HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 07.20.98k1--"-
r,cc ttzotsb
REOUEST:
APPLICAIT{T:
PLANNERS:
ENGINEERS:
GEOLOGIST:
BIOLOGIST:
CULTURAL
RESOURCES:
ATTORNEY:
LOCATION.
SITE DATA:
WATER:
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Planned unit Development and Sketch Plan review for the Rose
Ranch aPPlication
Roaring Fork lnvestments, L' L' C'
Norris Dullea ComPanY
High Country Engineering, Inc' - civil and traffic
EVO Consulting Services - civil
Zancanellaand Associates, Inc' - water
MTI GEO
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc'
Kirk H. Beattie
Merill Ann Wilson
Delaney & Balcomb, P.C.
An operating ranch located west of the Roaring Fork River'
uppro*i.ut Jy 2-5 miles south of the City of Glenwood Springs'
anb directty south of the West Bank subdMsion'
Section 1 and 12, Township 75, Range 89W' A 440 acre tract to
be combined with the Wesi Bank subdMsion golf facilitie:.fbt u
total of 533.5 acres. To develop a292lot residential subdivision
and an associated golf facility, with additional recreational and open
space amenities.
Historic consumptive use credits, surface diversions from the
Roaring Fork River, junior rights for on-site ponds an{ryrface
diversiins, senior #gation tightt with the Glenwood Ditch, senior
irrigationsrights in tne noUertson Ditctu and West DMde Water
ConservancY District
Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation DistrictSEWER:
Page 1 of 20
ACCESS:
EXSTI]TIG ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
9-qyry Road (CR) 109, State Route (SR) 154, and State Highway(srr 82
Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density
PUD subdMsion to the north
AIR/RD and Open space to the south
A/R/RD to the west
A/R/RD and Commercial to the east
The Proposed Land Use Distrias map for Study Area I shows the zubjea site as within both aHigh Density Residential (two or fewer T-r.rpo dwelling unit; districi and Low Density (morethan 10 aces per dwelling unit) district. The dlsignation Irhigi density is based upon theavailability of central water and central sewer senrice to the *u3e"t site. rne low densitydesignations are located along the river corridor and west of County no"a ioq *d are basedprirrarily upon wildlife and physicavenvironmental constraints.
tr. PROJECT INFORMATION
A' Site Description: The subject site contains an active ranch to the east of CountyRoad lo9 which is being phased out of active production, and steeply sloped aniundeveloped terrain to the west of County Road 109 which is considered rangeIand' The land along the Roaring Fork Valley to the east is gently sloping *lil"the land-west of County Road 109 is steeply sloping above Jay p"r""nt (60%).
Vegetation on the site consists predomin*ity oiruge with j"ridr trees. Four (4)habitat types are present on_the subject property ana includi ripanan transitioqirrigated pastureq sagebrush-rabbitbrush and prnyon jrnipe.. ihe site containsvarious buildings associated with the household and the ranching operations
including three (3) historically significant strucfures. An abandoned railroad gradetraverses the property to the east. An historic irrigation ditch traverses theproperty in a north-south direction.
B' Adiacent Land Uses: West Bank Planned Unit Development is located to thenorth of the property and is connected to the subject site through a thirty (30')
easement, and Teller Springs Subdivision is located to the routh. The Roaring
Fork River forms the eastern boundary of the site, and the western boundary of tn"
site is bordered by land zoned agricultural.
Page2of 20
t.
C. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create a Planned Unit
Development whicir will consist of 292units, including both l7l sinqfe family
dwellings, 74 duplex units, and 47 club homes on a 440 acre tract. The site will
also contain u go[f.o,rrse which will link with the West Bank golf facilities to
create an eighteen (18) hole golf course with associated facilities including a
restaurant and maintenance building. Additional recreational amenities are
proposed including a fishing parlg overlooks, trails, greenhouse, garden plots, and
iecieational facilities such as tennis courts, a swimming pool, playground and
picnic area.
REVIEW AGENCY AND OT}IER COMMENTS
A. Review Agency Comments:
Colorado Geological Survey: the State of Colorado Geological Survey cannot
recommend appioval of theapplication due to the geologic constraints of the site
for the type oldevelopment proposed. The Geologic Survey's letter is still valid.
The report noted the following potential geologic hazards:
Severe hydrocompactive soil properties problematic for roadways and slab on
grade pavements.
Fot.ntiut ground subsidence in the majority of the alluvial fans where development
is proposJd resulting in ground subsidence, sinkholes, ground fissuring, and piping
soil dissolution.
potential ground settlement and subsidence in the residential areas surrounding the
proposed ponds within the alluvial fan areas due to severe wetting of these
hydrocompactive soils by the ponds.
The Colorado Geologic Survey's most recent report of l5 May 1998 states that
"Our largest conceiwith the developmentwith Rose Ranch is the lack of water
*onogrirnt and the apparent lack of the understanding, shown in plat design, of
the pioblems that the iitrduction and saturation of a thick column of collapsible
soiis can pose. It is easily seen in the plat design that the potential soil hazards
were givin little eonsideration in residential lots, streets, ponds, and gold course
tayi*. Much of the infrastntcture and residences, as proposed, will be
surrounded by water sources."
The report points out the following flaws in the plan design:
The applicant should avoid placing ponds on the site to deter potential collapsing
of soils adjacent to the Ponds.
The development plan indicates irrigated golf course holes 1l and 12 immediately
above County Road 109 where we can, therefore, expect a continuation of road
damage.
Page 3 of 20
)
Matrix supported gravelly alluvial fan soils can be highly collapsible but cannot be
determined by swell-consolidation testing since undisturbed samples are impossible
to collect. Gravelly soils can also be hishlv permeable where water can move
Iaterally at depth. Foundation perimeter drainage systems will not intercept deeper
water through gravelly layers within the alluvial fans. As a result, homes will be
subject to breaks in their foundations.
Liners may break when the pond is at it's full water capacity if differential
settlement of several inches occurs beneath them. Even if a geo-grid reinforcement
is used, it is unlikely that a liner could withstand the strains. Theie will still be the
problem of adverse wetting of the soils by the irrigated golf course holes
upgradient ofthe proposed residential units.
In conclusion, the colorado Geologic Survey report states that ... . . our
recommendation to the County is that additional work is required prior to
approval of the Rose Ranch P[ID and Sketch Plan in its current fom, and
Ievel of investigations and mitigation design., See Figure 2.
Division of Wildlife: the State of Colorado, Department ofNatural Resources,
Division ofWildlife (DO!$ sites their former letter as still valid in having reported
elk winter range over most of the site and severe winter range west of County
Road (CR) 109 and east of 109. The report also noted mule deer winter range and
severe winter range west of CR 109. Black bear and mountain lion are also noted
as inhabiting the area west of CR 109. Aside from big game, the riparian habitat is
also noted as home to owls, raptors, and eagles including a golden La$e nest site.
The east side of the river is pointed out as an active great blue heron iookery
which is the largest and one ofthe last viable rookeries on the Roaring ForkRiver.
Bald eagles also utilize the heron rookery during the winter months. the report
stated that "Eagle use and presence in this valley [ar"J dctermined by the
effectiveness of the riparian habitat to provide adequate feeding, roost, and perch
sites. These ffeas become less effective with development pressures and
associated disturbance os the areas along the river [oreJ developed."
The Division of wildlife's most recent letter of 4 May l99g points out impacts
including the following:
Herons wiII most likely abandon the nests in the tree on the west side of the
river due to the close proximity of homes and associated disturbence.
The 4 May 1998 Division of Wildlife letter of puts forth the following elevan (t t)
recommendations:
Placement in the protective covenants (under Art. ry, Sec. l2.c), as a condition of
approval, the placement of educational signs at the primary overlook regarding
golden eagle nesting , and the closure ofthe ridge south of the €agts,s nest from
15 March through I July.
Page 4 of 20
Closure of the upper golf course and ridge to human activity, excluding
maintenance, from I December through 3l March with a gate and a sign.
Installation of habitat improvement measures on the upper bench west of CR 109,
the development of a site plan with the DOW, and the maintenance and protection
from disturbance of the native vegetation outside of the golf course.
No construction of the water tank and line west of CR 109 from 15 March through
I July due to golden eagle nesting.
Creation of a vegetative screen plan approved by the DOW, and planting of
vegetation along the east boundary of proposed Lots 1 08 through I 1 8, 70 through
80, and T6tlrou$t77.
No tree removal along the river and the wetland .ueas except for exotic and
invading species.
Creation of an educational brochure for homeowners on how to live with wildlife.
Provide a 50-foot setback from the wetlands to the home-site'
Maintenance of the 110 foot buffer between Rose Ranch and Teller Springs in
native vegetatioq and installation of vegetative screening along the lot boundaries'
Provision of a public fishing easement along the West Bank property downstream
from the bridge.
No construction of the primary overlook from 15 March through 1 July.
Regarding the Great Blue Heron rookery, the Division ofWildlife report of 4 May
1998 recommends the following six (6) conditions:
Planting of vegetative screening along the east boundary of proposed Lots 108
through 118 to screen homesites and backyard activity.
Placement of vegetative screening before any construction activity.
No construction of homes from 15 February through 31 May on proposed Lots 94
through 96 and 108 through I 18.
No human activity in the riparian and wetlands areas below proposed Lots 94
through 118 and across from the rookery from 15 February through 15 July by the
use of fencing and signage.
Installation of an artificial nesting platform on the east side of the river by the
rookery.
No second story decks and/or balconies facing the rookery for proposed Lots 108
through ll8. See Figure I.
Division of Water Resources: the State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer
Division ofWater Resources finds that ". . . the proposed water supply will cause
material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate." Arl augmentation plan
has not been finalized with the water court. See Figure 3.
Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: the Mount Sopris Soil Conservation
District has not responded to this application-
J.
4.
Page 5 of 20
5.Bureau of Land Management: the United States Department of the Interior Bureau
of Land Management has not responded to this application.
carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: the carbondale & Rural Fire
Protection District notes that the developer should submit an addressing plan for
review by the County and by Emergency Management. The Fire protection
District recommends that the water supplies from the Rose Ranch development be
made available for future extension to these areas. ln addition, the code requires a
minimum flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm), whereas the applicant has
indicated an undersized flow of 1,000 gpm. Furthermore, the development is
subject to impact fees adopted by the District which are due prior to recording of a
final plat. See Figure 4.
Roaring Fork School District RE-l: the Roaring Fork School District RE-l is
requesting cash in lieu of the calculated dedicated land, to be paid at the time of
subdivision approval, to compensate for the increase in school children generated
from this proposed developmerrt. See Figure 5.
Roaring Fork rransit Agency: the Roaring Fork Transit Agency's (RFTA) initial
report indicated that, because of severe automobile congestiorq the number of
potential vehicle trips diverted to transit requires additional transit capacity or an
entirely new service, which the developer is, in some cases, required to provide
funding to mitigate the projected impacts. The report stated that such findings
may include passenger shelters, pull-offs, and lighting. According to the report,
service to the proposed site could be linked with service to West Bank and other
neighboring developments resulting in potential cost sharing. The report also
recommends looking at how the proposed site design will link up with future
transit improvements in order to alleviate congestion in the valley, and how the
proposal contributes to sharing the burden of the costs of such improvements.
The report made the following two (2) recommendations:
The development should mitigate its impacts on the existing or the future transit
system.
The development should be designed to ma:rimize the opportunities for transit use
and to minimize the necessif for automobile use.
The report lists the following four (a) requirements:
Rolling stock capacity equivalent to sixty-three percent (63%) of an additional
transit bus resulting in a cost of $167,000 and a life span of twelve (12) years.
Additional operating subsidy in 1998 dollars of $18,300.
Park and Ride facility adjacent to SH 82, including a transit shelter and thirty-nine
(39) parking spaces, with an estimated cost of $201,500.
Parking lot maintenance and snow removal of a cost of $9,500 per year.
7.
8.
Page 6 of 20
9
RFTA's subsequent report, prepared by LSC, Inc. consultants, estimated that the
number of potential transit trips that the proposed development could generate per
day would be 129. This latest report states that "the substantial increase in
service requiredfor Rose Ranch, dnot accompanied byfundingforfixed costs,
would only exacerbate the imbalance in regionalfunding. . . If the proposed
project were located in Pitkin or Eagle Counties, a substantial portion of this
anmral funding requirement would be generated through increased sales tm
reyenues, as both counties hove dedicated public transportation sales tu.
Garfield County, however, does not currently hwe a dedicated source offunding
for transit services." See Figure 6.
Roaring Fork Railroad Hotding Authority: The Roaring Fork Railroad Holding
Authority (RFRHA) has indicated that the Park and Ride lot location proposed is
on RFRHA property and that the applicant has not contacted the authority
regarding use of this property. Their letter to the County states that the proposed
density and the cul-de-sac design are not considered transit oriented and friendly
development. RFRHA also states that the proposed access would have to cross
the rail corridor to get onto SH 82 which may require a grade separated crossing
and which the developer should pay their fair share of the costs to construct. See
Figure 16.
Eagle County: Eagle County reminds the Garfield County Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed Rose Ranch PUD and
Sketch Plan should be evaluated in accordance with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan goals. See Figure 8.
Pitkin County: Pitkin County also reminds the Garfield County Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant should
adequately address the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan goals particularly
with regard to mass transit, by payrrg an appropriate share of the construction
costs for a Park and fude facility; and with regard to affordable housing, by
providing units on-site that are affordable housing for the service workers which
the project will require for home and golf course maintenance. See Figure 9.
Comments from Organizations :
Roaring Crystal Alliance: The Roaring Crystal Alliance members site scientific
evidenCe for a greater buffer of one-thousand feet (1,000') from home sites at the
southern end of the proposed project as well as management of the rookery area.
The Alliance also recommends that a continuous conservation easement be placed
along the riverfront greenbelt for the length of the project. The Alliance further
not.. the potential for river contamination through runofffrom the golf course and
supports water quality monitoring efforts and monitoring of the riparian health.
10.
11.
B.
12.
Page 7 of 20
13.
See Figure IA.
Glenwood Springs River Commission: the Glenwood Springs River Commission
met with the applicant on 6 May 1998 to review the proposed modifications to the
plan design.
The River commission provided the following four (4) recommendations in
accordance with their prior letter:
Avoid erosion along the river bank that may occur during high water where
construction has occurred by establishing a setback for buildings lots at one
hundred feet (100').
Avoid the loss of natural vegetation along the river banks, which provides
protection for wildlife, by establishing a Wildlife/Vegetative easement/buffer along
the river corridor.
Establish a trail along the west side of the Roaring Fork River as a Link between
carbondale and Glenwood Springs and construct the trail along cR r09 to
Glenwood Spring's Rivertrails specifications.
Develop a progr.Lm for monitoring surface water quality, and limit the use of
pesticides and fertilizers. See Figure 17.
Roaring Fork valley Biological Inventory: the Roaring Fork Valley Biological
Inventory pointed out in their prior letter that the great blue heron rookery located
on the proposed development site is listed in Colorado Natural Heritage Program
Report. The program report recommends that aYz mrle radius conservation
boundary be implemented to protect the rookery, and that a one thousand foot
(1,000') buffer be provided around the nests to protect feeding areas. The report
notes that, of the ninety (90) to one hundred (100) nest sites located in the state,
only three are found in the Roaring Fork Valley, and the one located at the Rose
Ranch property is the largest. See Figure 27.
Carbondale Affordable Housing Corporation: the agency responded at the public
meeting before the Planning Commission to the applicant's letter date 20 May
1998 regarding the donation of $1,000 per unit at the time of building permit to
the Board of Realtors and $1,000 per unit at the time ofbuilding permit to the
Housing Corporation. The agency stated that the financial contribution will not
adequately address the need for housing between Carbondale and Glenwood
Springs. The agency also stated that affcrdable housing should be provided on-site.
See Figure 7.
14.
15.
Page 8 of 20
16. Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors- Inc.: the Glenwood Springs Board of
Realtors suggests that the County should establish a measure and a rate to
determine what amount of affordable housing a development proposal should be
required to address. The board of realtors also suggests that any payrnent should
be made by the developer or be rendered no later than at the closing date of a lot.
The board added that any funds received would be used for either first time home
buyers or for affordable housing groups and projects. See Figure l,5.
17. Garfield County Housing Authority: The Garfield County Housing Authority
reported that its agency could effectively use the contribution offered by the
applicant of two hundred dollars ($200) per units for land acquisition,
rehabilitation of a residence, local matching funds for affordable housing
development, project dwelopment costs, or a combination of the above. See
Figure 28.
C. Letters from Concerned Citizens See Figures Il-11, 18-26, and 29-36.
IV. MAIOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: The subject site is currently zoned Agricultural/ResidentiallRural Density
which allows for a two (2) acre minimum lot size and agricultural uses, parks,
single-family homes, and accessory dwellings by right. Community buildings are
allowed by conditional use, and two-family dwellings, trails, golf course facilities,
and commercial recreation facilitieVparks are permitted by special exception. The
proposed PUD calls for an average density of 0.54 units per acre. The plan
proposes single family units, duplexes, club houses, golf facilities (including a
restaurant), recreational amenities, and open space.
B. Subdivision: The proposed PUD calls for 292 homes on lots ranging in size from
over one (1) acre to 8,000 square feet. The club houses will have a density of six
(6) units to the acre.
,
-'Tf#:I,Htti,ifiiiiji,lL,
:-
si'fe as r','ws :
' 15,000 Square Foot Residential District
' 9,000 Square Foot Residential District: iffirofi{t:l}#ifl:s"
Page 9 of 20
C.Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of
1994lists housing, transportation, traffc mitigatioq street desigrr, visual corridoq
recreation, open space, fishing/rafting activities, rural landscape, trails, wildlife
habitat, water and sewer systems, environmental constraints, natural drainages,
wetland and riparian areas, soil constraints, ecological resources, and excessive cut
and fill goals which apply to this proposal and which must be met by the applicant.
Soils/Topography: The "Preliminary Geotechnical Study Rose Ranch
Development County Road 109 Garfield County, Colorado" reports that alluviat
fans form an alluvial apron along he base of the bluffin the eastern part of the
project area. River alluvium is present along the river channel and five (5) terraces
are adacent to the channel. Sinkholes of trventy (20') to two-hundred (200') feet
are presert on the site and have a depth of between one (l') foot to twerty (20')
feet. Additionally, smaller sinkholes are present on the property. These sinkholes
result from the collapse of zubzurface voids in the formation rock and in terrace
deposits.
The report states that the more severe constraints are associated with the alluvial
fan flooding and the potential for sinkholes which may require some modification
of the project design. The report also notes that the ephemeral channels and the
alluvial fans are susceptible to debris floods and viscous debris flow landslides
associated with intense rain and snow melt. Additionally, the entire fan surface is
considered a potential flood area, therefore, channel and bank stability may be
critical.
The report recommends a minimum setback from sinkholes of twenty (20') feet. In
addition, subsurface voids should be considered when planning building site
foundations. The report also recommends a minimum building setback of 2:1,
horizontal to vertical, asi measured from the edge of the river channel, and
protection against erosion through revegetation and rock rip-rap. Furthermore, no
grading should be considered on slopes greater than thirty (30%) percent.
Road/Access: The proposed PUD will utilize an easement though the West Bank
subdivision through a canyon to access the golf holes located atop the steeply
sloping terrain. The application has not addressed the potentid for debree flow
resulting from precipitation within the canyon as a result of the construction of the
cart path.
Fire Protection: The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District notes that the
plans should be completed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC)
Appendix Itr-A: Fire Requirements for Buildings; and that fire hydrants must be
located in accordance with the UFC Appendix III-B: Fire Hydrant Locations and
Spacing.
D.
E.
F.
Page l0 of 20
G.
H.
I.
Water: The application did not include evidence of a water court approved
augmentation plan. An adequate potable and irrigation water supply available to
all units has not been demonstrated per the requirements of the Subdivision
Regulation [Section 9. 5 I ].
Wastewater: The applicant will need to secure adequate sewage treatment
capacity from the Aspen Glen wastewater treatment plant for the project [Section
e.621.
Road tmpacts: The applicant has provided staffwith a Highway Access Permit.
Access to the highway has been granted as evidenced by this permit. However, no
indication of a request for signalization of the intersection was included with this
submission. The Traffic Study contained within the application notes that
signalization of the intersection is recommended to improve an otherwise failing
intersection whose condition will worsen with the proposed increase in
development.
PUD Requirements: The applicant has not met the requirements for
approval of a PID in terms of providing innovations in design,lessening
impacts, encouraging preseryation, avoiding incompatible elements,
according an appropriate relationship to its surroundings, and exhibiting
general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
The Rose Ranch applicant team has made substantial progress toward addressing the
concerns of County residents and agencies, as well as meeting County regulation issues.
Much of the changes have been an improvement over the former site design and several
have firlly mitigated initial conflicts. ln particular, wildlife issues have been nearly fully
addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewing agencies. Additionally, the County has been
presented with some of its first financial offers to help offset traffic and housing impacts.
However, the plan as presently proposed still leaves numerous questions unanswered and
many critical issues without adequate solutions. Most particulary, the severe geologic
constraints of this site pose many serious problems for which no assurances are provided
in the studies presented with this proposal. tn additiorl the most pressing issues facing
the County today regarding the severe shortage of attainable housing, the alarming rise in
traffic congestion, and the rampant loss of agricultural land in this Valley have not been
thoroughly addressed by a means which meets the level of demand which this proposal
will place upon the County. In most cases, the proposal before us further exacerbates an
already stressed situation.
J.
V.
Page ll of 20
A. Recommended Conditions of Approval from the Garfield County Planning
Commission to the Board of County Commissioners:
Regarding the Underlying Geologt and Soils:
l. The applicant will adhere to all recommendations contained within the reports of
their consulting engineers including the following:
a. establish a minimum setback from sinkholes of twenty (20') feet. In addition,
subsurface voids will be engineered for stability when planning building site
foundations; and
b. protect against erosion through revegetation and rock rip-rap. Furthermore,
grading will not be considered on slopes greater than thirry Q0%) percent [in
accordance with the The Preliminary Geotechnical Study Rose Ranch
Development County Road 109 Garfield County, Coloradol.
2. Ponds will be located in the area of least geologic impact and will be lined with an
industrial grade liner in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations with
the exception of those ponds which are existing [Garfield County Zonrng
Resolution Section 408.05(7XE)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County
Section 9.12, Garfreld County Comprehensive Plan Section ltr.8.5 Objeaive and
8.5 Policy, Section m.8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of
Colorado Geological Surveyl.
3. The developer and his consultants will rebuild the road or provide the finances to
do such should irrigated golf course holes I I and 12 immediately above County
Road 109 result in a continuation of road damage [Garfield County Zorung
Resolution Section 408.05(7XEXi9, Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County
Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section m.8.5 Objective and
8.5 Policy, Section Itr.8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of
Colorado Geological S*eyl.
4. The developer and his consultants will indemnify the county from any claims by a
homeowner associated with the following:
a. homes which will be subject to breaks in their foundations due to collapsible
underlying geology and highly permeable soils and the effects of irrigating the golf
course holes and the lawns;
b. liners which may break when a pond is at it's full water capacity if differential
settlement of several inches occurs beneath than;
Page12of 2O
c.severe hydrocompactive soil properties which are problematic for roadways and
slab on grade pavements;
potential ground subsidence in the majority of the alluvial fans where development
is proposed resulting in ground subsidence, sinkholes, ground fissuring, and piping
soil dissolution; and
potential ground settlement and subsidence in the residential areas surrounding the
proposed ponds within the alluvial fan areas due to severe wetting of these
hydrocompactive soils by the ponds [Garfield County ZomngResolution Section
408.05(7XE)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.12,
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section III.8.5 Objective and 8.5 Policy,
Section III.8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of Colorado
Geological Surveyl.
The applicant will provide plat notes regarding the need for specialized engineered
foundations on areas composed of hydrocompactive soils [Garfield County Zorung
Resolution Section 408.05(TXEXrv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County
Section 9.12, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section m.8.5 Objective and
8.5 Policy, Section tII.8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the CO
Geological Surveyl.
The applicant will provide detailed plans on the mitigation of the collapsible soils
for all building foundation and road construction proposed [Garfield County
ZonngResolution Section 408.05(7XE)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield
County Section 9.12, GaIfield County Comprehensive Plan Section Itr.8.5
Objective and 8.5 Policy, Section m.8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with
the State of Colorado Geological Survey].
The applicant will provide details plans on the proposed foundation stabilization
designs of the proposed pond [Garfield County ZonngResolution Section
408.05(7XE)(iv), Subdivision Regulations of Garfield county section 9.12,
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section ltr.8.5 Objective and 8.5 Policy,
Section III.8.1 and 8.7 Policies, and in accordance with the State of Colorado
Geological Surveyl.
The applicant will make use of native vegetation which requires less water
consumption by reguiring the planting of native grasses @on all
fairways and lawns on the site. The plan will abide by the recommendations of the
consultant's golf course management report - which to date the planning
department has not been provided a copy of [Section 408.05(7)(EXiv) of the
Garfield County ZonrngResolution and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
Section m.8.2 Objectivel.
e.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 13 of 20
Re gardmg Water C onsumptive Re quirements :
9. Include evidence of a water court approved augmentation plan for review prior to
approval of the preliminary plan for this project by the Board of County
Commissioners [Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.51, and in
accordance with the State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer Division of
Water Resources].
10. Ensure that an adequate potable water supply will be available to all units
[Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.51, and in accordance with
the State of Colorado Office of the State Engineer DMsion of Water Resources].
Regarding Sewage Treatment:
I l. Secure adequate sewage treatment capacity from the Aspen Glen wastewater
*o{af. " treatment plant through committed number of taps for the project [Subdivision
r:la.cr-zrtr' Regulations of Garfield County Section 9.62 andin accordance with the State of'fft *,tolorado Office of the State Engineer Division of Water Resourcesl.p\a^- t$la^\tcd f+"r.
Re garding Wi ldlile Prote ction :
12. The applicant has agreed to comply with the Division of Wildlife's conditions
including the following:
a. Place within the protective covenants (under Aft. fV, Sec. l2.c), as a condition of
approval, the placement of educational signs at the primary overlook regarding
golden eagle nesting, and the closure ofthe ridge south of the eagle's nest from l5
March through 1 July with fines imposed on those found in violation;
b. Place within the protective covenants the closure of the upper golf course and
ridge to human activity, excluding maintenance, from I December through 31
March with a gate and a sign and fines imposed for any violation thereof;
Install habitat improvemant measures on the upper bench west of CR 109,
undertake the development of a site plan with the DOW, and provide for the
maintenance and the protection from disturbance ofthe native vegetation outside
of the golf course;
Forbid the construction of the water tank and the line west of CR 109 from 15
March through I July due to golden eagle nesting activities;
c.
d.
Page 14 of 20
e. Create a vegetative screen plan approved by the DOW, and plant vegetation along
the east boundary ofproposed Lots 108 through l18, 70 through 80, and 76
tfuough 77;
f. Forbid the removal of trees along the river and the wetland areas except for exotic
and invading species;
g. Create an educational brochure for distribution to all homeowners on how to live
with wildlife;
h. Provide a SO-foot setback from the wetlands to the home-site; and
i. Maintain the 110 foot buffer between Rose Ranch and Teller Springs in native
vegetatiorg and install vegetative screening along all of those lot boundaries
[Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section m.8.6 Policy].
13. Provide a public fishing easement along the West Bank property downstream from
the bridge [Garfield Cotrnty Comprehensive Plan Section m.5.3, Policy and 5.3
Programl.
14. Forbid the construction ofthe primary overlook from 15 March through I July
[Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section ItI.8.6 Policy].
Regarding the Great Blue Heron Rookery:
15. The applicant has agreed to comply with the Division of Wildtife's conditions
including the following:
a. Plant vegetative screening along the east boundary ofproposed Lots 108 through
118 to screen homesites and backyard aaivity from the rookery;
b. Place vegetative screening before any construction activity;
c. Forbid the construction of homes from 15 February through 31 May on proposed
Lots 94 through 96 and 108 through 118;
d. Forbid human activity in the riparian and wetlands areas below proposed Lots 94
through 118 and across from the rookery from 15 February through 15 July by the
use of fencing and signage as well as fines imposed for any violation thereof,
e. Install an artificial nesting platform on the east side of the river by the rookery; and
Page 15 of 2A
f. Prohibit the construction of second story decks and/or balconies facing the rookery
for proposed Lots I 08 through I 1 8 unless a screening plan subject to approval by
the Division of Wildlife is submitted [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section
III.8.6 Objectivel.
Regarding Fire Protection Services :
16. Install vegetative screen to block the effects of increased traffic through the
development of a screening plan for the Richard Weinberg property.
