand that the Board of County Commissioners has determined their review of this extension application will require a public hearing. Therefore, a current list of property owners within 300 feet of the PUD boundary is attached herewith. If you require any additional information to facilitate the processing of this application, please contact me. Ronald B. Liston LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP 918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066 December 1, 1997 Eric McCafferty, Planner Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eight Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana Farm Planned Unit Development Dear Eric: / DEC 0 2 1997 • OdkilFisELD ()O 14TY The following information is offered to assist the Board of County Commissioners with their review of the proposed modification of the Preshana Farm PUD. Specifically, I will respond to the items listed in your letter reviewing the action of the Planning Commission on October 8, 1997. 1] We do not have the specific language regarding limitations on dogs and wood stove regulations as established by the "Aspen Glen" approval but we know these are standard criteria for the County and they would appear to be consistent with the concept of the Preshana Farm PUD. Eric, can you provide me with the appropriate language for our review. 2] At the Planning Commission meeting, I requested input from the commission members regarding the design result that they desired to achieve by the reduction in the number of dwellings units. From their comments throughout the discussion, it appears there was a desire to see a net increase in the total dedicated open space. We will be prepared to discuss with the Board alternatives for the achievement of this intent. 3] The Board should be aware that at the time of the writing of Don Deford's letter, he did not understand that Preshana Farm was an existing PUD. Mr. DeFord's letter is discussed as follows: 1. Two alternatives are now available for wastewater treatment. The selection of an alternative is strongly influenced by the St. Finnbar Land Company which would provide the treatment plant site for one of the alternatives. Wastewater treatment will be provided by either: a. An agreement with the St. Finnbar Land Company to provide services if they construct a new treatment plant on their site. This plant would be administered by a newly created Special Services District or by the Mid Valley Metropolitan • • District. On October 21, 1997 the Mid Valley Metropolitan District Board of Directors authorized the drafting of a pre -inclusion agreement that would encompass service to Preshana Farm and St. Finnbar Farm and the ownership and maintenance of the proposed treatment plant. The Site Application for this plant is currently being reviewed by the State Department of Health. Prior to submittal of the Preshana Farm Preliminary Subdivision Plan, an application will be made by the Mid Valley Metro District to expand its service boundaries or an application will be made to create a new special services district to encompass Preshana Farm and St. Finnbar Farm. b. An agreement with the Ranch at Roaring Fork to provide wastewater treatment services. The property owners within the Ranch at Roaring Fork have recently voted to allow their Board of Directors to negotiate sewer and water service agreements with users outside of the Ranch boundaries. Discussions are being initiated with Ranch Board of Directors to establish such an agreement for provision of services to Preshana Farm. An agreement between Preshana Farm and the Ranch at Roaring Fork would be in place before submittal of a preliminary subdivision plan. 2. This topic was briefly discussed by the Commission, but no specific point was made about where or how an emergency access should be connected to the cul-de- sac. Due to the flat terrain of the site and the proposed oversized cul-de-sac, we do not feel the emergency access is necessary. The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District in their review letter of September 16, 1997 confirmed that the proposed access was adequate for their needs. We are willing to discuss this with the Board but I do not think this was a critical issue to the Planning Commission. 3. The current Preshana Farm PUD has commercial uses of a recreational character in the form of an equestrian center. The proposed modifications preserve this commercial recreational use and proposes an additional option in the form of a golf course. The golf course concept could only occur if the residents of the PUD determine to make their open space lands available for such use. The Equestrian District and the limited Open Space attached to it is probably not enough acreage to accommodate even a small executive course. The expanded commercial use, in the form of an executive, par -3 golf course, is very much in the control of the home owner's association. