HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Referral Commentst Water Engineers, lnc.
SlBColoradoAve.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 8l 602
(970)94s-7755 rEL
1970)945-9210 FAX
(303) 893 l608 DENVER DIRECI LINE November 6, 1997
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
RE: Rose Ranch P.U.D. and Sketch Plan Review
Dear Ms. Giannola:
on behalf of Garfield county, wright water Engineers (wwE) has reviewed the Rose Ranch
planned Unit Development tir.u.pf and Sketch Plan submittal dated September 26, 1997, the
Geotechnical Report dut d October 29, lgg7 , and the Highway Access Permit dated October 27,
1997. This letter report reviews water supply, wastewater, water quality, drainage'
soils/geology, wetlands, erosion, sediment control, utilities, and traffic related issues.
FINDINGS
Based on our review, we offer the following comments'
Water Supply
1. Based on the information in the Zancanella & Associates report, we believe an
adequate physical potable water supply can be obtained through either a surface
water diversion from the Roaring Fork River or from a well fietd in the alluvial
aquifer. An initial rest well has been drilled with an estimated yield of 75 gallons
per minute (gpm). This would indicate that multiple wells will be needed for the
project.
Z. The storage tank site is currently shown west of County Road 109 on the south end
of the property. The terrain appears to be very steep (65%) and access could be
difficult. Visual impacts and alternative sites should be considered.
3. From an engineering point of view, a water augmentation plan can be developed
as outlined in the Zancanella & Associates Septembet 26, 1997 letter report
utilizing the Robertson Ditch, Glenwood Ditch water rights, and on-site storage'
Contract water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District or other sources
could be utilized in place of on-site storage and/or the Glenwood Ditch water
DENVER {303) 480-l 700 DURANGO 19701 259 741t BOULDER - l3O3) 473 95OO
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
November 6, 1997
Page 2
rights. An application for a plan for augmentation for the potable water system
was filed in the Division 5 Water Court on October 31, 1997 tn Case No.
97CW236. The water court application appears consistent with the potable water
demands for the project. Irrigation of the golf course has apparently not yet been
addressed with a water court application. The final court decree should be obtained
before approval of the preliminary plan.
Soils/Geology
4. As noted in the geotechnical report, there are two debris fans. One located on the
north and one located on the south ends of the site. The debris fans flow from
west to east across County Road 109. Development is proposed on these fans.
Before development of preliminary plans, we recofilmend the geotechnical engineer
quantify the debris flow and design mitigation and conveyance facilities
accordingly.
The project proposes the use of ponds and infiltration systems for stormwater,
water quality, and water features. As noted throughout our review, we encourage
these practices, but caution that designs must consider the effect of water on the
soils and subsurface conditions. The geotechnical engineer should review all
ponding locations, infiltration systems, irrigation proposals, and water features.
Note that the October 29, 1997 Geotechnical Report by Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc. states that "water should not be allowed to pond which could
impact slope stability and foundations. " In addition, they recommend landscape
irrigation be restricted.
What is unclear, at this point, is if these restrictions will effect the entire concepts
used for the sketch plan and P.U.D. In particular, the design of the golf course,
proposed water features including the Robertson Ditch and stormwater routing,
road and lot layouts, and location of utilities would likely be affected.
Wastewater
5. This proposal includes 354 units for 550 EQRs; however, based on the agreement
pr"r"rt"d in the appendix for the sketch plan submittal, the Aspen Glen Water and
Sanitation District could provide up to 428 EQRs for the Rose Ranch. It is unclear
if this will require plant expansion beyond current capacity. We recommend the
applicant clarify the service agreement, address plant expansion, etc. A letter from
the District indicating its willingness to serve, contractual obligations, and
conditions for service may also be helpful. This should be completed prior to
approval of the P.U.D.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
November 6, t997
Page 3
6.
Wetlands
Wetlands have been delineated along the river corridor of the Roaring Fork River.
This wetlands boundary and the 100-year boundary coincide in many locations,
both running parallel with the river. The sketch plan submittal shows
approximately 60 lots that extend into and beyond the limits of the wetlands and
tbb-year floodplain lines. The portion of the lots that are outside the wetlands and
100-year floodplain appear to have adequate space for the development of a house.
Therefore, we recorrmend that the back lot lines be truncated to extend no further
than the wetlands and 100-year floodplain boundaries and if possible, include a
buffer zone. At the minimum, we would suggest a Z5-foot setback from the
wetlands boundary.
A field inspection of the property should be made by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to ensure that all 404 permit issues are adequately addressed.
Ditches
The Robertson Ditch flows through the center of the site and is approximately
parallel with the Roaring Fork River. It has been proposed to utilize the ditch for
water features including several ponds and minor drainage ways. We recommend
a formal agreement be made between the development and other ditch users (i.e.,
Westbank) on how the ditch will be operated and maintained in the future. Culvert
sizing and capacity needs to be agreed on. Seepage from the ditch should be
reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
The drainage report addresses the use of the Robertson Ditch to collect some
stormwater uphill of the ditch itself. Our recommendation is to discourage this due
to concerns for water quality from surface water runoff from areas exposed to
fertilizing and pesticides. We recommend a buffer zone be maintained along the
Robertson Ditch and that surface water runoff be directed away from the ditch
itself.
Drainage
The northeast Dry Park Drainage Ditch is proposed to be maintained in its current
configuration and discharge runoff directly to the Roaring Fork River without any
alteration. The channel does not appear to be stable and some stream bank
restoration may be necessary. This should be evaluated in conjunction with the
debris flow analysis. In addition, the existing culvert under County Road 109
appears to be undersized for the anticipated design flows for either the 25-year or
the 100-year events.
7.
8.
9.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
November 6, 1997
Page 4
10.According to the drainage report, the Northeast Dry Park Drainage Ditch has
reported icharacteristics of a debris channel. " The drainage report addresses this
by committing to protection of the channel in combination with debris fences,
vegetated planting, and other mitigating measures. Note that the debris flow
anilysis may have an impact on the layout of the current development plan (see
Geotechnical Analysis dated october 29,1997 by Hepworth-Pawlak).
The Northeast Dry Park Drainage and Robertson Ditch intersect each other as they
do in existing conditions. This crossing should be addressed as to its adequacy
and/or improvement.
The drainage report recommends the use of settling ponds or wetland ponds for
water qualiiy of on-site stormwater. We recommend the County encourage the use
of thesi types of Best Management Practice (BMP). Pond design should consider
the impacts on soils and slope stability.
The drainage report recommends the use of culverts sized to accommodate Z\-year
storm and, in some cases, the 100-year Storm. We recommend that a minimum
culvert size be 18 inches in diameter and be constructed with headwalls and end
sections.
The drainage report recommends the use of rapid sand filters and other infiltrating
BMPs to treat surface water runoff from parking lots. We recommend the County
encourage use of these types of BMPs with consideration of the geotechnical issues
discussed herein.
The drainage report commits to the acquisition of a NPDES permit prior to any
construction.
The precipitation depths used in the drainage report appear to be low when
comparedlo the NOAA Atlas II, Volume III for Colorado which indicates that the
Z5-year,Z4-hour storm has a2.Z-rnch depth and the 100-year, Z|-hotr stofln aZ'l-
inch depth (versus a2.0" and2.4"). All other calculations appear to be adequate
for this level of detail.
The plan should provide adequate setback buffers for all development, from
streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands.
No detention facilities are proposed to attenuate peak flows on the site. While this
is within the rules and regulations of Garfield County, there were no calculations
to support the conclusion that the development does not adversely increase the peak
runoff rates.
11.
12.
t3.
t4.
15.
t6.
t7.
18.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
November 6, 1997
Page 5
22.
19.
20.
21.
23.
Water Ouality
A maintenance plan should be developed for all BMPs.
The project submittal discusses several BMP practices that will be used for the golf
.ouri. which includes minimizing watering, optimizing fertilizer usage, use of sand
filters and grass swales for the golf course. We recommend that BMP practices
be extended to individual lawns and parks, especially those areas that are in close
proximity to water courses.
The submittal proposes to improve water quality through the use of the noted
BMps. We recommend that a water quality sampling and monitoring plan should
be developed to identify existing water quality for surface and groundwater
resources and monitor any changes due to construction and after development.
We recommend a snow storage plan be developed including any area that will be
used for storage of snow that has been plowed and removed'
Golf Course
The golf course design should include the following design recofilmendations.
a. Direct runoff away from sensitive areas such as streams, shallow
groundwater, wetlands, etc. into areas where ponding and infiltration can
occur.
b. Include buffers for Robertson Ditch and the Northeast Dry Park Drainage
Ditch where they transverse the golf course.
c. Select seed mixtures for turf and native grass that are compatible.
d. Preserve and reuse existing topsoil.
e. Consider underdrains at tees and greens for storage and passive treatment of
contaminated leachate to protect groundwater'
f. Provide adequate setback buffers for all development from streams, rivers,
lakes, and wetlands.
g. Strictly limit the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Use appropriate types for
site conditioning on a management unit basis.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
November 6, 1997
Page 6
26.
An Integrated Pest Management Plan should be developed, including use of
BiologiCal Treatments (i.e., use of pest resistant turf grass, establishing
populations of natural enemies, maintain balance turf grass ecosystems, use
of mechanical seeding, etc.).
Develop Source controls, spill prevention, and spillway emergency plans for
storage and handling of pesticides, fertilizers, and fuel.
j. Develop record keeping systems.
Final irrigation issues must be addresses for the golf course including effects on
subsurface soils and stability and water source for the upper (western) golf course.
The section of golf course located on the western portion of the site is on very
steep terrain and will require extensive erosion control, not only for construction,
but also under developed conditions.
Access to the site will require very high retaining walls and significant earthwork.
Several areas appear to require walls that are at least 40 feet tall. Slope stability
must be evaluated, especially with the introduction of irrigation water. Visual
impacts should also be reviewed.
Traffic/Roads
The north entrance to the project is off of County Road 109. This access point is
located on a relatively steep portion of the road and with very poor site distance.
We recommend that this entrance location be moved south to a flatter area with
better visibility for both the turning traffic and the oncoming traffic'
The existing entrance road into the ranch (the old railroad bed) is elevated a
substantial height above the surrounding ground. Will this be left in its current
configuration or do the plans include removing this portion of the road?
The main road through the center of the site appears to coincide with an existing
bench near the vicinity of Lot 56. The difference in grade from toe to top of this
bench should be considered in the road configuration, as well as the ability to
access the lots on each side of the road. There are several other areas on the site
that appear to have large benches or change in elevation in short distances which
would make road construction difficult and/or lot accessibility difficult' This
should be evaluated carefully as it could impact the current layout'
The lengths of the cul-de-sacs should be reviewed by the fire department.
h.
24.
25.
21.
28.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
November 6, t997
Page 7
29. A typical road section should be developed.
The main road through the center of the site will require a drainage crossing over
the Northeast Dry Park Drainage Ditch. Will this crossing be accomplished with
a culvert or is a bridge necessary? Debris flows should be considered here also.
The horizontal and vertical road geometry has not been reviewed since the road
layout is shown schematicallY.
The project has not proposed to build any sidewalks on cul-de-sacs. However,
there are a large number of cul-de-sacs serving many of the lots and may be better
served with sidewalks. Some of these cul-de-sacs are serving as many as 12 to 14
homes each and twice that for cul-de-sacs serving some of the duplex lots.
The Access Permit issued by CDOT requires the intersection at Highway 82 be
redesigned to operate at Level C. The traffic report indicates that the current
conditions are already at kvel F, and with the Rose Ranch development, traffic
will continue to be a Level F. Furthermore, the traffic study indicates that even
with the addition of accel/decel lanes, operations will still be at Level F.
Therefore, it is very likely that signalization would be required in addition to
accel/decel lanes to upgrade to Level C. No other alternatives were presented such
as the use of the existing signalized intersection at the C.M.C. turnoff on Highway
82.
The CDOT Access Permit requires the reconstruction of County Road 154 such
that the first 50 feet is no steeper than 2 percent. This should be reviewed for
feasibility of construction and extent of impact.
The CDOT Access Permit reserves the right to stop left-hand turns onto Highway
82. It does not clarify the circumstances under which this could happen.
Trails
The Regional Trail shown along Highway 109 should be moved to the east side and
extend along the entire length of the project. It is our understanding that Aspen
Glen's trail will also be on the east side. Connections to Westbank should also be
considered at PreliminarY Plan.
We recommend that all trails, including the internal trails, be open for public use.
30.
31.
32.
JJ.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
November 6, 1997
Page 8
Utilities
Utility design and layout was not included in this submittal since it is not required
for Sketch Plan level design. It appears, however, that some of the lots may be
difficult to serve with sewer (by gravity) since they are lower in elevation then the
roadway. Of particular concern are the lots that border the Roaring Fork River.
Should the sewer lines be moved to the rear lot lines for gravity service, we
recorrmend a buffer be established to protect the wetlands and to remain outside
of, and above, the 100-year floodplain.
We recommend the sewage lift station site be shown on the Sketch Plan Drawings.
We recommend the water supply treatment and pump facility building be shown on
the Sketch Plan Drawings.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
PMB/MJE/dlf
92t-047.030
38.
39.
40.
PreedlW.Bailey, P.E.-'bbyl
Senio"r Water Resources
, P.E.
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5, COLORADO
Case No. :,'t/, k) i3 (
:OPY
')riginal Ffi5x5 ,/'C ?/. Z--z
Bv i22
Orputy
APPLICATION FOR TNDERGROUND WATER zuGHTS, SURFACE WATER RIGHTS,
STORAGE WATER RIGHTS, CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS, AND APPROVAL OF
PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER zuGHTS OF ROARING FORK
INVESTMENTS, LLC TN GARFIELD COTINTY
l.Name and address of Applicant:
Roaring Fork Investments, LLC
c/o Heggemeier and Stone, P,C.
19555 East Main Street, Suite 200
Parker, CO 80134-7374
c/o Scott Balcomb, Esq.
Edward B. Olszewski, Esq.
Delaney & Balcomb, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
(970) 945-6s46
CLAIM FOR UNDERGROUI{D WATER RIgHTS
Names of wells and permits, registration or denial numbers: Rose Well l. Lilac Well 2.
Columbine Well 3, Orchid Well4, Tulip Well 5, Daisy Well 6. Lill' Well 7, and Carnation
Well 8, permits being applied for.