17. Ensure that water supplies from the Rose Ranch development are made available
for future extension to these areas for fire protection purposes. Stub and size the
lines appropriately so that they are available for future tap-ins for fire flow [in
accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District].
18. Require a minimum flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) [in accordance with
the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection Districtl.
19. Provide inrpaa fees adopted by the District which are due prior to recording of a
final plat [in accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District].
ZO. Complete plans in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (nC) Appendix trI-A:
Fire Requirements for Buildings [in accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire
Protection Districtl.
21. Locate fire hydrants in accordance with the UFC Appendix III-B: Fire Hydrant
Locations and Spacing [in accordance with the Carbondale & Rural Fire
Protection District].
Re garding School District Service s:
22. Provide cash in-lieu-of the calculated dedicated land, to be paid at the time of
strbdivision approval, to compensate for the increase in school children generated
from this proposed development. The cash amount will be set at the time of final
plat [Garfi eld County Zonng Resolution Section 4. 08. 05(E)].
Regarding Pub lic Transportation Semices :
23. Mitigate the development's impacts on the existing or the future transit system by
contributing a fair share of the costs associated with providing public transit
service to the site including the Park and Ride facility, a transit shelter and parking
spaces, rolling stock capacity, operating subsidy, and parking lot maintenance and
snow removal.
Page 16 of 20
The applicant has offered $750.00 per unit for the construction of the Park and
Ride facility to be paid at the time of submission of a building permit application
[Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section IIL3.l and 3.3 Objectives, Section
IIL3.3 and 3.6 Policiesl.
Regarding Protection of the River Conidor:
24. Avoid erosion along the river bank that may occur during high water where
construction has occurred by establishing a setback for buildings lots at one
hundred feet (100') [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section III.5.0(A)
Goall.
25. Avoid the loss of natural vegetation along the river banks, which provides
protection for wildlife, by establishing a Wildlife/Vegetative easement/buffer along
the river corridor on the preliminary plans for staffreview [Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan Section III.5.0(A) Goall.
26. Ensure that the trail along the west side of the Roaring Fork River is a continuous
link; and construct the trail along CR 109 to Glenwood Spring's Rivertrails
specifications [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section III.5.0(A) Goal].
27. Develop a progrilm for monitoring surface water quality, and restrict the use of
pesticides and fertilizers [Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section m.5.0(A)
Goall.
28 Create a six (6) acre conservation easement along the riverfront of the project
[Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section [I.5.0(A) Goal].
29. Eliminate the potential for river contamination through runofffrom the golf course
and support water quality monitoring efforts and monitoring of the riparian health
[Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section m.5.0(A) Goal].
Regarding Housing Provisions, Traffic Improvements, Viewsheds, and Historic Features:
,.-\\( lO ) -?rovide-furten-pere€nf(t096ff+ffitrousing:uni*proposed as-altainabte\-'/ jeet+i+* The applicant should work with the
Carbondale Affordable Housing Corporation, the Garfield County Housing
Authority, the Housing for Tomorrow Commissioq and the Glenwood Board of
Realtors. t'rynent of atv fu Usin="e
apprevaftcarfield County Zonrng Resolution Section 4.M,4.07.01, and 4.07.03
and Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section III.2.l Objectivel.
bO% d , r.da-- [n*u>r.t -f Fronsrzt- +l^.z'" \b
"P
-L'tncar'r
Page 17 of 20
31. Construct a controlled intersection as proposed upon approval of the first final plat
unless the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requires a grade
separated intersection. In which case, the applicant will contribute its fair share of
the total cost to construct a grade separated access at the intersection of SR 82
with CR 154, which is the preferred improvement design by both the CDOT and
the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority for primary public safety reasons.
The cost of such an improvement is estimated to start at two million dollars
[Garfield County ZorungResolution Section 4.04, 4.07.01, and 4.07.031.
32. Provide payment of the applicable road impact fee at the time of final plat
approval.
33. Construct improvements to CR 109 between tlardwick Bridge and the first
entrance to the subdivision [Garfield County ZonngResolution Section 4.04,
4.07.01, and 4.07.031.
34. The proposed PUD will b€ permitted to provide the possible use of a morimum
building height ofup to thirty-five (35') feet based upon the application of
preliminary plans which will be evaluated for potential impacts resulting from an
increase in building height on the site specific locations [Garfield County Zorung
Resolution Section 4.07.04(l)(2X3)(5) and Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
Section m.2.5 Objectivel.
35. Save and repair Building #8. Evaluate the potential to save and repair the cold
storage cellar as a part of this proposed PUD [Garfield County ZonngResolution
Section 408.05(7XG)1.
Regarding Commercial Uses and Canyon Development:
36. Provide the total area of proposed nonresidential floor space prior to the PUD
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. [Subdivision Regulations of
Garfield County Section 3.32.I.51.
37. Ensure that the cart path proposed within the drainage channel of the canyon will
not increase the rate of runoffand debris flow and that mitigation structures are
installed to manage these factors [SubdMsion Regulations of Garfield County
Section 3.40.D and Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section m.5.0 Goal, and
Section Itr.8.2 Policyl.
Page 18 of 20
38. Provide a design of the canyon golf cart path whictr, from a geotechnical and
debris flow model within the canyon are4 will be safe for pedestrians and for
homesites located down gradient [Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County
Section 3.40.D and Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section III.5.0 Goal, and
Section III.8.2 Policyl. \tia-f df a,- i^Ctr?cnd""-* ea^o1 Nef,,t W::1.Ai &*,^.S1 g[^sdsr^J ...ro n^,Hrif\r'r*,ti74na1
Regarding Agricalture: r€asu\:< 5
39. Require xeroscape landscaping measures for all homes proposed within the
development as part of the covenants [Section 408.05(7XE)(iv) of the Garfield
County ZonngResolution and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section
III.8.2 Objeaivel.
40. The applicant will adhere to all recommendations of conditions of compliance as
contained within the letter from Wright Water Engineers dated 2l May 1998.
Regarding Homesites:
41. No outdoor lighting will shine offof the property, but rather shine down and in
towards the structure; and the PUD will minimize outdoor lighting.
42. The applicant will provide $2,200.00 per lot to be paid at the time of final plat.
43. A limitation will be instituted of two (2) wood burning fireplaces in the clubhouse.
All other structures and residences on the Rose Ranch development are prohibited
from having wood burning fireplaces or stoves.
44. The applicant will abide by the "Conditions/Recommendations Agreed to by Rose
Ranch Developers for Approval" as submiued by the applicant at the public
meeting before the Planning Commission.
B. StaffRecommendation of Conditions in Addition to the Planning
Commission's Conditions :
Regording the Great Blue Heron Rookery:
45. Establish-a-one-theusar.ld-feettt atoteafeedins
@rehensivePlan SectionJtr-8.5Stfeetivel .
Page 19 of 20
Re gardin g Lot C onfi gur ati on :
46. sed along
the Rsaring Fork River to twn (^) ae+es-in{i*@ designated
Area l map
[Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Section ItL8.7 Objeaive].
Re garding Agri ca lture :
47. The applicant will provide a tract of land reserved for community gardens at a size
sufficient for each unit to manage a plot for home use [Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan Section [I.5.0(A) Goal, Section I[.5.](A) Objective, Section
Itr.6.0 Goal, and Section m.6.1 Objective, Section m.6.2 Poliry, and Section
III.6.5 Programl.
B. C. Recommendation of Staff:
It is recommended that the Garfield County Board of Commissioners put forth a
recommendation of disapproval of the application for the Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch
Plan. The primary reason for this disapproval is the severe geologic constraints which this
site presents for the type of development design proposed. A secondary reason is the
inability of the present proposal to meet the major issues facing the County regarding a
lack of affordable houshlg, an increase in traffic congestion, and a loss of agricultural land.
Page20 of 20
Attaclment A
818 Colorado Ave.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Spnngs. Colorado 81602
{970} 945-7755 TEL
19701 945-9210 FAX
1303) 893- r 608 DENVER DTRECT L|NE
May 21, 1998
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-3303
RE: Rose Ranch Revised P.U.D. and Sketch Plan Submittal Technical Review
Dear Victoria:
At the request of Garfield County, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has reviewed the Rose
Ranch P.U.D. and Sketch Plan Submittal dated February 1998. This letter report presents our
technical review of water supply, wastewater, water quality, drainage, soils/geology, wetlands,
utilities, and traffic/roads 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 field in the alluvial
aquifer. A surface water diversion is proposed utilizing the Robertson Ditch as the
primary source and directly from the Roaring Fork River within the project as a
back up.
The water demand and EQR calculations are inconsistent with the previous submittal.
However, the pending augmentation plan covers more than enough water demand for
the project.
3. The storage tank site is currently shownwest of County Road 109 onthe south end
of the property along an existing access road. It is our understanding that the tank
will be buried to minimize visual impacts. A -eeotechnical analysis of the site should
be conducted.
2.
DENVER (303) 4BGl 700 DURANGO 197 0l 259- t- 4 1 1 BOULDER - (3031 473-e500
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
May 21, 1998
Page 2
4.
5.
We believe fire flow requirements will be 1,500 to 2,000 gpm for two hours (18,000
to 240,000 gallons). The storage tank requirements will likely increase. Tank
overflow should be piped across County Road 109 to a suitable location to avoid
erosion and wetting of hydrocompactive soils.
From an engineering point of view, a water augmentation plan can be developed as
outlined in the Zancanella & Associates February 20, l99S 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 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 in Case No. 97CW236. Irrigation of the golf
course will be by existing water rights and transfer of a portion of the Glenwood
Ditch in Case No. 96CW319. The final court decree or a state approved substitute
water supply plan should be obtained before approval of the preliminary plan.
Soils/Geoloe.Y
As noted in the geotechnical report, there are two major alluvial fans. One located
on the north end and one located on the south end of the site. The debris fans flow
from west to east across Counfy Road 109. A mitigation plan has been developed
to address the Northeast Dry Park drainage and debris flow. However, the minor
debris flows have not been addressed. In addition, we are concerned about
development on the alluvial fans in areas not historically irrigated and the impact of
wetting the soils from irrigation, water features, and stormwater infiltration.
The project proposes the use of ponds and infiltration systems for stormwater, water
quality, and water features. As noted in our review, we encourage these practices,
but caution that designs must consider the effect of water on the soils and subsurface
conditions. Although the ponds are proposed to be lined, 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. These restrictions may affect the concepts used for the
sketch plan and P.U.D.
We recommend that at Preliminary Plan, lots should not be approved over the
smaller depression areas until more detailed site specific studies are conducted.
6.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
May 21, 1998
Page 3
Wastewater
8.
7 . This proposal includes 292 units, a clubhouse, and associated uses (day care, etc.)
for a total of 330 EQR's. Based on the agreement presented in the sketch plan
submittal, the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District (AGW&SD) could provide
up to 428 EQR's for the Rose Ranch. The AGW&SD has indicated that it can and
will serve the proposed 330 EQR's. Based on conversations with AGW&SD, they
agree with the estimated 330 EQR's for the project.
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. As previously recommended, the back lot lines have
been revised to extend no further than the wetlands and 100-year floodplain
boundaries.
A field inspection of the Rose Ranch property has been made by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to ensure that all 404 permit issues are adequately addressed for
that property. However, the proposed reconfiguration appears to eliminate existing
wetland areas and replace them with ponds and turf. An Individual 404 Permit
would be required including an alternatives analysis.
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
potable water supply, irrigation, and 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.
The drainage plan on Sheets 2 and 3 of the Sketch Drawings show the use of the
Robertson Ditch to collect some of the stormwater uphill of the ditch. Our
recorrmendation is to discourage this due to concerns for water quality (potable
water supply) from surface water runoff from areas exposed to fertilizing, pesticides,
and overloading the ditch. We recommend a buffer zone be maintained along the
Robertson Ditch and that surface water runoff be directed away from the ditch itself.
9.
10.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
May 2L, 1998
Page 4
Drainage
11.
t2.
13.
15.
16.
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 except as noted above for debris flow mitigation. 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 mitigation analysis.
The Northeast Dry Park Drainage has characteristics of a debris channel. The
drainage report presents a concrete grade stabilization structure and settling ponds
above County Road 109 to mitigate the debris flow hazard. The debris flow
mitigation should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer since it differs slightly
from recommendations in the October 29, 1997 report by Hepworth-Pawlak.
The Northeast Dry Park Drainage and Robertson Ditch intersection appears to have
been reworked several times in the past. This crossing should be addressed as to its
adequacy and/or improvement.
14. The drainage report recommends the use of settling ponds or wetland ponds for
water quality of on-site stoffnwater. We recommend the County encourage the use
of these types of Best Management Practice (BMP). Pond design should consider
the impacts on soils and slope stability.
The drainage report recortmends the use of culverts sized to accommodate Z5-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 infiltratin-e
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 precipitation depths used in the drainage report appear to be low when compared
to the NOAA Atlas II, Volume III for Colorado which indicates that the Z1-year,24-
hour storm has aZ.2-inch depth and the 100-year, 24-hour storm a2.7-rnch depth
(versus a2.0" and.2.4"). All other calculations appear to be adequate for this level
of detail.
18. The plan should provide adequate setback buffers for all development, from streams,
rivers, lakes, wetlands, and ditches (potable water supply).
t7.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
May 2L, 1998
Page 5
19. Maintenance of all drainage structures including the debris flow structure should be
identified with an appropriate enforcement mechanism.
Water Ouality
20. The project submittal discusses several BMP practices that will be used for the golf
course which includes minimizing watering, optimizing fertilizer usage, use of sand
filters and grass swales for the golf course. We recorunend that BMP practices be
extended to individual lawns and parks, especially those areas that are in close
proximity to water courses.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. A maintenance plan should be developed for all BMPs.
Golf Course
24. The golf course design should include the following design recommendations.
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
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.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
May 21, 1998
Page 6
g. Strictly limit the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Use appropriate types for
site conditioning on a management unit basis.
h. 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 addressed for the golf course including effects on
subsurface soils and stability and water source for the upper (western) golf course.
25. 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.
26. The Northeast Dry Park Drainage is subject to flash flooding. The golf cart path
to the upper holes (15 through 18) traverses the drainage channel and creates a
safety concern for the public. Appropriate signage is recommended to warn of the
danger.
27.Golf course Hole 10 fairway is laid out over the Northeast Dry Park Drainage and
will need to be adjusted.
The proposed Westbank Golf Course addition includes reconfiguring nine holes into
seven holes. It appears that wetland areas are impacted by the proposal. A
drainage plan for this area should be included in the submittal.
TrafficiRoads
The Access Permit issued by CDOT requires the intersection at Highway 82 be
redesigned to operate at Level of Service C. The traffic report indicates that the
current conditions are at Level F; with the Rose Ranch development, the
intersection will continue to be a Level F. Furthermore, the traffic study indicates
that even with the addition of accel/decel lanes, the service will still be at Level F.
Therefore, we believe that signalization would be required in addition to
accel/decel lanes to upgrade to Level C. At this time, CDOT has not approved a
signalized intersection at this location. No other alternatives were presented such
as the use of the existing si-enalized intersection at the C.M.C. furnoff on Highway
82.
28.
29.
Victoria Giannola
Garfield County Planning Department
May 21, 1998
Page 7
The proposed intersection presented in Figure 17 of the Traffic Study has been
approved by CDOT. The realignment, grading, and retaining walls appear to be
confined to the existing right-of-way.
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.
We believe that unless a signalized intersection is approved by CDOT at this
location, left-hand turns will need to be eliminated for safety reasons. The existing
CMC turnoff intersection would be utilized for left-hand turns to serve this project.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
Michael J. Eri
Vice Preside
MJE/dIf
92r-047.030
30.
31.
i /..
FTqJRE 1STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYEB
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
5-4-98
Garfield County Planning
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Revised Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch PIan
Dear Ms. Giannola:
f will refer you to my LO-7-97 letter to you for a description of
I,7ildlife use and potential wildLife impacts from the proposed
Rose Ranch PUD. The revised PUD and Sketch PIan have 4ade many
p o s i ! iv e . r, a r
"
r, " f i-iE i' E na n s E=t t o "n in-im f 2€.*i,ip-aqt:-i;Tffi!L{Hu...--- -r:-4-_ *-J:-iry*-.^r-.rn additiEil +..-'"..-freier-En-Site on 4-9 and
4-30-98 to discuss wildlife concerns with the Sketch PIan. Mr.
Heggemeier has been very receptive to my recommendations and has
agieed to implement mosl all of them. I appreciate his
cooperative nature and willingness to tisten and change his p1an.
The following are positive changes made in the new PUD and Sketch
PIan submission. I have also included reconmendations which Mr.
Heggemeier agreed to during our site visits of 4-9 and 4-30-98.
fheie changei and recommendations will help to minimize impacts
to wildlife:1. Floe-lg1rj: l-a*r*qiqihe;men's Par,E,- and pedestrian trail
aroncr southern river f ront tGt=- hi+a tr"tnt=emavaA. "
.......'.-...<----.
-'#@23--: -1- 1e-:* rp-p -eg*r-e 9-r 9--+ i gI-? I park has been rg1_oygg
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
4. Area west ofto the upper golf
3. Agreed to remove the secgndary overlook and conne,cting
trai I f rom the*p?iniafy ^onerffioft t'6*6lroEfte't- "thd-'qdlden 6a61e
iFs-trnq, " -E-dmeiT'6-fre1---sici-ns' ilir.l--sEif rb6.-p1-ac-ed.-eE.-Eh6----
britfr-a;f ovEloo dqe soqth to tlre
eaglers nest from Marc[ 15 - JUl_y-L- This change needs to
- IVr Sec - 12
(c er on 5-4-98
indicated that the change would be made.
109 Road and the
course and ridge
lf,ztrail acce_E_q ea
closw
actrvr-ties.The 1fltrail
exc ding golf maint
l-1 be sated-and
signed.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chair o Rebecca L. Frank, Vice Chair r Mark LeValley, Secretary
Louis F. Swift, Member o Bernard L. Black, Member
Chuck Lewis, Member o John Stulp, Member r James R. Long, Member
iz
Paqe 2
serviceberry, etc. shrub species. specific site ptan ui-11-be -iointlv develoned bv Rose Ranch a-nd tEe DOw. Native
eesr greens,
cart path) and areas of habitat improvement tri1l be
maintained and not disturbed.
5. Agreed and committed to-habitat inproyenent neasur n
he upper bench weqt_o-f,6i1T-Tnvcrlve cuttings@nd ieseeding with sagebrush, oakbrush,
Agreed to&_sonstructio!_ sf lggte and line
from l,tarch l-5 eaqfe nesti
7.Agreed to create a v_egetative screening plan and plant
Live screen fo
en gfPA and 76/77. The plan to be rev and
the
6.
8. Agreed to Eodify the southern most Roaring Fork Rivet
overiook .anq mo bacf-E6-EI6 LoE vb.
m; wffi be.-fenced and sig:eed du-t.cl the heron's ica\_
nesting periffiury 15). -r'nrs baslcarry removed
ffiwhich red d.orrrn- to tne river across iron the
heron rookery.
9. Reduced home density and increased ]ot size alongr the
river from the original plan
10. No tree removal alonq the river and wetland areas
11: Agreed to <rge$ =pl_educational brochure for hs''menwqers
which wirr be prbvia Lry r=tgy tP
live with wildlife and any special restrlcEions in place to
i:ntmtze:*rnp:ml--Ed w i 1 d f i f e .
L2. Agreed to and has moved Sec. 9, Art.VII of theprotective covenants regarding dogs to Art.IV, Sec. r.2. Inaddition, the language was changed to aIlow only 1 dog/home.
L3. 50' wetland buffer will be met for all lots except for
Lots 82-84 where there will be a ninimium 25' buffer
L4. Agreed to supply water to the larger trees, notclassified as a safety hazard, along the Robertson Diteh
(which will be lined). hletlands below the ditch will be
monitored by Rose Ranch for any impacts due to the lining of
the ditch. Water will also be supplied to the wetlands if
needed.
L5.
Rose
reed to maintain the 11o' wide buffer between the
e -VE'"gfEtEt.rOn. A logor sp 1 fence-w o@ndaries
Page 3'
with vegetati
Ef6ctive.
--
* 4
L6.
Jury-1F- Jhis willfencing, if needed.5. fnstallation of
stirr bEinq aECf and may
effectiveness
designed.
1anvlty
to vide a public fishing ea nt along thg
eam fromrt
We bridqe.
fiaintainirrg ffiintegrity of the
bridge and minimizing disturbance
ovJ for c Esninq whlle
wetlandsto the
epenA upon the
screen which is
upstream from the
rookery.
The PUD/Sketch Plan states that the golf course provides
opportunity for wildlife migration. Mule deer and elk will use
tir! qolf course and I discuised this with l{r. Heggemeier as well
as the potential for damage to the course, especially the upper 4
holes. When golf courses are built within big garae winter range
areas, there wi:-f be damage. I explained that it is not lawfuI
for deer or elk to be hazed from the course. He agreed to the
following on 4-30-98: Rose Ranch, including golf course
maintenaice personnel, shall be prohibited from chasing, scaring,
disturbing, nazingr or other forms of harassruent in an atternpt to
coerce big game (deer/etk) off of the golf course and open space
areas. Rose Ranch has the right to locaIIy restrict big game
from the golf course gireens, tees, landscaping by using temporary
fencing or other passive means.
Distances to the building envelopes from the heron rookery were
made and mapped for Lots LO8-LL8. For those lots directly across
from the rookery, distances varied from 628' to 752t. The
largest distance was g55, for Lot 1O9. These distances combined
with rear yard setbacks, the river inbetween the rookery a!d.
Iots, and iegetative screen to be planted should help to minimize
disturbance io the rookery. Literature recommendations vary
between 2O0m - 25Om (656' - 820'). Mr. Heggemeier agreed to the
following to help minimize impacts to the rookery:
l_. Planting a vegetelillqscreen along east boundary of
foai2. V screen hril
construct Lots 94-96, 108-11-8 from
b.L5-Ma 3L. (11 be a con
4. No a
from Feb. 1-5
slgnlng anoaccomplr
artificial nesti atform on east side
willsw
probably be abandon ? C- i .t Lits +a) rlose-
In addition, I have recommended that there be 4o seco
Iconies facinq the rook fo
desigmstill and
beingof the vegetative
Page 4
Included in the application was a section titled frReview by Kirk
Beattie of Relevant Portions of Rose Ranch Sketch PIan PUD
Comments and Deficienciesrt. In this section Mr. Beattie
addressed those comments and defici.encies which were
environmental or wildlife oriented. I would like to respond to
his comments as I disagree with many of his comments and
conclusions. I have discussed this section of Mr. Beattie's
comments with Mr. Heggemeier and Larry Green, District l{ildlife
Manager, Glenwood Springs. DWII Green agrees witn my comments and
offered suggestions which I incorporated. Mr. Heggemeier was
receptive to my conments.
My responses correspond to the cornment number of Mr. Beattie.
did not write a response to all of them.
Comment #t ft is stated that the PUD will not unreasonably
destroy or displace wildlife but yet in comment #L2 l4r. Beattie
states that much of the present deer forage east of County Road
1-o9 will be eliminated by the subdivision, refering that not as
many deer will be present after construction. There will be loss
of winter range habitat and some displacement of wintering
wildlife. with construction of the golf course on the upper
bench west of 109 Road there will be direct loss of critical mule
deer winter range and e1k severe winter range. There will be a
habitat type conversion from sagebrush to grass. Depending on
the winter, deer and elk need the shrub type forage species whichstick up through the snow. Sagebrush, oakbrush, serviceberry,
bitterbrush, and other shrubs are very important during the
winter months for mule deer and eIk.
The applicant has agreed to conduct some habitat improvementprojects to help ninirnize this impact.
Comment #S I question how a conclusion regarding heron nesting
not being impacted can be made. The applicant is taking some
measures to try to minimize any impact. However, once the
subdivision is built and the vegetative screen planted, it will
be very important to control the homeordners use of the riparian
areas during the critical nesting period. It becomes a matter of
enforcement of the measures adopted to protect the herons. Ifthis is not done, then there will be negative impacts to the
herons. It is hard to predict no impact with approximately l-,ooo
more people living across from the rookery. In addition, the
single nest tree will probably be l-ost. That is a negative
inpact.
The applicant has agreed tostructure on the other sideoffset this impact. No-oneeffort but it is a positive
install an artificial nesting
of the river near the rookerY to
can predict the success of this
and hopefully beneficial step. I am
optirnistic about its success.
Page 5
Comment #g and 10- It is during the harder winters that elk will
use the sagebrush fields east of 1O9 Road and that is taken under
consideration by the definitions of severe winter range' 91kwill not always use the area in normal winters. Mr. Beattie's
field surveys lrere not conducted after some of these harder
winters. Witn Ur. Rose,s cattle operation, elk would get into
the feed lines with the cattle during these harder winters. As
the valley continues to develop and more winter range is Iost,
the remaining shrublands will receive more winter range use and
pressure.
Comnent #l-1 In my original letter I indicated the use of black
bear west of 109 R-oad. This was a statement of use and potential
use by black bear west of LO9 road, which the Rose Ranch is part
of. there has been black bear use in the lower 4-Mile area. In
drought years as well as other yearsr W€ have had problems with
beari in subdivisions and in towns such as Glenwood Springs,
Carbondale, and Aspen as they look for food. Bears have been
kilIed on Highway -AZ across irom the Rose Ranch and gotten into
beehives behind Lhe Sopris Restaurant. This could occur in the
Rose Ranch. However, development of the Rose Ranch will not
negatively impact the black bear population as it does not
contain prime-bear habitat. Howevel, if trash, Pet food, etc. is
not properly taken care of, increased bear problems should be
anticipated.
Comment #12 - mountain lions are sotitary animals and are not
readily observed by most people. Lions do occur and occupy the
area aiound the nose Ranch, including the ranch. Lions will
fo}low their main prey source of mule deer into subdivisions.
This is well docurnented tnroughout Colorado. Not all mule deer
use east of l-09 Road will be eliminated by development of the
Rose Ranch. Lions could come into the subdivision after the
deer, resident's pets such as dogs and cats, and other wildlife
species such as raccoons, skunks, marmots which are attracted to
the subdivision due to food sources such as trash, gardens,
compost piIes, etc. I believe that residents of the subdivion
snouta be made aware of this possibility and properly educated.
There is currently a Iion adjacent to and sometimes within a
subdivision in loier a- miIe. I have also had lions within city
limits of Carbondale, Ranch at Roaring Fork, ?s well as other
locations in the lower Roaring Fork Val1ey.
Comment #tl and 14 I disagree. I have watched and observed the
bald eagle use in tbe valley for the last 13 years. As
devetopment continues along the river system, there -has been a
change in eagle use. I don't believe that you can just look at
one ima1l aspect or picture of eagle use and say it will not
inpact the birds. A11 subdivisions, including the Rose Ranch,
which develop along the river impact the use of the river by the
eagles. You must look at the cumulative impact of all
subdivisions, not just one since the one contributes to the
whole. Without pr5tection of certains areas along the river,
Page 6
cont,inued bald eagle use is threatened by development of the
riparian areas along the river.
Comment #ts and 16- I disagree that e1k and mule deer will not be
negatively impacted by construction of the golf course west of
L09 Road and carrying capacity of that area reduced. By
construction of the golf course west of l-09 road, important
winter range browse species will be lost which are needed in
heavier snow years. Mule deer are primarily browsers and rely on
sagebrush, oakbrush, serviceberry, bitterbrush, etc. during the
winter. Converting this type of habitat to grass will not be
beneficial to the deer. Elk will undoubtedly use the area in the
winter. In lighter snow years they will readily qtaze on the
course, but in heavier snow years when this area is covered
deeply in snow, the loss of browse is significant. It takes much
more energy to paw down through the deep snow to graze on the
short grasses below. Browse species are more readily available
and take much less energy to forage. With loss of this habitat
type, the nule deer and e1k will be negatively inpaeted.
I disagree that elk and mule deer will not be displaced. Mr.
Beattie already stated that there will not be as much deer use
east of i-o9 Road. Conbine that with the habitat conversion west
of LO9 Road and I believe they will be displaced to other areas.
There will sti1l be use but not in the amount their currently is.
Closure of the area west of
removal of the upper activethe e1k and mule deer and I
discussed earlier will also
109 Road to human activitY and
recreation area wil-1 be beneficial to
support it. Habitat improvement
be positive and heIpfuI.