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the desire to encourage commercial recreation uses and the proposed commercial recreation uses are consistent with the historic use and setting of the site. 4. The residents of the PUD are clearly the beneficiaries of the majority of the open space. As stated in the application, 17.4 acres of the Open Space District (30% of the PUD) will be dedicated to the home owner's association. This land is under their full ownership and control with one limitation. If a commercial operator of the equestrian center offers priority equestrian services to the residents, they will be obligated to make the pasture land portions of their open space available for 2 • • equine use. All other use of the open space is determined by the residents. An additional five acres of the Open Space District is proposed to be attached to the Equestrian Center District to provide space for equestrian activities. The Open Space District represents 39 percent of the total PUD. If we consider the Equestrian Center District to be quasi -open space, dedicated open space and quasi -open space represents 55 percent of the Preshana Farm PUD. 5. This comment reflects Don's original misunderstanding about the currently existing Preshana Farm PUD. I believe the Planning Commission determined that a change to the comprehensive plan was not necessary except to correct the error in the comp plan mapping. 6. Don thought it might be necessary to provide an initial phase that allowed adequate time for the initiation of the special services district. With this in mind, the Applicant requests, as an initial phase of development, one year from the date of the PUD modification approval until submittal of the preliminary plan is required. 7. Both of these issues are addressed above. Also attached herewith is a revised letter from Tom Zancanella which provides the calculation used for the application to the Basalt Water Conservation District. This letter provides for a portion of each lot to be irrigated from existing raw irrigation water supplies rather than all lot irrigation coming from the domestic water system as was portrayed in the original letter. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this process. Sincerely, Ronald B. Liston 3 P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z4NC1NELL4 4N1) 455OCI4TES, INc. ENGINEERING CONSULT4NT5 November 19, 1997 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preshana Farms P.U.D. - Water Supply Investigations Dear Mark: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Attached for your review is the Basalt Water Conservancy District application for the proposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. The Preshana Farms P.U.D is to be located in the Catherine Store area just east of Carbondale, Colorado. The attached Basalt Water Conservancy District contract will provide for up to 54 single family residences and an equestrian center. We have converted the future uses to EQRs to provide flexibility in future planning. We have included 2 EQRs to server the commercial uses associated with the equestrian center. We have assumed that these 54 single family units ( 51 residences and 3 employee units) and the commercial EQRs will each be occupied by 3.5 people using 100 gallons of water per person per day. Water will be diverted to irrigate up to 2,500 ft2 of lawn at each residence. We have also included 30 livestock units in the water service plan. Table 1 presents the diversions and consumptive use for the proposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. As can be seen from Table 1, the subdivision will divert on the average 31.61 AF, and consumptively use 8.01 AF. The peak month of June would require a continuous diversion average diversion of 30.5 gpm. The Subdivision is located within area A of the Basalt District and will be eligible for the Basalt District temporary exchange plan approved by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Water Resources, until such time as the augmentation plan moves through water court. We have reviewed the local geology for the possibility of available water in the Preshana Farms P.U.D. area. We estimate the Roaring Fork Alluvium is approximately 40 or more feet thick in this location. It is our opinion that water should be obtainable within the Roaring Fork Alluvium and/or adjacent Quaternary terrace. The Preshana Farms P.U.D. proposes to construct test wells to fully evaluate the water • • supply for the proposed Preshana Farms P.U.D. The test drilling program will be completed prior to the submission of the preliminary plat. In addition, pump testing of the test wells will be completed with a minimum continuous testing period of 24 hours on one well. Water samples will also be collected for quality analysis at an independent laboratory. Water quality tests will be performed based on Colorado Department of Health community water supply requirements. Supplemental Irrigation will be supplied to the P.U.D. through the Basin Ditch to the extent water is available. Based on the above information we believe that a water supply can be developed to serve the Preshana Farms P.U.D. If you have any questions, please call our Glenwood Springs office at 