3. Legai description of wells:
A. Rose Well l: A Well located in Government Lot I I of Section l, Towaship 7 South,
Range 89 West of the 6'h P.M. at a point whence the Northwest corner of said Section
I bears North 67"37'28" West a distance of 2201.8 feet. This well can also be
approximately plotted as being 3450 feet from the East section line and 3500 feet
from the South section line.
2.
B. Lilac Well2: A Well located in govemment Lot 12 of Section 1. Townstup 7 South,
Water Division No. 5
Casc No.
Roaring Fork lnvestments. LLC
Applicition for Underground Water Riglrts. Surface Water Rights. Storage Water Riglts'
Cirange of Watcr Rights. and Approval of PIan for Augmentation
Page 2
Range 89 West of the 6'h P.M. at a point whence the Northwest corner of said Section
I bears North 68032',26" West a distance of 1704.16 feet. This well can also be
approximately plotted as being 3900 feet from the East section line and 3700 feet
from the South section line.
Columbine Well3: A Well located in Govemment Lot 11 of Section l' Township
7 South, Range 89 West of the 6'r' P.M. at a point rvhence the Northwest corner of
said Section ib.*, North 68o38'35" West a distance of ?613.72 feet' This weil can
also be approximately plotted as being 3050 feet from the East section line and 3400
feet from the South section line'
Orchid Well 4: A Well located in Government Lot i 0 of Section l ' Township 7
South, Range 89 West of the 6'h P.M. at a point whence the_Northwest corner of said
Section 1 bears North 6129'50" West a distance of 3170'28 feet' This well can also
be approximately plotted as being 2700 feetfrom the East section line and 2850 feet
from the South section line.
Tulip Well 5: A Well located in Govemment Lot 17 of Section l, Township 7
South, Range 89 West of the 6'h P.M. at a point whence the Northwest corner of said
Section I bears North 55046',21" V/est a distance of 3674.17 tbet- This well can also
be approximately plotted as being 2450 feet from the East section line and 2300 feet
from the South section line.
Daisy Well 6: A Well located in Government Lot 16 of Section I' To'*nship 7
S*,f1 n*ge 89 West of the 6'h P,M. at a point whence the Northwest comer of said
Section 1 bears North 5 1032',04" west a distance of 2795.45 feet. This well can also
be approximately plotted as being 3300 feet from the East section line and 2600 feet
from the South section line.
Lily Well 7: A Well located in Govemment Lot l2 of Section 1' Township 7 South'
n*_n. gq west of the 6'h P.M. at a point whence the Northw'est corner of said Section
I bears North 48013'39" West a distance of 2131.83 feet. This well can also be
approximately ploned as being 3900 feet from the East section line and 2900 feet
from the South section line.
carnation well 8: A Well located in Government Lot 12 0f Section l. Township 7
Souttr, Range 89 West of the 6'h P.M. at a point *hence the Northwest comer of said
Section I bears North 37006'53" West a distance of 1657.78 feet. This *'ell can also
be approximately plotted as being 4350 feet from the East section line and 2900 feet
C.
D.
E.
F.
G,
H.
Water Division No. 5
Case No.
Roaring Fork Investments, LLC
Applicition for Underground Water Rights. Surface Water RiShts. Storage Water Rights.
Cirange of Water Rights' and Approval of Plan for 'A'ugmentation
Page 3
C.
Amount claimed: 200 gpm, conditional for each well'
Proposed use:
(3)
B.
from the South section line.
Source for allwells: Alluvium and Eagle Vallel Formation, tributary to the Roaring
Fork fuver
Depth for all wells: 200 feet
Date of appropriation: ivlaY 2,1997
How appropriation was initiated: Field location. formation of intent to place \4'ater
to beneficial use, drilling and construction of test well'
Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A
A.
B.
6
7
A.If irrigation, complete the follou'ing:
(1) Number of acres historically irrigated: N/A'
(2) Total number of acres proposed to be inigated: 82.07 acres for all wells
combined.
Legal description of the land to be irrigated: Land located in parts of Section
35. Township 6 South. Range 89 West. and Sections 1,2 and 12, Township
7 South, Range 89 West,6'i'P.M.
(4) Area of lawns and gardens irrigated: 82.07 acres for all wells combined'
If non-irrigation, describe purpose fully: The above referenced wells will be used for
irrigation, domestic, commeicial and fire protection uses and w'ill serve a potable
*.ater supply s.vstem for a golf course/residential development of approximatel-v-' 354
units. For water supply planning purposes, the development demands have been
conservatively estimat.alo U. 550 Equivalent Residential Units ("EQR's")' The
equivaient of 6500 sqwre feet of lawn and garden irrigation per EQR will be used
toaccount for irrigation of lawns and gardens minimai outside uses for each EQR
5.
B.
location and
8.
9.
10.
11.
t2.
13.
Water Division No. 5
Casc No.
Roaring Fork Invcstments. LLC
npplicition for Underground Water Rights. Surface Water Rights. Storage Water RiShts'
Change of Water Rights. and Approval o[ Plan for Augmentation
Page 4
B. How appropriation was initiated: Field
. watei to beneficial use.
C. Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A
Amount claimed: 7.5 cfs, conditional
Use or proposed use:
A. If inigation, complete the following:
(1) Number of acres historically irrigated: N'A'
(2)
(3)
CLAIM FOR SURFACE WATER zuGHTS
Name of structure: Posy Pump and Pipeline
Legal description and point of diversion: A Surface water diversion source located in
Government Lot 17 of Slction 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6'h P'M' at a point
whence the Northwest corner of said Section I bears North 57o02'42" West a distance of
3799.13 feet. This structure can also be approximatel-r- ploned as being 229A feet from the
East section line and 2300 feet from the South section line.
Source: Roaring Fork River
A. Date of initiation of appropriation: May 2,1997 '
formation of intent to Place
Total number of acres proposed to be irrigated: 82'07
Legal description of the land to be irrigated: Land located in parts of Section
35, Township 6 South. Range 89 West. and Sections l, 2 and 12, To"mship
7 South, Range 89 West.6'r'P.lvI.
(4) Area of larvns and gardens irrigated: 82'07
If non irrigation, describe Purpose fully: The above referenced water right rvill be
used as an altemate ,oura. for irrigation, domestic' Storage, commercial and fire
protection uses to serye a potable water supply system for a golf course/residential
ievelopment of 550 EeR';. The equivalent of 6500 square feet of lawn and garden
B.
14.
15.
Water Division No. 5
Case No.
Roaring Fork Investmcnts, LLC
Application for Underground Water Rights, Surface Water Rights: Storage Water Ri8hts.
Change of Water Rights. and Approval of Plan for Augmentation
Pagc 5
Source: Roaring Fork River
A. Date of initiation of appropriation:
B. How appropriation was initiated:
water to beneficial use.
inigation per EQR will be used to account for irrigation of lawns and gardens and
minimal outside uses for each EQR.
Name of structure: Lilac Pump and Pipeline
Legal description and point of diversion: A Surface water diversion source located on the
right bank oitt. Roaring Fork River at a point whence the NW Corner of Section 18, T. 7
S., R. 88 W. of the 6th P.M. bears N. 22o15"W. 1550 feet'
16.
t7.October 9,1997.
Field location and formation of intent to place
r8.
19.
C. Date rvater applied to beneficial use: NiA
Amount claimed: 7.5 cfs, conditional
Use or proposed use:
A. If irrigation, complete the following:
(l) Number of acres historically irrigated: N'A'
(2) Total number of acres proposed to be irrigated: 82'07
(3) Legal description of the land to be irrigated: Land located in parts of Section
35, Township 6 South, Range 89 West. and Sections 1. 2 and 12. Township
7 South, Range 89 West, 6'h P.M.
(4) Area of launs and gardens inigated: 82'07
B. If non irrigation. describe purpose fully: The above referenced water right rvill be
used as an alternate source for irrigation, domestic, commercial and fire protection
uses to serve a potable water supply system for a golf course,/residential development
of 550 EQR's. The equivalent of 6500 sqtrare feet of lawn and garden irrigation per
EeR u"ill be used to ui.o*t for irrigation of lawms and gardens and minimal outside
Water Division No. 5
Case No.
Roaring Fork lnvestrncnts, LLC
Application for Underground Water Rights. Surface Water Rights. Storage Water Rights.
Change of Water Righs. and Approval of Plan for Augmentation
Page 6
uses for each EQR.
20- Name of stntcture: Columbine Pump and Pipeline
21. Legal description and point of diversion: A Surface water diversion source located on the
left bank of Cattle Creek at a point whence the SW Corner of Section 7,T.7 S., R. 88 W. of
the 6th P.M. bears S 66o30"W. 1230 feet.
22. Source: Cattle Creek, tributary to the Roaring Fork River
23. A. Date of initiation of appropriation: October 9.1997
B. How appropriation was initiated: Field location and formation of intent to place
water to beneficial use.
C. Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A
24. Amount claimed: 7.5 cfs, conditional
25. Use or proposed use:
A. If irrigation, complete the following:
(l) Number of acres historically irrigated: N.A.
(2) Total number of acres proposed to be.irrigated: 82.07
(3) Legal description of the land to be irrigated: Land located in parts of Section
35, Torvnship 6 South, Range 89 West. and Sections l, 2 and 12, Township
7 South, Range 89 West,6'h P.M.
(4) Area of lawns and gardens irrigated: 82.07
B. If non irrigation, describe purpose fully: The above referenced water right will be
used as an alternate source for irrigation. domestic. commercial and fire protection
uses to serve a potable water supply system for a golf course/residential development
of 550 EQR's. The equivalent of 6500 squre feet of lawn and garden irrigation per
EQR will be used to account for irrigation of lawns and gardens and minimal outside
uses for each EQR.
Water Division No. 5
Case No.
Roaring Fork Investmcnts, LLC
Apptication for Underground Water Rights, Surface Water Rights. Storage Water Rights.
Change of '*'ater Rights, and Approval of Plan for Augmentation
Page 7
CLAIM FOR STORAGE WATER RIGHTS
26.
A.
leme of
Structurc
Lcgrl
Description
Amount
Cleirned
(AF)
Active
. Storrgc
(AF)
Derd
Storrgc
(rF)
Surfrcc
Arer
(.{c}
Pond
Dcpth
{Fr)
Rosc Rench
Pond No. I
A Pond located in Govemment
Lot 12 ofScc. 12. T.7 S., R.
89 W.. 6th P Iv{. at a point
from whence the NW comer of
said Sec. l2 bears N.
57"50'05'W. a distance of
4i00 feet.
1.88. cond.188 0.0 )8
Rose Rench
Pond \o. l
A Pond located in Govemment
Lot 9 ofSec. 12. T. 7 S., R. 89
w., 6th P.M. at a point &om
whence thc NW corner of said
Sec. l2 bears N. 63"26 55' W.
a distancc of4200 fect.
1 68. cond.168 0.0 s 8
Rose Rrncb
Pond No.3
A Pond located in Covcmment
Lot l3 ofScc. 12, T. 7 S.. R.
89 W., 6th P,M. ar a point
from whencc thc NW comer of
said Sec. 12 bcan N.
50"20'3 I' W. a distancc of
3514.53 fect
L52, cond.r .52 00 8
Rose Ranch
Pond )to. .l
A Pond locued in Govemment
Lot 8 ofScc. 12. T. 7 S.. R. 89
W., 6rh P.M. at a point from
whence the NW comer of said
Sec. I2 bcars N. 57'07'll" W.
a distancc of 1.t28. I 0 fcct.
3.28. cond.3.2 8 00 t.0 8
Rosc Ranch
Pond \o. 5
A Pond located in Governmcnt
Lot 28 ofSec. I. T. 7 S.. R. 89
W.. 6th P.M. at a point from
whence the NW comer of said
Sec. I bears N. 15'07'19" W. a
disrancc of 4526.54 fect.
4.8. cond..r.8 00 l5 d
Rosc Ranch
Pond No.6
A Pond located in Govemment
Lot 23 ofSec. I, T.7 S.. R. 89
w.. 6th P.M. at a point fiom
whence the NW corner of said
Sec. I bean N..13'15'21" W. a
distance of 3750.39 feet.
.10.0. cond.10.0 0.0 50 l0
Water Division No. 5
Casc No.
Roaring Fork Investmcnts. LLC
Application for Underground Water Rights. Surface Water Rights. Storage Water Rights.
Change of Water Rigits. and Approval of Plan lor Augmentation
Page E
Nrmc of
Structure
Lcgrl
Dcscription
Amount
Claimcd
(.{n
Acnvr
Storrge
(,{F)
Dtrd
Storegc
{AF)
Surfrce
Arar
(Ac)
Pond
Dcpth
(Fr)
Rose Rench
Pond No. 7
A Pond locatcd in Govcmment
Lot I I ofScc. I, T. 7 S.. R. 89
W., 6th P.M. at a point from
whcnce thc NW comcr of said
Scc. I bcars N. 55'59'36' W. a
distance of 2472.83 fcct.
4.0. cond.{0 0.0 l5 8
Rose Rench
Pond No. E
A Pond located in Government
Lot 12 ofScc. I, T. 7 S., R.89
W., 6th P.M. at a point from
whcnce the NW comer of said
Sec. I bean N. 3l'32'28" W. a
distancc of l80l.70 fect.
4.8. cond.48 00 li 8
Rose Rrnch
Pond No. 9
A Pond located in the NW I /4
of thc NWI/4. Sec. 12. T. 7 S.,
R. t9 W.. 6th P.M. at a point
from whencc the NW comcr of
said Scc. 12 bears N.
22"59'19'W. a distancc of
1075.41 feet.
24.0. cond.11 0 00 1.0 l0
Rosc Rsnch
Pond No, l0
A Pond located in Govcrnment
Lot 16 ofSec. 12, T. 7 S., R.
89 W., 6ih P.M. at a point
&om whence thc NW comer of
said Scc. l2 bcan N.
15'00'00" W. a distance of
4500.00 fect.
2.8, cond.1.8 0.0 1.0 8
O'Neill
Rcsrrvoir.
First
Enlersemcnt
A Pond located in Scc. 12, T. 7
S.. R. 89 W., 6th P.lvl. at a
point 1600 feer from the-E.
Secrion linc and 2100 fect
iom the S. Section line of
said Scc. 12.
21.0. cond.2l 0.0 42 l0
B. All ponds are off-charurel resen'oirs which will be filled from the either the
Robertson Ditch, Posy Pump and Pipeline, Lilac Pump and Pipeline. or Columbine
Pump and Pipeline, all as more panicularly described in this Application.
Rate of diversion for filling all ponds: 7.5 cfs, conditional.