Comment #18 - Floaters park has been elininated
Cornment #tg - We have agreed to several measures to minimize the
irnpact to the main rookery area. Installation of an artificial
nest structure may help replace the single nest tree which will
probably be abandoned.
comment #zo - Fishing Park has been elininated
Comment #21- I disagree with his conclusion of no irupact to the
herons. Whether the rnain rookery area is impacted or not will
depend upon the effectiveness of the measures recontmended and
their enforcement. fhis will be especially important at buildout
when the residents will be living and recreating in the
subdivision and along the river. He asked why the birds are not
impacted during the heavier raftingr rnonths of June and July. At
this time the riparian vegetation and trees are leafed outproviding visual screening and more security. In addition, the
herons have young in their nest at this time and are much more
resistant to abandon the nest and their young as is reported in
Page 7
the literature. The most sensitive times when the herons could
be disturbed and abandon the rookery is early in the nesting
season (nid-feb - Hay) during courtship and egg laying when.tlere
is very little screeiring. T[ere is very litt]e rafting activity
on the river at this tilne. There are fishing boats at this time
but they are usually more quiet and float by.
fn his example of the Chatfield State Park with its viewing.decks
and shelterl the viewing decks are closed during the sensitive
time period. so not to disturb the herons. The shelters are still
open but screen the public more than the viewing deck thus
providing less disturbance.
Most all researchers recommend buffer distances of 20O 25Om.
Comment #22 - The secondary overlook and connecting trail have
been eliminated after our 4-9-98 site visit. The educati-onaI
sign at the primary overlook is still a good idea.
Comment #24 - Recommend that the dog restictions be placed under
Sec. L2, Article IV. Recommend that the executive board not be
able to allow more than one dog/home. This change has been made.
Comment #25 - There are means to reduce Canada geese damage to
golf courses. The U.S. Fish and Wild]ife Service can issue a
perrnit for specially trained dogs to chase geese off of golf
courses. (geese are consid.ered migratory waterfowl which faI1s
under the iuthority of the U.S.Ili;h & Wildlife Service) -
Comment #28 - Vegetative screening definitely needs to be in
x::;:=3:'"I"=ilL T:i::;:'i:""ff , :ni
Effi6tEructed outside of the sensitive period and error on the
si is-
Comments #29, 3O, 33, 36 - The floaters park, fishermens park,
upper recreational area, and secondary overlook and connecting
trail have been elininated
Comment #37 f aintain that the primary_overf"gX =no"fa not
e
golden eagle's mateto the
asanestingmary overlperch site during this time. The
effort the more successful it will less disturbance
be.
Comment #44 agree with removal of exotics or invasive species
Comment #+5, 61 f sti}l recommend that a public fishing
easement be granted along the Roaring Fork River- Mr. Heggemeier
has agreed t6 grant a pu6tic fishing easement along the river
downstream from the Westbank bridge along the Westbank portion of
sIT,tI
FIGI]RE 2
flATE OFCOLCMDC
COTORADO CEOTOCICAL SURVTY
Divisi<rn of Mint:ntlr ,rrrd t,r.ology
Dcplrlnrr,nt of N.rt.r,rl Rt':uurccs
I 'l I I 5hc.rnr.rn lt rt'r,1. ll,, ',tt, , , '
f)r'rtver, C,:rlor.rrt0 0(tJ tJJ
Phonc (10.')) 06b-26 I I
FAX 11931 866-:4r, I I')EI'AI{TMENT O':NATUt{AI
T€SOUT(CES
May I5,
I\4s. Victoria Ciannolrr
Carfickl Coun(y Dspartlnct'rt Building and Plaruring
l0() Stir Srrcct, Suire 303
Glcnwood Springs. CO 81601
Rose Rnnch PUD and SPGeologicrl Uazard Review Rc.suhnrittal
Dcar Ms. Cianrrola:
Al your rcque.st and in irocordilnce to Scuate Bill 35 (19721this oftrce ha.s rcvie'wcti the
nratcrials sLrbr))ittcd lbr thc resubnrinal of lhc proposed PtlD and SI'of Rose Rirnch. T]rc ranch was
previottsl) revicncd by this offir:e in n lcttc'r dal.cd Octobcr J0, 1997. Fronr what we cln scc in thc
nerv proposal thc dcvch.rpcr has rnodcstly rcduced lot dcnsity and chiurged rotrd alignmcnts hul llrc
basic plan has renraincd rrnchangcd. Insludcd in the sullrnittal we reviewcd were: A Prclirnirrary
Ccotcchnic:rl Stutly dal.cd October 29, 1998 and a Supplenrentary Geotechnical Study for thc
evaluation of sinkhttle rclncdiation datcd Februiuy 12. 1998, both prepared hy |l!:pworth-I'awlak
Gcotcchrrical. Inc.; A Drairragl'Rept>rt lbr Skctch I'lan Subrninal by. IIigh County Enginecring datr.'d
July 7, 1997. rcvised Fehnrary I2, 1998: urcltr Gcotccturicaland Ccncral Enginecriug Observutions
lcttcr lronr EVO Crusultir)g Scryices, lnc. datcd Fehruary 12, 1998. We offer tlic tbllowing
discttssiott of thesc rcporli lbr your considcration irr this land u.sc application.
Our largcst concem with the du'vr-'lopnrent with l(clsc Ranch is thc Jack oI water managcnrent
aucl the apparent lack of the undcrstanding. shown in plat dcsign, o[ the problcnis that tlrc
in(rodttctiorr of nroistttre and saturatiorl of a thick colurun of collapsible soils.on por". lt is easily
scet: irt the plat dc:sigu thal tlrc poterrtial soil hazards wcrc givur little considr:ration in resiclcntill
lotr, strcet.s,and golIcourse uc ir o I t hc in frirstru c t u re an d rc s i de uffi iilx-d',
Lrc surrou w'ater sourccs.
Wc rt"itcrate I'lrosc poinl.s ntaclc in tlrc October 30, 1997 rlcmrt with fgrther discussiop in italics
tThe soils of thc alluvial tans and colluvial slopc wash ilrcas arc alnrost entirely clcri'cdhr:nr tltc lragle Vallcy Evaporitr'. Thcse soil.s have propcrtics of low dcn.sil,y, k:w rloisture
con(cnt, attd catt havc high pcrcentages of gypsum plccipitatc. Thcse soili, whcn wctted,
lur Ron:pr
lcr'r:rnor
l.rnti... S Lu( hh,x,j
Err. r.ulrvI I)irertI
Mrr lt.u.,l B Li;ng
l)rr*trlr l)irlr-ru
Vrtlt (.rnr.trl
5l,itf (;Folr'*,\r
Jnd OrrLt. tur
Poet-lt'Fax Nole 7671 ,o," s/rq fr13!,> B
to trcmg-t fuL,{e
CoJDept.c".a 5-
Phonc ,'!93: a? ?- P /z ?
Fett Q'lo ?t{5-Tg5 Fdx,
Rrrrc ((irtsh (,U() SP. (,rg: ?.
bccome problernatic by collapsing or hydro-conrpacting. Not only do they collapse upon
wetting, btrt the then saturatcd soil can bccomes highly conlpres.siblc 'fhis coltapsc and
consoliclaliot"t .scttlctttcnt cltn creatc severe problenrs with foundations. slabs-on-grade,
pavemcnts, attd catl break utility lines. [vcn with dccpcrfounclations, it'the soil cr'rluurp i.s
wcned below thc cnd-bearing tip clcvation, (lic cntire soil colunrn scttles arrd pulls thc dcep
forrndation wi(h it. Thc undulation.s atd danragcd areas on County Roari l0(), iurrncdiltely
to the south of Rose Rrtnch, arc the result of nearby clcve'lopnrcnt and uncontrollcd u,ater
introduction to .sub-pavcment antl subgrade soils.
Ue deve.lttpmcnt plttn indicttle.; irrjlslllilLselLcoursc hrtlc.s' No I I tmtl l2
)lt appcars that the rnajority of the ulluvial thns are sage covcrcd and huvc rlcvcr bcen llood
irrigated. 'Ihc introduction of watcr to tltese arcas can casily re.sult in ground sulrsiclcnce,
sirrk holc's. and grouud fissuring and piping .soil dissolulion.
,loil Tesling wilhin lhe IIP Gcotet'h rt:port.rrorr,s low, dcns'ilics', r.l11, l6y,
ntois'ture contcnt,t, und vuriuhle gradutions in thosc drill hole.s, No 2,-1,8, and 9
drilletl ahovc the Robertsttn irrigtttion &mdl inro lhe olluviul Jiurs. T'he totul :;oil
coltttrttt thickncss is unkntn,n .rince borittgs 4, 8, und 9 v:ert: .vloltltcd al .| I /i:et.
l4utrix-.tupltorlcd pruvelly dlluviul.fon.soils c:utr ltt: highlr t:ollupsiltlc. htrt rrrn',il llL
dctermincd by :itycll-con,utlidutittn lesting .vincc uruli.tlurbad ,sanrylcl; urc intpcts,sihle. to colltcl. (jravell), soils can also ba highlv rternrctthlo v'h,,"a u,ntr t'utt move
Iuterall), at deDth. Founckttilmperiueler drainuge.\),.tlcnts v+'ill not iiltarc(tpl ,lt:t:par
wdtcr lhrough gravelly layers u,itlin thc ulln,ial./an
lScveral Ponds are proposed within thc alluvial fan areas. Thc severe wr:tting of thr: low
ticnsity, hydrocompar:tive soils by thcsc ponds could ltavc far reaching consequL.llccs tbr
g:'ound scttlcrncnt and subsidence in lhc rcsidcttial area.s that surround thcrrr. This vvill also
be true ft:r thc residcntial alcas and roads downgradienl of portions of tlrc irrigated gr-rlf
course.
Thc lctterfvm liVO Cons'ulting.l'cn,icr:sJ'/(Tft?.r thut itnlt<trt;itttt.t' lincrs *'illba
u.scd for all pt6nfl5, .tlttalt.t, uni clitchtts on thi,y davclopntenl ll/a could not find a
liner design in lhc clct,clopnwnl sttbmiltul. Wlwl ttssuronL'e will llte tl,:t,cloltar tncl
lheir c{c:;ign anginaer give lhul thc:;e liners'v,ill not l.trettk t+,hcn the Ltontl i,s rtl it'.t'.lull
iry, d tlifferential .rclllcmcnt of' sevorul incht',t oct'ur,s !)g-
id rcinfoicunutt k-il i.t tmlike
!hc,ttains.Likchrokcltvvatamahe,linur.rp[it,t,lhctlttntugci,s,dtlnc.The
vvorsl thul c:un he done to thc.se soils ct/icr tluvtltry)mettl ltu.r oc'ctu'rc,cl i.; to flool tht:m.
f, *,ll.rlill thc pruhlem rl'advers( ut(ttin7 M
h o I e,r tt uli ail I u n-iVffi w o s ed r eill u t t i'
i'l'he Drnirrngc PIan ltas corrcctly identit'ied thc Northcust Dry Park Drainirgc as a rlclrris
Ira'
l!r!:Ia)Il;
diutcly uhove QlAl Ro,rrl t WJ
ta'a I L I Zu68=Ac 'r\llflS-O=A-O-'tO3 t.lU v-2. l6 A6-@Z -AUt'l
t1)(.tt c r
I(u:c lLrnutr !UE) Sp. page 3
flow basin. As such, it is the opinion of tliis office that thc dcvclopcr be rcquircd to
conttttission a Dcbris Irlow Drainagc attti Mitigation Plan durirrg thc Sketch Plun irpproval
process.
tl Droinage Plun revi:'el February 12, 1998 hy f ligh (--orrntrl' linglnet,ring
wa.t inc:ludetl in lhi:; submittal that contuins tlcbri,s.flow, mitigution. It ltrtryutsa.s u
concrcle uih grutlu stuhilization stnn:lurc v,ith :;cttling ponds bc t:utt.slrut'la.tl wilhin
thc druinage wu)t rtn,ine above C.R. 109. Pruvidc:d their recorrtrrtcndution.s' in this
rqtorl ure tomplied with vve l1(ve nofurthcr u)ncarns vyith dchri.sflov' itttltttct.\' on
lhi.r propct'ty Sontu ntea,tures neecl to bc taku.fitr ntuintenctncc of this structure.
As I rladc awarc to you on May 15, 1998, tlte geotecluticlrl r:onsultant, or1 behalf of'his cllcnt,
called this r:ffice about this develilpment. I expru'sscd thc CCS's conccrns to hirn. FIe nrr.rrtioned
the devclopcr.s dcsire to have a meeting with us, but is was too late for this submittal deadline. Ile
also had mentioned the possibly of doir Iuviitl lLrns above
thc ilrigation canal. Wc alc availablc to consult with thern on test nrcthadology nnd rc'vicw cr
sul[.s. The developer needs to understantl, thougl,-ihat r:-Erely?oing thc tcsrc-Aoeslili
automatically urcan good rcsults. Reccnt rescarcir in thick packages of collapsihle soils shr-rws that
prewctting is not always effc'ctive to reduce longcr tcnn ditlbrcntial scttlcrrrcnt.
bclow the irriqation ditch that have been sheet hrr rlarry ycars where t
ffisandaremuchthi overlyinq river territcu I Whilc thcrc are
cot'rcctns wlill s piping of the fine saturatcd soils, and void collapsc within tlre
cvaporitic bcdrock, thcy can be properly engineercd iutd mitigated where comcctly iderrtificd. Sonre
risks cxists cvc'n iu those arcrs by urilmown evaporite treclrock subsidence zoncs that are not, or hirve
not y$, nranifcstcr'l thcm.sclves at the surface. At this point in tinre orrr rcconrnrcndation to the
$>unty is that atlditional work is rcqqlled!.&Ilq val oltthc Rr-rse
.in its c:urrcnt Ibrrn. andlcvel olinvestigations and nritigation de.sign. TIic CGS is available to r*,icw
additional invcstigations, st'ril subsidence testing rcf'crrcd to by the gcotr.ch cr>rrsultant, arrd rlolc
pr,.'cise engineerecl mitigation plnns if rcquested. If you havc any questiolts please corrtact this olfice
ar (303) 8e4-2167.
Sincerely,
Irlr. I lcggemcicr, N1anager. Rooring Folk Inve.stnrcnt, L.L.C., ."v/invoice
-)
Tl:crc arc dcvclopablc arcas of thc Rose Ranch where rtur conccrns are reducccl: tltosu'arcas
''J-(. _2@___Z_!-!__J;
Jorrathan L, White
Engineering Geologist
za'4
cc;
bLtzr6g9a=-,,\uns-o3=-o-'Io3 !.1 t, nz: ta e6-a z-AtrLr
FIq]RE 3
5T{TE OF COLOIUDO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENCINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 8'18
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589 Roy Romer
Covernor
James S. Lochhead
Executive Director
Hai D. Simpson
State Engineer
Victoria Giannola
Gadield County Building and Planning
109 8th St Ste 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan
Sec. 35, TOS, RB9W & Secs. 1,2 & 12,T75, RB9W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Ms. Giannola:
We have reviewed the modified proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 533.5 acres into a golf
course, community areas and 249 residential lots (on 1 13.91 acres), which will contain a maximum of 292 homes.
The development will include a 223.18 acre golf course with a clubhouse, community facilities and a multi-use
irrigated field. A Community Park will consist of 2.14 acres and Community Open Space willencompass 168
acres. Water featureis such as ponds will be incorporated. The applicant proposes to provide water services via
surface diversions through separate raw and potable systems pursuant to irrigation water rights decreed in Case
Nos. 96CW319 and an augmentation plan. Sewage will be through a central system by inclusion in the Aspen
Glen Water And Sanitation District. An augmentation plan, Case No. 97CW236, is pending 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(1 XhXl), C.R.S., that the proposed water supplv will cause material injury to decreed waler
-1ghllq_ild is inadequate. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerninQ this matter, please contact Craig
Lis oi this offide-IoFE5si5iance.
Sincerely,
May 15, 1998
;$iili'iTtr#ffi1,, Y'
. fr i l:i :' i :i ii';': i:i
i:5 .i
Steve Lautenschlager
Assistant State Engineer
SPUCMURoSe Ranch 2.doc
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commlssioner, District 38
FfGURE
Garbondale & Rural Fire
4
Protection District
-
May 12, 1998
Victoria Gannola
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan Application
Victoria:
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 963-24e1
Fax: (970) 963-0569
j?Fi*r'''fi
it ttAr f i
Jtl=!,.;-r . ' '
0*rrrat-O
I reviewed the sketch plan application for the Rose Ranch project. I would offer the following
comments.
Emerqencv ResDonse
The fire district has a station (Station 4) at the HLazy F trailer park which lies across the river to the
east of the proposed development. Emergency response to the development would come from both
Station 4 and Station I in Carbondale.
Access
The general road layout is adequate for fire apparatus.
Addressins
The current county policy is to address PUDs using the same system as for the rural county roads.
In the past varying systems have been used. Some existing subdivisions use more than one system
(i.e., Aspen Glen, Dakota Subdivision, Ranch at Roaring Fork) This has resulted in considerable
confusion in locating homes during emergencies (especially medical emergencies). The current
addressing system which is based upon distances can be especially confusing within PUDs which
often contain very short and/or looped roads. We would like to see addresses assigned uniformly
and sequentially within the PUDs rather than being assigned based upon distance. We propose that
Ihe developer submit an addressing plan for review by the County and appropriate emergency
resDonse asencres.
-
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
The proposed water system consists of a 300,000 gallon storage tank with proposed minimum fire
flows of 1000 gallons per minute Required fire flows for the project should be in accordance with
the Unifrom Fire Code (UFC) Appendix III-A: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings, with
fire hydrants located in accordance with UFC Appendix III-B: Fire Hydrant Locations and
Spacing. The code f
depending up-onTui size and o f b u i I d i ng c-61 st ruEi o n
with hi
r.l:l,
rl
The proposed Rose Ranch development is close to areas of existing commercial and residential
properties that have developed without adequate water supplies for fire protection. These areas
include the area at Highway 82 and CMC Road, areas offOld Highway 82 (County Road 154) and
areasoffCoryellRoad.Thefiredistrictwouldliketoseet
PUD made available for fu Ranch
the existing public service easement near the
proposed surface water diversion point. This would allow for future expansion of the water system
across the river to Coryell Road and Old Highway 82. It would also allow for future looping of the
water system to the Saunders Ranch area. It is assumed that all of the new water systems in the area
will eventually be serviced by the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District.
The development is t iees by the Diqtrrgl Fees are subject to
review bv t 'ees are based upon the per ed by the Di$lgt q!
time of execution of an 'eement een the develo
Zistrict.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
periodic
the time
Impact Fees
2
.,,.,,.,,
j::i....:::::: i ..:::.:.:. ,j.,,....,.., :
Roaring :::,:Fnr*..,,'.SCttoo!,.;r'DiStiict RE-1
. ,..,,..,. ,:,.: , i ..,.,,]. ,,,,
1405 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ',
f0lephone (970) 945-6558:' ,,i'
May 15, 1998
Garfi eld County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Rose Ranch PUD
....''::: ::::::::: FRED A. WALL, Superintendent
'I{AFTONSTALL, Assrslar, Supeinlendent
SHANNON :PELLAND,""Finance Director
To Whorn It May Concern:
The following is submitted in response to your request for comments on the Rose Ranch PUD:
As you are aware, Roaring Fork School District has developed a formula for determining school
site land dedication or fees-in-lieu-of Iand dedication for residential development within the
district's boundaries. Application of this formula (see attached resolution) results in total land
dedication of an amount less than the minimum requirement for a school site. Accordingly, the
District is requesting cash-in-lieu of land dedication to be calculated in accordance with tlre
The District recognizes that this land dedication standard has not yet formally been adopted by
the County. At the County's request, we are working with Garfield Re-2 (Rifle) and Garfield l6
(Parachute) in an effort to develop a common standard rvhich can be applieci for all three school
districts. The necessary data has been collected and incorporated into Roaring Fork's resolution
(attached) and has been provided to Garfield Re-2 and Garfield 16. Each of tlieir Boards of
Education will need to adopt a resolution in support of the formula. Because we believe the
attached resolution closely approxirnates what you lvill see in the final resolutiorr. we are
reotte*.ting application of the fonnula described therein. We hope to have a resolution to you
soon for all three districts so that a uniform land-dedication standard might formally be adopted
by the County prior to final approval of this subdivision.
Finance Director
Enc.
EARFI€LD CCI!'ilrY
/r\
',a-,n natJ/L(Awl.____.--
,rl , v
Page 2
RESOLUTION OF TIIE ROARING FORK SCIIOOL DISTRICT RE.I BOARI)
OT'EDUCATION REGARDING STAIIDARDS FOR LAI\ID DEDICATION AI\[D
CASH IN LTEU OF LA}ID DEDICATION
1998
A. THIS RESOLUTION IS PREMISED ON TI{E FOLLOWING:
l. Roaring Fork School District ("Distict") has experienced annual
student enrollment increases ranging from l.5Yo to 6.90/o from 1988 to 1997 and
averaging 4.4o during that time:
Year Enrollment
1988/89 3301
1989t90 3495
1990/91 3708
199U92 3921
1992193 4013
1993t94 4288
t994/95 4473
t995/96 4668
t996t97 4737
1997/98 4863
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 student x students generated
per dwelling unii: Land Dedication Standard
3. According to current school site size recorrmendations and
reasonable building capacities, the District has determined that 1,776 square feetof land
per student should be provided for future school sites as reflected in Exhibit A.
4. The District has determined the number of students generated per
type of dwelling unit according to data provided by THK Associates as follows:
Single Family
14u1fi-pamily
Mobile Home, Trailer
0.49
0.38
0.71
Page 3
5. Application of the formula results in the following suggested Land
Dedication Stendards:
Single Family
Multi-family
Mobile Home, Trailer
870 sq. ft per unit or.020 acres
675 sq. ft per unit or.015 acres
1,261 sq. ft per unit or .029 acres
6. At the District's discretion, a developer of residential housing may
make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land, or may make a cash payment in
combination with a land dedication to comply with the standards of this Resolution. The
formula to determine the cash-in-lieu payment is as follows:
Market value of the land (per acre) * Land Dedication
Standard t # of units: Cash-in-Lieu
For example, for a property having a market value of $50,000 per
acre and I single family unit on it, the payment would be:
$50,000 * .020 * I : $1,000
B. NOW, THEREFORE, T}IE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ROARING
FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-l RESOLVES as follows:
l. The Counties of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin, Colorado; the City of
Glenwood Springs, Colorado; and the Towns of Basalt and Carbondale, Colorado
("Entities') adopt a Land Dedication Standard as set forth in Part A of this Resolution.
2. The Entities require land dedication or a payment in lieu of Land
dedication as specified by the District in response to specific subdivision requests as set
forth in Parts A. 5 and 6 above from all residential land developers.
3. The provisions of this Resolution shall serve as the general criteria
for the imposition of school fees to be required of all residential land developers as set
forth in C.R.S. 30-28-101, et seq., as amended, with specific modifications or deviations
herefrom to be made as the District responds to specific subdivision requests as required
by statute.
4. This Resolution shall be amended periodically by the District to
accurately reflect the student yields existing within the District.
FIGI]RE 6
May 12, 1998
Ms. Victoria Giannola Senior Planner
Gadield County
Building and Planning Depadment
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Rose Ranch PUD
Dear Victoria:
The Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) has conducted a review of the Rose Ranch
PUD to estimate the potential impact upon the public transit system. The
transpodation-consulting firm of Leigh, Scott & Cleary (LSC), lnc. analyzed the potential
order of magnitude cost impacts for RFTA, A copy of the LSC analysis is attached for
your consideration.
ln general, LSC estimates that the Rose Ranch development will create the demand for
approximatelv 1 29 additional transit winter dav. This demand could
requrre appro 000 in annual subsidy, the need for 2/3rds of an
additional transit bus costinq a total of $167,000
01
expenses of approximately $9,500 per year.
RFTA is currently struggling to identify sufficient resources to maintain existing service
levels, improve inadequate bus stop/park and ride infrastructure, and replace obsolete
vehicles. Garfield County currently provides no subsidy to RFTA. Unless the potential
cost impa eloper, it is unlikely
that RFTA will be in a financial position to meet the projected transitdernand.
I hope this information is useful. Please let me know if you have questions.
d^fu,^.t^
Dan Blankenship \
General ManaoerX 1 ("$*t dd+ 2c3)
cc: Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County
Ellen Sassano, Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
Roaring Fork Transit Agency Board of Directors
FOBK TBANS'T AGENCY
5l Service Center Drive Aspen, Colorir,J,r Sl6t1 Til:970'9lO'1905 Fax:970 910 2864
FIGURE 6 ccntinued
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
& TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
2690 Lake Forest Road
PO Box 5875
Tahoe City, CA 95145
530/5834053 FAX: 530/583-5966
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 11, 1998
Dan Blankenship, General Manager, RFTA
Gordon Shaw, PE, AICP, Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc.
Impact of Proposed Rose Ranch Development on Roaring Fork Transit Agency
Operations and Subsidy Requirements
As requested, Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. has conducted an evaluation of the impacts on the
Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) that would be generated by the proposed Rose Ranch
Planned Unit Development between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, Colorado. Our
evaluation includes an assessment of potential transit trip demand, the number of additional
transit buses required to serve these trips, and the additional annual subsidy required to operate
service that meets these demands.
Transit Trip Demand
With regards to factors that impact transit demand, this proposed project consists of the
following land uses:
A total of l2l multi-family dwelling units, including both duplexes and club
homes; and
> A total of 171 single family dwelling units
In addition, the development includes a golf course and community park. For purposes of this
analysis, it is assumed that these uses would generate an insignificant level of demand for transit
service.
The most accurate means of estimating the number of transit passenger trips that would be
generated by the new development is to compare the land use quantities with similar nearby
Rose Ranch PUD RFTA Impact Memo Page2 May 11, 1998
activity centers currently served by RFTA. Specifically, the residential land uses were evaluated
by calculating the transit trip generation rate for Carbondale. The current population of
Carbondale is estimated at 5,000 by the Carbondale Planning Department. As shown in the top
portion of Table A, the number of average daily transit trips made by Carbondale area residents
on RFTA (over both a peak surlmer and peak winter day) was divided by the estimated
population to identifu a daily transit trip rate of 0.09 transit trips per capita in the summer, and
0.17 transit trips per capita in the winter. Multiplying by the estimated population of Rose Ranch
at buildout (759), the estimated number of one-way transit trips generated by residents of
development is identified as 68 over a summer day, and 129 over a winter day. As the winter
hgure is substantially higher than the stunmer figure, the remainder of this analysis will focus on
winter transit needs.
Annual ridership can be estimated by applying the existing observed ratio of annual RFTA
ridership on the Downvalley service in the Glenwood Springs fare zones to the average winter
daily ridership. Using this ratio, Rose Ranch can be estimated to generate approximately 32,300
RI'TA passenger-trips per year, at fu1l buildout.
Impact on RFTA Required Bus Fleet
A key question regarding additional RFTA resoruces required to serve this increase in passengers
is the number of additional vehicles required to provide the necessary services. At presenr, all of
MTA's available fleet is required during peak periods. With regard to the "Downvalley Service"
between Glenwood Springs and Aspen/Snowmass, the existing ridership particularly fully
utilizes the available fleet southbound during the A. M. commute period and northbound during
the P. M. commute period. This full condition (which often requires passengers to stand for long
periods) is generally occurring across all operational seasons, and for the entire route between
Glenwood Springs and Aspen. It is therefore necessary to evaluate the potential transit capacity
that would be used by Rose Ranch residents, in order to ""r*e thut .*irti.
are not precluded from transit service by nerv Rose Ranch passengers boarding first.
There are two factors that reduce the number of potential Rose Ranch transit passengers that will
impact fleet requirements:
> Not all Rose Ranch passengers will travel in the direction that has capacity limitations.
Specifically, it can be expected that some passengers will travel northbound toward
Glenwood Springs in the morning, and southbound from Glenwood Springs in the
afternoon and evening -- periods during which adequate capacity is available. The best
source of information regarding the expected distribution of Rose Ranch passengers on
the RFTA service is the survey data regarding trip patterns for existing RFTA passengers
boarding in the area of the site -- the unincorporated Garfield County portion of the route.
As shown in Table B, 36 percent of these passengers are traveling to and from Glenwood
Springs, while the remaining 64 percent are traveling in the peak direction southward to
Carbondale, Basalt, Aspen, and Snowmass Village. Multiplying the expected number of
daily transit round trips generated by Rose Ranch (129 divided by 2, or 65) by 64 percent,
approximately 4t passenger round-trips per day can be expected to be generated in the
Rose Ranch PUD RFTA Impact Memo Page 3 May 11,1998
peak direction. Of this total, 27 (or two-thirds) will be traveling to Aspen or Snowmass
Village.