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. \',n,ow. j A .G�1eewQIV'l Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. President cc: Ron Liston L:\97420\Gar.Itr.wpd • APPLICATION FOR WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 1. Applicant's Name(s): Bruce Ross Address: P.O. Box 935, Basalt, CO 81.621 Telephone Number: ( 970) 927_0313 2. Type of land use (development) proposed for water allotment contract: (i.e. single family home, subdivision, gravel pit, etc.) PUD subdivision 3. Legal description of property on which District's water rights and/or Ruedi Reservoir contract water shall be used; Quarter Quarter, Section, Township, Range (attach map) *: see attached 4. Elevation zone of property X 6-7,000 ft. 7-8,000 ft. 8-9,000 ft. 5. Name and legal description of water supply diversion point(s); include Quarter Quarter, Section, Township, Range, bearing and distance from nearby Section corner. (Identify if well, spring, pipeline, etc.) If diversion point is a well, please provide the State Permit No. Exhibit A for legal descriptions,.. 6. Has Applicant applied with the Water Court for water rights, change of water rights and/or a water right plan for augmentation? Water Court Case No. yes xX no; If yes, what is the 7. Proposed waste water treatment system: (please check) x Tap to central waste water treatment facility Septic tank/leachfield system Evapotranspiration system Other: 8. Proposed use of water: (please check) X X Domestic/Municipal (single family home(s),duplex(s),condominium(s), mobile home(s), apartment, hotel). Please complete page two of this application. Commercial (office, warehouse, restaurant, bar, retail). Please complete page three of this application. Industrial (gravel pit, manufacturing). Please complete page three of this application. Agricultural (crop irrigation, stock watering). Please complete page four of this application. Date on which the county or other applicable governmental entities approved the land use which you seek legal water service: pending for documentation evidencingsuch a � (Note: Copy of the Resolution or other approval should be submitted with application. The undersigned acknowledges receipt of the District's form Water Allotment contract and agrees :. this Appli -tion is made pursuant to the term and conditions thereof. gnature t. Basalt Water Cons ncy District Water Allotment Ap ication Page' Two Please complete this page if you checked domestic/municipal use on Page 1, No. 8. DOMESTIC/MUNICIPAL WATER USES In -House Single-family residential home(s), Number of units: 54 Duplex(s) Condominium(s) Hotel/Apartment Mobile Home(s) see attached table Number of units: Number of units: Number of units (rooms): Number of units: Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space) Total area to be irrigated 2500/unitsq. ft. or 3. 1 0 acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) X Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Domestic stock waterin (cattle, horses) Number of animals: 30 Period of use (months): Other domestic/municipal uses not listed: vuJull VYULUI L. UI IJUI VUIIU Y' �JIJIIIUI Water Allotment Application Page Three • Please complete this page if you checked commercial or industrial use on Page 1 , No. COMMERCIAL WATER USES In -House Office(s), square footage: 2 EQR s (1 office) Warehouse/distributor, square footage: Retail, square footage: Restaurant, number of seats: Bar, number of seats: Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space) 2500 ft2EQR Total area to be irrigated sq. ft. or 0. 1 1 acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) X Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Other Commercial Usas Not Listed: 2 bathrooms at the equestrian center INDUSTRIAL WATER USES Please describe your industrial development in some detail: N/A Irrigation (lawns, parks, open space) Total area to be irrigated sq. ft. or acres Type of irrigation system: (please check) Sprinkler Flood (irrigation ditch) Basalt Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract Application Page Four Please complete this page if you checked agricultural use on Page 1, No. 8. Irrigation AGRICULTURAL WATER USE N/A Type of crop(s) (pasture, alfalfa, beans, etc.) and irrigation system: Crop Acres Sprinkler; Flood Crop Acres ; Sprinkler; Flood Crop ; Acres Sprinkler; Flood Crop ; Acres Sprinkler; Flood Stock Watering (cattle, horses) Number of animals: Months of use: Other agricultural uses not listed: Preshana Farms P.U.D. Estimated Water Requirements Water Use Inputs • • Consumptive Use (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Domestic Commercial Dom\Comm Open Space Live- Average In-house In-house Irrigation Irrigation stock Total Flow (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (gpm) 000inm(D(Rrnomo0 .-• .- N Q) " r h n N .- '- 0 0 0 0 .- ,-_.- 0 0 0 0 V V V V V V V V V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O O N C) N N 0 (D 0 0 O O O N N N V CO CO N O O O O O O r.- .- O O O O O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo r- o r- o o r- 0 n 0 D) CO CO CO D) CO D) 0) CO C) CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m . 