C. Source: Roaring Fork River.
D. Date of appropriation for all ponds: October 2,1997.
How appropriation was initiated: Field location of pond sites and formation of intent
Name of
Strucrure
Date Entered Case Number Amount Appropriation
Date
Prioriry Number
Robertson Ditch 5i I i/1889 cA-132 4.0 cfs.,absolute 2,/l l/1883 52
Robertson Ditch 5i I l/1889 cA- 132 3.5 cfs.4i0lil885 n2
Robertson Ditch l0i?411952 cA-4033 9.0 cfs.4/02/t950 595
Water Division No. 5
Casc No.
Roaring Fork Investments, LLC
Application for underground warer Rights. Surface watcr Rights. Storage water Rights.
Change of Water Righrs, and Approval of Plan for Augmenration
Page 9
27.
to appropriate water to beneficial use.
Date water applied to beneficial use: N/A
Use:
A. If inigation, complete the following: N.A.
B. If non irrigation, describe purpose fully: The above referenced ponds will be used
for fire protection. aesthetic, recreation, and augmentation.
CLAI]VI FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS
Decreed name of structures for which change is sought: Robertson Ditch.
From previous decree:
Robertson Ditch
(l)
28.
29.
A.
Applicant owns 6.5 cfs of the 16.5 cfs decreed to the Robertson Ditch.
(2) Court: District Court
(3) Type of Water Right: Surface
(4) Legal description of point of diversion: Located on the westerly bank
Roaring Fork fuver at a point whence the SE Comer of Sec. i2,T. 7
89 W., 6th P.M. bears N. 27"56'W. 2788.14 feet.(5) Source: Roaring Fork fuver(6) Decreed use: Irrigation
(7) Historic use: Applicant's share of the Robertson Ditch has historically
of the
S.. R.
been
Watcr Division No. 5
Casc No.
Roaring Fork lnvestmcnts. LLC
Applicition for Underground Water Rights. Surface Water Rights. Storagc Water Rights.
Change ol'Water Rights. and Approval of Ptan lor Augmentation
Page l0
used to irrigate 98.7 acres of land located in parts of Sections 1,2 and12,
Township 7 South, Range 89 West,6'h P.M.
30. proposed change: In addition to the irrigation uses already decreed to the Robertson Ditch,
Apfticant seeks to add domestic, commercial. fire protection. storage (pond filling) and
augmentation uses.
31. Names of stnactures to be augmented: Rose Well l, Liiac Well 2. Columbine Well 3. Orchid
Well4, Tulip Well 5, Daisy Well6, Lily Well 7. Carnation Well 8. Posy Pump and Pipeline'
Lilac pump and Pipeline, Columbine Pump and Pipeline. Rose Ranch Pond Nos l- 10,
O'Neill Reservoir, First Enlargement and Robertson Ditch all as described above.
Are there other water rights diverted from these structures: No, except for the O'Neill
Reservoir, First Enlargement and the Robertson Ditch'
32. Previous decrees for water rights to be used for augmentation:
A. Robertson Ditch. As described above'
B. Reudi Reservoir:
(l) Ruedi Reservoir was originally decreed for 140,697.3 af in CA-4613,
Garfield Counqv District Court on June 20, 1958, with an appropriation date
of July Zg, lgiT . for hydroelectric power generation. irrigation. municipal,
domeitic, industrial, piscatorial, and stock watering uses. Subsequently. in
Case No. W78g-76, Water Division No. 5. the amount of water decreed to
Ruedi Resen oir was reduced from 140.697 .3 af to 101 ,369 af .
(2) Legal description: Located in parts of Section 7,8,9. 11. 14. 15, 16. l7 and
lg, Townstrip 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6'i'P.lv{. in Pitkin and Eagle
Counties.
(3) Ruedi Reservoir has historically been used for h.v-droelectric power
generation, augmentation. irrigation" municipal, domestic, industrial,
piscatorial, and stock watering uses. (Historic use for other Rights)
Augmentation water from Ruedi Reservoir u'ill be obtained via a \\'ater
Watcr Division No. 5
Case No.
Roaring Fork Investments. LLC
Application for Underground Water Rights. Surface Water Rights. Storage Water Rights.
Change ol Water Righs. and Approval of Plan flor Augmentation
Page I I
Allotment Contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District.
C. Green Mountain Reservoir:
(l) Date entered: October 5, 1955
(2) Legal description: Located in parts of Sections I l-i5.24, Township 2 South,
Range 80 West and Sections 17-21,28.29,33, 34, Township 2 South. Range
79 West of the 6'h P.M.
(3) Case No.: Consolidated Case Nos. 2782. 5016 and 5017
(4) Court: Federal District Court for the District of Colorado
(5) Source: Blue River
(6) Amount: 154,645 acre-feet
(7) Green Mountain Reservoir has historically been used for its decreed uses.
D. Wolford Mountain Reservoir
(l) Date entered: November 20, 1989
(2) Case Nos.: 87CW283. 95CW25
(3) Court: District Court, Water Division No. 5. Colorado
(4) Type of water right: Storage
(5) Legal description: The dam is located in the SWI/4 of the NEl/4, Section
25, Township 2 North, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M.
(6) Source: Muddy Creek and its tributaries, all ributar,v to the Colorado River.
(7) Amount: 59,993 acre feet.
(8) Appropriation date: December 14,1987.
Water Division No. 5
Casc No.
Roaring Fork Investrnents, LLC
Application for Underground Water Rights. Surface Water Rights. Storage water Rights.
Change of Water Rights. and Approval of Plan for Augmentation
Page 12
(9) Decreed uses: All uses including but not limited to domestic. municipal.
agricultural, and recreational uses.
(10) Historic use: 32,986 acre feet of the Wolford Mountain Reserv'oir have been
used for recreational and piscatorial purposes.
E. Rose Ranch Pond Nos. I - 10, and O'Neill Reservoir, First Enlargement as described
above.
33.STATEMENT OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION:
Applicant contemplates a residential development which includes 550 EQR's, a ciub house,
and several ponds. Domestic/municipal water service is contemplated to be from several w'ells and
the Applicant will construct a sufficient number of wells to achieve a dependable water supply.
The Applicant's development is located within the West Divide Water Conservancy District
and Applicant has applied for a Water Allotment Contract from said District. If Applicant is unable
to secure a West Divide Water Allotment Contract, Applicant will either: l) obtain a Green
Motrntain Reservoir Water Allotment Contact from the Bureau of Reclamation; 2) obtain a Wolford
Mountain Reservoir Water Allotment Contract from the Colorado River Water Conservation
District; or 3) make releases from the Rose Ranch Pond Nos. I - 10 and O'Neill Reservoir, First
Enlargement as described above. Out of prioriry depletions will be augmented by releases from
either Ruedi Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir (under a claim for exchange). Wolford Mountain
Reservoir (under a claim for exchange), or Applicant's on-site ponds, under the direction of the
Division Engineer in the course of administering the District's Water Supply Program.
WATER DEMANDS
The potable water system will be supplied either from eight w'ells (described above)
constructed on the properfy or through surface diversions (Robertson Ditch, Posy Pump and
Pipeline, Lilac Pump and Pipeline and/or Columbine Pump and Pipeline) from the Roaring Fork
River and/or Cattle Creek to a treatment plant. The raw water system will provide additional
irrigation for the main and shoulder seasons, and for pond demands. The raw water supply will be
physically supplied through surface diversions from the Roaring Fork fuver through the Robertson
Ditch, through the construction of one or more pump stations along the Roaring Fork River, or
through the wells. The attached Table 3 presents the estimated w'ater requirements and augmentation
sources for the proposed 550 EQR development.
Water Division No. 5
Case No.
Roaring Fork Investments. LLC
Application for Underground water Righrs. Surface warer Rights. Storage water Righrs.
Changc of Warer Rights. and Approval of plan lor Augmenrarion
Page 13
If operated as described above, the augmentation plan described herein will provide water
to Applicant's proposed development and will not injure other water users.
34. Name and address of owner of land on rvhich structures are located: Same as Applicant.
Respectfully submitted tnis.2lilAay of Octob er, 1997.
DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C.
Attorneys for Applicant
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Telephone: (97 0) 945-6546
Fax No.: (970) 945-8902
Edrvard B 6lsze'*'s kt #247 23
\1
i-rJ-<r->r--
'81
e-' '. '.Glen* . ',,: r'.t' nl
lly COmnfror,v.i .),t;rr': i ii::-7 I , JO01
Watcr Division No. 5
Casc No.
Roaring pof,tniltt *tq LLC
Application for undcrground wrtcr Righs, Surface watcr Rigfiu, Storagc watcr Righs,
9*g. of Watcr Righs. and Approval of plan for Augmenrarion
Pagc 14
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
coLrNTY OF GARFTELD )
Thomas A- Zancarrell4 upon oath, deposes and says that he has read the foregoingAPPLICATION FOR UNDERGROI.ND WATER RIGHTS, SURFACE WATER RIGHTS,STORAGE WATER RIGIITS, CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS, AND APPROVAL OFPLAN FOR AUGMENTATION, knows the contents thereof, and that the same are tme to the best
of his information, knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn before me this .+in a^y of october, 1997.
My commission expires:
Address:
Table 3
Rose Ranch
Robertson Dltch - Change of Use/Transfer Summary
Historic CU Credits associated with Rose Ranch Robertson Ditctr = 198.9 Ac-ft, Change = 120.6 Ac-Ft or 60.6%.
Historic inigated area = 98.7 acres, 60.6% to be changed = 59.8 acres, 38.9 acres to iemain inigation use.
,, 1WOl97 @:53 AM
Consumptive Demands ,Augme0tation & Storaqe Summary
Month
Horapt€ - pond Evqp - Shoulder Season lniOalion Robertson Ditcfr
Domesilc &
Commerdel
'ln- House'
Ae-Ft
DomesUc &
Commerdal
'OubUe'
Ac-Ft
Pond
EvaporaUon
leplacement
Ac-Ft
lrrlgatlon
Shoulder
Season Use
Ac-Fl
Toial
Ac-Ft
xocommonoeo
Robertson Ditch
Change/Transfer
of Use for
Augment of Mun,
Evap, & Slorage
Ac-Ft
Surplus
avelelble to
Storage
Ac-Ft
Augmentaton
Storege Releaac
Requiremenl
An-Ft
1 (2)(3)4 5 6 7 (8
Jan 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9
Feb 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Mar 0.9 0.0 2.5 9.0 12.4 0.0 12.4Apro.9 0.6 5.0 16.1 22.6 0.0 22.6
Mav 0.9 2.5 6.8 10.2 22.3 12.1 0.0
June 0.9 3.1 9.4 13.4 28.8 15.4 0.0
July 0.9 3.0 9.7 13.6 26.3 12.7 0.0Augo.9 2.O 8.7 11.6 22.6 11.0 0.0Septo.9 1.7 5.6 8.2 16.0 7.8 0.0Ocl0.9 0.6 3.1 1.7 6.3 ' 4.6 1.7
Nov 0.9 o.o o.3 10.0 11.2 0.0 11.2
Dec 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9
Total '1o.7 13.5 51.3 36.8 112.3 120.6 59.0 50.7
TABLE3.WK4
GARFIELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AGENDA
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
oGTOBER 20, 1997
8:00 County Administrator
8:30 Payment of Bills
8:45 Road Permit - Public Service to place Utilities in County Right of Way - Don Currie
9:00 Jail Discussion
9:30 GOMMENTS FROM crrzENS Nor oN THE AGENDA
9:45 County Business
]!,.a-'_,tl: , :,,r .,, f,,,...,,."- ili..--:,\,..i.,10:15 Department Heads
10:30 Public Hearing - Abatements
Huntington Engineering & Environmental; crystal euick Lube, lnc.;Bogue cons^truclion, lnc.; systems Fuels; Rifle printing; Mother o,Learys;Leonard E- Stuckham; Grizzly Liquors; LBLB, lnc. DBA Batflement Beei & Beverage
11:00 Annual Discussion - cororado Department of rransportation
12:oo Continued Annual Discussion - Colorado Department of Transportation
1:00 Road and Bridge Discussion
1:30 COMMENTS FROM CITITFNS NIN-r N rI ?I IF ' ^_-
Exh'b,,lr A
STATE OF COLORADO
RoV Romer, Governor
oebanrrvlrNT oF NATURAL REsouRcES
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
John Mumma, Director
5o60 BroadwaY
Denver, Colorado 80216
ietepnone: (303) 297-1 192
1-O-7'97
Garfield CountY Planning
l-09 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings, Co 81601
RE: Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch PIan
Dear Ms. Giannola:
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
The Rose Ranch contains a variety a wirdrife habitat types from
thelowerriparian/cottonwooa-"o*plextothesagebrushbenchestothe upper pinon-juniper_hillsides and ,.=i"tt, b6nches: A variety
of wildlife ,#"i;;-Iiirirt rhese areas as indicated in the
wildlife rePort.
TheRoseRanchcontainselkwinterrangeovermostoftheranch
and severe winter range ,""t'-"i-iOS noia and down into the
sagebrusn nencnes easi of 109 road' During l:iY'-?r winters elk
wilt utilize the sagebrush-o' Ln" ranch foi foraging' The site
also contains-*"r"-d""r ,irrt"r-i.rrg" and the area we-st of 1o9
Road contains winter "o,,"",,t'ation area and severe winter range.
Mule deer are impacted *ot"-Ln.., elk durf"q h"ta"r winters making
these winter range areas l*pJ't[""1.f", !h" 6verat health of the
population. .eracx bearuifi-i;habit tne area west of 1-09 Road as
they rorase rn the shrub ";;pi;;:--yoyl!ain
rion also inhabit the
area west or tne road ana ""i'fd be lured closer to the
subdivision as they fortow in"i. main prey source of mure deer'
In addition to the big game use of the property' 'tl" 'riparian
area along the Roarinq forf ni""t with ii;- ass-ociat'ed cottonwoods
and wetlands provide . .r.fr"nie habit"t-i"r- i variety of wildlife
species. cenlrally, these "iEu" are the most rich and diverse
in wildlife species. The "oltorrrood trees ""q 1:??ciated snags
provide "*""ii"r,L n.uit.t ;;; cavity nesting species as welr as
perching and-;;;ding sites for owrs' ttpiot;,' lll ?:q'"=' on the
east side of the river. qr".i blue'nerbn rookery is located in
the talt cottonwood treesj--.1n.t" is afso a single tree slightly
north and on the west side ";--[h; river which contains 3 heron
nests. This is an active """a qi"wlng rookery with 10 out L2
nests on the east side and z orit or : nests -on the east side
successfut in producing h"r;";:- 1nrr.-i= tn" largest and one of
the last viabl-e rookeries on the Roarinq Forx- River ' There is on
smarrer one rocated ,pstr"Im wnicn is siowty being abandoned'
DEPARTMENToFNATURALRESoURCES,JamesS.Lochhead,ExecutiveDirector
*TLDLTFE ."'['":U;;j: m:::: i['J[?".;lili .*i,l',f,![y":: :j;:]i[:,ihiXYa
ev' Secre'larv
Louis F. Swift, Member'John Stulp' Member
ffi
?-l
For
P.e
Bald eagles wiII utilize the heron rookery during the winter from
Dec. 1 - March 3l- for feeding and roost site. The eagles at
Aspen GIen have been followed to this spot on several occassions.