' In addition, not all passengers traveling in the peak direction will travel during the peak
period when capacity problems are most severe. RFTA winter Downvalley service
ridership by run data (as presented in Table 24 of the Roaring Fork Transit Development
Plan Final Report) can be used to identiff the proportion of Rose Ranch ridership in the
upvalley direction that will require additional transit fleet. It is necessary to consider a
four-hour peak period, as this is the "cycle time" of the round trip route (defined as the
period between the departure of one vehicle-trip and the time when the vehicle is next
available to make a trip in the same direction). A review of Table 24 indicates that 54
percent of the ridership in the upvalley direction occrus during the peak four-hour period
(from 6:00 A. M. to 10:00 A. M.). Applying this second factor to the number of Rose
Ranch passenger-trips that will impact RFTA fleet needs in the peak direction (41),22
will occur during the peak period.
While the existing buses typically used for Downvalley Service have 42 seats, it is not reasonable
to expect that all additional buses put into service will be fully utilized, due to variation in
demand over the peak period. Assuming 35 passengers as an average vehicle load (which is
relatively conservative compared to the 30 average passengers assumed in the evaluation of the
impact of light rail on RFTA fleet requirements), 63 percent of one additional bus would be
required to serve Rose Ranch transit passengers. (Assuming that additional development will
occur along the County Road 109 corridor, it is appropriate to consider fractions of buses, rather
than "rounding up" to a full additional bus.)
Impact on RFTA Subsidy Requirements
As passenger fares do not cover RFTA operating costs, the ridership generated by Rose Ranch
will increase the system's subsidy requirement. This figure can be identified by estimating the
marginal operating costs associated with the additional services, and subtracting the estimated
increase in passenger revenues.
The top portion of Table C presents an estimate of the additional services that would be required
to accommodate the increase in passengers generated by Rose Ranch. As peak-hour buses are
typically full throughout the year, additional service would be required in all seasons. Ridership
for non-winter seasons can be estimated based upon the estimate of winter ridership presented in
Table A, factored by the relative ridership for the Downvalley Service in the various seasons.
Dividing seasonal ridership by 35 passenger-trips per bus-trip to identif,z the number of daily
bus-trips, and multiplying by the number of days in each season, an increase in the number of bus
round-trips of 377 per year is estimated.
Assuming that these additional nrns are operated between Aspen/Snowmass and Glenwood
Springs (in accordance with existing operating plans), RFTA buses would have to operate an
additional 33,932 vehicle-miles and 1,508 vehicle-hours per year. The cost of this service (in
1998 dollars) can be estimated by applying RFTA's current marginal cost allocation equation:
Rose Ranch PUD RFTA Impact Memo Page 4 May 11, 1998
Marginal Operating Cost: $0.8937 x Number of Vehicle-Miles +
523.9847 x Number of Vehicle-Hours
Applying this equation, RFTA's operating costs would be increased by approximately $66,500
per year in order to serve Rose Ranch transit passengers.
This figure, moreover, does not include any funds for RFTA's "fixed" (or "overhead") costs, such
as facility maintenance, administration, or marketing. At present, these costs equal $9.97 per
vehicle-hour of service, which would indicate atotal allocated overhead cost of $15,000 for Rose
Ranch service. Much of these costs are currently funded from public subsidies, Iargely generated
in Pitkin County. The substantial increase in service required for Rose Ranch, if not
.accompanied bv al
&dirg To provide conservative (i.e., low) cost impact estimates, however, these costs are not
considered further as part of this analysis.
Rose Ranch passengers can be expected to generate substantial farebox revenues to offset a
portion of the operating costs. Fare revenues can be estimated by multiplying the annual
passenger-trips between Rose Ranch and various destinations (as shown in Table B) by an
average fare per passenger-trip to each destination. While the "base fare" for RFTA service
ranges up to $6.00 per one-way trip, a variety of discount fares are available (such as the half-fare
punch pass, a monthly pass, a zone pass, and free service for children and seniors) which reduce
the average fare substantially below the base fare. A review of RFTA data regarding the use of
the various fare options, as sununarized in Table D, indicates that Rose Ranch passenger will pay
an average ranging from $0.54 (for trips to Glenwood Springs and Carbondale) up to 52.47 (for
trips to Aspen and Snowmass Village), as shown in Table C. Factoring ridership figures by
average fare per rider estimates, the total annual farebox revenues generated by Rose Ranch
passengers can be estimated to equal $48,200.
Subtracting these farebox revenues from the marginal operating cost, services required to meet
Rose Ranch's transit demand will increase RFTA subsidy requirements by approximately
$18,300 per year, as shown in the bottom of Table C. This estimate does not include any
potential change in administrative or facility costs.
If the ect were located in P_t1!in otlagle County, a substantial portion of this
uirement would be generated through increased sales tax revenues, as both
Eounties have dedi lc County, howevelJeeq nell
currently have a dedi source o for translt services.
Transit Center/?ark-N-Ride Lot Requirements
A final consideration regarding the impact on RFTA is the need for a major transit stop to serve
Rose Ranch passengers, as well as for park-and-ride spaces to accommodate passengers who
drive from their homes to transfer to transit buses. With regard to the transit center, at a
minimum a shelter will be required, costing on the order of $6,500 to purchase and install.
Rose Ranch PUD RFTA Impact Memo Page 5 May 11, 1998
The need for park-and-ride parkin larly strong for Rose
development is not an existing RFTA route. In order to avoid delaying existing
passengers on Glenwood Springs and Aspen/Snowmass, it would
not be reasonable to route the existing service along State Highway 82 into the development,
other than to serve a transit stop located adjacent to SH 82. Given current schedule constraints
and additional factors that can be expected to add additional delay, it is not feasible for RFTA to
divert into new subdivisions. RFTA is currently striving to keep the Downvalley Service route
strictly along State Highway 82.
corridor could warrant the institution of a new RFTA route along the roadway, this service
clu1not be assumgd at present. Moreover, it is very doubtful that such a service would be
pt""rdtd "bt""t " d.dicated source of transit funding in the Roaring Fork Valley portion of
Garfield County.
Barring the provision of a local transit route serving Rose Ranch, the development's transit
ridership will be required to drive to the transit stop (as is very corrnon for many transit
passengers living in nearby residential areas). Particularly in winter, when biking and walking
are difficult, it is reasonable to assume that 7 5 percent of Rose Ranch transit passengers would
drive, with the remaining being dropped off or picked up. Assuming an average of 1.25
passengers per vehicle , the 129 winter daily transit trips generated by Rose Ranch residents
would require 39 parking spaces, as shown:
129 one-way trips x 75 percent access by auto x
0.5 round trips/one-way trip / 1.25 passengers per auto : 39 vehicles at peak
Experience in other mid-valley areas indicates that, if these spaces are not provided as part of the
project, Rose Ranch residents will drive to other nearby park-n-ride lots (such as in Carbondale
or El Jebel), thereby exacerbating existing parking shortages at these other locations.
Even if land is available at no cost to the transit system, surface parking spaces cost on the order
of $5,000 per space to construct (depending upon parcel configuration, required grading and
water quality remediation, and access requirements), as indicated by the recent construction on
CDOT right-of-way in Basalt of i05 park-and-ride spaces for approximately 5500,000. These
spaces would therefore require on the order of $195,000 to construct.
In addition, plowing and pavement maintenance for surface parking costs on the order of S0.75
per square foot per year. Assuming an average of 325 square feet per parking space, annual
maintenance costs would require approximately $9,500 per year.
Conclusion
As documented above, Rose Ranch, at full buildout, is forecast to generate approximately 32,300
RFTA passenger-trips per year. To serve these passengers, RFTA would require the following:
Rolling stock capacity equivalent to 63 percent of an additional transit bus
(equaling approximately $167,000 in bus purchase cost, and lasting on the order
of twelve years);
run
TABLE A: Analysrb of Rose Ranch lmpact on RFTA Ridership and Fleet Requirement
Transit Passenger Trip Demand
Residential Land Use
Estimated
Population
RFTA
Carbondale
Daily Transit Trip Generation Rate
(One-way Psgr-Trips per Capita)
Rose Ranch
Ratio of Annual Ridership to Average \Mnter Daily
Estimated Transit Trips per Year
5,000 (1)
75s (3)
Ridership on Glenwood
427
0.09
6B
Service
844
0.17
129
250
32,300
(2)(2)
(4)
(s)
(4)
lmpact on Required RFTA Bus Fleet
Proportion of Transit Demand in Peak Direction 64%
Daily Passenger Round-Trips in Peak Direction 4j
Proportion of Transit Demand in Peak 4-Hour Period S4o/o
Daily Passenger Trips in Peak Direction in Peak period 22
Average Vehicle Occupancy 35
Required Number of Additional Transit Buses 0.63
Note1:Source--CarbondalePlanningDepartment.lncludespopulatioh
Note 2: RFTA counts, adjusted by passenger surveys to identify location of residence (rather than location of
boarding).
Note 3: Assuming an average of 2.6 persons per dwelling unit
Note 4: Assuming that the golf course and restauranUbar generate negligable transit ridership.
Note 5: RFTA boarding/alighting counts.
Table B: Winter 1997 RFTA Downvalley Seruice Ridership
Trip Pattern From Unincorporated Garfield Gounty Sfops
Estimated 1-Way
Passenger-Trips
Total Trips Surveyed
Aspen
Unincorporated Pitkin County
Snowmass
Basalt
Eagle County
Carbondale
Garfield County
Glenwood
Total
Total Upvalley of Project Site
606
31%
3%
11%
8%
4%
7%
0%
360/o
100%
40
4
14
10
5
I
0
47
129
82
47
10,013
969
3,553
2,584
1,292
2,261
0
11,628
32,300
20,672
11,628
: RFTA survey of ridership trip pattern from unin
TABLE C: lmpact on RFTA Operating Cosfs and Subsidy Requirements
Summer Offseason Winter Total
Estimated Daily Peak-Season, Peak-Direction 13 17 22
Ridership by Season (1)
Average Vehicle Occupancy
Additional Round-Trip Runs/Day
Days per Year
Total Runs per Year
Miles per Run
Hours per Run
Service Quantity per Run (2)
Service Quantity per Year
Mile-Related Costs per Vehicle-Hour
Hour-Related Costs per Vehicle-Hour
Total Operating Cost per Year
35 35 35
0.77 0.98 1.26
100 121 144
77 119 181 377
Miles Hours
904
33,932 1,508
$0.8937 $30,300
$36,200
$66,500
$23.9847
Change in Total RFTA Subsidy Required
$48 200
$18,300
Note 1: Summer and offseason figures estimated based upon proportion of 19g7 ridership by
season for existing service.
Note 2: lncluding deadhead travel to and from bus maintenance facility.
Estimated Transit Fare Generation
Annual
Psgr-
Trips
Average
Fare per Fare
RevenueTrip End '-T
Aspen
Snowmass
Unincorporated Pitkin County
Basalt
Eagle County
Carbondale
Gaffield County
Glenwood
Total
10,013
3,553
969
2,584
1,292
2,261
0
11,628
$2.47
$2.47
$1 62
$1.63
$1 12
$0.54
$0.54
$0.54
$24,732
$8,776
$1,570
$4,212
$1,447
$1,221
$0
$6,279
32,300
TABLE D: lnput Data for Analysis of Average Fare from Rose Ranch
Fare per One-Way Passenger-Trip Percentage of Riders by Fare Type
Full Pass Punch Pass Full Pass Punch Pass Free
Aspen
Snowmass
Unincorporated Pitkin County
Baialt
Eagle County
Carbondale
Garfield County
Glenwood
$6.00 $2.27
$6.00 $2.27$3.00 $2.27
$3.00 $2.27
$2.00 82.27
$1.00 $2.27
$1.00 $2.27
$1.00 $2.27
$3.00 $1.53
$3.00 $1.53
$1.50 $1.53
$1.50 $1.53
$1.00 $1.53
$0.50 $1.53
$0.50 $1.53
$0.50 $1.53
3%
30
8%
10%
10%
11%
11%
11%
4%
4%
4o/o
4%
4o/o
4%
4%
4%
8%
8o/o
7%
5o/o
5%
0%
ooA
00h
55% 30%55% 30%66% 15%
81% Oo/o
81% 0%
85% 0%
85% 0%
85% 0o/o
FIGJRE 7
ROARII{G FO RK IIYVESTMEI,ITS, L. L. C.
a Colorado Iimited liability company
May 2O,l99B
TO: Victoria Giannola, Senior Planner
Don Deford, County Attorney
RE: Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan
Supplement to Section 4V and Section 8G
In the two previously referenced sections of our PUD and Sketch Plan submittal we had
offered to contribute $200.00 per residential unit sold to a Garfield County Housing Authority Fund
or to the Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors Affordable Housing Fund.
We hereby want to supplement and clarify those sections by offering the following additional
amounts to the groups specified:
GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
400 Seventh Street South, Suite 1000
fufle, Colorado 81650
GLENWOOD SPzuNGS BOARD OF REALTORS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
1316 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
CARBONDALE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORANON
511 Colorado Avenue
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
$200.00 per
unit sold
$1,OOO.OO per
unit sold
$1,000.00 per
unit sold
We propose that the foregoing amounts would be collected by Garfield County at the time each
residential building permit is issued and then paid over to the foregoing groups within a reasonable
time thereafter.
Sincerely,
ROARING FORK INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.
Ronald R. Heggemeier,
% HEGGEMEIER & STONE. P.C.
l9-i63 E.IVIAINSTREET. SUITE 200. PARKER. COLORADO 8013-t
PHONE: (303) 8-ll-8072 FA-X: (303) 8+l-8073
By:
anager
Community Development Department
(970) 328-8730
Fax: (970) 328-7185
TDD: (970) 328-8797
Eagle County Building
P.O. Box 179
500 Broadway
May 18, 1998
GABFIEL! COUNIY COMMtSSI0 r,tEilS
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
VIA FAX: 945-7785
Rose Ranch
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for the referral on the above referenced land use application. The proposal, as
referred, is for a golf/residential community of 292 dwelling units located approximately 5 miles
south of Glenwood Springs.
The Garfield County Comprehensive PIan should be carefully considered as this development
proceeds through the review process. As you know, the purpose of a master plan is to direct
growth and development to the most appropriate locations based on guidelines and policies set
forth in the plan. It's important that the decision making process incorporate the philosophy and
concepts found in the Plan to ensure compatibility of uses. No doubt countless hours of time,
effort, and energy went into the long range "vision" that was created by the citizens of Garfield
County.
Given the scale and scope of the project and its proposed location, there will likely be impacts of
a regional nature beyond the boundaries of Garfield County. As we all know, impacts of
development do not stop at jurisdictional lines. Therefore we request that you carefully evaluate
the potential effects on the adjacent and nearby communities of Glenwood Springs, Carbondale,
El Jebel and Basalt as well as Eagle and Pitkin Counties.
Western slope communities have lately been required to address large recreational/residential
developments. It is important that these planned communities be integrated into the existing
fabric of an area. One of the ways to accomplish this is to assure some degree of public access to
the proposed facilities.
Other regional concerns that must be addressed are impacts on roads, service providers,
affordable housing, schools, wildlife, airshed & watershed quality and public safety. Each of
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORA
, Colorado 81631-0179
HAY 19 fiis
Garfield Board of County Commissioners
May 18, 1998
Page2
these factors could effect the quality of life the existing and future citizens of the Valley are
seeking to maintain or enhance.
As you move forward in the review process, do so cautiously and carefully. Thank you for
consideration of our comments and good luck in formulating a decision.
We would also like to thank you for your referral of the Cattle Creek Crossing proposal. In the
likelihood that this site is resubmitted to you for development, we would appreciate the
opportunity to comment and assist you in your land use decisions.
Sincerely,
lSrA-4'd*':t'-
George A. Gates,
James Hartmann, County Administrator
Keith P. Montag, Community Development Director
Johnnette Phillips
NAY-13-1998 ?,E-126 FRON FSPEN/PITKIN CUI1 DEU
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
EIGURE 9
MEMORANDUM
Viotoria Giannola, Senior Plarurer
Garfield County Building and Planning Deparbnent
Ellen Sassano, Senior Long Range Planner
Pitkin Coun ly Communi ty Develo pm ent Departnrent
Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan Application Refenai Comrnents
May,12, 1998
9-94>',t tA> P.U2
The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners appreciates your effbrts to make us
aware of larger scale development proposals which are currently in your plaruring review
process. These referrals help us evaluate issues in a more comprehensive manncr on a
regional scale, and give us a better look at the big pictrue! With respect to regional
implications of the Rose Ranch development proposal, Pitkin Cor.rnty forwards the
following comments:
Mass Transil: Based on the applicant's taffic analysis, ttre proposed subdivision will
generate a significant number of daily trips on Highway 82. While the site is not ideally
located with respect to mass transit options, at a minimum it is recommended that the
arplicant fay an ^nnronriate share to facilitate construction of a park-n-ride in.a location
to be determined by RITA in ooordination with Garfield County. As recommended by
the applicant's Fansportation consultant, more detailed service analysis should be
required of the applicant to determine the incrernental cost to RFTA.to provide capaciry
for "Rose Ranch" trips to Aspen.
Affordable Housing: To faci[ate Garfield County's goal of ensuring "...the availability
of housing including affordable housing," it is recommended that in addition to the
$58,400 contribution offered by the applicant for off-site affordable housing, affordable
llildlife: It is recommended that where applicable, the river corridor analysis prepared
ibr Unical for the adjacent Sanders Ranch property be considered as part of the County's
review of riparian habitat concerns on the Rose Ranch.
units be included in the mix of housing provided on-site.
TOTRL P.A2
Fignrre 10 V l0{orr, a-
Dear Garfield County Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Commissioners :
It is time for Garfield County to give serious consideration to air quality, water quality,
wildlife issues and low cost housing.
Hundreds of people showed up for the Sanders Ranch hearing and many more wrote
letters in opposition to Sanders Ranch. Most of those who expressed concem were not
Roaring Crystal Alliance members. A surprising number of people mentioned concern
for the great blue heron, deer and elk habitat and the water quality of the Roaring Fork
River. The citizens of GarFreld County care about wildlife and yet up until now the
county has chosen to virtually ignore wildfire and environmental concems when making
a decision about developments.
Responsibledeve1opersalsocareaboutwildlifeiSsues,theenvironmentandto*.ffi
houiing. The Roaring Crystal Alliance gave the Rose Ranch developer a list of tntl[.f -
following concerns: tr" E
low cost housing H -i{
great heron.ooli"ry ffi +
deer and elk habitat G,
=air qualiw fHSt -:
water qualiry l==3 -,ffi
The Rose Ranch developer responded by agreeing to donate 5642,000.00 to provide for
low cost housing, create a conservation easement on six acres next to the great heron
rookery, create habitat for the deer and elk on and adjacent to the golf course, prohibit
open hearth fireplaces and wood burning stoves and use best management golf course
maintenance practices to minimize the use of toxic chemicals. What Rose Ranch has
agreed to do is an example of how developers can be sensitive to environmental issues
and low cost housing and still make their project profitable. The county is operating
under the misperception in reviewing developments that wildlife, the environment and
low cost housing must be sacrificed in order for the developer to succeed.
The citizens have spoken loud and clear about their desire to preserve the beauty,
wildlife, rivers, and air quality which is our legacy and our heritage to pass on to future
generations. At least one developer has demonstrated that all developers need is some
guidance as to what is important to the residents of Garfield County and they will and can
propose responsible projects which meets the social and environmental needs of the
communiqv.
If Garfield County exerts leadership and speaks out on these issues, then other
developers will start to follow the example of Rose Ranch. There is nothing to prevent
the Commissioners from speaking out in general about growth. And the Commissioners
should direct their planning staff or a private consultant to draft revisions to the planned
unit development regulations which would encourage or require clustering of housing,
open space, wildlife habitat, emphasis on air and water quality, emphasis on mixed uses
and providing for low cost housing.
-L.IJ
aU)t)
==OC-)>-
)?
O(..)aJt!
Lcc
(5
Page 2
The continued lack of guidance from vague planned unit develoment regulations results
in the clashes between developers and citizens which occurred with the Sanders Ranch
hearings. Without guidance, developers come to the drawing board thinking that
anything goes in Garfield County. This philosophy may have been true five years ago,
but the mood and sentiments of the citizens have dramatically changed.
In the past, developers have used planned unit development proposals to merely justifl/
asking for double, triple or quadruple the density of the underlying zoning without
satisfiing the criteria of innovation, creativity, mixed uses, compatibilty with the
surroundin g area and mitigation of impacts to the community. Developers have the
absolute right to put one house on every two acres. When a developer comes to the
county with a planned unit development, the developer is asking for the privilege of
getting approval for a project usually of a scope far exceeding the rights to which he is
entitled by the underlying zoning.
Developers have repeatedly stated that they are concerned with environmental issues and
low cost housing but do not want to be put at a competitive disadvantage by addressing
these issues when the next developer is not willing to do so. Planned unit development
regulations that either give incentives or require developers to consider air and water
quality, wildlife habitat, and low cost housing will put everyone on a level playing field.
It would cost about $10,000.00 to retain a private planning firm to draft proposed
revisions to the current planned unit development regulations. Jim Rose and the Rose
Ranch developer should not have to be the only ones being responsible to the community
for air and water quality, wildlife habitat, and low cost housing. The cost of planned unit
development revisions is much lower than the expense of a moratorium and much lower
than the social, enviromental, and financial damage resulting from rampant growth.
Please put the Roaring Crystal Alliance on your next agenda so that these issues can be
discussed.
Calvin Lee
Susan Hassol
Bob Shultz
Roaring Crystal Alliance
FTG]RE 11
May 19, 1998
Dear Planning and Zonng Commission:
I would like to address grave flaws in the Rose Ranch'development plan you should
consider before recommending high-density zoning to the county commissioners. We
must consider what natural resources the citizens of Garfield County hold dear and strive
to protect them. At the top of this list would be protection of the area's wildlife and the
beauty of the lower Roaring Fork River. These concerns were addressed in the long-term
county plan calling for the protection of the.Rbaring Fork Rivervisual corridor. This
unprecedented high-density development along the river and the river's wetlands would
severely diminish the experience for fishermen, rafters and kayakers who use this
resource heavily and be a huge detrement to the wildlife who depend on it. If such an
extremely high-density development is necessary the Rose Ranch could be redesigned to
put much less pressure on the lower Roaring Fork.
The wildlife corridor allowing passage through the project is woefully inadequate. It is
but a narrow alley leading to a steep embankment. At the river end of this corridor there
is no open space but only high density housing lining the embankment. The extremely
high density housing throughout the project allows no other wildlife access to the river.
If the developer is not willing to relieve pressure on the roaring fork by redesigning more
open space along it, he should at least be required to make this an adequate corridor by
eliminating lots#77,78,79 80,81,82, and 83. This would create an adequate wildlife
corridor and make it continuous with the wetlands on the south end of the development.
This development would be out of character for the area. To the immediate south is the
Teller Springs development. The houses are on large lots and the area near the river
remains undeveloped. Across the river to the east the houses are on two to fifteen acre
lots and are set well back from the river. The Westbank development is on a high bluff
above the river and consequently does not impact it. The high- density of this
development along the river's shore and wetlands would surely chase away the eagles
and herons currently feeding there.
The lower roaring fork is heavily utilized for recreation in the summer. Thanks to the
intelligent, low- density development currently lining its shores it remains very
remarkable with the feel of a wild and scenic river. The Rose Ranch development would
make it more like an inner city canal. This does not need to happen. The developer
could, as was done in the Teller Springs development, place the open area; in this case
the golf holes, by the river. I suppose this would make the development less lucrative but
would surely save one of our most significant resources. the scenic lower Roaring Fork.
It is unfortunate this comes before you so closely after the much publicized and
emotionally debated Cattle Creek development plan. The people of Garfield County
may be somewhat burned out on politics right now, but I believe they feel strongly about
r
5coq\
=.r,
Eo-
i
J' ..-1
.-t.t
.t.t-l
),1
i:( \
FIGJRE 12
$ear Garfield County Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
.Jf/e are losing the Roaring Fork River. Twelve miles of Gold Medal fishing. Rafting on champagrre water.
fffr. g""i Ul.rie ii"r* *itt the most stunningly elegant neck of any bird species. The river is already sick
Lryl
i';* ne great Dlue neron wlth the most Stunrungly elegant necK oI any DlrO SpeCles. I he nver lS a]feady Slcl(
rb,itf, . coli and ammonia. The more houses stacked along the river, the more diseased the river will become.4
the derelopers come, one after another, with their legion of expert consultants, promising protection from
pollution and dangling untold riches &om the spin offs of Planned Unit Developments. Bankers will make
money offof interest to contractors and entrepeneurs. Contractors will build multi-million dollar second
homes on golf courses. Shop owners will sell trinkets to decorate expansive mansions. Lawyers and
accountants will labor over the minute details of deals put together and then gone sour. All will profit.
Meanwhile, the proposed new jail will become full and obsolete before it is even built. Social services and
law enforcement will be overwhelmed. With rapid growth comes rapid social disintegration.
There is an overemphasis in Garfield County on private properry rights. No one would deny a rancher or
farmer the right to pass to their sons and daughters land held for generations or to sell the land to a buyer to
continue the uses of the land as farmed or ranched for generations. It is when a farmer or rancher wishes to
sell the land to a developer for millions of dollars that the welfare of the community must be given equal
consideration. There is a balance that must be struck between the properry owner's desire to sell for millions
and retire in Sun City, Arizona and the community's interest in mitigating the massive social and
environmental impacts of a golf commercial, or residential Planned Unit Developments. The developer is
not coming before the counry to ask that they be allowed to continue to farm or to build the legally allowed
one residence per two acres permitted by the zoning code. The developer is asking in a Planned Unit
Dwelopment for upzoning which will allow for unimaginable and sometimes obscene profits. County
government has an obligation to the cunent residents and their children and their grandchildren to ensure
that all impacts are considered and eliminated, not just mitigated.
It is easy to demonize the dweloper. However, the dweloper will always ask for as much as th€y thinkthey *can gey away with if the developer perceives a lack of governmental and community will to impose
restictions, conditions or sanctions. Rose Ranch is a prime example. The Roaring C.ystal Alliance asked
Rose Ranch about woodburning stoves and fueplaces and the use of pesticides on their proposed golf
course. Rose Ranch immediately suggested an alternative to fireplaces and woodburning stoves and
immediately hired an internationally recogrrized conzultant on the mitigation of use of pesticides on golf
courses. When confronted, responsible developers will respond. Since there is no goverutrental or
community pressure to provid housing for service workers, Rose Ranch has not provided for the housing of
employees and low income families. If approved, Sanders Ranch and Rose Ranch will need hundreds of four
dollar to eight dollar per hour maids, gardeners, and clerks. There needs to be a percption among
developers that the county government and Roaring Fork Valley residents care not just about second
homeowners, retiring ranchers, bankers, conuactors, lawyers and accountants that the massive projeas will
benefit, but that there is concern about the common worker that the projects wil inevitably lure to the valley.
The choices we have to make about these projeas are not just financial, social, and anvironmentat there iis
also a critical moral choice which must be made.Every dollar the low incomb worker earns is made through
hard labor, hour by hour. Every additional million dollars the developer reaps is made beczuse the Roaring
Fork Valley lacked the political and community will to require the developer to do what is right.
If Sanders RanclU and to a large extent Rose Ranc[ are approved in their currert configuratioq then we
will not only be mourning the loss of the elegant neck and brilliant plumage of the great blue heroo, we nnill
also be composing songs to the memory of the scnse of community and place which was the Roaring Fork
River and it's inhabitants.
4
';r#
Iil{ffify;ru
CAnffiDmHfY 0St[{lSSloNEHs
?lanning and Zoning Boand
FTGJRE 13
0405 Counts Iload /62
6lenaood Spyr,C0 8t6otFeb. 6, 1998
nlte-ld County
TAtt' letten irt concenni-ny. tAe I?oae ?nopentu. It u venu evLde-nttAey tntend to ute tAe nLven" connLdoi {ri'o""nLdto".--TA;';ludetq {*htn* acceA, ond a boati-ng acce-,L./l.' Theu Aare orttune.d. ne tAeLn
{uthennen wul not {iuA ^ {ah dowr, LAe nLv"en aa my pnopenty.
TAey Aave acAnowledged tAat th.z/. do not own tAe nLvent edge {nommy pnopeRty to lltlet //oluba. 1il,1. c,r'rcenn b tAat tAeq. cannot"lLve upll lA"::1tynu7:;. . TAey attuo"2 uo. tl"y *Ul 7;";7 tr-"rr""1,J. "u,"nottnclx wLl/- tzeep Lhet-n homeownena oli thirt pant o{ tAe nLvenbanA. TAeucLctbn to 3,Lve ua acceAA to oun pn'o'pent; tlAnu ae'cert t o! LAeLn dureloolment. u{{eni-ng}o put ,up o .lq:"A"/, g-:t" tu lzeep tAeLln Au^"u*n"o" ui#oun alvenbanlz. l,hey.u1ul no.t buLld a {ence to'pnotect tAe poopentyl,',to I cannot tee Aoi tAU gnte wil! ,urL. -- -- t
tAtt deve/up**?