00 0 N O O a 0 (0 V a O (o a Diversion Requirements (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Domestic Commercial Dom\Comm Open Space Live- Average In-house In-house Irrigation Irrigation stock Total Flow (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) (gpm) 1.798 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.043 1.91 13.9 1.624 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.039 1.72 13.9 1.798 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.043 1.91 13.9 1.740 0.06 0.29 0.00 0.041 2.13 16.1 1.798 0.07 1.74 0.00 0.043 3.64 26.6 1.740 0.06 2.19 0.00 0.041 4.04 30.5 1.798 0.07 2.08 0.00 0.043 3.98 29.1 1.798 0.07 1.35 0.00 0.043 3.26 23.8 1.740 0.06 1.14 0.00 0.041 2.99 22.5 1.798 0.07 0.37 0.00 ' 0.043 2.27 16.6 1.740 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.041 1.85 13.9 1.798 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.043 1.91 13.9 21.168 0.78 9.16 0.00 0.50 31.61 19.56 Month L ` ,, i _ y N w N 43 S' ` A A .(] N m g a 2 -)j 7 7 O. U> 0 -1(y, <00 0OI, _ 10 7 C < Water Resources Engineers EXHIBIT A Proposed Well locations for Preshana Farms P.U.D : Each of the proposed wells is located in SE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, of the 6th P.M. Appaloosa Well 1825 feet from the north line 2147 feet from the west line Located at a point whence the Northwest corner of Section 31 bears North 40°07'19" West for a distance of 2806 feet Arabian Well 1714 feet from the north line 1918 feet from the west line Located at a point whence the Northwest corner of Section 31 bears North 41°33'11" West for a distance of 2562 feet. Pinto Well 1579 feet from the north line 2040 feet from the west line Located at a point whence the Northwest corner of Section 31 bears North 37°28'30" West for a distance of 2569.5 feet. see file 96306/servarea2.dwg in the image files for details • • APPENDIX A (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 Sr'M SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 118 West 6th, uite 200 Glenw. • � mE0 81601 September 30, 1997 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Preshana Farms PUD Rezoning and Sketch Plan Mid Valley Metropolitan District Dear Eric: I 0091, cokF*---T4..0 COUNTY The purpose of this letter is to comment, as the engineer for the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (MVMD), on the above-mentioned application. As you may know, the Mid Valley Metropolitan District has entered into discussions with the Cerise property about pre -inclusion and annexation. As part of this discussion, the District has met on a more regional basis with the adjoining landowners in this area, including the St. Finnbar property, to discuss regional wastewater treatment needs. The District and the property owners have discussed that the District would become the owner and management agency for the St. Finnbar wastewater treatment facility. The District believes it is in the best interest of their existing constituents, as well as new homeowners of these properties to be included within the District. The Board of Directors of the MVMD has supported this concept and has directed staff to continue working with the landowners to structure this arrangement. As part of this arrangement, the District believes that all the wastewater collection lines should be designed as a part of the regional district, rather than just that specific development. The second reason the District supports this concept is that better control of water quality issues can be maintained. For instance, the Town of Carbondale and MVMD facilities have recently been notified that their wastewater discharges may contain an effluent limitation for ammonia. This is a new standard which previously had not been required. One of the justifications from the State Health Department for this ammonia limitation included growth in the area and expansions to facilities from Basalt, MVMD, St. Finnbar, Carbondale and Aspen Glen. The District believes that, if they are the owner and operator of this facility, they can better control the water quality issues of the Roaring Fork River. One of the main goals and objectives of the MVMD is protection of the Roaring Fork River quality and, as such, supports the concepts of regionalization and management through a District. The concept of providing water service to this area from the District, although discussed, has not been given much consideration at this time. This concept, however, should be thoroughly discussed and considered as part of the regional District discussions. September 30, 1997 Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 2 Finally, should this property be included within the District, the District would like to improve the communication with Garfield County staff. For instance, on the recently -completed Dakota Meadows project, which was the first project within the District and Garfield County, the project had actually received Final Plat approval from the County, yet, at the same time, did not have final approvals for water and