I disagree with the statement in the wildlife report that bald
eagle use of the Roaring Fork Valley is not limited by a shortage
of diurnal and nocturnal roost trees and feeding habitat. Eagle
use and presence in this vatley is determined by the
effectiveness of the riparian habitat to provide adequate
feeding, roost, and perch sites. These areas become less
effective with development pressures and associated disturbance
factors as the areas along the river is developed. I believe
that continued bald eagle use of the river is limited and
threatened. In addition to bald eagle use, a pair of golden
eagles nest each year west of l-09 road in the yellow cliffs below
the proposed overlook.
wildlife impacts will include the following and may change
depending upon the final plan:
1. Direct habitat loss of big game winter range and other
wildlife habitat from the development and the golf course.
This loss wiII not be offset by the creation of additional
foraging areas from landscaping and golf course as these
areas, especially the golf course, IldY be covered in snow
during the winter months. Winter range browse species will
be lost during the construction of the development and golf
course. Carrying capacity of the area will be reduced.
2. Displacement of big game and other species to less
suitable and desirable locations. This is a result of the
habitat loss as weII as the associated disturbance. How
long we can continue to develope winter range habitat
without major impacts is questionable as the same number of
animals are being crowed into less and less available
habitat.3. Disturbance to wintering rnrildlife. The wildlife report
stated that the 'rarea west of 1-09 Road will be
nonresidential open space and will be available for use by
deer and elk following developmentt'. This is highly
dependent on the amount of use, especially during the winter
months, dog control, closure periods to human activity,
compliance by the residents, and enforcement of any
restrictions. The upper active recreation area could have
significant impacts as well as cross country skiing in the
area west of 1"09 road during the winter.4. The upper 3.9 ac. active recreation area west of 1-09
road will not be a }ow impact use adjacent to wildlife area
as stated, but a potentially high negative impact if
utilized during the winter
?'3
5. The heron rookery lrill be threatened by users of the
floaters park and fishing park. Use of the rookery area as
proposed by the rafting companies during the nesting period
of March l-5 - July 15 will cause abandonment of the rookery.In addition, the high quality wetlands associated with this
area will be impacted and possibly altered by concentrated
human use. Herons will most likely abandon the nests in thetree on the west side of the river due to the closeproxinity of homes ans associated disturbance. The fishingpark will impact the rookery as it will attract people tothe area and fishermen will tend to wade the river in too
close proximity to the rookery. In addition, homesites 26-
38 could impact the rookery6. Use of the overlook trail west of 109 road may disrupt
golden eagle nesting and cause abandonment of the nest site.7. With increased vehicular traffic, and increase inwildlife/vehicle related accidents wilt occur8. Dogs running loose can negatively impaet wildtife,especially big game, through direct mortality, harassment,
displacement of wintering animals, etc.9. The golf course and associated ponds in the course and
subdivision will attract geese. Geese may cause problems
with damaging the greens and residents lawns andlandscaping. Deer and elk will also cause damage to thegolf course, especially the greens and landscaping.
Residents may also experience darnage to the landscaping andornamentals. The DOW is not liable for this damage.
The following recommendations will help to minimize impacts towildlife. Some of these recommendations will include closureperiods for certain areas or trails. This will only besuccessful with the cooperation and compliance of the residentsas weII as enforcement of the restri-ctions.1-. Heron Rookery - I am cumently working and negotiatingwith the proponents of the Sanders Ranch, which also liesadjacent to the rookery, for measures to protect the rookery
from that side. These measures will not be successful ifthe Rose Ranch promotes the rookery site as a floaters park.1. Vegetative screening be planted along the east sideof lots 26-38. Screen does not need to be a solid
screen, but needs to break up activity and disturbance
from the back yards to the rookery. The river willhelp separate this activity. Screening be in place
before construction of homes.2. No construction of homes on lots 26-38 from March1- May 3L
P.Li
3. Discourage use of floaters park. Maintain and
preserve this area in its natural habitat. If it is
used as a floaters park, the area should be closed from
March 1 - JuIy l-5 to human activity. The wetland
consultants indicated that this area contains very highquality wetlands and that these not be disturbed. They
also stated rrland be preserved given its high quality
habitat for birds and wildlife, and its floodplain
Iocationtt.4. Fishing park will impact the rookery success. Thispark could be relocated farther north to the north
section of PA 5. If it is not relocated, then there
should be a seasonal closure from March 1- - JuIy 15.
This would include installing a gate and signage above
the park on the trail leading down to the park
2. Area west of l-09 RoadL. No dogs in winter Dec. 1 - March 312. Seasonal closure to human activity from Dec. l- -
March 3L, including the upper active recreation area
and any cross country skiing. As stated in the
application and wildlife report, this area is left as
open space and available to the deer and elk afterdevelopnent. GoIf course maintenance excepted.3. Move 3.5 ac. upper recreation park to lowerIocation adjacent to the county road4. Any community grardens located within the activerecreation area may be damaged by grazing deer/elk.
May wish to move the location of the gardens to anotherlocation in the subdivision5. Seasonal closure on potential access easement
through Westbank Mesa to the western benches Dec. 1
March 31-6. Move overlook location and trail north to prevent
disturbance to golden eagle nest site. Nest is belowthe trail and overlook but human activity in this area
may cause abandonment of the nest. If trail and
overlook is not relocated or elirninated, then a
seasonal closure witn signs and gates be implemented
from March l_5 - JuIy 17. No trail construction during nesting period March
15 - JuIy 1
The followinq are additional recommendations to minirnize impactsto wildlife:1. A11 utilities be buried or raptor proofed2. No home or deck hangover into wetlands. 50' setback
from wetlands to homesite
?-5
3. No net loss of wetlands; install silt fence along
riparian area and wetlands to prevent erosion and siltation
into these areas and the river4. No fencing west of 1-09 Road, travel or open corridor
easements. Any decorative/landscaping fencing for golf
course be split or round rail type, 48n, 3 rail or less,
with at least l-8rr between 2 of the rails5. I applaud the restrictions in the covenants for dog
control. It would be better if these restrictions were a
condition of approval rather than in the covenants as
covenants can be changed and enforcement can be a problem
6. The covenants mentioned horses may be kept. If horses
are allowed in some areas, any horse hay be fenced at
otdners' expense with 8' mesh fencing to prevent hay damage,
to prevent attracting big game to ornamental plants of
neighbors, and to prevent mountain lions from being
attracted by a congregation of deer.7. Insert any trail/area closures in covenants under
Article IV, #tO8. No tree removal along the riparian, wetland, floodplain
areas. Any dangerous lirnbs be trimmed or the tree topped,
but not cut down9. A11 golf course runnoff be channeled into a settling
pond and wetland before entering river1-0. Pl-ant vegetative screen along east-west wildlifecorridor between lots 63t64, Lg3, L94, and l-95. Vegetative
screen plan to be reviewed by the DOWl-L. Pedestrian trait along wildlife corridor be placed on
the south side of the screenL2. The road construction for north-south traffic across
the gu1ley by lots 63,64,I94,L95 allow for deer/elk movement
under the roadway1-3. Brochures be provided to all residents about living
with wildlife. I have included some examples. Any brochure
should include information about the heron rookery, golden
eagle nest, and winter range values west of L09 roadL4. River be open to the public for fishing access
In addition, the DoW would be most interested in negotiating and
easement or lease for the heron rookery site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have anyquestions, please give me a call.
ldlife Manager
9ls-tzzt
+l ocr- B 1-s? as : 13 Am coLo_GEo_suRV.
H Exn, n, t t).Trll
3A3A942L74 P. 81
9 LCnnDCcotoRAoo cEOtOctcA[ suRVEY
Divislon uf Mirterals arrcl CcUlrrgy.
P;l;tm:J}::l:i::i:yii' 31-trFqlroru 7671 H
l.)envc,r, (.irlorirckr B0l0l
Plrrrrrrr (.)().1) Ltb(1261 I
FAX 0ol) 866 2461
)EI^Irl'Mt"
NATU]
R-E-SC)UI
Ruy Ri;rrirlrOclob('r 3),lrg7 ------+4<-r llll
,nntcs S Lr)(hhr,)r
Ms, Victoria (iiann,la Fr."ti!f r--.'i,!(rc|'
Mrr lr,r,./ li lorrg
Carf lcld Clounty Dcpnrtnront Building ancl plun,irrg r),v,\,,,,, r),,('(r,,,
109 8th Strcct, Suite 301 c vrr' (.r,r.irr
Glerrlvoocl Spii,igs, co gl60t lll',ill.:i:i','
RL: Rosc Ranch ptlD ancl Sketch pltn l,nnrt Usc Review
Dear Ms. Ciannola:
At yotrr rctlttcst anct itt Ac:cordirnc:t: t0 Senate Rill 3.5 (1g72) this otllcc- has rcvicwccl thctnatcrials stlbntittcd lirr this propctscil PUD sketclr l:'lan and concluctcd a sitc ilspcction .n c)c(,bcr28th antl with you on thc 29th, 1997. 'l'lrc pnrpcrty is on ttre southwest side of tltr: Roaripg IrorkRivcr vallc:y' with a sntilll sliver of lancl on thc nortlicast siclc ncar tlrc conllucnce witlr Ctatrle ClreekCt'oluorphologically, the site occupies nearly flat livcr tcrraccs, largc- bload allurrial lirrrs. criiluvialslopc.s, ancl dis.scctccl,.llc.clrock c.$carprnr.nts, ol'an olrtcr urosional surfircc, f)cvclopnrent in (his IargcPL]D is proposecl in all trf thc abovc gcornorPlric fcatur.,i. a golf cour.sc is p1rp6sc.d firr thr: str.c.pt:rbcdrt'rck &rt'6511"951of coultty Roatt l0q anct high to nroderatl clensity resirteptiarl 1rerrs r.lre pla,nertI(tr thc .lluviirl Ian, c,lruviar sr.pc, a,cl river tirrace a.cas,
The CCjS htts nrade a clrIsory revievv of thc Pl-Jl) plans ancl offcr thc fr-rllowin€t obscl,aticrnsand rc.cornnre-ndations to Carl'icld (lounty.
)'l'hc'soils of lhc alluvial lirns and colluvial .-krpe wash areas are alnrost errtir.ely cte.iverlllonr Lhe: Iinglc vallcy Evaporite, .T\ese soils liave Iiigh percentages of sotuble gypsqrll. arelow dcnsity' and will havc .scvcrc ltyclrocortrpaclivc pr"opcrtics, Evcn with propcrly rlt:signc4decpcl foundations, thcsc soils, whcn wctrcci. will hc problcrnatic with roailways ancl slnb qngra(l(:s pavcttrcttts' 'l'hc trndtrlations anclclarnagc arr:as on Ctount-v Roacl lgg i" tiii;;;.*a rcsult of thcst: soil prollcrtir-s.
llt apPcars thnt th.- nrajority of tlt..'alluvial llus arc sagr- covr-r!-cl anrl lavc. llL.vcr bc.c., 1..tjirrigatcd' TIrc introdulction of u'aler lo lhese areas czr-n easily result ip gr,orr,cl subsiclc'ce.sink holcs. and ground fissuling ancl l>ipi.g soil clissolution.
ocT-3L-97 A5.r4 AFl coLO_GEO_SURV.
Roso Rilnch PUD Sp, Dugc 2
lscverat l'onds arc pl'oposccl within thc ulluvial fan arcas, The severe rvetting of rhe lowdcnsity, Eypsilbrious, liydrocompactivc soils by trrcsc po'J;;;ril havc far reac:hi,gconsoclucnccs fbr ground scttlemcttt altd subsiilence in tlrc rcsidcntiai ,,r.,,, that surr.u.rlthcm' This will als-o bcr true' fbr the- residenti,,t nr.io* dow,gradie;,a;itiil irrigatr:d golf c:oursein thc colluvial soil.s betwccn thc two alluviat lans
)Thcr Prcli,rinaty Geoteclutical uvaluation included I]lr. pUD plans is exceetlingly briefancl is not ndcquatc for tltc sizc^md complcxity of the pl rD. ln thcl t,gil pla. is a lcncr, fi.rrrHP ccote-clt' that inclicales a [u,thcr, in-dctti,;;tccluricalrcport ii fom6co*i,g. A,cwSkctch Plan and Dcvelopmenl PIan ,',i,,p ,,,i n.ti-shourlcj rel]eci ilre *.un.,n.,.n,Iatiors of thclatc'sl geotechnical ctlnsultattt rvlrcn thcy hccornc available. we ca*ol reconrnrc:ncl appr.ovalfor this Sketch Plan u,til tlrc ccs haian opportunity [,lgvla* irnd comnrent on this newstudy.
)'l'hc f)rainagc Plan lras coffcctly iclentified rhe Northeast Dry park Drainagr. as a cle.brisfltlw basin' As suclt, it is (he opinion of this officc' tlrat thc dcvclopcr trc rc.quirccl t.cotnttri'ssion a Deblis Flow Drainage artd Mitigatlon PIan cluring tn. ,i[.rcr, ptan approvalproc9ss.
Thcrc arc dcvclopablc arcas of thc Rosc Ranch but. at this point in time, we carn()trcct'lttttttc:nd altltroval of thc'Rose- Ranclr PLJD Skctclr PIan. When the aclditio'zrl geotc<;Snioal a'rldrainage/detrris flow nlitigali,n stuclies ber:r:nre availablc we strr'rngly reconrnlo.rcl llal {hr: corntyre'sttlllttit tltc rcviscd I'(Jl) sP for review hy thi.s office . If you have iury qLrestio.s plcar-e co.t^ct thisollicc at (303) t94-2t67.