//o,1 ca\ tAey aay tAat /000 on mone people tAat wiil be lLrino indevelopment will not tnertneru? TAle a'AenL/h u/!i"o ,l,ron n,3 A,,not tne,tpeat-2 TAle alAeng!fu offLcz du,"n. nr? Aor"
1A1 1*oryen to ,!{un"u,uuo,pnp.its ^;gAt;
-'[A;; ,L;;-;;1;';;i i;'^;
t1:: y:Laomental' pnoblem tiy ,^U "itg,lT"^". it-,70;;;l tA"yatJ nut Ao,.'LAe extna manpowen'tu "u^" uX.t X"n".
I Aere pald taxet on tAi-a pnopentt4 {on tALntu-ntne ttertna. TAe tax
nu no u / { Lee -Aa,t told me Lt' d;i;ir *irti";" il-r t' i."'2"tr7';;; "^'lr';;A'
I hcwe paLd taxet on thi
aALeRoL^ o{{Lee -Aat told me Lt' dde,tnt" matten loi b.tg yo"un nLvenbanApnoplnty u1L. tA"y tax Lt 1o tu .Aow many buLldtng luL" tt """t".t ^. tpRopenLy La, xhey tax ct at to hou mang buL
own tuto. )tnce ny pnopeaty, wltAout thpou,own tuo. )ince ny pnopeaty, wltAout- itnpnovenetzt^ u ,alued at $t65,ooo
lyn..4u,l', _an( tAey" ane ,'taAitrq,",244l l/ *y ot""n- to*,-f t"J- t-t "i "-t
r"nLu.en .banA, I {eel tAey ,aAoul/'be wLllino t, oony +, t1,4i T,rii,oooi bL;;fr";"t\'"i^-^rLt' "i;;i';7 fii""i"glota wLll" lr. JLoL"tl"-E;];.2;,' nnnnon+,,lota wLll" b. JLo"""tly be-,\tnd iy' pno'peaty.
TAeu Aave ottued me tAat tAe.pnopenty tn guerttLon tt not pant o{tAeLn d.rn-lup*ent bit I /""1 ti t".
Could ^you pleate taAe ny conceRnA L,Lto conaLdenetLon be{onz anarttinathe 'l(ote 1)ev.e,/-opment.a go aAead? I nealLTe tAat I cannot /t l.rt \A"tn 4
Ti.I?t,- but do {eel they intend to taAe my piopenty wLtAout' dre compin-LAtLOn.
€nclo,ted La a copy .u{ *y
4unyqy qnd a map ,thowi-ng
Pf?0?fr?YS tAat ine Ln-
volved.Sincenelg--',r--.='r-' r- r')'/acrtLL( 'Jr', F-*
l,tatalte !. 1andnen
7_AU trt a copy ul *y letten to tAe Countu ?lannLng Bocrnd.I would a/,Lu' "lLAe to poLnt oui tAqt rLncL LAe fianLtctnr;. meetLnq o{ tAe koanLnq
fonh. ItzretLne,ztt fl 'local DaDeR Aat neponted "tAat tlAeu wLll' do' crua.u wLtA 4
'tAeLn boatena panh and /Uh'einent pnnh..' At the lonuonlg meetLng tAJy cutrrunedut tAe atLll |ntended .tlo ute ct {tal.Atng accea^ id *u"l"d Aave booatLig aceetain tAe blue henon nooheny exce/L duni-ng netti-ng
^eaAon.
FIqJRE 14
fiicfiafl G.Llleinberu
!:.-i,-<;:ilTqFg1C--
i i 'ro
^
*o ,{l E.r rfirrrr L, I i
0086 Westbank Road - Glenwood Springs,1
Fax97O-524-2060 - Home Phone 970-928-9876 - Email weinberg@rof.net
\--,.rr!r i tLLJ cCt-+i iY
March 10, 1998
Garfield County Planning Board
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Sirs:
On Feb. 24,1998I attended a meeting sponsored by the Rose Ranch Developers. The meeting
was held in the Clubhouse at Westbank. They responded to numerous questions from the
interested parties.
At previous meetings it was estimated that the traffic on County Road 109 (Rte. 109) 'uvould
triple, including a marked increase in truck and construction traffic. With that n mind, I asked
the developers if some sort of vegetative screen could be planted on the southrvest side of Rte.
109. They said that it could easily be accomplished, and later on at the same meeting, they
recommended that I write to the county to reinforce this proposal.
sort ofdense trees on the southrvest side
nt whe itch c 109 (a fbrv d feet southeast of Westbank
,:y-il
Road)gqa point where Rivervierv Road intersects with Rte. 109. I believe this w.ould minimize
the environEffi increased traffic
This proposal has not been formally coordinated
or the homeowners adjacent to Rte. 109. I doubt
will publish it in the next communiw newsletter.
with the Westbank Homeowners Association ,
if anyone rvould oppose the project, however I
I hope I can depend on vour office to make this oroject a requirement tbr the development of the
Rose Ranch.
Thank you for your help,
I?-L*/e(/,2,^>*
Richard C. Weinberg /
Rose Ranch Developers
WEstbank Homeowners Association
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-9762 MLS FAX (970) 945-4769 .FAX (970) 94s-7263
May 20,1998
Garfield County Commissioners
l0g g6
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commissioners,
HAY 2 1 1998
GAHFIETO COUI.$Y COMMISSONERS
.., ,.,IbP Glenwood Springs Board of REALTORS@ takes great pride in its own Affordable Housing j
Fundwhich we have been operating forthe last 5 years. The Direaors of the Board would like to
inform the Commissioners that we support the concept of developers contributing fees per lot to
various Affordable Housing Groups.
Some initial concerns are as follows:
L The Directors feel some sort of attention and study needs to be done to determine what
the reasonable and appropriate dollar amount should be.
2. T'heDirectors do not feel that this amount should be paid by a buyer at the time of
building permit application. We would suggest a finat plat payment plan by the developer
or payment upon the closing of each lot.
3. The Glenwood Springs Board of REALTORS will determine how any monies donated
to our Affordable Housing Fund will be spent. This may include donating some of it to
otheraffordable housing groups and projects in addition to the awards to first time home
buyers that we are presently granting.
Please note that the Glenwood Springs Board of REALTORS@ in no way zupports any specific
housing development but we do endorse the concept of developers contributing to affoidable
housing in some manner. We do appreciate the plan offered by Rose Ranch Development and
their efforts to address affordable housing in Garfield County.
For the Glenwood Springs Board ofREALTORS@,
fu o&a
Jill West
Executive Officer
c: Rose Ranch Development c/o Rue Balcomb
rJ. uc/zo/96 ruE 17:4/ t'ar vlu lu4 cz65flfIIH rrsrx' 16
*'
Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authori
P. O. Bot 127O, Carbondale, CO 81625
Raymond C LloYd
Executive Drector
Memorandum
George
County Building and Planmng Dept.
r4 001
?tt970-704-9282
Fax: 970-704-9?84
To:
CC:
From:
DaE;
Ray Lloyd
05n6198
Re: Rose Ranch PI-ID application
Iu response to your requ€st for review of the subject development RFRHA submits the follorving:
. The application addresses expansion of the "RFTA park and nde lot on the property" and
uegotiations with RFTA to expand it. The lot is actually on RFRFIA right of way and we have
not been contacted by the developer on the subjecL
. Gross residential density of 0.54 dwetling uoit po acre is uot considered transit oriented
development. I would Sualify that statement with a note that as an agency R-FRHA is not in the
zoning bustness.
. The development is made up primarily of cul de sac 's wbich are also considered transit
unfriendly.
. The project access is on Corurty Rd 109, but the packet includes an a€ess permit for Highway
82. In either case the traffrc for the project would have lo cross the rarl corridor at some point to
get to ilighway 82 and would be in excess of &e 35,000 risk opportunities proscribed by the
Public Utilities Commission to trigger a need for a grade separated crossing. i wouid assume
therefor that the county would want to ensure the deveiopers pay their fare share of thts impact.
Thank you for thew opporrunity to comment on this application,
Victona
FIGI]RE 17
GtFrreLD C()t f.{ryMay 26, L99B
To: Garfield County Planning Commission
From: Gl-enwood Springs River Commission
RE: Revised PUD PIan for Rose Ranch
Ron Heggemeier of Roaring Fork Development qave a brief
presentation of the amended Rose Ranch PUD to the River
Commission at our regular meeting on May 6. The River
Commission submitted a letter to P&Z dated October 24, L997 |in which we listed several concerns the commission had
regardinq tl" original plans for this development. While the
commission r-s still has strong concerns for the effects Rose
Ranch will have on wildlife, water quality, native
veqetation, and other concerns j-n our letter, we feel that
the developers have made a conscientious effort to address
these i-ssues.
According to the presentation, Roaring Fork Development has
agreed to a public trail through the development,paralleling County Road 109 | according to specifications in
the rivertrail-s plan adopted by the City of Gl-enwood
Springs. This road will be separate from the road, allowing
pedestrians and bicycl-es saf e travel.
They have also created larger lots along the Roaring Fork
River, and along the south rj-verfront portion, are allowingpublic fishing access, while creatj-ng a buffer between the
river bank and the homes. They al-so propose to keep thebuilding envelopes of homes on these and other river frontIots from B0 to 150 feet from the 100 year high water
elevatj-on mark, which is more than the 30 feet currently
required by the county.
They also have removed the fishermen's park and the floaterspark, which could have adversely affected the heron nesting
sites, since the parks would have received the most useduring critical nesti-ng periods.
(l;l-ir-) ;
I i:,ti l:,:i::,)i,.! ; ;
fii}r L---._*--:i.*.
: mU26tees
We also received a list of "best management practices,
presented by a representative of High Country Engineers.
While we wiII wait for more input from Wright Water
Engineers, we feel these steps are being taken in the rightdirection.
These aspects of the revised plan are welcomed by the
commission. Members of the commission, collectively and asindividuals, may wish to make further comment throughout theprocess, but would like this opportunity to express our
thanks to the developers for their efforts in addressing theissues that are of concern to the community.
Sincerely,
"J*rr- 4r"/-
Tamie Meck
Glenwood Springs River Commission
2 Rose Ranch
FIqJRE 18
6/aSt a?
//
5 6 ,Qrrncla
Q-: |-l-x- Rra-- Q,o.,-l,
/\Ar-^ ,t-,u-;r L)f -wt-c)
r: C -><*- lc</r-yuj-Lr- 1\.,t-O,rd./-,4.L,. cLL /.t_ nt-bt_, T
Q-r.+-V't t-; WFA-)4d-W ?tt6 L&u,tucr- 1-
/ +-&- *&prc>, A*.*l Ea!
GAFF}€LD OOUNTY
I llprt-r-, Fl-Li,ultlr, /_'t^, /r_/_t_
( ld-u O,"-CYJ
A-A-{=- f-i-co-,on et^
f t,t'-fzr-fa--ft--', A I z.r.-.\ v _, _V f\
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C.
Figr:re 19
NEILEY & ALDER
ATTORNEYS
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 8161i
(970) 92s-9393
FAX (970) 92s-9396
July 15, 1998
5157 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 928-e3e3
Board of County CommissionersGarfield County
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81501
Re:Rose Ranch Development Application/Roaring ForkInvestments, LLC
Dear Commissioners3
This office represents Maria E. Maniscalchi. Ms. Manis-calchi owns a 2l acre 1ot and a residence at 5157 County Road L54 tGlenwood Springs, Colorado immediately adjacent to and across theRoaring Fork River from the proposed Rose Ranch Development. Ms.Maniscalchi opposes the developrnent proposal as it is presentlyconfigured and urges you to deny the developer's application forPlanned Unit Development and Ske':ch plan Review.
In the event you determine that the Rose Ranch develop-ment application should be approved, the conditions proposed hereinshould be made a part of your approval, in addition to those condi-tions recommended by the Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commis-sion and the Planning Office and those offered by the developer.
Ms. Maniscalchi's objections relate to (1) the proposeddevelopment's failure to comply with the Garfield County Compre-hensive Pran, (2) the overall excessive density of the project,(3) failure to provide required open space, (4) failure to adhereto the maximum building heights permitted under the Land Use Code,ald (5) failure to mitigate adverse impacts to the Roaring ForkRiver and the river corridor.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Before PUD rezoning can be approved, the proposar must befound to be "in general conformity with the County,i Mister,/Compre-hensive plan(s). " The Land Use Code states:
It is intended that pUDs shal1 be planned toinsure general conformity, both in substanceand location, with the goals and objectives ofthe master/comprehensive plan through inte-grated development.
Letter to Garfield County Board of County CommissionersJuIy L5, 1998
Page 2
The Rose Ranch development plan is inconsj-stent with the
Garfield County Comprehensive PIan as to both the proposed uses and
density of the project.
PROPOSED USES
The Comprehensive PIan map for Study Area 1 identifiesthe Rose Ranch as appropriate for residential development. Theapplicant's proposal seeks to incorporate significant commercial
and recreation components into the development. Over 141 acres ofland, or over 32* of the property, is proposed as a golf course
with attendant club house, restaurant and other commercj-aIfacilities. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow these uses on
the Rose Ranch.
The developer proposes to construct "approximately 25r000
square feet" of club house, restaurant, bar and other cornmercialfacilities in addition to golf course development itself. This is
a significant commercial component not permitted on the Rose Ranch
property by the Comprehensive PIan.
In order for the developer to proceed, the Comprehensive
Plan must be amended. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that
uses pe::nitted in the underlying zone district may be pe:mitted inPIIDs. The A./R/RD Zone District does not i-dentify golf courses,
restaurant and bar facilities, or attendant commercial facili-tiesas "pe:mitted uses. " Under that zone district designation, "golf
course driving range, golf course practice range" and "commercialrecreational facility/park" are j-dentified as "special uses. "
Absent approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive
P1an, the Rose Ranch application is premature. Approval of the
development proposal without an amendment to the Comprehensive PIan
would violate the reguirements of the County's PUD regulations.
DENSITY
The Comprehensive PIan map for Study Area 1 identifiesthe portion of the Rose Ranch to the west of County Road 109 andthe river corridor approximately 200 to 500 feet in width as lowdensity residential (10 and greater acldu). These areas comprise
approximately 230 acres of the 44O acre ranch. Under the Compre-
hensive PIan, a maximum of 23 residential units are appropriate in
these areas.
The balance of the ranch, approximately 2LO acres, isidentified as high density residential (1ess than 2 acldu). Whilethe Comprehensive PIan does not establish specific minimum lot
sizes in the high density residential area, both the Plan and the
Letter to Garfield County Board of County CommissionersJuIy 15, 1998
Page 3
PUD Regulations require a demonstration of compatibility with andan appropriate relationship to the surrounding area. The Compre-hensive Plan identifies land use compatibirity as a "criticalfactor" in determining appropriate high density development. Theprevailing lot size in the surrounding subdivisions ranges from 1]acres to approximately 6 acres, exclusive of comrnon open space.
The prevailing lot size on the east bank of the Roaring Fork Riveris over 2 acres.
The Comprehensive PIan identifies a total of 350 acresappropriate for high density residential development in the CattleCreek sub-area. This area includes both the Rose Ranch and the
Sanders Ranch. At "average density" (1 dwelling unit for each L.25acres), the Comprehensive Plan identifies the potential of 280total dwelling units for the Cattle Creek sub-area. The Rose Ranchproposal will utilize more than that entire allotment.
A-l-Iowing development within the high density residentialarea on the Rose Ranch in accordance with "average density" pro-posed for such areas by the Comprehensive Plan justi-fies no morethan 158 units (210 + 1.25 acres) for that property.
An analysis of surrounding residentj-al land uses is bothnecessary and appropriate to determine an acceptable density forthe Rose Ranch. (See Attachment "A") The developer,s proposed
average lot size, exclusive of open space, is 0.39 acres or lessthan 17r000 square feet per Iot. The developer proposes densitiesas great as 5 units per acre. The largest lot is only 1.23 acres.
Teller Springs Subdivision to the south of the subjectproperty contains lots ranging in size from 5 acres to 11 acres,exclusive of open space. The prevailing lot size is approximately5* acres.
The West Bank Subdivision, to the north, contains lotsizes ranging from I acre to 3.58 acres excrusive of open space.The predominant lot size is approximately 1.5 acres.
West Bank Mesa, to the west, contains lot sizes rangingfrom 1.03 acres to over L2 acres exclusive of open space. Thepredominant lot size is in excess of 2 acres.
The properties adjacent to the Rose Ranch on the eastbank of the Roaring Fork River range in size from 0.55 acres toL4.87 acres. Only one parcel on the entire east bank is smallerthan 1 acre. The predominant lot size is approximately 2 acres.
The properties adjacent to the Rose Ranch on the west
bank of the Roaring Fork River range from 2.34 acres to 4.11 acres.
Letter to Garfield County Board of County CommissionersJuly 15, 1998
Page 4
The balance of the property adjoining the Rose Ranch iseither public land or designated under the Comprehensive PIan as
medium density residential (6 to less than 10 acldu).
ft is apparent that the requirement of compatibilitymandates lot sizes for the proposed Rose Ranch developmentsubstantially larger than those proposed. There should be no lotswithin the PUD less than 1 acre in size. The lots bordering the
Roaring Fork River, for which the Comprehensive Plan establishes 1.0
acre minimr,rm lot size, should be no smaller than 2 acres each.
Tota1 density for the project should be considerably lessthan 292 units. Allowing 23 units for the low density residential
areas and 168 units for the high density area yields a generous 191units, total. The density proposed by the developer should be
reduced by at least 100 units to reach even marginal compatibilitywith surrounding subdivisions and minimal compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
OPEN SPACE
The development proposal does not satisfy the Coderequirement for open space.
First, Rose Ranch is comprised of 440.4 acres, not 533.5acres as represented by the developer. The developer attempts toincorporate the existing West Bank Golf Course into its PUD forpurposes of calculating both open space and density. This isinappropriate. The West Bank GoIf Course is already part of asubdivision. Furthermore, that property is not contiguous with the
Rose Ranch as reguired by the PUD regulations. While the developerhas apParently negotiated an easement to connect the properties,this easement does not satisfy the code definition of "contigrrous. "(Code 54.01.05)
Second, the golf course property itself, over 141 acresof the Rose Ranch, does not satisfy the definition of Cornmon Open
Space since that property is not "intended primarily for the use orenjoyment of residents, occupants and owners of the Planned UnitDevelopment." (Code 54.01.01) It is intended for public use.
Third, of the remaining approximately 299 acres of theranch, 170.14 acres are identified by the developer as open space.This caLculation appears to be erroneous. (See Attachment "B) Thetotal amount of Common Open Space is actually less than 99 acres.Furthermore, the vast majority of this open space has averageslopes in excess of 25* t limiting its use as coillmon open spaee.
Letter to Garfield county Board of county corunissionersJuIy 15, 1998
Page 5
The developer is obligated to provide not less than 110acres of common open space. of that amount, 44 acres may belimited use open space, that which exceeds an average slope of ZS*.
Even a cursory evaluation of the developer's plan establishes thatapproximately 100 acres constitute limited use open space.
The developer has also included in its ',open space" areaswhich are clearly portions of the golf course and the HolyCross/Public Serrrice Company utility right-of-way traversing thaproperty. Portions of the "open space" are used for golf cartaccess and underpasses and are directly adjacent to golf facil-ities. Arbitrarily identifying these areas as "cormlon open space"is inconsistent with the Land Use Code requirements. The utitityright-of-way is fuJ-ly developed with overhead power lines andtowers and underground high pressure gas transmission lines. Theseareas appear to comprise approximately 5 additional acres notproperly characterized as open space.
Finally, the PUD reg-ulations require that conmon openspace be "adeguate in terms of rocation, area and t1pe. " tn thisapplication, there is virtually no common open space incorporatedinto the residenti-al component of the development. Virtually aIIof the common open space is undewelopable wetlands, riparianhabitat, water, steep slopes or utility easement. The only commonopen space incorporated into the residential portion of theproperty is a 2.L4 acre community park.
HEIGHT LIMITS
The developer proposes 35 foot height limits on manypresently unidentified lots in the subdivision. The sole basis foithis increase from the maximum pe::rnitted 25 foot height limit is toa1low "more articulated roof forms and more creativity in archi-tectural design. " This argrrment does not satisfy the eUO regula-tions.
It is pertinent to note that the proposed area ofdevelopment slopes gentry from county Road 109 1o the river.Articulated roof forms and architectural creatj-vity are not in anyfashion hampered by the geography of the site. on the other handlincreasing building hei-ghts will have negative impacts on virtuallyall surrounding property owners. The development merely proposesto increase the bulk and mass of the development in a way thaCwillobstruct view plains and adversely affect adjacent properties withno identifiable benefit. There is simply no justification underthe PUD regulations for any increase in building heights in thisproject.
Letter to Garfield County Board of County CommissionersJuly 15, 1998
Page 5
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON ROARING FORK RIVER
In its application, the developer acknowledges that "alldrainage run-off shall be conveyed to the river. " No proposal is
made to mitigate the negative impacts of this run-off. Run-offfrom 292 homes, including fertilized lawns, a club house andrestaurant, paved parkJ-ng areas, golf course chemicals, and over 25acres of roads will be conveyed directly into the river.
First, a reduction in overall density will help minimize
adverse off-site impacts.
Secondr dn appropriate plan for retention of run-off on-site to settle out pollutants should be required.
Third, a formal commitment should be required of thedeveloper to utilize environmentally friendly golf coursefertilizer and other maintenance products. This commitment should
be in the form of a written plan identifying the specific productsto be used, maximum amounts and locations. The developer should berequired to monitor water guality and insure that water gualitydown-river of the development is not negatively impacted.
Fourth, the developer should be requi-red to make a formalcommitment to maintain the natural vegetation along the rivercorridor for a distance of 100 feet from the edge of the river.This commitment should specifically require that the large standsof cottonwoods and other vegetation not be manipulated or removed.
CONCLUSION
The developer's application should not be approved assubmitted. The developer needs to submit an application for
Comprehensive PIan amendment, needs to substantially reduce thedensity of the project, and needs to address the other concernsraised herein and those identified in the Planning Staff andReferral Agency Conunents.
The Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development and Sketch PIanApplication should be denied unless the applicant agrees tosignif icant modif ications .
Should the Board of County Commissioners decide toaPprove the Rose Ranch development application, the followingadditional conditions should be appended to any approval:
units.1. Overall density should be reduced to no more than 191
Letter to Garfield county Board of county commissionersJuly 15, 1998
Page ?
2. All lots along the Roaring Fork River should be atleast 2 acres in size.
3. Open space must be caLculated in accordance with therequirements of the Land Use Code to the satisfaction of thePlanning staff to insure not less than 110 acres of "comnon openspace. "
4. Open space should be incorporated into the residen-tial development as required by the Land Use Code to the satisfac-tion of the Planning staff.
5. The height of all buildings and structures within thedevelopment should be limited to 25 feet.
5. The developer should present an engineered plan tolimit to the greatest extent possible all run-off and discharge ofsurface waters into the Roaring Eork River. The plans shouldinclude vegetation and berms as well as settling ponds to avoid theentry of pollutants into the river. A water quality monitoringprogram should be required.
7. The developer should present a written plan inconnection with the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizersutilizing organic, non-polluting products to the greatest extentpossible.
8. The developer should be required to maintain naturalvegetation along the Roaring Fork River for a distance of 1-00 feetfrom the river, minimizing manipul-ation and removal of vegetation.
The developer should propose plans to comply with theabove conditions which satisfy the Planning staff and-the Board ofCounty Cormissioners prior to final plat approval.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
truly yours,
Y & ALDER
RYN/agk
Enclosures
It'44,-
Y. Neiley, Jr.
' ..j :i -' "'RosE RANCH puD
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Range of
Subdivision/Parcel Lot Sizes
West Bank Ranchl 1 - 3.SB acres 1.S acres
West Bank Mesaz 1.03 - 12+ acres 2+ acres
Teller Springss 5 - 11 acres 6+ acres
East Bank parcetsa 0.SO - 14.87 2+ acres
West Bank parcelss 2.34 - 4.11 2+ acres
lCounty records show gg lots on 142 acres for an average lot size of 1.(l acres.
The predominant lot size was determined exctusive of open space.
2County records showthe West Bank Mesa Subdivision as having 67 lots on 285
acres for an average lot size of 4.25 acrqs. The predominant lot size was determined
exclusive of open space.
3County records show Teller Springs Subdivision as having 21 lots on 175 acres
for an average lot size of 8.33 acres. The predominant lot size was determined exclusive
of open space.
'The east bank parcels total 29 separate lots comprising 70 acres bordering the
east bank of the Roaring Fork River and adjacent to Rose Flanch. The average lot size
is 2.4 acres.
sThere are 3 lots on the west side of the Roaring Fork Biver adjacent to the Rose
Ranch. They are 2.34,2.34 and 4.11 acres in size.
ATTACEMEDIT 'A'
Predominant
Lot Size
ROSE RANCH PUD
OPEN SPACE
Gross Acres
Residential Planned Areas
Roads
Golf Course (per plat)
Total "Open Space"
Limited Use Open Space
exceeding 25% slope
(approximately 100+
acres x 60%)
TOTAL "Common
Open Space"
ATTACEI.IENT 'B'
440.40
(1 13.91)
(26.27)
fi41 .211._--,,
159.01 acres
99.01 acres
NOtel Cdculation of Common Open Space includes all land areas
remaining after deducting the developer's expressed calculations of
residential planned areas, roads and golf course. Certain of the remaining
property is not properly considered "open space," such as areas adjacent
to the golf course providing access to the underpasses which are clearly
a part of the golf course and the 100 foot Public Service Company
easement which is undevelopable by the applicant but which contains
Public Service Company improvements.
FICJRE 20
Gib and Lee Plimpton
189 S. Third Street
Carbondale,CO 81623
Garfi eld County Commissioners
Garfield County Planning and Zoning
Committee Members
109 8th Street, Ste 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Gentlemen:
May 25, 1998
We are writing this letter to add to the concern shown throughout the area that our quality
of life and the reason people have always come here is in danger. The following are our
concerns not for Rose Ranch only, but for the allowable growth in the Comprehensive
Plan:
1) Quality of Life: Most of us recognize that there will be growth in this valley;
however, the rate and nature of that growth as regulated and approved by the
Commissioners, should be reasonable and in the interests of those of us who live here.
We ask that you consider the residential areas already in existence such as Westbank and
Teller Springs. These lot sizes, open, common and riparian areas are more consistent
with the lifestyle and environment in this part of the valley. To approve hundreds of
homes on only a few hundred acres seems extreme, overtaxing present systems. Perhaps
the Comprehensive Plan needs some revision. Rose Ranch standing alone is one ffng;
Rose Ranch as viewed along with other developments from Carbondale to Glenwood is
quite another. We request that you consider, as much as possible, reducing dwelling
units and/or rework of layout of all proposed projects to insure maximum open, riparian
and wildlife areas.
The enclosed Denver Post articles, compared to local news articles, show that wisdom is
prevailing in Douglas County with voluntary down-zoning. People and developers alike
are realizing that quality of life, even economic feasibility, makes lower density and more
space a better idea; an idea that here, may ultimately prevent urban sprawl of one
continuous town from Carbondale to Glenwood Springs.
To put this issue in perspective, even with all the land available in these front-range
areas, here are the numbers that have been down-zoned:
Bell Mt Ranch - 2,040 acres:
Spruce Ranch -2,306 acres:
Douglas Park - 2,942 acres:
Keene Ranch - 2,255 acres:
7,400 homes to 305
3,400 homes to 150
3,545 homes to 35 (35 acre parcels)
750 homes to 247
Page 2
Carbondale to Glenwood Valley Proposed/existing:
Sanders Ranch - 280 acres: 502 homes ( Includes 71 acres Open Space, + 76
acres CommerciaVT 08,000 SF)
Coryell Ranch - 2651300 acres: 130 (2 acre) + golf course (a919 public?)
Rose Ranch - 533.5 acres: 292 homes + golf course (public)
River Valley Ranch - (existing) - 520 acres: 685 homes + basebalVsoccer
field, tennis courts and golf course (public)
Surely, let's be smarter than the mess that has been created in many areas on the Eastern
Slope where previously rural property has been developed unchecked, and control this
growth now. Just because Pitkin County, where large ranches still remain despite
intense growth pressure, and Basalt don't want growth there, it doesn't mean it all has to
happen down here. Perhaps a moratorium on larse developments should take place for a
short time to get aclear direction for reasonable future development. Of course if these
huge developments are approved, housing may be needed for those who build them, but
then what? Wouldn't a slower growth approach, less burdensome to the job market,
schools, public services, wildlife and the environment be more advisable.