sewer drawings from the District. This created platting problems which, to this day, are unresolved. Secondly, the Subdivision Improvements Agreement between Garfield County and Dakota Meadows and, specifically, the Letter of Credit was reduced for Dakota Meadows without consent of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. In the District's mind, the water and sewer lines were not complete and yet, the Letter of Credit was reduced. This created a situation where homeowners were actually receiving Certificates of Occupancy, yet the water and sewer lines were not complete and still have not been approved by MVMD. The District works very cooperatively with both Eagle County and the Town of Basalt, and believes as further development occurs in Garfield County, the same relationship may exist. The MVMD staff would be more than happy to sit down with Garfield County staff to resolve these issues. On behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, we would like to thank you for the chance to be a referral agency on this application. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. • Louis Meyer, P.E. LM:Ic/1501 C97 cc: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Lee Leavenworth, Esq. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC • • Carbondale 8c Rural Fire Protection District , Qwood Drive 4' !"'/"' ` agarbon0 CO 81623 � 963-2491 pp 1 99ttt�7 �9 �3�Li` 9 i F4°9 i ) 963-0569 September 16, 1997 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Preshana Farms PUD Rezoning & Sketch Plan Eric: I have reviewed the sketch plan proposal for the Preshana Farms PUD and would offer the following comments. Access The proposed road layout and access to the development is adequate for fire apparatus. Water Supplies Water supplies for fire protection are proposed to be supplied via a combination gravity and direct pumping system. The proposed storage is approximately 150,000 gallons with a proposed fire flow of 1000 gallons per minute. It is proposed that residences in excess of 3500 square would be required to be sprinklered. This is consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) - Appendix III -A. The spacing and distribution of fire hydrants in the development should meet the requirements of UFC- Appendix III -B. Impact Fees The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please call if you have any questions. Bill Gavette Fire Marshal MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 September 15, 1997 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 SEPI; -1997; I , iitil tit" ' LLD G04.314 Dear Sir, At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan for the Preshana Farm Subdivision and have the following comments and concerns about the project. Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated to prevent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any reseeding of the area. Monitoring of all seeding should be done to see if the grass is establishing or if weeds are becoming a problem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be implemented if a problem is noticed. The board is always concerned about animal control in an area where there is the potential for conflict between wildlife or domestic livestock and dogs from the subdivision. Dogs running in packs of two or more can maim or kill domestic livestock and wildlife. The District recommends animal control regulations be adopted in the covenants for the subdivision and that they be enforced. Of prime concern to the Board, is the proper maintenance and protection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New landowners should be informed that the ditch owners have right of way easement to maintain the irrigation system, that they will be cleaning and working on the ditch, and that this work may be in their yards. The district would like to know what the impact will be on the Wetlands in this area? All Wetlands should be protected and remain in as pristine condition as possible. The Board recommends that any irrigation water rights be used by the landowners so they are maintained. In order to use these rights, a raw water delivery system could be used for landscape, fire protection, open space, etc. If at all possible, this system should be incorporated into the infa-structure of the subdivision plans as it would be more cost efficient at this time. Their concern is always for soil and water conservation and preservation and plans should consider these concerns. Drainage has the pot ntial to be a problem in e area and engineering recommendations for control of drainage should be closely followed by the builder and/or homeowner. They felt that any disturbance of soil could adversely affect other landowners, and great care should be taken to mitigate as many of the problems as possible which arise when building on an alluvial fan deposit area. With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is concerned about monitoring chemical application for fertilizer, weed control, and other pest management reasons. Their concern is the chemicals that will be used to fertilize