Sinccrcly,
b*a/-/,{4onathon L. White
Dngincering Gcologist
3A3A942t74 P-a2
-
OFTICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3s89
Roy Romer
Covernor
:lrrnu,
S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Rose Ranch pUD and Sketch plan
Secs. 1&12, T7S, R89W,6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Ms. Giannola:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 440 acres
into 320 lots, with a maximum of 354 homes. The development will include a 137 acre golf couise with a
clubhouse which will include community facilities and a multi-use irrigated field. Water features such as
ponds will be incorporated. The applicant proposed to provide water services through community wells
pursuant to an augmentation plan. Sewage will be through a central system by inclusion in the Aspen Glen
Water And Sanitation District. Discussion with the applicant's attorney indicates that an augmentaiion plan
will be filed with the water court.
Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds pursuant to
Section 30-28-136(1XhXl), C.R.S., that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water
rights and is inadequate. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this mattlr, please contact
Craig Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
r1:rto Lo"N"\\\d;&oq \
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPUCMUroser sr.doc
Orlyn A"lt, Oiririon Engineer
Joe Berquist, Water Commissioner, District 3g
sTAfE OF COLOI(ADO
i; t [. J'{
t&*"'t*u u';ur'lr"Y
October 27, 1997
II
ii.t ,{tt,.! ,.L-
ffi
&qF#iLLL) ciltji"llY
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
Dear Victoria,
At the regular monthly meeting of the Mount sopris-soil
Conserrration Districtl tfre Boird reviewed the application and
plan for the 1he Roso Ranch Developmeut and have the following
Lornment,s and concerns about the project.
Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated to
prlvent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any
ieEeeding of the area. Honitoring of all seeding should be done
to see ii ttre grasE is establishing or if weeds are becoming a
problem. neseeding 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 ind dogs from the subdivision. Dogs running
in packs of two or more can maim or kill domestic livestock and
withfiee. The District reconmends animal control regiulations be
adopted in the covenants for the subdivision and that they be
enforced.
Of prime concern to the Board, is the proper maintenance and
prolection of any irrigation ditch which is on the site. New
landowners shoul& Ue iiformed that the ditch owners have riEht 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? A11 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 aLtivery system could be used for landscape,
fiie protection, open space, elc. If at aII possiblg, this system
shoul-cl be incorporitea into the infa-structuie of the subdivision
plans as it would be more cost efficient at this time. Their
Loncern is always for soil and water conservation and
preservation and plans should consider these concerns.
Exh,Uil D
UOI'NT SOPRIS SOIL CONSERVATTON DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 1302
Gr,ENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
October 3, L997
P.t
?2
Drainage has the potential to be a problem in the 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 ai 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 wiII soak into the soils and run off into the creeks.
The District suggests drilling of wells to monitor grround water
pollution, and that this expense and future expenses should be
bore by the deveioper.
Sincerely,
Z'll/fr$r--Scott $d,ero, President
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District
Ex!.' b; I E
United States Department of the Interiop,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Glenwood Springs Resource Area
50629 Highway 6 and24
P.O. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
October 21, 1991
ifl{
l' -r:
1785s
(7-BBo)
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Dear Ms Giannola;
Victoria Giannola, Senior pl_anner
Garfiel-d County Building and planning
109 Bth st., suite 303Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
rn response to your request for eomments regarding the proposed Rose Ranch puD andSketch Plan located near v/estbank, r offer ih. fottowing statements for yourupcoming Planning commission meeting scrreauieJ for Novemb er L2, L997. A portion ofthe southern boundary of the proposed PUD is adjacent to public lands administeredby this office' Thi; parcel was'iaentiii"a-i"-bur Resource Management pfan assuitable for disposal because of its smalf size and proximity t.o other pub11c lands.At the present time, no interest has u""" ""piessed by anyone in acquiring thisparcel' while it is the BLM',s desire to dis;;;e of this parcel of land, we alsowant to protect its current resource vafues Lver the long term.
1 ' ownership of ]and adjacent to BlM-administered public land does not grant theadjacent landowner(s) any special rights "r piirrir.!.= io.-ah;;=" of the pubric1ands.
2 ' The proponent should be aware of the locat.ion of property boundaries to ensureno encroachment occurs on public land. Existing fencLs *"y ioi be located onproperty boundaries.
3' The adjacenL public 1and is allotted for livestock (cattle) grazing. underco]orado statutes, it is a landowner's responsibility to construct, and maintain ingood condltion, a 1awfu1 fence protecting lh"ii property in order Lo recover anydamages from trespass livestockl rf a livestock fence is not presently in p1ace, afence built along the private/BlM boundary is recommended to rlsol-ve this pot.entialuse confficL' should any fence construction be considereJ "i."q-the BLM boundary,the fence standards snouta allow for easy p.r=-g" by big game, i.e. less than 42,, inheight with a 10" kick space between the-tlp z iires. irrl= oiri." can provideadditional information rlgarding fence stan-dards upon request.
4. .Adjacent public lands are open to hunting and otheractivities. The proponents snollA be aware ihat huntingare allowed on BlM-administered land.
dispersed recreation
and other recreation uses
L
?-2
5' In regards to wild1ife, the development's biggest impact to BLM woul-d occur fromincreased big game use on the adjacent public lands because of forage fosses due tothe golf course and housing development-. Encroachment of homesit.es and people onbig game winter ranges can have a deleterious effecL on game herd populalions andhealth. The continued conversion of these ranch lands will result in the foss ofimportant winter range habitats, causing the displacement. of big game herds and theover-utilization of the browse and othei vegetation on the aajiEent Br,M 1ands. Longterm, regrular over-utilization of vegetation is not conducive to healthy J-andscapesand ultimately wilf result in lower populations of big game and other speciesdependent on these import.ant habitati.
6' As noted in the Rose Ranch Witdlj-fe Report, an active golden eagle nest occursin cl-ose proximity to the proposed trail i-n tne vicinity oi trr" potential overlook.The proponent should be made aware of the fact that gol-den eagles and a1I otherrapLors are protected by both Federal and State law irom destiuction or harassment.
7 ' r would encouraqe the Planning commission to require that the recommendations byDr' Beattie in the Rose Ranch wildlife Report be adJpted and incorporated into ;hecovenants, as appropriate.
B' After review of our mineraf survey notes, there are no federal- minerafs ]ocatedwithin the subject private lands.
9 ' rf utilities are proposed that would cross public land, the utility companywould have to obtain a right-of-way from thls otfic". An environmental- assessmentreport would be completed as a part of the Row permit.ting process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.. If there are any questions, pleasecontact Leonard Coleman of this office at 94-t _2gL4.
SincereJ-y,
.t//-r/r,t ,L4'W<6",
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
ExX, bi+ F
Garbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive
October 20,1997
Et
Victoria Gannola
Garfi eld County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch plan Application
Victoria:
I have reviewed the application for the Rose Ranch project and would offer the following comments.
Access
The general road layout is adequate for fire apparatus. The drawings indicate that the cul-de-sacs willhave islands in the center. The islands "u, tL problematic for fire apparatus if vehicles are allowedto park in the cul-de-sac. The islands pt.u.nt fire apparatus from executing a three-point turn ifvehicles are blocking part of the traffic lane.
Water Supplies
Required fire flow for the project should be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC)Appendix III-A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings, with fire hydrants located in accordancewith UFC Appendix IIr-B: Fire Hydrant Locations and Spacini.
Impact Fees
The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be required toenter into an agreement with the District for thl payment of development impact fees. This paymentis due prior to the recording of the final plat. pees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted bythe District at the time the agreement is executed.
Please call if you have any questions.
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
-,
. scr 2 s, p$a(-.'-
,."n**icr,A#
"6ru9
COMPAITIY:
FAX.a
q44, -1-t d5 -
NATF.
FF€M:'(
(
(
(
(
\
(
(
) Fred WaJi
i )"*t iiartcnstail
f Shanncn Feilar':c
) Jcen Teiir"rde
) Darcy Crcissar,t
) Tneima A,el
) Abcy Lcs:head
) Miia Jensen
) Na,rcV Fadend
) Cinry Est?Cz
i Nency Dever
) Fete,Echan
) Jchn SHcHanC
) F.cb Dcian
TsEl nurnier fi.pages senl rncudng €t/er
lil*..t,y,/4- t>( q-n -&u\oe u (4i,f'/r'td?
tvu
?.,.,.' 1Fb?-' '
Fleesa call'tr ycu do nct rae.Me tre Etal numbEr'of phgeE ai frAcatea- '
Thb rrss=gE ard tra ac=mpq/hg dtrc-Trrna an iraanCsd criy hr fia usa cf erril/F '{rfdC? tiey are
ed6rass€d ardmry €r6in t*snndcn nAipia"g"a c=tArfoat arat smftrctr:-Os*os:m urder
lpFlcztdo lar . ltra reed2f cCfirr nesqa afo neic=atgrymE dscgie,ra h-rele intEndd
;cpgtorfis srflgq/€e oraggrtr respErutl. E'dafivedngtrr mesaga E Cs.lrGrid8d tBcF'eflL ycu
rn'fg,O,V n111ad'fi* any dian66Uorr. {silih.dafl orcsFl/{t4 stfib cjrrru.nri:dctt b sidy
Faroile gy*.lra.r"it"rafir.c"r*gtcd,onhcnr:ri*is€ncdfyr:ghrydclYIl$Iltl?:
inA r"Orrt e" qridrral ms"sags ard aa a-rgrtytrg dcc.rnaas E ts dfi€ abslr€ addres Ya fiE u':'
Fcial S€rvi6- Tlerdtyerr . '^ "
'61
Messa6-e, l) i(/r,v'ie- T Natlrur)-' ct. Ctru td
0cT-24-199? lztZ.
..1 "
ocT-24-L997 70t2t RFSD DO 9?29459240
. 0\+7 4.(,Ar's
.oo++ Gr al
?.22
4 , ol$"
,7q43
2t'7
b1
x
Land Use Summer1
P.U.D.rr6,,uvd ffir*^
PAI
FA'
PAI
PA1
PA5
PA6
PN
PA'
20,o{o s.F.
15.000 s.F.
9,ooo s-F.
Duglcr
U,ooo S.F.
9,000 5J.
Duglc*
15,000 S5.
u )5.,
za 7.7
,1 11,t
,t-- t
59 26.2
1E 6't
29 - 3-4
7.r18
PAt 2o,ooo s.F. 71 {0'sffi !11 .,28 I )'r
% OF TOT-
14.7 3J%
6.3
l-1
5.0
opca Spece (GqqrD - l?4'9
fi93 31^6/o
ACA.Es % OF TOTAL1. _GOl5 COURSE ----- -swrorar; 1i73 312%
TOTAL ACREAGE
GROSS DEI,TSITY
*10.4 100.0%
O.8O DU/AC
RISIDE}ITIAL DATA
Flogtc!5'?rrl
Fishing Psrt
Astivc Rcq=ctiorr Prrts
PA1,PA9
PA2,PA5,PA8
29,ooo S-F.
1r,000 sf.
lrt 76.7
97 41.C
PA J, PA 5 t,ooo 5-F. 57 18'o
PA 4. PA /
--
DuPlcr 67 - 1l'4
TOTAL 354 149.1
ACRIS %OFTOTAI--l. OPEITI SPACE . "-i-- -- -
0cT-24-1997 14t22 RFSD DO 9?2945924A P.83
,j,: ri:" ,. FRED,.,A WALL, yqrintendent
JUDY:;i:tuf,Yoil8TALL, r6sl5lant SuFrintendcrtl
...1:i::,,,, SHANXON peUL,qilO, FjnenceOiraclor
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160I
Re: Rose Ranch PIID and sketch plan
Dear Ms. Giannola:
Application of the land dedication formula developed by the District (see atuched
resoiution) results in total land dedication of less than 4.5 acres based on287 single
family dweilings and 67 duplexes. Because 4.5 acres is not adequate for a school site,
the District is requesting cash in lieu of land dedication to be caiculated in accordance
with the attached resolution.
The Roaring Fork School District Board of Education adopted that attached resolution
July, i997, Please note, however. that this land dedication standard has not yet formally
been adopted by the County, At the Count!'s request. we are now working with Garf reid
Re-2 (Rii)e) and Gartield 16 (Parachute) in hopes that we can all aBree on a formula for
land dedication and cash-in-lieu so that the County can apply one standard. We believe
that a new standard will be formally adopted by the County prior to t-rnal subdivision
approval tbr Rose Ranch. and therefore request application of the formula describcd in
the attached resolution,
Sincerely,
Shannon Peiland
Finance Director
Enc.
ocT-24-L99? tbt22
DATE:
TO:
RFSD DO 97A945924Z P.A4
''i,u.1
'r,,,,.. .,.,,...ii '.:,r.., FRED-A WALL, Supenhiandont
',Jufv',tt6llrgxsrALl. as,,Ils nt,luPe1ltnylder,t
..:r,: .,... iHlxxoH;pgulAND;::;rFifle,'ce, P.kaao'
:,'' ':ii.
July 25, 1997
Planners of:
FROM:
RE:
Many thanks to those of you who provided your time and assistence to the school district in its
efforts to define a land dedication standerd for residentiel development. We have attached a
copy r.rf the resolution atlopted by the Ronring Fork School District Bonrd of Education on July
7,lgg1. The District is now requesting thnt each of the governments within its boundaries adopt
ordinances supporting the same, and we would appretiate your help in facilitnting this process'
Under such ordinance, the District requests that all fees in'lieu of land dedicntion be peid at the
time of subdivision 8pprovfll. Further. the District is suggesting the followirrg definitions for
terms included in the ordinance:
Crrrrcnt markct value:
ffimcal1stlreprojuctcdvalucofalIsubdividedlots.includingsiti:inrprovcI.llclIts
such as streets and utilitics. but sxcluding tlrc vclue of rcsidcntial dwelling units a:td otllcr stnrcturus orl
thc 1:ropcri-v. Markct vcJue may bc substarrtiatcd bv a docr.rtlcrtted purchase llricr: (if an llmls ltrttgth
trarlssction no morc than lrvo vcars oid)- c qua'lificd rcai cststo appraiser acccptable to botlr pcnir:s' or
otSer prutually agrced rpon ,""ognizud rncans. The dcvulopcr shall pav for thc appraisai 0nd all othsr
costs associatcd rvith determining tltc currcnt markct valuc'
Dwellinq tvoe:
Single faniill,: A onc unit structlre dctachcd from aut' othgr housc.