2) Winter Wildlife Migration: As more and more of these projects are approved
access to the river is cut off for deer and elk. Already there are many areas where it is
almost impossible for them to get to the river and there are herds on County Road 109
wandering confused trying to get through, bunching and trampling each other rvhen they
do. You need to see this to realize the extent of the problem. With such complex issues,
it seems time is required to sort through them and find the best solution.
In closing, may we please urge you all to be cautious in planning for the quality of life of
Garfield County residents, their children's futures and the wildlife using these lands for
winter survival. Most of us are already busy working and raising families, making it
difficult to constantly be responding to powerfi.rl developers, whose only objective is to
get these large developments approved, built, realize a huge gain and move on. We count
on you for the reasonable development of this area. This is your challenge - to plan so as
to protect and benefit the interests and lives of the citizens of Garfield County.
We have always found the County Offrces to be a dedicated group with which to work.
Thank you very much for your favorable consideration of this information. May the
valley continue to be a most wonderful place to live for man and beast.
Sincerely, f
tl
-o h i-Lct -{-.}
FIGJRE 21
GARTELD COU NIY COIilMISSIO NENS
4?28 RD 154
Glenwood SPringe, Co' 81601
ApriI 17' 1998
(97O) 945-78O3
To the Editor,
Uany letEers exPreselng opposttion to Eeveral propoEed develoPments'
incruding the noee Ranch and Sandera Ranch, have appeared in the }ocar PaPers'
we are aLI coneerned abouE the impact that the resultlng growth wlII have on
the quality of IIfe in the Roarln! rorr valley. To repeat theEe concerng would
be redundant, but r would rike to convey gome thoughte that r have'
I have dlacusged these iesues with many local reeidente' I have yet to find
anyone, one eingle Person, who favors any of theee developmente'
Whoarethegepeop}ewhothreatenthebeautyandruralsettj.ngweenjoy?
Developers Eeem t-o trave two thlnga in common' None of them are residente of
the area they lnvade, and afEer ihe develoPment, they are gonel
Itiedifficulttoimaginethatourelectedofficialgcouldconceivably
aPProve arry P}ang that wi}I eo nagatiwe}y impacc our valley. I,m glad I,m not
countyCommiggionerburdenedwiththereeponaibilityofdecidingtheee
iaguee. I have confidence in our elected officials and I can't believe that
they will let ue down'
S incerelY,
cc: Garfield CountY
Garfield CountY
Commiegionere
Planning and Zoning
APR 24 1998
FTGURE 22
May 27,1998
Garfield County Department of Building and Planning
109 Eighth Street, Third Floor
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Public Hearing - Rose Ranch
Dear Sirs:
I understand that the application of Rose Ranch for a PUD and sketch plan approval will be
considered by the Planning Commission on May 27,1998. Because I am a neighbor from the east
side of the Roaring Fork River, I would like the Department to consider my comments on the
development.
As the development was originally proposed (since withdrawn from the counfy approval
process), I had two concerns. The hrst concern was that the wells, which were proposed as a project
water supply, would adversely affect my domestic well and those of my neighbors in the immediate
area across the river from Rose Ranch. Second, the lot sizes proposed along the river which front
on my property were smaller in size than the lot sizes on our side of the river.
The manager of Roaring Fork Investments, Ron Heggemeier, requested us to attend meetings
to discuss any concems or problems we had with the project. I identified the above two problems
as did several of my neighbors. I note now that the revised Rose Ranch proposal has eliminated its
reliance upon wells and now utilizes surface diversions of the Roaring Fork fuver. This mitigates
my concern over injury to my individual domestic well.
Also, as revised, the plan shows considerably larger lots immediately across the river from
my lot. The lots are of approximately the same size as those on my side of the river. I believe that
this is satisfactorily resolves my second concern.
FIG.]RE 23
May 27,1998
Garfield County Department of Building and Planning
109 Eighth Street, Third Floor
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Public Hearing - Rose Ranch
Dear Sirs:
It is my understanding that the application of Rose Ranch for a PUD and sketch plan
approval will be considered by the Planning Commission on May 27,1998. I would like the
Department to consider my comments on the development.
As the development was originally proposed,I had two concerns. The first concem was that
the wells, which were proposed as a water supply, would adversely affect my domestic well and
those of my neighbors in the immediate area across the river from Rose Ranch. Second, the lot sizes
proposed along the river which front on my property were smaller in size than the lot sizes on our
side of the river.
The manager of Roaring Fork Investments, Ron Heggemeier, held meetings to discuss any
concems or problems we had with the project. I identified the above two problems as did several
of my neighbors. Now that the revised Rose Ranch proposal has withdrawn its application for wells
and will utilize surface diversions of the Roaring Fork River, this satisfies my concern over possible
damage to my individual domestic well.
As revised, the plan shows considerably larger lots immediately across the river from my lot
and are of approximately the same size as those on my side of the river. This also satisfies my
second concern.
I believe the current proposal has addressed my concerns and those of my immediate
neighbors, therefore I have no objection to approval ofthis project.
If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
L'- r 'z'| ) --r-----< lL-) --lS-
05/27/08 10:51 FAI 870S274970 EASALT f,.S.
FIGIJRE 24
Victoria Glannola
Garfield County Planning Deparunent
Rs ltose Ranch Revlsed PUD I
Sketch Plan Submlttal
Dear lvts GLrnnola:
As golf coach of the tsasalt/Roaring Fork Hfgh School golf teams, I have
seen fir.st hand wh:rt golf course development has done for both interest
and opportunity in the sport ermong the youth of the valley. The combined
high school [eam has grown from approximately ten to over forty parti-
cipants in just two years- Both River Valley Ranch and the Roaring Fork
Cluh have proven to be enthusiastlc supporters of the high school program,
giving of both their time and facilities.
I would crpect Rose lhnch to offer that same support to the Glenwood High
School golf program and to junior golf in the valley- Westbank Ranch has
had a uadition of strong support for these programs and lndications are
that this strong support will continue- Increased golf and job oppofiunities
for youth will result from the development of Rose Ranch.
Sinccrely;
@oz
-z:i ---?f*'/.*-,.-,---'
John R Tesmer
GolfCoar:h
Basalt/ Roaring Fork UiSh Schools
FIqJFE 25
REAL ESTATE
6-WD
May 22, 1998
Garfield Counfy
Planning Commission
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Affordable Housing Fund
I am writing in support of the concept of developers donating fees to various
affordable housing funds throughoui the valley. I have had t}e opporrunity to beinvolved with two transactions that required the financial help of t't . Glenwood
Springs Board of Realtors Affordable Housiing Fund. Without this help, neither ofmy clients would have been able to buy a home in this valley.
I believe that expanding the resources of this fund through donations by developersis an excellent way.to help people buy homes in this vall-ey. The increased
donations would allow the affordablshousing fund to help more people into thehomes that they lvant. It has been my experience that this fund combined rvith thebroad reach of the Board of Realtors-is far superior to other attempts of affordablehousing in this area.
.-2.4--Z-'Z--t-zZ--,
Todd Leahy
Broker AssociAt I Mason & Morse Real Estate Mason & Morse Real Estate
MlsoN E MoRSE
Jeanne Casey
Cle rvooo Spnrxcs, Cor-onaoo 8 t 60 I (970) 928-9ooo FrcsrvrLE, (97o) 928-o977
FIGJRE 26
lvlly27,L998
Vft:toria Giannola
ffield Cotry Deprtment ofBuilding ssl plurning
lO9 tt Sreeq Suite 303
Gtcnwood Sfrog+ CO 81601
Re: Rosc Ranch Dorelopmeut
Dear Victoris:
I would like to go onthc rccord as srpporting thc Rose Ranch Developmert 8s Proposed
bV Rouing Fo* Imcstrrerts, LLC. I had thc privilegc of rneeing with thc dsvBlopcn to
gci an roaerstrnaing of thcir plans forthe ranch. I camc away impressed with thc site
.-*pt, cnvirumcntal snrdieq and community issues as proposed by thit gronp. -fr"y
heve otviqrsly inveSed a lot oftime and money to bring a concept tro the coudy that
app€ars to mest thc criteria ofthe coutrty's mast€r plur fur dlvelopmeot I arn dso
impressed by the rescarch dorre in thc aress of pcsticides and firtilizas that ue
eovironnentally sefe for tbc golf course.
I also srpport this development becaus€ it brings a first-class golf cause to our
commuoity. Golf is onc of the frste€t Srowitrg puticipAion sporB in tbc couury, artd ell
we need to Oo is look arouod orr valleys to scc tbc prmf ofthat- This type of course will
b'ring pcople irno our town to play therc, increasing thc cconomic impact for thc comty.
It also-p'rovides thc prblic with an lE hole cqrrse for what will Probrbly bc reasonable
fecs.
I hsyc tivcd in Glencrood Springs for ovetthirty ycrrs. t wasbom haq and my family
has called Glcuwood borue for five gacrrtioru. A lqt h8s chuged iniust the P8$ tunuty
yars, but chenge is inariable. We rre fsccd with a challcngc. Morc erd rcre people
*.rt to live ia our rrc& Wc cr.nnot prs a ftocc around thir rnlley to kccp peoplc an!
wen though rhd is what mmc residem *ould likc to do. tt is idcrc*ing to Ec that
many of those wto wmt to limit growth arc actelly people who hnrc rcved isto tbc
co5ty wirhin tbc paS five to tca )rcars s65artc it lpPolcd 19 lhcm as a small town-
Thcy;ccd to realizr thd tbsy arc psrt of thc growth issues thcmsclva, rnd canrpt
p/rsvfft otb€rs ftom moving here ju$ as thsy did just a fe* years ago. Wc nccd to u,ork
togeher with dceelopers srch rs RFI, I.I-C to ensurc q"dity development and rn
lrrhaacod communiry.
Sirselv.5;ftu-
5t-* B.t;+t-
Fiqare 27
October 27, 7997
Garfield County Planmng
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Sp.i.gr, CO 81601
RE: Rose Ranch and the Roaring Fork Vallev Bioiogical lnventorv
Dear lvls. Giannola:
. The follozoing .letter was sent to the Garfield County Commissioners. I wanted yott to
haae a copy since it relates to the Rose Ranch and the impoitance of the great bbte heron
rookery.
Dear Commissioners:
As Project Coordinator of the Roaring Fork Valley Biologrcal lnventory I lvoulci
Iike to thaxk you for your letter of support to Greai Outdoors Cilorado for a grant to
continue this prolect. Garfieid Courrtv-beiongs to a partnership of over 30 pafres rvho
support this project.
.}1 yo,, knor,v, the first stage of this projecr was conducted in the Roaring Fork
Valley.this past summer and rve are now pioposrng to expand the project into ilre entire
watershed of the Roaring Fork River. Tlus vrdl rnciide srudvrng piint !r,a arumal
s.pecies in three counties and I agree with vour statement in-yorir^letter of support that"it makes sense to studv this area rn its enhretv rnstead of b-eing constrained b;r poiitical
boundaries."
As I mentioned above, ihe tirst stage of the inventory was conducted thJs past
sumrner and rve are currentlv arvaiting a final report from the Colorado Natural Hbitage
i-ro_-gram.to be readv sometirne in December. This report.,vill outline specific areas in tfie
VaXey ',vtr-ich are critcal for piant and animal speciei and/or natura-l cbmmunities. Anv
area ln the study area wtLichhad an "element oc.urr"nce" of an important species w.dl '
be recomrnended as a "conservation srte." -tccording to the Colorado Nalural Hentage
Program, "conservation sites focus on capfuring the ecologrcal processes that are
n€cessarv to suppot'c the continued existence of a particuiar element of natural heritage
sigmficanci. The goai of the process is to identifv a land area that can provide the
habitat and ecologrcal procesies upon wi'Lich a particular eiement depends for their
continued existence-" The Heritage Program,retes on the principles oT wildlife biology to
determine conservation recommendatiors. These recommendations wrll be suggestiolis
to consider, and it is up to private landowners and local government to decide-how to
best implement these zuggestrons.
There will be appro>omately 20 conservation sites in the Vallev outlined in this
report. Since this report w-ill not be available unti-l December, i wanted to let vou know
that one conservatoh site wiil be the great biue heron rookery in &e rrrcinitv of the Ros"
Ranch and ihe Sanders Ranch. -{ccording io the Site Survev Sommary, "Current land
use in the area mrnirnizes human disturbance to the great blue heron rbokery, however,
continued urban deveiopment on either side oi the nver couid negativelv rnhuence ihe
rookerv." The Coloraa<j Xarurai Heriiage program wili recommEnd thit a 1/2 mile
radius conserwati.on boundarv be Lmplemented to proteci the rookery, and more
specifically, that a 1,000 foot buifer 6e provided around the nests to proiect feeding
areas and to protect the herons foom human djsturbance.
7-.----_
*'3I-#rc.LD €ill t
: 0Qi 2;?' 1#":r
trEge 2
- According to the Heritage Progra:rt, this rookery is important because it is the
9$y_9"".located on the stetch of the river from Old Snowmass to Glenwood Springs.
The Heritage Program reports that there are 90 to 100 rookeries in the entire stite r,frth
only 3 located - tt " Roaring Fork Valley. The rookery at the Rose Ranch is the largest
on the river and it has been increasing armually. Accoiding to Mike Sherman, zoolSgist
for the Heritage Program, "There is not a lot of habitat repiesented on the river corri-"dor
for the great blue heron. The biggest asset to this site is that the appropriate habiiat is
adjacent right up to ihe river, and that there is curently a low ievel-of disturbance
around the nests."
lvlike Sherman expresed interest in attending the planning commission meeting
on November 12, but he has a prior commitrnent. He wanted me to make his phone
number availabie to you should you have anv questions regarding the Heritage Program's
recommendations and protocol for outlining conservaton sites in the state. His phone
number is 970-497-3342-
Once agarn, I wou-id like to thank you for your suppor'r of the proledc and I hope
vou find this information usefr:1. On a dosing note, I wou-ld like to reiterate that this -
project's primary goal is to make rmportant information on plant and admai spectes ln
the watershed available to iocal deqsion makers such as yourself. The final report on
the first stage of this project rvill be avaiiabie in Decembei. Please feel tree to iail me or
Nlike Sherman should you have any questions.
Thank you for yor:r involvement and support.
Sincerely,
r-l ---t L-a
Jamey Fidel, Projedc Coordinator - Roaring
Phone Number - 927-7741
Fork Valiey Biologrcal lnventory
cc: lvls. Giannoia and Mr. McCalfertv
Figure 28
GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSINC AUTHORITY
400 Seventh Street South, Suire ]000 Rifle, CO 81650
Phone (970) 625-3589 or (970) 945-0779 Fax (970) 62s-0859
November 5, 1-997
Victoria Giannola, Senior Planner
Long Range Planning Division
1-09 Bth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development
Dear Ms. Giannola:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Application andSketch PIan for the Rose Ranch Planned Unit Development. I
am conmenting specifically in response to the applicantrsproposal to contribute $2OO per unit constructed for use bythe Garfield County Housing Authority to further its goals toprovide affordable housing.
The Housing Authority could very effectively utilize thesecontributions for land acquisition, a revolving fund forresidential rehabilitation loans, local matching funds for anaffordable housing development, project development costs,and/or other similar uses which would directly meet the mostcritical housing needs of the residents of Garfield County.
We would welcome the use of these funds and encourage thePlanning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to
make them available for the purposes outlined qbove.
"\r*"*' n
d$).xtd5^
Joseph Forinash
Executive Director
7;t:l
1".":'."f,'.'lf
Fisr:re *oaul^;:-
A'w-e" bd't-
4728 Rd 1s4
Glenwood Springs, co. 81501
July 5, 1998
94s-7803
JUL i'J ngS
SARf [iD fo ur,l_ry Cqle,,tsSt0irlEfi s
GARFIELD COUN?Y COMMISSIONERS,
We have lived on the Roaring Fork Rj-ver across from the Rose Ranch for nearly
30 years. From our picture window, nearly everthing we can see is the Rose
Ranch, so we are very concerned about the proposed development by the new
owner, the Roaring Fork Investment Company.
We feel very fortunate that the developer appears to be making a gerioug
effort to minimize the impact on the county and surrounding neighbors. They
have made several changes in their origlnal proposal; and while we're dubious
about their placement of the golf cart path through the narrow canyon to
access the upper four holes, our main concern is density.
The County Planners have labored for several years with a Comprehensive
Maeter PIan for the county. This plan envisioned a minimun of 10 acres for
river frontage lots and 2 acre lots for other residential sltes. We realize
that this is a ptanned unit development, but the density proposed by this
development far exceeds anythlng anticipated by the planners or anyone else-
We ask that you, our elected officials, carefully review the density being
proposed, especlally along the river, and bear in mind that your decisions on
this project will greatly influence decisions that will be made on future
projects. ?he guality of life in our beautiful valley is deminished by every
dilution of our master plan. You will be making an important decision, and we
feel thet what you decide on this project wiII have an enormous impact on the
guality of life in our valley forever. We have confidence in you.
erely,
CARBO N DALE CHIROPRACTIC
Dr. John H. Philip
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
75 So.
(303) 963-
RE: Rose Ranch PUD
I just wanted to share with you two thoughEs on the Rose Ranch PUD and how it
rnight be improved and benefit Ehe counEy best, now and well into the future.
l. Keep and preserve the whole river bank and cooridor from being built upon.
In other words, require Ehat al1 of the homes on Ehe sest bank be set back
from the actual river bank so that no property owners actually own or use
any of the river bank footage. Some of Ehe golf holes could even be moved, so Ehat they could/would become a buffer zone between houses and Ehe river
bank.
2. Eliminate the mesa just. west of the actual development from having any buiding
or golf course holes or activity on it, and al1ow it to be dedicaEed as (pubtic)
open space. The Rose Ranch PUD project could be Eriumed down by abouE 107" of
its current proposed house numbers, and Ehus, al1ow enough room for the 4 golf
holes that are planned for thaE. tnesa, to be located on Ehe valley floor where
Ehey could besE serve Ehe whole project best..
Some reasons why building 4 golf holes up on Ehe Eesa is a bad idea, and will
only function more badly in the fuEure if builr:
A). To cut into the exisEing slopes Eo get a golf carc path up there will only
promoEe to and contribuEe Eo Bore and more erosion of thaE hillside.
B). PuEEing a golf cart path up Ehe hillside to serve the 4 mesa golf holes
will also require the access and use by service vehicles, which are quite larger
and heavier Ehan golf carts.
C). There will undoubtedly be accidenEs in the future between golf carts, be-
t\"/een golf carts and service vehicles and between golf carts, service vehicles andpedestriansl wether Ehe pedestrians be golfers on foot, pedestrians going for a hikeor a picnic or wether they happen Eo be kids just playing or goofing off, weEher they
are on foot, bicycle, roller blades or skate boards.D). Pest.icides and herbicides that will be used. on the 4 mesa golf holes, will
noE only concenErate/bio-accumulat.e and run down the existing draw in concentrations
noE only planned upon, but in eoncentration thaE will do damage to the people, pets,
children and ecology of Ehe lands and soils that the draw drains inEo. Any pest.icide
and herbicide use on the mesa will also obviously bio-accumulaEe and eause a Ehreat
Eo Ehe eagles that nest and feed up on EhaE mesa.
E). There will undoubtedly be times and situaEions in the near fuEure of puEtinggolf holes uP on the mesa where some golf carcs are just going Eo run out of gas orelectric charge and sErand golfers and cuase accidenEs. Golfers will undoubEedlf,
aE one time or anot.her, drive a cart off of one of Ehe paEhs going up Eo or down fromthe mesa and clos/) serious injury from tipping or severe rol1ing, once off Ehe paEh.
Figure
J
July 9, 1998
Garf ield CounEy Corrmissioners
109 8rh
Glenwood Springs, C0 81601
Dear County Commissioners,
re1y,
t\/nli
S ince
Johnt-
e|t,; D.c
Figure 31
To The Garfield County Commissioners andresi-dents:
Three bravos to Regina Waltsak and Keegan Nadon of Gl-enwood --*Springs for their letter to the editor expressing opposition to thetotally unnecessary Rose Ranch housing development. I cannotmaintaj-n my silence any longier and not openly express my oppositionas we11.
Rose Ranch will do absolutely nothing to contribute to theguality of life in the Roaring Fork Valley and will do everythingto destroy it. rt is just another prime example of yet anotherself j-sh non-resident greed monger ruinj-ng our way of life andpadding his bank accounts with dirty money. Ron Heggemeir is notto be trusted. He is a snake in the grass.
He has offered to ante up at least $460,OOO for anttaffordablehousing'r phase of his sprawling mess. That money j-s a carrot onthe end of a stick letrs not be the jackass who follows it. Forcatrs sake, Aspen Glen with it's $1,OOO,OOO ugly boxes can beconsidered I'affordablerr because someone can afford to Iive there.r saw a great bumper sticker in Loveland a couple of years ago.rt read: 1'Destroy a piece of art and you I re carled. a vandar ,-destroy a piece of nature and you're called a developer.rt
Heggemeir j-s from the front range--parker specificarly.Parker is located in Douglas County--a county with the dubiousdistinction of being the nationrs faltest growing county.
Have you been to Doug:Ias County 1ateIy? I travel-Ied throughDouglas County last summer. Here is what r saw: homes, a sea orrooftops, cars, more cars (it was not even rush hour) | apretentious, yuppified park Meadows Marr, surrounded by a spaciou=parking lot with thousands of spaces for, you guessed it, more carsand, oh, y€s, open space--in the form a gbtf tourse.
r recently finished readingr a frightening book. No, it wasnot a ghoulish horror story or the l-atest iuspenseful techno-thriller, but a ctrilling tale stilt the same. The book, r'The Angrywest; A vul-nerable Land and its Future,rrwas written in 19g2 bithen Coioracio Gov. Richard D. Lamm ano journalist Mj-chae1 McCart.hyirn their book, they portray an American west on the brink 6reconomic, social, political and environmental upheaval anddisaster. White some of their predictions did not fu1-ly see totalrealization, such as share oil development, much of their bookbrings forth their bittersweet forecastL 16 years later.
In the bookts prologue, Lamm and McCarthy wrote ltThere wassomething special about the West in the 1950s and 1960s. It was aunique and wond.rous place for those who loved the outd.oors, whocared about the land. rts air had an unbel_ievable quarity. rtliterarry sparkled. rn the mornings, the mountains and d.esertfarmland stood out in crystalline clarity. And the sun shone witha bril-liance, a counter point to the cool mountain air...
JUtI4HO
c{,+Fsl p m1;l{rY
Page 2
"civilization has a way of creepingr up on human consciousness, and.few westerners fu1]y understand, even now, that Iand. use decj_sions|ave already been made that will filt up the remaining open spacebetween the westts citj-es. we will soon see backyards-whlre g-r""nfields once 1ay. we have citified, already, *rr-"r, of our landedheritage. It
In, Chapter one, the authors wrote trAs Colorado stands on thethreshold, it asks these guestions: in a decade, in two, will th;land be habitabLe? wil1 the streams be dry? will the space t;gione? Will the people survive?,,
- Il chapter Four, they continued, "Environmentali-sts have saidfor a hundred years that no man can reach his n"*""l"tentia1 in amilieu of concrete and steeI, that he needs space, breathing r;om,beauty to enhance his Iife. what, then, ha- pens to communitiesthat 1g.g (of never have) their open space. what happens whencondomj-nium clusters burst out of co-w pastures and pristine r"ri"v=turn to dust- wllat happens when the 6ndless silence of a mountain9ty disappears in the ioar of earthmovers and jackhammers? whathappens to the people?"
And in chapter Five they wrote rrAs long as the pattern holdsin colorado or anln^rhere erJe, it is a fact that no amount ofeconomic movement will help it. rt wilr g.or-. -Erhaps it wirlpIlilBI:,. But, as in the days of the euggenheirni and [n"Roclcerfellers, it will not control its own dest-ily. No one knowswhat Yn" future holds. But it is certain that the boom in thesunbelt will contj-nue--perhaps until it creates a crisis. A; 1;;;as the west continues to be seen--accurately or not--as an economicmecca, people wil1 migrate there. il
rn chapter one, they argued, r'ways of life change forever.Values, attitudes, customi--the core of- western 1i-fe--shatter. Newcities. plagued by crime and violence and nonexi-stent social- andeconomic services cannot deal_ with the change. ,,
irrt is the past then, that makes the doomsday nightmarereality' In the westr rro reason exists to think that yesterdaywi]I not become tomorrow and that, again, it wirl not bear witnessto its own destruction. rr
Pretty bIeak, eh? Darn right it is; and prophetic, too. Iur9'e the county commissioners to seriousry consider what r haveshared' The last thing w€, as concerned residents of thesepristine varleys need, i= more upscale homes, more cars, morepeople, more concrete and certainly'notlnother thirsty gorf course(better make that a nine-hole graii_ng ringe for deer and e1k).
A golf course requires an immense amount of water. ,Water,cool-, clear, water,']r Lne Sons of the pion"eis-;";;. water isprobably the American west's most precious resource. A resource farmore precious, than the gord and Jil.r"r that were mined from thisvalleyrs mountains 1OO a-r,d *or" years ago.
Page 3
In 1869, Maj. John Westey Powell, a hard.scrabble, one-armed
Civil War veteran explored the Colorado River and its environment
in the Grand Canyon. He foresaw that eventually, the demand for
the Westts water will exceed its capabilities. He recorded this
visionary statement j-n his journal: rrAII the waters of all the arid
lands wiff be taken from their natural channefs and there is not
enough water to supply the land.rr
We dodged a bulIet with the Planning and Zoning Boardrs denial
of the grotesque Sanders Ranch/Cattle Creek Crossing development,
and the developerst hasty retreat. But the P&Z board fired a shot
across our bow with their approval of Rose Ranch. As for River
Valley Ranch, Aspen GIen, Hendricks Ranch, the second phase of
Westblnk, and the Stillwater development, it is sadly too late.
Irm from the Front Range, and. I do not tike what has happened toir.
f find it disturbingly ironic that the Roaring Fork A11iance,
a citizents group that so strongly opposed SR/CCC and helped lead
to its defeai, cln turn an about face and welcome Rose Ranch with
open arms just because it has a few environmental provisions
included. The RCA has betrayed this valleyrs citizens and, most
sadly, betrayed itself by this demonstration of a contradictory,
two-faced, deceitful mentality.
Lamm and McCarthy summed up their book in the l-ast paragraph
of Chapter Ten. ttThe West, not now, not ever, can take its
end.angerment lighti-y. It must cherish its 1and, hold it cIose,
shield it and nurture i-t. Protect it from marauders. Every tree,
every thicket, every grain of desert, every scrap of rock, every
flower. Every branch of sage. Environmentalist Enos Mills
believed. that rr rThe Great Power behind all never spoke to man
except to follow through the eternal heavens, the rushing winds,
the fountains of great streams, the all generatingl earth.rrt
The West may well remember this. The riders are at the gates.rl
The County Commissioners must fully deny in any form the Rose
Ranch development. By denying it they will help preserve this
beautiful piece of the American West.
By approving Rose Ranch, they wiII betray their constituents
of this county and will become an enemy within. They will make
their contribution to and be responsible for thej-r part in the rape
of the American West. The choice is theirs. The future belongs to
aI1 of us.
S incerely,
Chris Q. Mecham,
a concerned valleY resident
Fign:re 32
DONNA K. SMITTI
P.O. BOX 836
srLT, co 81652
KE 1 Rose f{pnrh
May 26,1998
Garfield County
Planning Commission
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Sirs:
I have received financial help to buy a home from the Affordable Housing Fund
provided by the Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors. This is an approach to the
affordable housing problem our valley has that I strongly support. Without this aid
I would have been left r,vithout any hope of owning my orvn home.
This fund allowed me to purchase a home in an area I r,vanted. By or,vning my
home, I will be the one to benefit from the appreciation. I think that an increase in
donations to the Affordable Housing Fund to help more people to buy homes is a
wonderful approach to the housing problem.
-' tSrncerelv - '- *
lxt(uWYffi
DONNA K. SMITH
Figure 33
May 27, 7998
Chairperson
Garfield County Planning and Zoning
109 8tl' Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Planning and Zoning Committee:
As a developer and a homeowner of Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa subdivisions I
support Roaring Fork Investments, LLC and the developers of the Rose Ranch in their
development plans.
I feel they have addressed the issues. The developers have made or are making positive
approaches to these issues and questions ofconcern.
The redesign and reconstruction of the existing 9-hole Westbank Golf course into a
Championship 18 holes is very positive. The improvement on 109 road and the redesign
of the intersection of 154 road and Hwy 82 along with a traffic light is a very good
improvement and safety item.
I feel the majority of Westbank Ranch and Westbank Mesa homeowners support Roaring
Forks development. I urge you to consider this request favorably.