grasses and control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should be closely monitored in this area due to the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the soils and run off into the creeks. The District suggests drilling of wells to monitor ground water pollution, and that this expense and future expenses should be bore by the developer. Sincerely, Scotodero, President Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District a ' r • STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 9-14-97 Garfield County Planning 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Eric: XR,..1.8 1997 Cioki+ it L D i ; u 1TY REFER TO OF For Wildlife - For People I have reviewed the Preshana Farm PUD rezoning and sketch plan. Preshana's main value to wildlife is the riparian and wetlands along the southern boundary and Blue Creek. This habitat type is extremely valuable to many species of wildlife from mule deer, red fox, coyote, raccoon, mink, waterfowl, raptors, owls, and a variety of small mammals and neotropical birds (songbirds). Waterfowl will nest along the riparian area and wetlands as well as cavity nesters, raptors, and owls utilizing the cottonwoods for nest and perching sites. The area does contain a small resident population of mule deer which utilize the riparian corridor from the Roaring Fork River to Blue Creek and the southern end of Preshana. In addition, there is a mule deer crossing area just to the west of Preshana and deer will utilize the easement area between the Ranch at Roaring Fork and Preshana. Impacts to wildlife should be minimal as long as a movement corridor is provided, there is protection of the riparian/wetland area, and dogs are controlled. The proposal stated that pets will be restricted by protective covenants but it does not state what are those restrictions. Protective covenants generally do not work for pet control as there is little enforcement, neighbors do not like to turn in neighbors, and they can be changed :by a majoity vote. Roaming and uncontrolled dogs will have a major negative impact to wildlife in this area. Waterfowl nesting and use of the riparian areas will be disrupted. The Crown which is south of the property is critical winter range for mule deer and elk and roaming dogs would have easy and close access to this area resulting in chasing and harassment of wintering animals, displacement to less suitable habitat, direct and indirect mortality, etc. It is important that there be dog control; but as a condition of approval and not through protective covenants. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice -Chairman • Mark LeValley, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member Louis F. Swift, Member • John Stulp, Member • • The following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife;; 1. Maintain homesite locations outside of south open space area along Blue Creek. Homesites be located on bench above the creek as currently planned but with a minimum setback of 25' - 50' from back lot line. There should be no home or deck overhang to riparian/wetland area. 2. Maintain cottonwoods and dead snags along this riparain corridor. If some of the trees become a safety hazard they should be trimmed or topped and not fully cut down. A minimum 2-5 snags/acre should be maintained. 3. 1 dog/home with a kennel restriction. Kennel be constructed before C.O. is issued. 4. Fencing - There should be no fencing in the southerly riparian/wetland open space area or within the western open space easement between the Ranch at Roaring Fork and Preshana. All other fencing outside of the equestrian facilities be 42", 4 strand or less barb or smooth wire with a 12" kickspace between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing be the round or split rail type, 48", 3 rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. This is especially important to R-20 lots 1-11 and R-10 lots 1-10. 5. Bring the south boundary fence along Blue Creek into compliance with fencing recommendations from its current mesh wire state. 6. All utilities be buried or made raptor proof to prevent electrocution of raptors, owls, and eagles. 7. No horse grazing within the southern open space area along Blue Creek (riparain/wetland area) All homeowners should be made aware that deer and perhaps an occassional elk may cause damage to their ornamental and landscaping plants. The DOW is not liable for this damage. In addition, deer or elk may die on their property and the homeowner will need to properly dispose of the carcass. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since ely, Kevin Wrig t,,/ District. Wildlife Manager Carbondale r • • GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303 Telephone (970) 945-9150 Fax No. (970) 945-7785 MEMO TO: ERIC McCAFFERTY, PLANNER FROM: DON K. DEFORD RE: PRESHANA FARM P.U.D. DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 After initial review of the submittal for the Preshana Farm P.U.D., I have the following comments: 1. While the plan identifies a method of sewage disposal (St. Finnbar Sewage Treatment Plant), that method presumes that the Board will have previously approved both the St. Finnbar Development Plan, as well as state and local approval for the St. Finnbar Sewage Treatment Facility. Additionally, the plan identifies no guarantee mechanism for obtaining service from St. Finnbar or a method of service that will have some control by the homeowners of the Preshana Farm P.U.D. My recommendation is that the Board require that the central sewage system serving the Preshana Farm P.U.D. be contained within a special district controlled by those served by the treatment plan. This should occur prior to the submittal of the preliminary plan. Additionally, the Board should require the current approval of the St. Finnbar developers to the plan proposed by the Preshana Farm developers, as well as an engineering report indicating the capacity of the St. Finnbar plant and its ability to serve the development proposed for Preshana Farm. 2. The P.U.D. plan should identify emergency access for the cul de sac road servicing the Preshana Farm P.U.D. 3. The developers should identify the manner in which the equestrian center, anir apparent commercial use, is consistent with the comprehensive plan recommendations. 4. The identified open space contains potential commercial uses which may not be for the primary benefit of the homeowners of the Preshana Farm P.U.D. Both equestrian and other uses of the open space must be limited to the use of the homeowners, or the manner in which it is to be for their primary benefit, must be identified. • Memo to Eric McCafferty, Planner From Don K. DeFord, Esq. September 25, 1997 Page 2 5. In regard to the comprehensive plan density requirements, this P.U.D. would not seem to comply, requiring an amendment to the comprehensive plan prior to or as part of the P.U.D. approval process. Such an amendment may be obtainable based on a variety of factors, but as demonstrated by the Sunlight View application, general conformity with the comprehensive plan is required. Additionally, I do not believe this property is zoned for 1.2 acres per dwelling unit. That would be a unique zoning within Garfield County. 6. Any phasing plan anticipated for this project needs to be proposed and put in place at this time. Otherwise, the County will assume that the regulations will control and the property will commence development within one year from the date of the approval of the P.U.D. 7. The issues concerning open space and sewage treatment should be resolved at this time. I have spoken with the attorney for the Mid -Valley Water and Sanitation District concerning inclusion of the St. Finnbar plant in its area. That matter is currently under active consideration by that district. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. DKD:vlm • Town of Carbondale. 511 Colorado Avenue (970) 963-2733 Carbondale, CO 81623 FAX (970 September 29, 1997 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Building & Planning 109 East 8`" St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Preshanna Farms PUD Tivai Iia . � ) ()U S Y r�1Nr' Thank you for giving the Town of Carbondale the opportunity to respond to the PUD Zoning Amendment for Preshanna Farms. The Carbondale Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their September 251" meeting and they unanimously directed me to write the following letter. The primary issue is that the PUD Zoning for Preshanna as well as the Saint Finbar project and the related wastewater treatment facility are not in conformance with the land use densities of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Plan designates this area as Low Density Residential and provides for 10 plus acres per dwelling unit. It is no secret that the property owners between the Ranch @ Roaring Fork and the Dakota Project have had discussions with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District for provision of water and wastewater services and may propose a considerable up -zoning in terms of densities. The Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission strongly recommends that there be a discussion regarding what is the appropriate density from the Ranch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary. We actually thought that this discussion and analysis had been held earlier during the recent County Comprehensive Plan approval process. Discussing properties from the Ranch at Roaring Fork to the county boundary on an individual_ basis takes away from neighboring property owners as well as the public at large the ability to examine and comment appropriately on what may be a significant change for this area. It would also dilute the ability of the general public to discuss the positive and negative aspects of any proposed change to the land use classifications for the Comprehensive Plan in this area. With the skyrocketing cost of housing, higher densities may be appropriate but this discussion has not yet taken place in a public forum. Please remember that Garfield County, Glenwood Springs and the Town of Carbondale have gotten together a few times over this past