Townhome. condo. duplcx. etc.: A ono uni( stntcturc rtrat is aflachcd to anothcr structurc but lvhich has
onc or rlore rvalls extending fronr ground to roof scpgrcting it from adioining structtlrcs.
Apartmcnt: Units in structurcs containtttg hvo
townhome- condo. duplcx (above).
Mobi le Home. Trailer: Self-cxpl:uatory
or nrorc housing units rhct do ttot fit d$finitiorr o[
ptease do not hesitste to call Shannon Pellnnd nt the i)is.tlict O{fice (945-6558) if you have lny
qrrestions.
MEllf....rts"IlAI\DuM
Counties of Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkirt
City of Glenwood
Towns of Carbondrle and Beselt
Roering Fork School District Oflice
School District Land Dedication Standards
Glenwood SPrlngs, Colorado E1601
0cT-24-1997 tA:22
Glenwood Spilnga, Colorado 81601
,,.,I51ip6e16 (970) 945-6558- '
Fred A. Wall
Superintendent
RFSD DO 9?29459242 P.A5
.'.,1r:::ii:rr....::... _::.. :. ": !.
''i.::iii; ... r: .. JAIES C..ft{lLupg. Supoflntendent
':.,.luoi: :*lrrlot|Srt LL' icrigrail surx,rina nant
' ':::":... . . SHAIIaON r:PELl.A,/i[ii' ,F11gp Ol1*or
Iuly 25,1997
Dear Council Members and County Commissioners:
During the course of several months, the school district, with input from planners of the
various governments within the Distna's boundari€s, has researched and evaluated land
dedication fee formulas to be applied in accordance with Colorado Revised Sututes.
This research oulminated in a r$olution which was adopted by the Roaring Fork School
District Board of Education at their regular meeting on Juiy 7, 7997 , The District
encourages the counties of Eagle. Garfield and Pitkin. the City of Glenwood Springs, and
the Towns of Basalt and Carbondale to adopt the provisions of this resolution to be
applied to residential development occun'ing within the District's boundaries.
The District will continue to evaluate and respond to specific subdivision requests, and
wilJ determine whether land dedication or cash-in-lieu of land dedication is appropriate
given the nature of each request.
If a meeting with our Board of Education would be heipful. please call us at your earliest
convenience.
Sincereiy.NsN A**-*t-<xa
Bruce Matherly
President, Board of Education
-
. 0cT-24-1997 tA2.23 RFSD D0 9?A945924A P.A6
RESOLUTION OF THE ROARING FORK SCIIOOL DISTRICT RE.I BOARD
OF EDUCATION REGARDTNG STANDARDS FOR LAND DEDIC.{TION AND
CASTI IN I,TEU OF LAND DEDICATION
1991
A. THIS RESOLUTION IS PREMISED ON THE FOLLOWING:
l, Roaring Fork School District ("District") has experienced annual
student enrollment increases ranging from 1.5% to 6.9% f,rom 1988 to 1996 and
averaging 4.802 during that time:
Year Enrollment
1988/89 3301
1e8e/e0 3495
1990191 3708
1991i92 3921
1992193 401:i
1993194 4288
l9e4/95 4473
1995/96 4668
t996197 4737
2. The District recognizes the impact of new development on the
need for public land for new schools and has prepared the following formula to calculate
a standard for school land dedication.
Land area provided per str-rdent x students generated
per dwelling unit = Land Dedication Standard
3, The District has determined that the total land area currently
provideci by the Distlict is 1,042,8 square f'eet 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 (lolorado
Demographer as follows,
Single Family O 593
Townhome, Condo, Duplex. etc. 0.329
Apartment 0.185
Mobite Flome. Trailer 0.474
.-,-_.--*.-_-. I ._-: --.-__-
-acT-24-799?
70t,23 RFSD D0 ,rrro=r20,P,Z7
5, Application of rhe frrrmula results in the following suggestcd Land
Dedication Standards,
Single Family 618 sq. ft per unit or .01 42 acres
Townhome, Condo. etc, 343 sq, ft per unit or .0079 acres
Apaftment, Duplex, etc. 193 sq. ft per unit or .0044 acres
Mobile Home 494 sq. ft per unit or .01 13 acres
6. At the District's request. a developcr of residentiai housing may
make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land. or may make a cash paymerrt 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 propefiy having a market value of $100,000 per
acre and I single fapiiy unit on it, the payment would be:
s100,000 * .0142 r I : $1.420
B. NOW, THEREFORE. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ROARNC
FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-l RESOLVES as follows:
l. The Counties of Eagle. Garfleld and Pitkin, Colorado; the City of
Glenwood Springs. Colorado; and rhe Towns of Basalt and Carbondale. Colorado
("Entities") adopt a Land Dedication Standard as set tbrth in Pan A of this Resolution.
2. The Entities require land dedication or a payment in lieu of Land
dedioation as requested by the District in response to specific subdivision requests as set
forrh in Parts A, 5 and 6 above fiom all residential land developers.
3. The provisions of this Resolution shall serve as the general criteria
ibr the imposition of school fees to be required of all residentiai land developers as set
forth in C.R.S, 30-28-101. et seq., as amended. with specitic modifications or deviatiorrs
herefrom to be made as the District responds to specific subdivision requesrs as recluircd
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.
-
Y,I,H
tHrrH\
adHTII
OCT ?? ,97 12:5APM RFTR
October 22,199'7
Ms. Vicbria Giannols' Senior Planner
Buiiding and Planning DePartment
Gariield CountY
190 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
.t ii
l=xhr krtt t1
Dear Ms, Giannola:
Thank you for giving the Roaring Fork Ttansit Agency (RFTA), the opportuniry to review
and cornment upon ihe Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan Application, Due to a sizable
workloa.d and inadequate staffing,I was not able to give this application the-detailed
review which it deserves. However, based upon a cursory review of the prcliminary
traffic study conducted by High country Engineering, Inc. (HCE),I would like to offer
the following general cotnments:
1. BACKGROaIVD, The proposed deveiopment, at build-out envisions 354 units of
;C. fr*ily *d duplex residenrial dweliing units. Additionally, it incorporates goif
course faciliries and a 50- sest restaurs$t and bar. According to the HCE study, the
development is esl,imated to Benerate approximateiy 3,819 vehicle Uips per day'
The Pitkin counry Road Maintenance and Managcrlent Plan allows a 2 vehicle trip
credit, per dwelling unit, if a proposed development is in close proximiry to
convenient transit senices. Because of severe automobile congesdon in the
Aspen/Pitkin county area, developefs are sometimes persuaded to mitigate the traffic
imiacts of their deuelopments through the direct provision of transit services or
funaing for RFTA to provide uansit services'
In cases wherein the number of potential vchicle trips, diverted to transit by the
developmcnt, makes use of exisiing capacity, no significant operating or capital
mitigation is retuired of the develJper; aside from a possibie commitment to instail
passenger shelters, pull-offs, lighting, and other Pessenger amenities' However if the
numbcr of potenriai vehicle uifs diierted to traniit requirei additional transit capacity
or an entircly new service. the developer is, in some ca6cs, required to provide
funding to mitigate the projectcd impacts'
Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan Application
hwo roax rf,arvsrr aotucY
f [ $arvlc,u (]enter Dttve Aspcn, Coiorrrclo 11161 'l 'Tr:lr970'92C'i905 Far:9?0 920'2864
OCT 22 '97 12:5EPI1 RFTR
o)
Z. pOENTIAL TRANSIT DEI\{ANDi Hypothetically, if convenient transit services
*"* p-*id"d to this proposcd development, the rule of thumb used for planning
prrpor.r would indicate that 708 vehicle trips could be diverted to transit on a daily
Lasis (35a units x 2 transit trips per uni$, Because the average vehiclc occupancy for
each vehicle trip is generally higher than one passenger, the number of vehicle trips
must be converted to person trips. In thc upper valley, the average vehicle occupancy
is in the range of 1.5 iusr.ng.ri, If this number is similar in the down valley area' the
number of potential tansit trips the proposed development could generate per day
would be approximately 1,062 (?08 X 1,5). lf l0?o of this number is traveling in the
peak hour, hu-lf inbound and half outbound, 53 passengers could be uaveling into, and
-53
p"g.ngers out of, the development during the peak hour. If transit service were
provided "rury half-hour, a vehicle with capacity sufficient to accommodate 25
passengers would be required.
passengers from the development could potentially be transferred to buses on the
mainlirie, at Highway 82 and the intersection of CR-109/CR- 154' Howevef, since
RFTA bus service is provided approximately every two hours in this corridor,
transfen would not curootly be ionvenient. Therefore, another option would be to
operatc direct service between the proposed development and Glenwood Springs,
with transfers to the up valley RFTA bus at the northern intersection of CR-i09, This
service could also incorporate pick-ups for West Bank or other potential
developments in the vicinity. iirr advantage of this arrangement would be that other
developments, or perhaps the local government, could shue the cost for services
provided to a larger group ofpotential riders.
Without doing a more detailed analysis of the Potential route alignment' hours of
operation, *J ttip times between the development and Glenwood Springs, it isn't
possible to accurirc.ly estimate what the cost of such a system serving this
ievelopment might be, However, as a rule of thumb, it costs RFTA approximately
$375,000 p"r y."r (or $51.37 per hour) to operate one vehicle 20 hours per day, 365
days per year. That cost figure includes ths driver, the vehicle, fuel, parts, supplies,
maintenance, supcrvision, administration, debt, and capital replacement for vehicles
and facilities,
3. pollcv IseueS: Because Garfield County may not currentiy be experiencing severe
automobile congestion, it may not perceive the need to requirc developers to mitigate
the trafflrc and transit impacts of their developments. Yet, the cumuiative effects of
these outlying developments contribute to congestion problems in other segments of
the cornmunity. For ixample, Glenwood Springs suffers from automobile congestion
at peak times. although conditions have improved since the completion of the
alternate routc. However, in time, therc may be another congestion crisis, which may
involve increasing costly measures to resoive-
Communities throughout the Roaring Fork Valley are working togethor on the
dcvelopment of a vailey-wide rail system. While the Federal government may make a
1
KT ?2 ',97 12:51PN RF-TC P.3
substantial contribution to the capital costs of this system, ongoing operationd and
maintenance will require significant levels of pubiic subsidies,
In planning for the eventuality of such a valley-wide transit system, whether it be bus
or rail, or a combination of the two, policy-makers should capitalizs upon
opportuniiies to require developers to bear a portion of the cost of the future systems.
While ffansit serving this proposed development may be deemed infeasible due to
costs, a good deal of thought should be given to how this proposed development can
access not only the existing transit system, but any potential furure systems. Where
should bus stops and park and ride facilities be locued? Will there be a need for a
rail station and, if so, where should it be located? Should the developer required to
make a contribution, at some point, to the cost of these facilities?
4, CONCLUSIOIT Each new dcvelopment adds to the cumulative arnount of traffic
*ittrin the area. Over time, congestion increases and the public sector is faced with
the need to increase highway or transit cepscity. Additionally, developments are
sometimes approved without thinking about how they interface with existing and
future trarrsit sysoems.
It is heartening, therefore, that Garfield County has submitted this application for
review by RFTA. If RFTA had the authority, it would attempt to require this
developer to make a f,rnancial commitment to the provision of transit services and
infrastructure, with two goais in mind. First, each development should mitigate its
impacts on the existing or future transit system. Second, each develoPment should be
designed to maximize the opportunities for transit use and minimrze the necessity for
automobile use.
Naturally, these goals are lofty and diffrcult to attain, especially when many do not
agree with them. However, if no attempt is made to pian ahead, future generations
may be forced to pay for opportunities that we missed today'
Thank you for your considetation of these colTrments. Please cail me if you have
questions.
Sincerely,
tu#M
General Manager
?zc;-tgo5 (r.v ZcH)
(rose971,doc)
Exhrl2rt -L
October 24, 7997
To: Garfield County planning Commissionl'rom: Glenwood Springs River Commission
RE: PUD and Sketch plan for Rose Ranch
The members of the Glenwood spring River commission havereviewed the above referenced sketch p1an. rt is thecommission's desire to comment on this plan, since we feelthat this development relates crosery with our short- andlong-term groals and objectives
Regarding the effects of this proposed development on waterquality: The Roaring Fork Rivei's water qualiiy is of greatconcern to this commission. Attached is a memorandum fiom tothe River commission from commissioner peggy Bailey (exhibitA) regardi-ng water quality issues as rhey-i3tat. t; theproposed development. Members of the River commission agreewith Ms. Bai-ley's reconmendations, and may wish to makefurther suggestions and recommendations tLroughout theprocess of this development.
Regarding development of single family lots on the riverbank: The River commission has two recommendations regardj_ngset-back requirements for al1 lots located on the noaiinqFork Rj-ver. rt is our understanding that current countyzoning.requi-res a 30' setback from the 100-year hi_gh waterelevation mark. one of our concerns is "ro"io., aroif trreriver bank that may occur during hiqh water whereconstructj-on has occurred or is-occurring. other concernsare the loss of .natural _vegetation now giowing along ti."".river banks, and the effecis this loss ind pric"*.rri ofinvasive homes may have on wildlife who rel! on the river asa main water source.
rn addition to Ms. Baj-ley's recommendationr we recommend thef ol-lowino:
1) That a wildr tfe/vegetation easement or. simil_ar buf f er beset aside along the river corridor in order to mai_ntain thenatural state of the river bank; and
2) That recommended set-backs for building. lots be at least100 ft., with greater set-backs being at the discretion ofthe developers and lot owners.
I
806 COOPER AVENUE GLE]VIflOOD SPRINGS, COLOR{DO 81601 970/94i-2175 F.tr\:945-2597
?Z
Regarding the proposed Floaters Park: Dj-vision of Wil-d1ife
recommends use of this park be prohibiLed from March 1-July
15 each year to allow the blue herons to complete their
nesting cyc1e.
Commercial rafting by the three Glenwood companies and
companies from the Aspen and VaiI areas genera-Ily begins in
early June, and ends in mid July, with some variations
accordj-ng to run-off. Prior to and after this time period,
water is too l-ow for the type of trips these companies
desire to offer their cIi-ents.
Each of the three owners of these companies has been
contacted, and since DoW's suggested prohibition period
encompasses peak commercial- rafting season, they aII agree
this park would hardly serve any purpose for them. Also, two
of the three owners said the proposed park is very cJ-ose to
their put-in, and they seldom if ever have a need or a
desire to stop so soon after launching.