Sincerely,
47"--
Fig,r:re 34
Euzrrne B.HelnIctr
0086 Westbank Road - Glernvood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone 970-92&9876 - Email sua,v1@juno.com
June 29, 1998
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept.
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Building and Planning Department:
ffiF5Lo G,.}rrY
This letter is in reply to your undated public notice sent to my home. According to
this notice, there will be a public hearing on July 20th at 2:30 AM (l repeat, 2:30
AM), at the Garfield County Courthouse. At that hour of the morning, you need
not worry about any opposition to the Rose Ranch development. lf it was a
typographical error, even 2:30 PM wouldn't get much reaction - most of us work.
You should think about an early evening event.
I have two major points:
1 . County Road 109 was not designed to accommodate the amount of traffic that
the Rose Ranch development will generate. The developer readily admits to a
tripling of traffic on Road 109. With this in mind, I think we can realistically
anticipate an increase of four to five times the amount of present traffic. Don't
you think it's in the best interests of the developer to minimize any estimates of
increased traffic. lf they didn't, they'd be fools. l, for one, am not foolish enough
to believe those figures.
With the above in mind, I strongly believe you should require the developers to
acquire the necessary land to build a bridge across the Roaring Fork River in
order to create a direct route ftom the north side of the Rose Ranch, to a new
access intersection on Rte. 82. This is an expensive fix, but in comparison to the
proposed costs of Rose Ranch lots and future homes, it's a drop in the proverbial
bucket.
These developers are so desperate to have County Officials and local residents
praise this project affirmatively, that they are trying to placate people, promising
large sums of money for affordable housing in Glenwood and carbondale,
revamp the intersection of Rte. 82 and County Road 154 (which should be a
County or State funded project), possibly financing a traffic light at the same
intersection, and buying up Westbank propefl to afford access between the
two sections of the golf course. Spend the money where it's needed.
The overwhelming traffic that this development will generate on Road 109 and
154, will undoubtedly reduce property values throughout the Westbank
development and all other property adjacent to the high traffic routes.
JUL g 6 t99S
a- z--
2. Allow me to address a County philosophy or policy. County officials are
elected (for the most part), as representatives of the people. Although this is
fairly elementary, they are charged with accepting the will of the voters and
enforcing it. lf you were to ask the voters in Garfield County what they thought of
the rapid growth in building and development, they would almost all agree that
property development is going too fast. The developers and construction crews,
along with some merchants, are happy with the windfall. But the majority of local
people and homeowners want it the way it is. We all know that change is
inevitable and status quo is impossible, but we certainly can proceed into a "slow
growth" County philosophy. My goodness, give us a chance to catch our breath.
Don't believe me, put it on the ballot and let the voters get their two cents in.
Sincerely,
0"4 L-btlr-,e'J-(S
Suzanne B. Weinberg
Eigiure 35 JofmE. & JeowO. Woad
P.O. Box 1095
Gk-ruvood Springs, CO
8L602
July 9, 1998
Board of County Conrnissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado
c/o Garfield County Building and planning Department
109 Bth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
In response to a Public Notice mailed to us by Delaney & Balcomb outlining
the application of Roaring Fork Investments for a planned Unit Development,
ncw referred to as the Rose Ranch P1an, we welcome this invitation to
express our thouEhts regarding this proposal.
We have lived in this wonderful val1ey for 47 years now and have seen a
multitude of changes brought, about by the impact of growth, - many of these
changes definitely r:ndesireable. There are those who advocate stopping
further growth in this area by whatever means they can muster. However, it
should be obvious to any thinking person that future growth is inevitable
and it behooves us all to see that this growth is managed in a way that
r,ril1 bring about an orderly and desireable result.
We are members of the Westbank Ranch Homeowners Associ-ation and have
at'tended all of the meetings our Association has had with the Rose Ranch
Developers. our feeling is that these men will do their utmost to create a
Conununity that we will be proud to be adjacent to and that they wi1l handle
the attendant problems created, such as increased Lraffic flor+, in such a
way that r^re may all ultlmately benefit from their solutions.
May we take this opportunity to express our whole hearted approval of
The Rose Ranch P1an.
l,a-,/ J.HN E. wocD
1 y'\ vt't,' , ,',*/e v'-'0 i lt-'r'a "J'
(.4 JEAN o. wooD
'2a,{
JUL I 5 t998
ilr.:- .--. . -?-1 ; rffii-
Figure 36
1-g|.3^'" "t/
c'
JUl. I8 6,s
cq8r"rtocouruIyc0fi4]t4rsspru.ns
),,/7
tt, 1 /-zt
,-Yy+adW
fil enitK. walter & Associates
IIII
H
FAX TRANSNflISS[ON] G@VER SHTLETT
PH[t K. &.J@AN L. WALTER
ofl89 MEAD@W d=AN]E
GLENW@@D SPRINGS,
@@ E{60fl
970/945-7005
FAX: 970/945-70'15
JULY 18, 1998
ro: GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING OFFICE
ATTN: MS. VICTORIA GIANNOLA, SENIOR PLANNEB
FAX: 970/945-7785
FROM: PHIL &JOAN WALTER
RE: ROSE RANCH DEVELOPMENT
WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE ROSE RANCH DEVELOPMENT AS THE PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
THE COUNTY SHOULD REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO REDUCE DENSITY.
THE GARFTELD COUNTY COMPREHENSTVE PLAN CALLS FOR ONE (1) UNIT PER TEN (10)
ACRES. THE CURRENT DENSITYOF 2.56 UNITS PER ACRE IS TOO DENSE. WE RECOMMEND
NO MORETHAN 136 UNITS.
THECOUNTYSHOULD REOUIRETHE DEVELOPERTO INCREASE LOT SIZE.
THE GARFIELD COUNTYCOMMISSION SHOULD BEOUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO
IN-CREASE LOT SIZE ALON HE-BIVEE-TOA MINIMUM OF 2 ACRES PER LOTAND REDUCE
THE38 LOTS PROPOSEDTO24 LOTS.
TH E COU N TY COMM I SS ION ERS S H O ULD ATT EM PT TO P_BQIEQLTHL _BIVEBF FIOM
POLLUTION. REOUIRE A DRAINAGE PLAN AND REOUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO PROTECT AND
PRESERVE EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN 1OO FEET OF THE RIVER.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE "BRIBED'' BYTHE DEVELOPER'S OFFER OF $3,OOO
PER UNIT FOB AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
lM PO RTA NT: This communication contains privileged and confidential information and is protected from
unauthorized disclosure under applicable state and federal laws lt is intended solely for the use of the persons
named above or others authorized to receive it. lf you are not the named recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the named recipient, you are here by notified that you have received this document in error and that
review, dissemination or copying of this communication is absolutely prohibited. lf you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by calling telephone number 97O1945-7OO5 and return the
facsimile document to P. O. Box727 , Glenwood Springs, CO 81602. Return postage guaranteed.
tl97o/s4s/7015 m7/18/98 O6:13PM D1/1
Figure 37
JUL-28-9A A7=A6 Ar'1 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GARDENS 97A945567 1 P.gL
Figure 38
Patrlcla [Ulosa
40gG CountY Road 154
GlEnwood SPrings, Cotorado 81601
July 20, 1998
Garfield County Board of Commisgionere
nttn llt Victoria Giannolla, Senior Planner
Reg: Rose Ranch" Roaring Fork lnveetmentE L L C'
To whom it maY concern:
I have owned my home on 154 Road for nine years and have been ln this valley.lor over 20 years l
have watched thie va,ey grow in leaps and Uol,.iiorlitne past.iJ y;are and tebl tnat the proposect
deveropmenr of the io-Je-nan"n stiri neadsiJ-J"J"-nn"a ueiier r ieatize deveropment if raw land ls
inevitebre. ae county
-cl-mri.iloner.
rt rs ),o-u,iJponJiuirit), to rhe citizens of this county and its
"nrir"*unt
to makb eound decisions lor its future
leeues ti:j,::i:J:irt"lf,,tHt;:f;,,on, (Fertirizers, pesticide', etc rr not taken into consideration wlll
add major Pollutants.)'2. heduce Denslty of number of unlts'
i. in"r"".. rJi EizLs along the river to no less then 2 ecres'
4. Prohibll building heigh[a in excees of 25 feet
Thanf You for Your time
07/2A/1998 05: L7 97A9455272 SHAIJ CONSTRUCTION
Figure 39
Tom end Joanic Dykema
0267 Co. Rd. 107
Glentrcod Springa, CO 81801
July 18, 1998
Mo Victoria Giannole, Scr*or Plenner
Gerfiel<l County Building and Plannlng
Departmont
109 Eighth st, sutte 303
Glenwood Spdngs, Co 81601
Decr Mc Giannola,
Pleaae rogistor our opiniona regarding the Roae Ranch with the County Commissioners
as follovs:
1. Apprcval of this projec{ will con$nue the Ucnd torerd the "Aspenization' of the valley
bccauge ir only indirec{ly addrssses the need for houeing for peope of middle and
lowgr incomes, We have seen from the expcrien@ of other cornmunities wtrat heppens
when lt cannot houre ite citizens.
2. We inaist that before thie project is voted upon that each commirsioner and Ure
entip plannlng gtaff come to vieu, the tsaffic p,roblems in the arle noyv, and ttren
oonsider the impact wtrich 4000 + vehicle trips will have on rn elrmdy unworkable
eituaton. The interaection of CR 154 and SH E2 at the C}lC tumoff ie not funclionrl
ceveraltimee each day, and will ceese to funcilion et ellwith that many addltional
vehlclcr.
3. We ene oppose<l to any variations from the Garlield County Compmhenglve Plan,
and oxlstlng Zoning, with regarU to denoity and building holghts.
4. The Roaring Fork muat be protected from abuoe of any sort. You am e scryant of the
public, end you must teke eteps to insure fi* fias and all other proiects do nothing to
squander thia mafor nosourae that helps ue all. You muat reguim ovory developmcnt
proporalto cddrgae eewage trsaknent, Etom drainage, end otherforme of pollution.
PAGE AL
'/1,<lVlr'7Yr- r ' t
omas P. Dykema
Figure 40
July 17, 1998
Dear Marian Smith, Garfield County Commissioner:
I am writing you concerning the proposed Rose Ranch Development, its lack of
conformity with the county comprehensive plan and its subsequent impact on the Roaring
Fork River.
During the Planning and Zonng meeting, the developer sited the county comprehensive
plan as reason to expect approval of high-density housing. He rightly stated that anyone
proposing a development has access to this plan and should be expected to develop in a
way that conforms to the plan. He then clusters his proposed housing in the portion of
the property along the Roaring Fork River that is designated low density, absolutely
contrary to the comprehensive plan.
The developers of the county comprehensive plan recognized the importance of the
Roaring Fork River as a natural and economic asset to the community. During the
summer hundreds of local people, as well as tourists, fish, raft and kayak this beautiful
stretch of river every week. The threat to the river is significant. High density
development along its banks will unalterably diminish its attractiveness. The requested
increase in building height to thirty-five feet will make it even worse. Eagles and herons
that frequent its shores will no longer do so. Its appeal to tourists will be gone.
There is no precedent for this exception to the comprehensive plan. The surrounding
development is placed to protect the river. Teller Springs to the south has a large
common areaby the river and only two lots as per the comprehensive plan. The
neighborhood to the East is on much larger lots and the houses set further back,
especially towards the south end. Westbank is on a mesa above the river and not visible
from it. Even Aspen Glen has much lower housing density along the river and further
setbacks than this proposed project.
..aa
July 17, 1998
Page2
Please protect the Roaring Fork from being ruined by this type of development. The
developer had and has access to the comprehensive plan and could develop a proposal
that conforms to it with more open space by the river. The Roaring Fork is one of
Garfield County's best features and a major tourist attraction. This development would
set a terrible precedent. The lower Roaring Fork and Garfield County will be greatly
diminished if the river loses its wild and scenic nature.
Sincerely,
,l ,,', il.ko*'&*il-W,y, C"L'
PS: I will not be able to be at the County Commissioners meeting as I will be on a long
ago planned family vacation. I did help collect signatures of people who also value the
Roaring fork and know that these concerns are widely held. People do not go to the
meetings because they feel it is futile. I felt this way after the planning and zoning
committee meeting. The lack of conformity with the county comprehensive plan was
brought up by the department's staffand several speakers BUT WAS NOT EVEN
DISCUSSED. I hope this will not be the case at the commissioner's level and that you
will seriously consider the consequences of high-density development along the shores of
the Roaring Fork.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.
,:, 1s e8 oe:48p VaIued Customer
Figure 41
970-928-8964 9.2
SHANNON & PAMELA SWEENEY
July 19, 1998
To the Garfield County Planning and Zoring Commission:
- % T. wtiting !o you to exlrress out concern fot the proposed developmenrof the Rose Ranch- Ve feet as though this ptopo".d d.o.lopment needs to
tcduce the density, inctease lot size, proniuit building heights -tr. than 25 feetand ptotect the river. Thc developet in our opinion is only thinking about
T"kitg a quich dollat and is not concemed about the long-r.r* effects thisdcvcloprrcnt vill have oo oru valley, we arc not oppoid to developing,
however we arc opposed to the way they want to develop it.
We hane attended , f", meetings and it does.not ev€tr seem as though the
commissiooers zre. hgaung what the people have to sry. It seems as th-oughtthe couaty commissioners ate -or.-.orcerned with the affordable houstg
ftrnd thaa with the ovetall long-term effects of this development.
With the density that is ptoposed and the increase in number of families
a1ld chilrlrcn that will be living in the aret; 109 road and 154 rcad, should have
sidewalks. W.e fcd as thowh it is the monl tesponsibility of the developet and
the cornEnissioners to enstue the safety of everyorr. lio.ir,g in the area. We donot want the qudiry of life to diminish because of this development.
Sincetely
'/ft,LL //L,.*Z
S'hannon & Pamela Sweeney
427 COUNTY ROAD 167 . GLENwooD SPRINGS, Co . 81601PHONE : 97 0-928-8964 . FAX: 970_g}g_9964
7-18-1998 2,'lgAM FROM R T MOOLICK 974 9r',5 9477
fl= \.f.";G^^n L "Tlo,no',
MocLtcKSqn\o. ? G^^nRrr
",ii{i{,,;iY:Loo,#*,R.v- ^ ?)o- a+s-\)e+.9?o
Phone (hq g4.S.sssl
FAx (*)sag4zz
cornment on Rose Ranch DeveropmentPubIic Hearing 7 /ZO / ge
My l?me i-s Richard T. Moolick. r riveat 5109 county Road L54, dlrectiy-gPposite the Rose Ranch on 5 acres--Lots 1 and Z of the lae Minor- -'
Sfbdivision.
This is a grorioys spg! on the RoaringFork Riverl and I roiliA hate to see itspo i l ed . Py !h" hi.gh dens r ty -h;us ingacross the River, as propoied o
Yesterd.y, fry wife and. I drove up alongthe Roaring Fork lookinq at TeIIerFprilg=, eipgl GIen-a;d-then on down tothe River yalley nanch--tn. one current
9gr" l opment in tne ,raf f ey thai - fconslder ygry, and one tfrat i -reer wilrdeteriorat6 i; time- it is also theg?]y gne in the valr"y that rooks to meI' i ke it cour.d resembr6 f rre Rose Ranchas proposed. ,
Thls is a smalr valrey and we shourdn,ttolerate a potentiai -6y.=ore
!
My recomfirend.at ions are as f ollows :
1. fncrease the lot sj_ze along ther j-ver to a minimum of , at leait . twoacres.
P. 1
7-14-1 998 2.2AAM FROM R T MOOLICK
2- Reduce the house heights to not toexceed 25 feet.
3 - Protect the natural growlh arong thefoarr?g Fork from aamage--this is vitalto maintaining the neiity of-tne River.
4. The current dg:ign wilr certainlycontaminate the Riv6r, and, shouldn ' t betoleratgd.. Y- t \'"'\'' .-'rrL'(r'
5 ' The developer's desig! of an entryonto Hlghway a_z i s aosuia, and shouldbe re-d6sigied.
6 , The d.eveloper has sl ipped theGtenwood Ditch back -i;t; the waterd."='gr -after agreeing to excrude it. rtshould be remoied. \r
7. The water supply should bethoroughly "xa*ined forerarpl;, a reoccurrance 3F"8H3"5;offil.of L934 ,yould p{ob;bIt rend.er the water::pglf f o. the- d"ygrofiment- .totarryr-nadequatg-. . ( old t ime- ranchbrJ -corrf i rmthis do=sibiii[y. I
8. Before anylhing is approved., ity9"]9. -ppear- to me that'th; ;;6posedarchitecture shour-d be -examined.
f oresthetlcs. we want this -vari"v-to
remain beautiful I
Remember, the developer will go back to
974 945 9477 P_2
\-
7"18-1998 2'21AM FROM R T MOOLiCK 97A 945 9477 P.3
;
Parker. Hedevelopment wonrt stay here once. thisis created.
9. The "so-ca11ed affordablecont ribut ton i s aI l " hype ,' ,the home purchaser.
housepaid for by
10. The County should. seriouslvconsider a 50% real estate-[;;'assessrnent where. Il" property ownerd6es not l ive within i[;- comfrrunity f orat least 6 months out of each y-.r.Thi s woulC h_e1p cor.i tn. overal lsupport of the- community whicn-wourdotherwise, of nec?:s Lii. be Corered bythe furr time resideniS'of th; "orrrrty.ff<
Richard T,7/Le/e8 Moolick
(\1 sIqD
l0 I'llHoll &
tUBE
Figure 43
410 West First Streetr Glenwood Springsr CO 81601
(e70) e45-11r8
July L7 , 1998
ATTN: County Commissioners:
I live here in Garfield County and own a couple of properLies and
a business with about 20 employees.
Just about 7 years dgor my family and I moved here for the same
reason most of you are here. We love open space, wildlife and the
beauty of nature. A1l of those things \^re seek as part of t,he reaL
quality 1ife.
f knew then that what I saw others would see the same things and
they woul-d move here the same as I did. I knew this area would def-
inetely gro\,/ someday.
I also knew that we as a community need to grow smart and in a
controlled manner. I've seen to many towns and areas grow toofast
and in a somewhat uncontrolled manner. The end result was not very
pretty
Itve also seen areas that did not grow and ended up depressed. No
matter how.pretty the area is people were not coming to stay and I
they \^rere moving. a\^ray for many reasonsr €Sp€cia11y economic reasons.
Now that's downright scary!
I was fortunate enough to travel- and have done business on 4
continent,s and in 14 countries. Irve also dealt wit.h some develop-
ment projects myself.
As of yetr I have not met a group of people (so-called developers)
who have done more research and spent alot of money and effort to
insure t.he quality of living for the people who already live here
and who will be living here in the futurer then this developer.
FROH.: LRULEY NOTORS LLC Figu-re 44 pHoNE No. i sz@ 4L7 92A2 Jul. 2A L998 16:15Rt1 P2
Linda Pineda
1.550 Co.Rd. 109
Glenwood Spgs.,CO 81601
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept.
Garfield CountY CourthouseSuite 301
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Co 8L5oL
RE: Rose Ranch development proposed by Roaring Fork fnvesCments, LLC
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As regards the July ZO puific hearing on the application for the Rose Ranch
deve)-opment, pleasE accept and record my statements and views on the matter
as a pioperty- owner and neighbor who will be affected by this proposed
development.-I am unable to attend the meeting in person-
I am confident that if the'planners and developers keep their sensitivity -to the fragile ecology of'the area as well as the abundant wildlife alfeady
residing h6re, the potentia] exists to build a community to be proud-of. As
i fos R5ad reiid.ent'since 1985, f am concerned to see the "country" feeling
of the setting slipping away and I ask all consideration be given to
roaintaining afrd prlier*ilng Ln" rural nature of this area of Garfield County-
Because thls is i rural s5tt.ing and we share the space with so many specS-es
of wild1ife, f feel city-size iots for homes is unacceptable in this setting.
As has been done in the-Teller Springs area, homes on lots of 2+ acres would
best maintain the rural setting. I realize fewer homes means less money for
the developers though, again, tensitivity to the rural nature is what is
needed mo3t here. fen years into the future what will make us most proud
when we loo]< at what wai Uuil-t here? T\,/o hundred homes with three hundred
;;;= parked in their respective drives, or perhaps one hundred homes with
deer ind e1)< grazing in ih" open space areas provided? To those with an
"ye ana feel ior oui beautifui ruril setting,- it is surely the latter. Aga1n,
pi""=" give strong consideration to the reality of the existing rural setting
ot this special corner of carfield County.
With so many potential residences being planned, I ary great-Ly concerned to
see how the- i3sue of waste treatment will be addressed. I ask that I be
gi""ii ""iifiEation
-na/or written details when you get to the specifics on this
topic
Since 1985 we have seen the traffic ao from perhaps fifty relatively slow
moving vehicLes daily to well over one hundred vehicles movinq _at speeds
of ioi mifes per noui. Again, please pool your intelligence and creativity
to move most oi-tf," Lrafiic ie-nerated-by tiris new development onto nighway
g2 where the volume c:an fe U6tter handled- We already Jose enough deer and
smalL gahe t" ""iiisions with fast moving.vehicles, not to rnentj-on the near
misse-s-humans encounter when we walk or bike on 109 Road.
FRON : LRULEY I4OTORS LLC PHONE NO. . 52q 4t7 92A2 Jul. 2Z L998 16:16RN P3
-paqe2-Linda Pineda
1550 Co.Rd. 109
Glenwood Sprj.ngs, Co.
Last, bug not Ieast, T add my vo5-ce to those who Iament tfre infringrnent onthe feeding and watering areas for the deer and elk, not to mentiofr theffaqile environment for our waterfowl. In your planning please, please,please make allowances .for trails to the r-iver ana open lreas ioi unimpededfeeding for the_existing wildlife. From your adwance-information I see thereis open space planned for human recreation out of doors. Please also giveconsideration ald planning for the wildlife that has existed here for manyyears. I_ speak from huppy experience when I telL you there is nothing morebeautiful than watching a herd of deer or e1k feed.ing in the early m5rningsand then ?9ain gathering under the trees in your "yaid', to bed down for thecold evening.ahead. This, is our daily rernindEr that we are part of Godrsbeautiful universe and we are able to co-exist and share tha 11fe in one ofthe most special, beautiful, fragile areas in the country.
f close by-reminding you aII to keep in rnind what yourd ultimately like tosee yourselves do with this planning issue--from the vantage point of 10years from now- What will Jnake us ALL proud?
E*.tb,trYs Cr$ + fesidqr;ha\ 00c a',"'d Spt,. gla^
-1
cO Aeiucal*o1
tfi.atr o,^
"4n41
,-_dti"y o€ prb1,a
--t-
I
?LY.- ( fn."ls cF*k-
4 ffit*-? Sfl"ij*tr"^s
ce.
z'-') ---*( _lzl'
c-C, -lA/a_
v' .\.(sV,L'
v')A-
V)I
o.
7ag
ST
t)
le*\ut
?ouj 6.f)W:X-n4aalqs r J,-lu Wd\-dod.)\,(, ),ay',,-qr,F"t
Oullr na .F Pr(se^*a\0.,)(ose Ka""rl". Prgs.^fration
-,lfo*s ,\rr(tte
W P;o..=r
{hn SA.ae,+
Opition to €u.., {?a,'"l.
Phc,\b + n"'P
Q-,hart
21^a C,I.lar1,
JVZ,os ,-Mt'Ae
@ti-tl,." aF GolF Cou*se
'fn
I IlII
Lrr
:+
Exlu b;t C-
!-'igt'Pe 38
Patrlcla Mosa
4e96 County Road 15tl
Glenwood SPrings, Cotorado 81601
July 20, 1998
Garfield County Board of Commissionere
Attnr Ms Victor]a $1311911a, Senior Planner
Reg. Rose Ranch
Roaring Fork lnveetments L L C'
To whom it maY concern:
I have owned my home on 154 Road for nine years and have been ln this valley.lor over 20 years l
have watched thie vatley grow in leaps and #ir.i. "riithi past few vear' and feelthat the proposed
devetopment of rhe nole-nin"n stili needs iJ-i"J"tin"o better. I realize clevelopment if raw land Is
inevit.ble. Ae county
-co*mlssioners it is ;l"rr, rerp".siuility to thB citiz8ns of this county and its
environment to make aound decisions for its fulure'
leeues that need to be addressed:
1. protect our river from pollutionl (Fertilizers, pesticideE, etc lf not taken into consideration wlll
add major Pollutants.)-2
iteduce Denslty of number of unlts'
3, lncrease lot Eizes along the rivsr to no lesE then 2 ecres'
4. Prohiblt building heighti in exceee of 25 feel'
Thank you for Your time.
al/ zal Laa6 ac;,Lt ata)qJJZtz JI IFW lUI 1J
Flgure 39
Tom and Joanie Dykema
O2A7 Co. Rcl. 167
Glenrood Springa, CO 81601
July 19, 19!18
Ms Victoria Giannole, Scnior Plsnner
Garlield County Building and Plannlng
Departmcnt
109 Eighth st, sutto 303
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
Deer Ms Giannola,
Pleaae regieter our opiniona regarding the Roae Ranch with the County Commissioners
as follows;
1. Apprcval of this proJect will continuo the bend torard the "Aapenizetion' of the valley
bccauge it only indirectly addrssses the need for housing for peopb of middle and
lower incomes. We have seen from the expcrience of othar communaties what happens
when lt cannot hous€ its citizons.
2. We inaist that before thie project is voted upon that each commirsiorrcr and the
en6rc plannlng Etaff coma to visrrr the baffic probbmE in the anre noyrr, and then
conlidsr the impac{ wtrich 4000 + vehicle trips will have on en elrcsdy unworkabl€
eituaton. The intere€ction of CR 154 and SH 82 at the C}lC tumoff is not funclional
several timea each clay, and will caese to funclion et altwith that many addltional
vehlclcs.
3. We ere oppose'd to any variations from the Gsrlield County Comprehenglve Plen,
and exleting Zoning, with regard to deneity and building helghts.
4. The Roaring Fork muat be protected from abuge of any sort. You qle I sotvsnt of the
public, end you must take steps to insure th8t fiis and allodrer prorocb do nothing to
squander thia mafor nasounqe that helps us all. You muat reguire evory devekcpmcnt
propoeal to eddreaa eewage treatment, ctom drainage, End otherfurme of pollution.
Figure 40
July 17, 1998
Dear Marian SmrttU Garfield County Commissisrer:
I am writing you concerning the proposed Rose Ranch Development, its lack of
conformity with the county comprehensive plan and its subsequent impact on the Roaring
Fork River.
During the Planning and Zonng meeting, the developer sited the county comprehensive
plan as reason to expect approval of high-density housing. He rightly stated that anyone
proposing a development has access to this plan and should be expected to develop in a
way that conforms to the plan. He then clusters his proposed housing in the portion of
the property along the Roaring Fork River that is designated low density, absolutely
contrary to the comprehensive plan.
The developers of the county comprehensive plan recognized the importance of the
Roaring Fork River as a natural and economic asset to the community. During the
summer hundreds of local people, as well as tourists, fistU raft and kayak this beautiful
stretch of river every week. The threat to the river is significant. High density
development along its banks will unalterably diminish its attractiveness. The requested
increase in building height to thirty-five feet will make it even worse. Eagles and herons
that frequent its shores will no longer do so. Its appeal to totrists will be gone.
There is no precedent for this exception to the comprehensive plan. The surrounding
development is placed to protect the river. Teller Springs to the south has a large
common area by the river and only two lots as per the comprehensive plan. The
neighborhood to the East is on much larger lots and the houses set further back,
especially towards the south end. Westbank is on a mesa above the river and not visible
from it. Even Aspen Glen has much lower housing density along the river and further
setbacks than this proposed project.
July 17, 1998
Page2
Please protect the Roaring Fork from being ruined by this type of development. The
developer had and has access to the comprehensive plan and could develop a proposal
that conforms to it with more open space by the river. The Roaring Fork is one of
Garfield County's best features and a major tourist attraction. This development would
set a terrible precedent. The lower Roaring Fork and Garfield County will be greatly
diminished if the river loses its wild and scenic nature.
Sincerely,
,I,'" l-i ilL*k ,jA"*|'fury, C"{-'
PS: I will not be able to be at the County Commissioners meeting as I will be on a long
ago planned family vacation. I did help collect signatures of people who also value the
Roaring fork and know that these concerns are widely held. People do not go to the
meetings because they feel it is futile. I felt this way after the planning and zoning
committee meeting. The lack of conformity with the county comprehensive plan was
brought up by the department's staffand several speakers BUT WAS NOT EVEN
DISCUSSED. I hope this will not be the case at the commissioner's level and that you
will seriously consider the consequences of high-density development along the shores of
the Roaring Fork.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.