year to discuss land use planning on a cooperative basis. What came out of these discussions was a proposal to have relatively dense urban cores with an urban growth boundary for the towns in the area beyond which development would be rural in nature. Installation of urban services and a significant up • • zoning from the Ranch @ Roaring Fork to the county boundary seems inconsistent with these discussions. As you can see, Carbondale's discussion was much more centered on the "macro" issues of this proposal as opposed to the specifics. The only other suggestion the Town of Carbondale has to offer is to point out that the zoning text for the PUD does not put any restriction on the number of single family dwellings or the number of multi -family dwellings in the Equestrian District. This would result in a conflict with the land use summary chart as provided in the application. Once again, thank you for letting Carbondale comment on this proposal. Please call me if you wish to discuss any of the issues in this letter. The Carbondale Planning Commission would also welcome a meeting with the Garfield County Planning Commission to discuss a'l._ any of these larger issues. Sincerely, orkr)m—k. A, c ,,.,, Michael Hassig, Chairman Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission ot,5j-,e0 G, 1)9 November 26, 1997 111 GEEK w �2 cI1 ME tiF ROAR%N�' Board of County Commissioners Garfield County State of Colorado 109 Eighth Street Ste. 301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Dear Boai d Mei bet s , �; .., . it i►',r,', i��'1 I am writing this letter in response to the petition of Henry and Lana Trettin and Bruce Ross that has requested a planned unit development modification with property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado. It is my understanding that there will be a public hearing on this application on the eighth day of December 1997. Because of prior commitments I will be unable to attend this meeting, but I would ask this letter to be submitted to all Board Members and read at that meeting. As owner of the Blue Creek Ranch immediately adjacent to that Trettin property I would like to voice my protest at the high density of this proposed PUD. I have owned the Blue Creek Ranch for over twenty years and have continued its rural character by operating it as a cattle ranch. All of us who have come to Colorado either by birth, or by choice, love, respect and enjoy the vast natural resources that are there. Although land owners have rights to develop their property, surely they must do so with reason and restraint. To put such a "Manhattan -like" high density in such a rural environment truly destroys forever the beauty of our wonderful community. Because of this I am asking the Board of Commissioners to turn down this application and instruct the owners to come back with a less dense, more responsible dpplil.ctLivii. Thanking you in advance. Sincerely yoyrs, William J. G ligan f 3222 Road 100, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (303) 963-3475 November 21, 1997 Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 1542317 NOV 85 1997 GARFIELD ISSAAERS Re: Henry & Lana Trettin and Bruce Ross request for zoning change. Hearing: 2:00 p.m. on December 8, 1997 Dear Commissioners: As I am unable to attend the hearing scheduled, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed PUD modification. My concern is that the valley continues to build more and more homes and it appears to me that it is being done without considering the impact on the environment and the existing infrastructure. Highway 82 is maxed out as everyone knows. There are some 500 homes being built in El Jebel next to City Market. St. Finnabar is on the planning table which is directly adjacent to this proposed site. Is the state going to allow these developments to build their own sewer systems? I have read in several articles published in the Glenwood Post and Aspen Times that the state was going to put an end to the growth of individual sewer systems. People who would buy homes here would most likely work in the Aspen-Snowmass area and as I mentioned earlier, Highway 82 cannot handle any more cars and won't be able to in the foreseeable future. Besides the issue of congestion, there is the issue of air pollution. There are many other questions that need to be studied before we allow this growth to continue. Are we going to allow an investor's greed, to destroy why we have chosen to live in this valley. The beauty of open space and a clean environment need to be protected or else we are going to turn this valley into another Southern California. People will move on to other places if they have to spend 3 hours commuting to work. We moved here to escape that life style and it frightens me to see it get any worse that it is now. We are destroying the down valley to service a town that will not allow growth which would destoy its marketability in the ski industry. Please protect our open spaces and don't let growth go on unchecked as to what our infrastructure can handle. Sincerely, Jerry and Vicki Garwood • 0