Thi-s type of facility is more likely to be used in lower
water by private fishing boats, as fishing this section of
r,vater generally occurs when flows are lower and fi-shing is
better. It should be also noted that there is a public
access for put-in/take-out of boaters at the Westbank
Bridge, Iocated north of the subject property on the east
side of the river, whi-ch currently offers a porta-potty
facility
Commission al-so supports DOW's recommendation that use of
this area be prohibited March l-July L5, and that no
structures be a1l-owed there as this would encouragie use
during prohibited periods by people unwilling to obey
imposed restrictions.
The River Commission recommends this land be set aside as
passive open space, leaving it to the blue herons who rely
on it for completing their nesting cycle. Perhaps an
alternate site could be considered for such a use, Lf the
developers are sincere about providing this amenity for the
rafters in the area.
Regarding the proposed fishing park: Commission supports
DOW's recommendation that use of its proposed locatj-on be
prohibited March 1-Ju1y 15 each year, for. the reason
mentioned above, and that an alternate location for this
park be investigated. Access to such a park should be
public.
2 Rose Ranch
c3I
Regarding the issue of trails: The River Commission feels
that development of the west side of the Roaring Fork River
offers great potential for a major trails system to support
its rapidly increasing population. This area coul-d easily
become a major link between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs
along CR 109/ and can be linked to any trails which may be
built on the existing railroad right-of-way.
We recommend that a trai-l be built on the east side of CR
109. It should run the entj-re length of the property, should
be contiguous with Aspen Glen's trails system, and should be
build to Glenwood Springs' Rivertrails specifications ( see
attached "exhibit B). A1I trails shall be open to the
public, and the Rose Ranch developers should work cJ-oseIy
with the County Commissioners, County Trails and Open Space
Board, Glenwood City CounciJ-, the Glenwood River Commission,
Glenwood Spring Parks and Recreation Commission, RFRHA and
the Town of Carbondale, as well as other interested parties,
in creating a plan that best supports the future needs of
al-1 the communities of this valIey.
Commissj-on members also support DOW's recommendati-on t.hat
public use of the proposed southern 200-300 yard portion of
pedestrian trail north of the planned overlook to the west
of County Road 109 should also be prohibited, should it be
constructed, from March 15-JuIy 15 each year to allow a pair
of nestj-nq golden eagles to complete t.heir nesting cycIe.
A great strain j-s being put on the roads and the quali-ty of
air in and around Glenr,vood and Carbondale by continued
growth. We feel this is a good time to revisit the trails
and open space concept proposed by the Garfield County
Trail-s and Open Space Board, and we urge your support in
planning this development to tie in with our existing river
trails p1an, whj-ch we hope will all-ow continuous public
trails from Glenwood to Carbondale in the near future.
Regarding the issue of preservation of open sPace: The
Commission is interested in what methods of preservation are
being proposed that will ensure that open space will remain
as such. We are concerned about proposed golf and traj-ls
plans on the steep hillside, and the possibility of erosion.
We support recommendations by DOW to preserve much of this
land, and to limit its access by people. We are in favor of
mandatory leash laws and dog fencing, and recommend
enforcement policies be in place for violations of such.
3 Rose Ranch
0CT. -14' 97 (FRI ) 08:36 '
Y{RIt]HT WATER GLN\IOOO T81, 97094592 1 0 ?5
(exhibi t "o")
Page 1
MEMORANDLM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
t\ a tr-t)1L L L.
River Commission
Peggy Bailey, P.E.
Rsse R nch
Sketch Plan Review
October 24,1997
I trave reviewed the Rose Ranch Plannsd Uait Development and Sketch Plan Subminal dared
September 26, 1997. My rwiew focuses on water qulity issues as it relates to the proposed
deveiopment. Nate that this submittal is conceprual in nanrre so many of the specific details of rhe
project have not yet been addressed.
The pnmary source of potential poilunou to the site's watcr resourcqs is from rhe use of pesticides
and fertilizers on lawns and the golf course. Pollution can occur through direct surface runoff or
tfuough leachate contamination of grouodwater-
The Roaring Fork River is Iocated on the east edge of rhe project site, Lnmediareiy west of t5e
nver is a series of horsing clusters. West of the housirg clusters is the golf ro*r.. Immediate.
direct runoff to thc rivs will be from lawns of the homcs withur the adjacent housing clusrers as
well as stonn water discharge from storm sewers. There are also several water {batures proposed
through &e gclf course which will be directed and discharged to the Roaring Fork River.
OV'ERVIEW OF SLtsMTTAL
The submittal states that the water quality present today is of pcor quality duc to currEnt agriculture
uscs. I did nst se€ any specif,c poilutants mentisned or any testiug rcults tha zuppor* this. The
submittal suggests that thc development wiil ireprove the uater quaiity by implemenrarion of the
foliowing practices:
* Discharge slorm sewers to setriing ponds and wet-lands prior ro discharging to the Roaring Fork.
* Minimize runofffrom thc golf co,rse by mlnimizing warering practices.
N Optimize fertilizer usage.
* Usc grasxd swaics, settiing ponds and rapid sand fiiters tbr treating storrn watsr n:noff on thegoif cotuse.
TEL:9709459210 ?bOCT. -24' 9i tFRI ) 08, i6 IYRIGllT WATTR (]LNIY(]OO
+ Use baffled ponds
( r"r,iuit .'x")
Page 2
The golf counie development also proposes to include watu feahrgs by utiiizing the RoberrconDtch' The Northeast- ov ra* Drainage will also be directed through the golf course but will beallowed to flow directly through to the River.
The submittal statcs that no orsite detention thcilities are proposed srnce tbe development has a,negligible impact on peak flows in thc Roaring Fork River- i{o*r*, I did uot see any calculationsfor the developed conditions sccsarir) to suppon this statemenl
The submittal narrative states that a NPDES permit wiil be obtained tbr the coastruction of theproposed facilitics.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The submittal does iqclude several good Best Marragernent pracdces (BMp,s), however, &ere areseveral additional BMFs we recorrunend be considered.
r Extend BMP practices to individual lawns and park.
* Assess cuEcnt water qr-r'qlity rncluding that in the Robertson Ditch and in the North East Dry park
Tributary.
r Develop a progmrn for monitoring surface water qualify.
I Design Golf coursc to direst runoff away form sensitive areas such .Ls steafils, shailowgroundwater, wetlands etc. and into areas where pondi.:og and infilrauon cao occur.
* hovide a corridor for the Roberson ditch and the Dry Park Draiange Ditch as they baverse rheGolf course to prot€ct the vater course from pollution and riparian degradation.
* select seed mixtures for tuf and native grass that are compatibie.
r Preserve and reuse exrtrng topsoil.
* cousider underdrains at $e€Ls aad tees for storage and passive treatrnent of contamrnaredleechate to proteq the grorrndwater,
' Proddc adeqr'rate setback buffers for ail developmen! &om sreams, river5, lakes and wetiasds_
* su'ictly limit use of pesucides and fertilizcn. usc appropriate typ€s lbr site conditiomng on a"g1a nag€[lgnt rrnit', hasis.
Derisajtasdalds
10' minlrnrrm trail width
rvhere biqydists and pe.
destrians share the trail.
Landscape trealment
wi th in 3' adjacen t Io trails
rnust conform to the fcll-
Iowing slandards:
- new planl malerial shall
not Lle woody or bear
thorns
- existing thorny plants
- nearby irrlgation sys-
tems shall l"re tlesigned
(rvhere posslble) lo
avoid spraying path.
o PreBl.rgd_tubUrade:
Compact roarlbasc or use
on-site gravel material
where approvxl lry eng i-
naer. C)vcr-cxcavatr: if
unstable srtLr-soils are en-
counlered anrl replace
wi th srritabl el'il I nrorerial.
Conrpact all llll irra,rs lo
907r, slandanl proctor @a-.zlooptlmum. Removeall topsoil prior to
sulrgrarle prepara tion.
Minimrrnr 6" llrick con-
crelc. Apply lrmom fin-
islt perpenrlicrrlar to trail.
Sarvcttt 1/,1" j6ints 1l14"
rlecp niinimrrrn every 1l)'
alorrg lrail.
Ilack fil I alge w ilh topsoil.
I;inish gratle to be fhrsh
rvith trail erlge (ryplcal)
and reed with nalive
Srass€ci.
Maxirnrrrn 6Vo grade.
Mlnlmrrnr 8' overhead
clearance,
r Slandard rvidth is l0'for
twn-.way btrycle tralls. A
$eparaie 5' parallel gravel
lrail is rcromrnended for
per'lestTians.
r{
)
t-.
U.'F.
cr)
:i
L
D
?
\l
;
I')
!
)
4
6't {fticlt rnin. orncrclr:
Appty broorn. Iinrstr parpeld;dt,l.lr tu liuiI.
Sawcrrt /1r' 1ginf1 lVqY de*,9nrirt.cr,1i1y
lo,0' rlonS[turil.
L!
lOl mr'rr
*4._*-
-,p
CD
Typical Concrele
Trail Seclion
a't rnin-
-
2r mirr,
;. t ':'..' .; t-..'->..'-: .)r'..' ,1.f.
wherehercryay
Exhi b,t .J
October 27,1997
Garfi eld County Commissioners
109 8th St., Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363
RE: Rose Ranch and the Roaring ForkValley Biological lnventory
Dear Commissioner Smith:
As Project Coordinator of the Roaring Fork Valley Biological Inventory I would
like to thank you for your letter of support to Great Outdoors Colorado for a grant to
continue' this project. Garfield County belongs to a partnership of over 30 parties who
support this project.
z\s you know, the first stage of this project was conducted in the Roaring Fork
Valley this past sruruner and we are now proposing to expand the project into the entire
watershed of the Roaring ForkRiver. This will indude studying plant and animal
species in three counties and I agree with your statement in your letter of support that
"it makes sense to study this area in its entirety instead of being constrained by potitical
boundaries."
As I mentioned above, the first stage of the inventory was conducted this past
suruner and we are currently awaiting a final report from the Colorado Natural Heritage
Prograrrr to be ready sometime in December. This report will outline specific areas in the
Valley which are critical for plant and animal species and/or natural communities. Any
area rn the shrdy area which had an "element occurrence" of an important species will
be recommended as a "conservation site." According to the Colorado Nafural Heritage
Program, "conservation sites focus on capturing the ecological processes that are
necessary to support the continued existence of a particular element of nafural heritage
significance. The goai of the process is to identify a land area that can provide the
habitat and ecological processes upon which a particular element depends for their
continued existence." The Heritage Program relies on the principles of wildlife biology to
determine conservation recofiunendations. These recorrunendations will be suggestions
to consider, and it is up to private landowners and local govemnent to decide how to
best implement these suggestions.
There will be approximately 20 conservation sites in the Valley outlined in this
r_eport. Since this report will not be available until December, I wanted to let you l.:now
that one conservation site will be the great blue heron rookery in the vicinity 6f the Rose
Ranch and the Sanders Ranch. According to the Site Survey Summary, "Current land
use in the area minimizes human disfurbance to the great blue heron rookery, however,
continued urban development on either side of the river could. negatively influence the
rookery." The Colorado Nafural Heritage program will recommend that a L I 2 mile
radius conservation boundary be implemented to protect the rookery, and more
specifically, that a 1,000 foot buffer be provided around the nests to protect feeding
areas and to protect the herons from human disfurbance.
According to the Heritage Program, this rookery is important because it is the
only one located on the stretch of the river from Old Snowmass to Glenwood Springs.
The Heritage Program reports that there are 90 to 100 rookeries in the entire stite with
only 3located in the Roaring Fork Va1ley. The rookery at the Rose Ranch is the largest
on the river and it has been increasing annually. Accoiding to Mike Sherman, zoologist
for the Heritage Program, "There is not a lot o1habitat repiesented on the river corridor
for the great blue heion. The biggest asset to this site is that the appropriate habitat is
adjacent right up to the river, and that there is currently a low level of disturbance
around the nests."
?- |
?-7
Mike Sherr-nan expressed interest in attending the planningcommission meetingon November 12, but he has a prior commitment. He wanted mito make his phone "
number available to you should you have any questions regarding the Heritag" Prog."rn',
reconunendations and protocol for outlining conservation sites ii the state. "His pliorru
number is 970491-3342-
". *"." ?83*, I would like to thank you for your support of the project and I hope
you. find this information useful. On a closing no[e, I *orta Hke to.uit"rltu that this '
project's P|m-ary g.-o{-is tomake important information on plant and animal species in
the watershed available to local deci-sion makers such as yourself. The final report on
the first stage of this project will be available in Decembui. Pl"ur" feel free to call me or
Mike Sherman should you have any questions.
Thank you for your involvement and support.
Sincerely,
Jamey Fidel, Project Coordinator - Roaring Fork valley Biological Inventory
Phone Number - 927-1741
cc: Ms. Giannola and Mr. McCaffertv
Exh,bil K
GARFIETD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
FACSr}IrLE TRA}ISHTSSION
rr h /q1
U .c\$iq 6 ra"* D\a
P-At
Date:
peliver to:
Fax Nurnber:
FroDt
Fax Nuruber:
Total pages,
Problems with
coMr{mrTs:
qqs - 1r BS
Joseph Forinash
(97O) 625-O8se
includlng this transnittal
this transmission? CalI
Stto-.\ (.fl-nr Ie, DroP-"a"Frt
W "p*r x'rg-rs\ Ld u,.,Q- [.^"-
r ( 1A^ w00\,/ \t*DlO
sheet: Z
(97O) 62s-358e.
+l - NoU;08-1ee? r#aa FRoN GRRFIELD c0 RoaD & BRIDGE T0
IIIILtI+
945??As P.Zt
kfrs*
GARFIELD COUIIITY
ROAD AND BRII}GE
P.0. BOX ?754
Lilenwood SDringsr Colorado 81602-?Z5t+
Phorre 945-51 1 1
0ATE: November 6. 1997
TO: Vlr:toria Giannola
FRCIM: KinS
Garfield Planning Dept.
RE: Rose Ranch Suh*Division
TRP.F FJ IC STUDY
Fiqrrro l3 rleems to indicate the LOS woul.d improve with the
a.ddit,ion <lf the Rose Ranch traff lc. This contradlcts the
ex0lanation tn the"r trin assignment text. Shor-tId there bo
cilscussion of the LOS for the thru traffic on CR 1 54
esrroctaliy'for that traffic travelli-ng west after tho stop
sign.
Because 01' t,he+ i.ncrease in traff ic f rom CR 109 on'uo CR 'l 54,
arrd given the conf iqnration of tho intersectlon ui t.h on'l y the
tr^aff i.c oh CR 154 goi.ng west having to stop, there could be a.groat,er chance of traff ic tur ning onto CR 154 assumlng tha.t
tr;.rff ic proceedino oast on CR 154 is ootng to ston. tdhcn the
bridga was roplaced in I985, there uas a discusslon of making
it a.Z--way stop, but tdest,-Bank residents protested thls
sr.rggos'tiorr then. but it miqht be nocessary noL,,
I cor.ri-dn't firrd any suggestion of turn lanes for the t,raff ic
wanting to enter Rc.rse Ranch f rom CR 109 travel ing sot.ttharly.
5lrrce 1991 . t.he county has beon trying to f ind monies to
inrprovo CR 109 f rom the brldqe t-o tha lcest Bank .Sub-Divlsion
entrance, There were arrangernents made wlth Mr, Rose to movehis fence to the soutlr, realign ths road and lessen tho graoeqoinq uD the hill. Thls work uas nevpr done beeauee offunding problems and conflicts rertth utilitles,
In section 9. under {,ransportation, dl.dn't thay mean CR 15/r t
S t., l-(wy. 87?
tdhon CR 1 09 is l rnrrrovod next year, traff i c numberg going
nc.rrth and sor"itlr pa6t thio proJcct wiII tncrease. whlch does
no t seem l.o kre ardcJresssed.
GARFIELD CO(IIYTY
Building and Planning Department
TO: Jim Dullea, The Norris-Dullea Company
Ronald Heggemeier, Applicant
Ross Jeffery, Applicant
Joe Hope, High Country Engineering
Kirk Beattie, Beattie Natural Resource Consultant, Inc.
FROM: Victoria Giannola, Senior Planner '711
Don DeFord, County Attorney
Peggy Bailey, Wright Water Engineers, [nc.
RE: Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan
DATE: 25 November 1997
The following memo contains a list of the major items discussed at the 1:00 P.M. Tuesday,24
November 1997 meeting on the Rose Ranch application at the Garfield County Court House.
This information will be submitted by the applicant at the PUD andlor Sketch Plan stage to the
county staff.
l. The applicant will supply a legal contract from West Divide specifring the provision of
adequate water quantity service to the Rose Ranch development.
2. The site of the water tank will be relocated to an area on-site which has an existing road
access controlled by the land owners.
3. Thq storage location and quantity of irrigation water supply will be shown on the plan in
addition to the location of the ponds and the pond sizes.
4. The type of Best Management Practices will be listed in detail including maintenance
requirements.
5. The applicant will strive to create an Audubon Rated or Chemical Free golf course with
90 or < irrigated acres.
I
109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-82121285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
I
t
L
8
9.
6.
7.
10.
11.
12.
The Floaters' Park will no longer be a component of the application. The applicant will
coordinate with the Division of Wildlife (DOW) to provide a protective zone surrounding
the Great Blue Heron Rookery.
The applicant will propose closure of the Active Recreation Area and Trails during the
suggested months as listed in the recommendations of the Wildlife Report and the DOW.
These trails and recreation areas will be located in the least intrusive areas to wildlife.
The applicant will propose the installation of signalization at the intersection of CR 154
with SR 82. Atl cost will be born by the applicant.
The bike and pedestrian trail along the west side of CR 109 may cross under the roadway
to follow the eastern side of the road. However, the south end must connect on the west
side. The trail will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Garfield County's
Conserving Open Lands for the Future plan and the Glenwood Springs River
Commission' s standards.
Alternate and viable agricultural uses will be researched by the applicant, with the
assistance of county stafi as a land use component on-site.
Sidewalks will be provided along the full length of all roadways.
The geological constraints noted by the Preliminary Geotechnical Study will be
investigated by the applicant. Mitigation measures will be engineered and where this
option is not feasible, such hazardous areas will not be developed.
No oflsite detention facilities will be proposed with this project. All mitigation will be
undertaken on-site.
The applicant will provide cross sections and routing of debris flow from the Northeast
Dry Park Drainage.
The design consultants will explore a more integrated residential community with a more
diverse mix of land uses.
We also began discussions of the previously proposed development of the steep bluff
versus the preservation of this important visual corridor.
Kirk Beattie noted that the bald eagle has been shifted from the endangered species list to
the threatened species list. He will provide county staffwith this information in addition
to providing the technical definition of protected species.
13.
14
15.
A.
B.
2
GARFIELD COT]IYTY
Building and Planning Department
TO: Jim Dullea, The Norris-Dullea Company
Ronald Heggemeier, Applicant
Ross Jeffery, Applicant
Joe Hope, High Country Engineering
Kirk Beattie, Beattie Natural Resource Consultant, Inc.
FROM: Victoria Giannola, Senior Planner rL/)
{. ,/.1
Don DeFord, County Attorney
Peggy Bailey, Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
RE: Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan
DATE: 1 December 1997
This second memo contains a list of the major engineering items discussed at the l:00 P.M.
Tuesday, 24 November 1997 meeting on the Rose Ranch application at the Garfield County
Court House with Peggy Bailey of Wright Water Engineers, county stafi and the applicant and
their consultants.
1. A state engineer will review the augmentation plan.
2. The applicant's consultants will review the accesses and the utility services with regard to
topography.
3. The applicant will show the sewage lift station location and the water supply pump facility
location.
4. The applicant will show the well field location.
5. The lot lines will truncate at the wetland and the flood plain lines. However, the site's
property boundary will be researched and revised to accurately reflect the entire recorded
holding.
6. The applicant will demonstrate that setbacks are at least 30 feet from the ordinary high
water mark.
Page I of 2
109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-S2l2l2S5-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
LAW OFFICES
HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.C.
CENTENNIAL PLAZA BUILDING
502 MAIN STREET. SUITE 20 I
CARBONDAIE, COLORADO 8 I 623
TIIOMAS C. HILL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR., P.C.
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
THOMAS L. A.DKISON
The Board of Directors of the westbank Mesa Homeowners' Association
legal authority or right to grant the proposed easement. This authoriry is
of the lots and in the County.
August 5,1997
Kj eil Mitcheil, President
Westbank Mesa Homeowners' Association
0215 Dolores Circle
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Proposed Easement for Roaring Fork Investments, LLC
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
I represent Roger and Lorrie Brown, the owners of Lot 9, Westbank Ranch PUD Filing No. 4. The
Browns are opposed to the proposed Easement Agreement which the Board of Dirictors of the
Westbank Mesa Homeowners' Association is considering. My understanding is that the proposed
easement is for the construction, operation, maintenance and repair of a path to be usid for
pedestrian, bicycle and golf cart access, as well as for the installation of a water line and other
utilities for the benefit of a proposed deveiopment kaown as the "Rose Ranch." This proposed
easement wouid cross the open space to the east of the Brown's propefiy and will have a negative
impact on the Browns' properfy.
TELEPHONE
(970) 963-3900
FACSMILE
(970) 961-i l3 I
email:jodyc@hee a.com
simply does not have the
vested only in the orvners
Articie IX of the Deciaration of Protective Covenants for Westbank Ranch PUD Fiiing No. 4, a
Common Interest Planned Community ("Declaration"), provides that all common areas "are hereby
reserved for the cornmon use of the owners of lots wirhin the subdivision." The draft Easement
Agreement proposes to grant use of the open space to the proposed Rose Ranch development. In
order to grant the easement across the open space.-you must first obtain an amenciment to the
Declaration, which requires a vote of 75% of the owners of the lots, pursuant to Articie XI,
paragraph A of the Declaration.
The Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act provides that for a common interest planned
community, such as Westbank Mes4 to convey an interest in jts common elements. there must first
be an approvai by at least 80% of the owners. see $ 3g-33 .3-312, c.R.s.
The Colorado Planned Unit Deveiopment Act provides that "common open space shail run in favor
k;"tt Mit"hell, President
Westbank Mesa Homeowners' Association
August 5,1997
Page2
of the County" (524-67-106(1), C.R.S.) and "all provisions of the plan shall run in favor of theresidents, occupants and owners of the planned unit development.'; See $ 24-67-106(2), C.R.S._Therefore, in order for the Association to grant the easement, it is necessary to obtain permission ofboth the County and the owners. Arguably, this section requires upprorul of lo1%if rfr. ",,*.;,of lots within the planned unit development, since the terms of the pUO are for the benefit of the lotowners and all lot owners, iike the Browns, relied on the terms of the recorded plat and Declarationwhen purchasing their lots.
In addition to County approval being required under the Colorado planned Unit Development Act,the proposed easement is a modification to the PUD plan, which requires approval uy ir,. a;rr;;pursuant to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution l"County Code";. una'.. the iounry Codicommon open space is land "intended for owners" within the PUD. Thus, the easement wouid bereducing the amount of land in the PUD which qualifies as open space. Section 4.01.01, CountyCode' Moreover, the County Code requi res that 25Yo of a PUD be common open space (Section4'07 '09, Coruity code), and there has been no demonstration that r.nrouui oilir. .*.*.nt area fromthe common open space would leave remaining at least25%of the pUD as open space.
The Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association is simply without the power or authorityto grant arl easement of this nahre, and any such act would be uttri vires and.;poientiaily, a breachof your fiduciary duties to the owners. A vioiation of power of this magnit,-,de which couid have,anegative impacts on certain lots within the PUD is something which should not be taken lightly bymembers of the Board of Directors. You should obtain independent counsei on this issue. I havebeen informed that the attomey for the proposed Rose Ranch development has also been providingadvice to your Board of Directors despite the obvious conflict of interest.
In order to grant this easement, you must have the approval of the Countv and at least g0% (arguabiy100%) of the owners of the Lots in the subdivision. hls has not occurred.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
and Lorrie Brown
Don Deford, County Attorney
brorvnr\ I mitchel.0l
L.t-.c.
I
DEPABTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY ENGINEEB DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNI A 9581 4.2922FEPLY TO
ATTENTION OF July 31, 1997
Regulatory Branch (1,9977526l-)
Mr. David SteinmannProfessional Wetlands Consulting, Incorporated20 Rim Road
BouLder, Colorado 80302
Dear Mr. Steinmann:
we are respolcinE to your written request dated ,Ju1y 7,L997, orr behalf of Roaring Fork Investments, LLC, for ajurisdictionaL determination on the Rose Ranch. The property islocated west and south of Highway 82 near the confluence ofCattl-e Creek and the Roaring Fork River within Sections 1 &. 12,Township 7 south, Range 89 west, Garfield county, colorado.
Based on a site inspection by susan Bachini Narl of thisof f ice on _Apri1 !7 , Lgg'r , we have- det,ermined that your wetlandboundary delineation is accurate. The plan refereiced below isan accurate depiction of the limits of Federa] jurisdiction undersection 404 of the clean water Act. The plan i; labeled:
Rose Ranch - Garfield Cor:ntyFinal Wetland Map
Dat,et 7-7/97
This verification is vaLid for a period of five years fromthe date of this letter and is based oi: information sipplied byyou. rf t,hat, informat,ion proves to be false or incorrect, w€wilL adjust our determination accordingly. we have assignednumber L99775261 to this determination. Please contact Ms. NaIIanci refer to t,his number if you have any questions regarding thismatter and for permit requirements at tglol 243-1199, -extension
15 or the address beIow.
Sincerely,
Grady L. McNureChief, Northwestern ColoradoRegulatory Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room L42
Grand ,function, Colorado BL5Ol- -2563
I
Copies Furnished:
STATE CF COLCRADO
COTORADO GEOTOCICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Ceology
Department of Natural Resources
'l 313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-2611
FAX (303) 866-2461
f:-'
October 30,7997
Ms. Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Department Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE:Rose Ranch PLrD and Sketch Plan Land Use R.eview
Dear Ms. Giannola:
At your request and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972) this office has reviewed the
materials submitted for this proposed PUD Sketch Plan and conducted a site inspection on October
28th and with you on the 29th,1997. The property is on the southwest side of the Roaring Fork
River Valley, with a small sliver of land on the northeast side near the confluence with Cattle Creek.
Geomorphologically, the site occupies nearly flat river terraces, large broad alluvial fans, colluvial
slopes, and dissected, bedrock escarpments, of an older erosional surface. Development in this large
PUD is proposed in all of the above geomorphic features. A golf course is proposed for the steeper
bedrock areas west of County Road 109 and high to moderate density residential areas are planned
for the alluvial fan, colluvial slope, and river terrace areas.
The CGS has made a cursory review of the PUD plans and offer the following observations
and recommendations to Garheld County.
)The soils of the alluvial fans and colluvial slope wash areas are almost entirely derived
from the Eagle Valley Evaporite. These soils have high percentages of soluble gypsum, are
low density, and will have severe hydrocompactive properties. Even with properly designed
deeper foundations, these soils, when wetted, will be problematic with roadways and slab on
grades pavements. The undulations and damage areas on County Road 109 in this area are
a result of these soil properties.
)It appears that the majority of the alluvial fans are sage covered and have never been flood
irrigated. The introduction of water to these areas can easily result in ground subsidence,
sink holes, and ground fissuring and piping soil dissolution.
GA-98-0006
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAI
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Cl overnor
lame,s S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
St.ite Geologist
and Director
Rose Ranch PUD SP, Page 2
)Several Ponds are proposed within the alluvial fan areas. The severe wetting of the low
density, gypsiferious, hydrocompactive soils by these ponds could have far reaching
consequences for ground settlement and subsidence in the residential areas that surround
them. This will also be true for the residential areas downgradient of the inigated golf course
in the colluvial soils between the two alluvial fans.
)The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation included in the PUD plans is exceedingly brief
and is not adequate for the size and complexity of the PUD. In the PUD plan is a letter from
HP Geotech. that indicates a further, in-depth, geotechnical report is forthcoming. A new
Sketch Plan and Development Plan map and notes should reflect the recommendations of the
latest geotechnical consultant when they become available. We cannot recommend approval
for this Sketch Plan until the CGS has an opportunity to review and comment on this new
study.
)The Drainage Plan has correctly identified the Northeast Dry Park Drainage as a debris
flow basin. As such, it is the opinion of this office that the developer be required to
commission a Debris Flow Drainage and Mitigation Plan during the Sketch Plan approval
process.
There are developable areas of the Rose Ranch but, at this point in time, we cannot
recommend approval of the Rose Ranch PUD Sketch Plan. When the additional geotechnical and
drainage/debris flow mitigation studies become available we strongly recommend that the county
resubmit the revised PUD SP for review by this office. If you have any questions please contact this
office at (303) 894-2167.
Jonathan L. White
Engineering Geologist