Figure 41
SHANNON & PAMELA SWEENEY
lr'E'
July 19, 1998
To the Garfield County Pla:roing andZonirrg Commis5jel;
- We 1e writing to you to express our concetn fot the proposed developmentof the Rose RancL we feel as thoqgh this ptopo..d d"o.lopme,,t oeeds toredpce the deasily, inctease lot size, proHbit building heights ^tr. than 25 feetand protcct the dver. The developc in our opirlott is only thinking about
T"kitg a quick doltat end is not coocerned about the long-tetm effects thisdcvdop*cnt will have oa oru valley- we arc not opposed to developing,
however we ,ue opposed to the way they want to develop it.
We hane artended a'few meetings and it does.not even seem as though thecommissiotrers ere. heanng what the people have to say. It seems as tf,oughtthe couflty gs'..,i5si6rers ate more concerned with the affordable houstgft*d than with the ovetall long-term effects of this development.
With the densiry tiat is proposed and the iactease in number of farnilies
and chil.lren that witl bc }iving in the area; 109 road and 154 road should havesidewalks. Wc fed as though it is the moral responsibility of the developer andthe comrnissionets to eosure tlre safety of everyo". ti"ir,g in the area. We donot w,nr the qualiry of life to diminish because of this deJelopment.
Sincerely,
'/ryg'LL- 4L'>.*Z
Shanson & Pam.ela Sweeney
427 COUNTY ROAD 167 . GLENWOOD
PHONE 970-928-8964 . FAX:
SPRINGS, CO . 8T601
97 0-928-8964
l-llj- l |1ljt5 Z: IiJAM f l(UM l( I l'lUUL.l'L/N Jtu Jgr r4t t
$ \.il"i..G^ n L";;^,:,MocLtcKsqn\..v- ? (*'^nRrr
'iii*{;l"A:z;i{),(-\-.+- ?:O- <i+S_\)eS .'9?o
Phono (b, %S.s3slFAX (fu) saggazz
comrnent on Rose Ranch DeveropmentPubIic Hearing 7 /ZO / gA
My l?me is Rlchard T. Moo1ick. I Ilveat 51-09 corrnty Road 154, directlygPposlte the Rose Ranch on 5 acres--Lots 1 and 2 of the Ice MinorSubdivi s i-on .
Thi s i s a grori-ous spg! on the RoaringFork River I and I ,oi,f a hate [o see itspoiled. Py !h" high d.ensity nousingacross the River, as propo3ed.
Yesterdry , my wj_f e and I drove up alongthe Roaring Fork rooking at relrerFprilg= , e_S_pgl Gten and' then on down tcthe River valrey Ranch--the one currentdevelopment i-n tne valIey that rcons l der ugry , and. one tfrat r - f eer wi 1rdeterlorat6 Ln time. rt is also the9?1y gne j-n the varley that r.ooks to melike it courd resembl6 the R;aa Ranchas proposed. '
This is a smarr valrey and we shouldn'ttolerate a potential 6y"sore !
My recommendations are as follows:
1. fncrease the lot size along,theriver to a mi-nimum of , at 1ea6t, twoacres.
+lr+
r- I
I - t o- I JJ(} Z,: ZV)Atlt |-llulwl Ia I l'|UULl\-N JIV) J4J
2- Reduce the house heights to not toexceed 25 feet.
3 - Protect the natural groy^rlh arong theIo.ring Fork frgp aam-ge--this is vitalto maintaining the leiity of-tne Rlver -
4 ' The current ogpign w1Ir certainlyggltaminate the Riv6r, and, snouldn,t betoreratgd. v"Yu
5 - The developer's d,esrg! of an entryonto Highway a_z i s absurd, and. should,be re-desigied.
6, The {.yeloper has slipped theGlenwood Ditch bacti-i"[o the waterd."=igt after agrgeing to excrude 1t. rtshould be remoied.. -r
7. The water supply should bethoroughly "x-miirea io; -
erarplE, a reoccurrance 3F"9n"3"5;"ffil.of 1934 =ygr}.d probabrv rend.er the water::pBlf f or the- deverofiment_ .totarlyr-nadequate-.
_( old time ranchb;;-Eorrf irmthis do=sibiiilv. I
8. Before anylhing 1s approved, ityg,r,r9. -ppear- to me that' iha pi"posedarchitecture shourd ba -examined.
f oresthetics. We want tnis vafi"y toremain beautiful I
Remember , the devel oper wi 11 gio back to
7.2
f}atJlvl lr( I lwluuLl'reN Jtu !*r e't '
Parker. He wontt stay here once. thisdevelopment is creat6d.
9. The "so-calred affordabre housecontributlon is all "hype"--p.ia for bythe home purchaser. ' r --Y
L 0. The County should. seriouslyconsider a 50% real estate tax'
3:::=:T:rrI. Ih.rg. .tl" ploperty ownerl:"i^i:I ]i::_yllhi; fn?-Ji*il,uiitv for
FI_ 1.,?:L q p91ths out "i ;;;h-;;;i.Thi s woulc help corr"i in"-Ji"riir
:yppg_ll of tt.- conrmunity whlch wouldvr \4r \:Il"il+i.l* :I ig!"=Jiat; !;-.";verea bythe fuII time resida;i's'of the a"IIti]
ff<
Ri-chard T.7/Le/e8 Moolick
LNWLLI IIUIUI\J LLV I rrurrL l:U. . JC.V) ql( ><O1 Jur. z0 L>>a L0;L>HI1 Yz
Linda Pineda
L550 Co.Rd. 109
Glenwood Spgs.,CO 81601
Garfield County Building and Planning Dept.
Garf iel-d CountY Courthouse
Suite 30L
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81501
RE: Rose Ranch developrnent proposed by Roaring Fork fnvestments, LLC
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As regards the JuIy ZO puific hearing on the application for the Rose Ranch
devel6pment, pleasL acclpt.and record my statements and views on the matter
as a ploperiy- o*n"= and heighbor who- will be affected by this proposed
devel}pmlnt.- I am unable to attend the heetlng in person.
I am confident that if the-planners and developers keep their sensitivity -io tr,"-i;;;ii; ;;ai"gy "i "th" area as well as Lhe abuni:lant wirdlife already
iesiaing h5re, rhe p5tenrial exists to build a conmunity to be proud-of- As
a 109 Road resident since 1985, I am concerned to see tte "country" feeling
"r-in"- iEiting-iripping away ana r ask al-I consideration be given to
,.i"Iiini"g-;f,a pt'"'i"iiing trr" rural nature of this area of Garfield county-
il;.;;;'ini= is i rural s6tting ana we share the space wlth s9 malrY species
of wildlife, r-teef-"iir-;tze i"ts for nones il ,n!."ePtable in this -setting.
As has been done in the-Te}ler Springs area, homes on lots of 2+ acres would
irE=t-*"i"tii1 th. rr=-I setting.-I realize fewer homes means less money for
the developers tf,ougn, again, iensitivity to the rural nature is what is
n..a"a moit here. iei y6ars'into the fulure what will make us most proud
when we looi< at what *a3 Uuilt here? TVo hundred homes with three hundred
;;;; pur["a in their r"sp""tive drives, or perhap? -ol: hundred homes with
de"r ind e1k graziig in ine open space argas providea? To those with an
.Ve una feel i"i-oC b...,tifui ruril settins,- it is 5,urely-:l:_13!!:f - Aqain,
please give stiong Zonsiaeration to t-ire r"aiity of the exl-sting rural setting
Lf tfris-special c5rner of Garfield County-
With so many potential residences being-
see how the- issue of waste treatment will
given notification and/or written details
topic.
planned, I am greatly concerned lo-be addressed. I ask that I be
when you get t,o the specifics on this
Since 1985 we have seen the traffic go from pernap! fifty relatively slow
;;;i;9-;"iri"i"I-aii:.v-Lo weti over oie hundr-ed veticles moving at speeds
of 50+ miles per hour. egainl please -pool y?ur intelligence and creativity
to move most "i-ti-r"-rrariic q"';Eiir.d'by tiris new deveropment onto-Highwa}'
g2 where the volume can be #aL;r-nanatla. We.already lose enough deer and
SmaII game to "oifisions with-i"it moving.vehicles, not' to rnention the near
misse-s humans encounter when we waIX or bike on 109 Road'
FRSM : LHULtsY MUIUI(s LLU I'HUNE NU. Z 52l, 4L I 9'2BI Jut. za ty9a lu:1bHf1 P5
'page 2 -Linda Pineda
1550 Co.Rd. 109
Glenwood Springs, Co-
Last, but not Ieast, I add. my voice to those who lament the infringrnent on
tt,E i.Eaing and watirring areis for the deer and elk,.not to mention the
fragil.e eniironment lor our waterfowl. In Your planning please, please,
;I;;;;-*ii" iffowances .for trails to the r-iver ana op?n. areas for unimpeded
i""aing for the existing wild.1ife. From.your adwance information I see there
is opefr space planned f5r human recreatlon out of doors. Please also give
.or,=ia.ration ind planning for the wildlife that has existed here for nany
yeir=. I spea]< froir h-rappy-"*perience when I_te11 you there is nothing more
beautiful than watchin|- i n"-ra of deer or e1k feeding _in the gaf Iy mornings
ina tf,"n again gatheriig uniler the trees in your "yard" to bed down for the
Eofa """"ing an6ia. Thi;, is our daily rerninder that we are. p"5!-of ,9d'"U"""tif"r Giverse and v/e'are alrle t-o co-exist and share the life in one of
the most Special, beautiful, fragile areas in the country.
f close by reminding you aII to keep in mind what you'd ultimat?fy li-ke to
=""- yo11==ltr"s-a;-;ith this plannin! issue--from the vantage point of 10
year- from now- what will,Jnake us ALL proud?
6$'6}
IO IilIH
OIL a
tUBE
cAn
WASH
AUIO
DETAIL
Figr:re 43
4I0 West rirst Streetr Glenwood Springsr Co 8160I
(e70)945-1118
July L7, l99B
ATTN: County Commissioners:
I live here in Garfield County and own
a business with about 20 employees.
Just about 7 years agor my family and
reason most of you are here. We love
beauty of nature. A11 of those thingsquality 1ife.
a couple of properties and
I moved here for the same
open space, wildlife and the
we seek as part of the real
I knew then that what I saw others would see the same things and
they would move here the same as I did. I knew this area would def-
inetely grow someday.
I also knew that we as a community need to gro\^r smart and in a
controlled manner. Ilve seen to many towns and areas gro\,r toofastand in a somewhat uncontrolled manner. The end result was not very
pret ty .
I I ve also seen areas that
matter how.pretty the area
they were moving. away for
Now thatrs downright scary
I was fortunate enough to travel and have done business on 4
continents and in L4 countries. I've also dealt with some develop-
ment projects myself.
As of yetr I have not met a group of people (so-called developers)
who have done more research and spent alot of money and effort to
insure the quality of living for the people who already live here
and who t"ri11 be J-iving here in the f uture, then this devel-oper.
did not grow and ended up depressed. ;.
is people were not coming to stay and ,
many reasonsr €sp€ciaI1y economic reasons.
!
SENT BY:Ncilcy t Alder ; ?-16-98 : 10:45 ; Neiley & Alder-*abtk ++
ERIENDS OT'TIIE ROARING EORI(
Oo lue 1, 199t, ttc Garfictd Couoty Pleaniry A, M3 CmninOoq by t I a tyotr, reonEcadcd apptrarel of the propocod reaoning and Plroqed UElt Dvufopnmr fu
rDG Rorc R.[ch-
A. TIE.ARING EEFORE TIIE GARFIELD COI,JNTY BOARD OF COLINTY
COMMESIONERS IS SCHEDULED FOR ruLY 20. 199t. AT }3O PJTA IN TIIE
COMIdESO}IEn''S MEETING N,OOII,( AT 1O9 EIGIITII STREET. GI.E{q''OOD
SPRING(I, CO t16O1. Your ottcudaace ar thtr bcaring ir ialnrtmt if you cerc rbout
prreocndng rbc Roulag Fort Rfucr corridor fto overdr*,elo1mcnt, hrbttrt dcgrld.ric end
lnllutiou-
YOTTR. RNZM. IS SIILL ffi BY IEE
PROPOSEI) DE\IELOPME,hIT ON TTIE ROSE RAI\ICH
Thc dcrrcIopcr rdtr proporcrr ''td P&Z brs remcudcd aplrovd d
. gZ roridoltiel uDits on 113_9 ri:rG. of IlDd irnortuueU rdiaent to rbc
norriag Fork R.ircr . e &nrity of 2-55 mitsfiicr rcrc blrotrrirS thc nctdogr .Iory tho
Riccr. ate Crerfcld County Coaprchcnrtuc PIrn cellr fur ac (1) unit IEr t?n (1O) acru
d@S ttc Rivcr-- a jIi fror bldans beicbr", lO GGr hltha;. fiia pcrdtted rmdcr lodat
rorulrtior. 3t hoc+ 3tI ftct high el6ag the 8'tOO frot Roarflg Fort Rivcr ftootege o
Iotr E anr-rl rr q4rruimcly oc-brlf of o tse-Altnoriadcll 4JOO rs vcLidc rripr per dey a Cmq, Rods L(I, & 154.3 Poiiutirru of abG Rorring Fo* Rn[r iim arliorgc, fcctilizcr+ gcrrft:atc+
hsftlddG., rEd trub - tbe dcv=Ioper icbmladgcc "rll &rinege rrnoff rhrll f,s conrryGd
o lto tirrot-"
r
TLc Cooocy rhould rcguirc thc dcvekptr to:
REDLTCE DENSIfY: Ttc F-ricodc of 6c Rolriag Fort rtcooocsd aa orutdl
rodaction ia tho roubor of unlts on thc Roac RErn to Do urorrE tbra l9L (Jader cdrttf
z'ttrlitl,S rlla dcnatolg €Utd p16 !o Oorc thr- 136 rnitl oo the denelopef g.le,l.
DTICRE.ASE LO/ISUZE: L6 .!on, &c rtrrcr rhflld bc no lc..rau 2 taalD dD
rnd rhodd bo rrdncod fio,E 3t lotr to m Eorrr Lra !{ tsgl
PROIIIBIT BITILDING HEI(}frrIT IN EXCESS OF 25 EE.ET.
PROIECI T}IE RMR FROM ROLLLITION: Rcqrrire r drrin4e pLp thd
rctetu runocltrm thc dcvclopncrr oD dtc. Rqqdsc ttc Oarcfo,pcr !o prEGct eod pcc*.nc
ofrtinf vcastetioa wItHD l(X, fr€t ol r;to river.
IF YOL' CAI{}€T /TTTEYD THE PLIBIJC }IEARINC oN TTIXS
DEVELoPMEhrr' FAx YoLrR CoMMENTS b tbe Garfcld co'ory &ildiag od
nuninf OfiEcc, lO9 FiEhth Stre.el Suitc 303, Gbnwrcd Sptinfr' @ t16O1, Alr L!+
\/icoriaclannolr, Scntir Ploncr, fixluobcr (97O) 94i5-Trgi by ro oo hf,odry, ftIt 2(),
1994-
IT'S YOLIR, VALIEY - I:PS YO['R RTT'ER - IET YOUR. \/OICE EE IIEARD.
ERIENDS OT THE ROARING FC}RX.
Medr Meaircale.hi RicL Ncilcy Dict end Eciher ldmflcl DicL ead GDdy nyoa
Eilt rod fudy Slrttcry md rrrrry otbcr cooccmcd citizenc
97092E9393;t 1
!,
oPP,srN G'"ffiff J11['ff$$", Lopon* Nr
We, the undersigned, appreciate the lower Roaring Fork River as one of
Garfield County's most scenic attractions.
We feelthe proposed Development of 292 homes on the Rose Ranch fiails
to comply with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and will greatly diminish this
resource and set a negative precedent for future development along the river.
We request the County Commissioners to follow the County's
Comprehensive Development Plan and protect the rivers and shores from this type of
high.density development.
We request the County Commissioners to either reject the Rose Ranch
development plan or significantly reduce the density of the proposal.
We further request that the County Commissioners requirethat all lots along
the River be at least 2 acres in size.
.<r o g Co r'x/Ty Rl t -tYGLr^rrr raOI SPRr r.{Gc ,Cc PIGl 1
ESrr4E,€ D. 14 cour c lc. \
reh
c0
1
L*rSA/<
--'a,-t .,4 ru( :,gnarure Print Name/Address
Cifirnr'Fcrilion O1l1lohS rLG n-o lrncl neUryrof
Pr6o
Cc nri xn. i I crw'l.n o'Qld
Signature
fTRr =omr-Print Name/Addressfo5 Brafu .4.e G-s.
Rr *tri--e rt ll}..*s-\lu-r.-C-c[
Print Name/Address
Gf.l,*. BtoUp {trr:F 6-r o.\
Fnn ,,4y1,,'ch qJF
A\*c av- B,t nZr.r.,Fo I
#J-*+={nr"rU" tr'f'r'
Signature
Ci6mmr'Ptclitim Olltl-hs rLG nG SrnrL Ucuolr|lreof
Paap
-
Print Name/AddressLet A. Nie 1'r,+e
ttne-
\[tt
:,D /1
,J\a)- lrL l)1a.0,
Prirt NamdAddress
I
-rrultz QR,dL
4 v''frJt-
Signature
Ilovelopmonl.
Print Name/Address
cO\<r.iJcH) <CCi*$ <€. tl{,-\
,.a.,/ .- ( ,,,
Print Name/Addressf<a? &.zt^ /s:
Print Name/Address
/'n/€r tt-trC 9) rt.t rl3'
J
u 01
Print Name/Address
S oq/
3,/,/( .F ? ,
Prirtt NamCAddress /
'>nL- '. " er , e
" /V etl ir a:,,i' T r < (
S il tQSrlLE-
ress . .:aauce 'dao D .-/\J
Print Name/Address
I iS
-Wup
Citizenc' Petitinrm Oppaing nonc& Ilevclopmont,
n--/f[^fl-
Print Name/Address
;- FlSorr.t d). B?r-trr.rr
rS I rrnArn-r :T- APh 3
nr€c^-: c Atf<Q . Cfr kl(e(-/?
Print Name/AddressZ7l 7a.-*fr.-
Print Narib/Address
Wn-^/l,W--Signature ,/
Name/Address
Signature Print Name/Address
Signature Print Name/Address
Signature Print Name/Address
Signature Print Name/Address
Signature Print Name/Address
Signature Print NamdAddress
Cilizer'F*fahn e1nttC llr Bco leurl IlGVclotrsDA
trtrtrtrtrTtrtrTtrtrt]trTtrtrtrtrtrrtrtrtrtrtrTtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrTtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrTTtrtrtrtrutrtrutrtrtrtrtrutrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtruTtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrr
ExXb,tI
CovIMLINITY
IvTpACT
AxeLYSN
Rosp Raxcu Gorr CounsB
GInTIELD CouxrY
COTORADO
Pnnpmru Fon
Roanrxc Fonr ImrrnsrMENTS, LLC
Economic & Market Research / Land & Development Planning
Landscape Architecture / Community Planning & Design
Golf FeasibilitY AnalYsis
trtrtrtr
trtrtr
T
tr
tr
trtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrTtrtrtrutrutrtrtrrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrruuuTtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrutrtrtr[trtrrtlrutrtrutrtrtrtrtrtrutrtrtrTtrtrtrutrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrutrtrtrtrtrtrTtrtrtrutrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtruuutrtrtrutrtrtrtrtrtrrTtrtr
CovrMr.rNrrY
IvTpACT
AxeLYSrs
Rosp Rexcn Gorr Counsp
GInTIELD CouxrY
COTORADO
Pnrpa,nro Fon
Roa,nrxc Fom IxvBsrMENTS, LLC
N[.rv 27, 1998
Economic & Market Research / Land & Development Planning
Landscape Architecture i Community Planning & Design
Golf FeasibilitY AnalYsis
u
tr tr
Ttru
PRomcrno AoorrIoNAL EcoNotrtc Iupa.crs FRoru ruE,
PnoposBn RosB Raxcn l8-sorn Goln' CounsB
In addition to serving as a tirst-class recreational amenity fbr the local community, the proposed
Rose Ranch golf course will have the potential to generate a variety of economic benefits fbr the
area. Typically, a golf course of the caliber of the proposed Rose Ranch course will have a
significant positive impact on its surrounding economic environs. In the following three tables,
THK examines a few of the more fundamental ways in which the proposed course will impact
the local economy. THK has employed a very conservative approach in making its projections,
which suggests that the actual economic benefits may ultimately prove considerably more
substantial.
In the first table, THK quantifies one of the course's more obvious economic impacts. Based
on THK's cash flow analysis for the proposed course, it's estimated that the facility will have
an annual payroll in excess of $500,000 in 2000. By 2009, total payroll will approach
$700,000. To determine how much of this payroll rvill ultimately be spent at area retail
establishments, THK first makes allowances tbr taxes and housing, transportation, medical and
education expenses, and then estimates the portion of the remaining payroll (disposable income)
that will be spent locally. As shown, THK estimates that approximately $200,000 of
expendirures from golf course employees will be subject to area sales taxes in 2009.
Table B isolates the sales tax impacts from pro shop and concessions sales at the proposed golf
course. In its cash flow analysis, THK projected that the combined pro shop and concessions
sales would jump from $230,000 in 2000 to over $525,000 in 2009. Given Garfield County's
current sales tax rate of 1.0%, the county should collect just over $42,300 over the ten year
period.
A sizable percentage of the proposed course's golf rounds will be played by nonresidents, and
the bulk of the nonresident rounds played at the course will be played by either golfers with
second/seasonal homes in the area or golfers staying at area hotels. As shown in Table C. hotel
guests are projected to play an average of nearly 7,000 rounds annually at the proposed course.
This round play equates to an average of approximately 3.050 hotel room nights on an annual
basis. Over the ten year projection period. golf'ers staying at area hotels will spend close to $2.7
million on hotel rooms - all subject to bed taxes - and approximately $4.7 million at area retail
establishments - all subject to sales taxes.
Additional Economic Impacts From the Operation of the Rose Ranch Golf Course
B. Sales Tox Intpucts From Pro Shop & Conccssion Sales
Year
Projected
Total
Pro Shop
Sales
Projected
Total
Concessions
Sales
Total
Pro Shop/
Concessions
Sales
Estimated
Sales Tax
Revenues From
Pro Shop/
Concessions
2000
200 I
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
Total
$ I 12,500
$ I19,050
$ 17 r,866
$212,426
$22 1,s85
$228,232
$235,079
$242,t31
$249,395
s256,817
$206,914
$2,069,142
$ I 17,s00
$ 14s,230
$ 179,504
$221,861
$23 r,433
$238,376
$245,s21
$252,893
$260,480
$268,294
$216,110
$2,161,103
$230,000
$284,280
$351,370
s134,293
$453,017
$466,608
$480,606
$49s,024
$509,875
$525, r 7 l
$423,025
s4,230,245
$2,300
$2,843
$3,s l4
$4,343
$4,530
$4,666
$4,806
$4,950
$5,099
ss,2s2
$4,230
$42,302
Source: THK Associates, Inc.
.j
Additional Economic Impacts From the Operation of the Rose Ranch Golf Course
C. Sales & Bed Tax Intpacts From GolJ'Visitors Staying at Area Hotels
Year
Projected
Non-Resident
Golf Rounds
Estimated
Non-Resident
Golf Rounds
Played by
Hotel Guests
Estimated
Hotel
Room Nights
Generated by
Golf Course /l
Estimated
Room Night
Revenues
Subject to
Bed Tax /2
Expenditures
By Golf/Hotel
Visitors
Subject to
Sales Tax /3
2000
200 l
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average
Total
7,000
8,400
12,960
15,550
15,150
15,750
15,750
15,750
15,750
15,750
13,841
138,410
l,000
2,220
6,590
8,990
9,000
8,790
8,590
8,370
8,150
1,920
6,962
69,620
440
970
2,890
3,940
3,950
3,860
3,770
3,670
3,580
3,470
3,054
30,540
$33,000
$74,933
s229,9s0
$322,901
$333,432
$335,61 0
$337,6 r 8
$338,523
$340, I 28
$339,567
$268,566
$2,685,661
$57,200
$ r 29,883
$398,580
$s59,695
$577,949
$581,724
$585,205
$586,773
$589,555
$588,583
$465,5 15
$4,655,146
l\ Assumes 35% will play more than one round, 45olo would visit without course,
40% will have more than one golfer/room, and average stay is 3 nights.
2\ Assumes average rate of $75lnight in 2000, inflated at3.Uo/olyear.
3\ Assumes fwo persons/room and average daily expenditures of$65/person/day.
Source: THK Associates, Inc.
June 24, i998
Ms. Marian Smittr" Chairperson
Garfieid Counry Board of Commissioners
Garfieid Counry Courthouse, Suite 109
Glenwood Springs, CO 81.601
RE: Rose Ranch PtrD
Dear Marian,
At last night's meeting, the Ciry of Glenrvood Springs Planning Commission heard a
presentation from the Rose Ranch proponents. Several represenrations were macie during the
presentation that rvere of particuiar reievance to the Cir-v of Glenwc,:d Springs. These included.
the follorving:
t The pool. tennis and goif facilities r,vould be made ryailable to the Cit-v of Glenrvood
Springs Recrearion Deparrn:enr tbr their programs. In addition, Rose Ranch offered. to
sponsor an annuai fundraiser to finance transportadon costs from Glenwood. to the Rose
Ranch or donate money to the city to subsidize this cost.
t The golf course faciliry wouid be available for the Glenwood Springs High School golf
team.
I The donation of 5 i000 per drveiling unit to the Ciry's Housing for Tomorrow
Commission. This sum wouid be payable at the time of building permit issuance. This
donation would be above and beyond the 52200 currenrly proporld for housing assistance
programs.
The Glenrvood Springs Planning Co-mission supports the Rose Ranch proposal. The developer
has demonstrated a wiiiingness to meet commr:nity needs including employee housing on site,
the support of Glenwood Springs Recreetion Departmenr proposali, the support of affordable
housing programs regionally, and their prior resfonse to tire iisues cited by th. City,. River
Commission- The development has created. a ne.r/ standard tbr environmenraii;r sensitive
subdivisions in the lower Roaring Fork Valley.
806 CooPER AvEliuE GLEN-!?'OOD sPRINGS, coloR,\Do sr60l c)70lc).ii-ri;< Fry. ozi( 1(o7
Er[ib;t J
ln Washington, eagles quadrupled in number to 600 nesting pairs in 15 yeans
As bald
"ugl"
rumbers soar,so do complaints
Bylim Carfton
Rocky.Mountain News ,Sat., Ma)l 9,*998
E1(\*b;t M
TUB IxsnB Srony
1he Wall Street Jrntntal
"I-waved my arms and yelled,', Rose
recalls. But the wild bird attempted a sec_
ond pass, leaving the zoo birdsiquivering in
tear.
. Eagle lovers exulted when Interior Sec-
retary Bruce Babbitt announced Wednes_
{aylhat about two dozen species, includir
th6 b;il ;il[, ;;;;#I;ffi E]Jffi:i:1-rne Dato eagle, no longer need Endansered
)Recies Act protection. Babbitt, speaiiing infront of a paii of nesting Uata eagf ,ii sala'
the number of nesting pairs haJsoared to
more than 5,000 fmm just 500 three de_
SEATTI"E - Bald eagles are no longer
Consider the latest squawk at Seattle,s
Woodla;rd ParkZoo.
_
Zoo keepers were startled when a gang
of wild bald eagles showed up here an? "
started picking fights with the zoo,s tame
avians. Ernest Rose, Woodland park's rap-
tor.specialist, says he was tending the owls,
turkey vultures and the zoo's tame bald , .
'919ii,us'g',
cades
-'s'a3.U$iild'6n'
65tr1
Ld.
Associated Press
-
I
Jul - }o- g,a 11:58A
p.o1
Dear Ioe, -- on anr:l CountY RoaO ll'r' '----
lilithrespect,: jh:-Il"^p-T: j,#;r,.,fl :,t:tl:iii".Ii*:::#i,#ffi I$:THT
;d;-,,;iil#.etrt"s..mg:H{**i:r""i#i'dit:l*-:TH'silffiffi .tix$gffi".mrustt:tr:*[T:fl
?'l'-H;;;;;[raspa*'r"re
ffiATroN
r:,iljY,1l::'s ,',0'',,'o
ig;ot z+o''zro
JulY 16, 1998
loe HoPe
,iioit Countw Engtneenng
szi cooPer Avenue
Glenwood SPnngs' CO 81601
Region 3 Traflic
Dear Ioe,
warTiurrD qv '--- f applioattOn.o.""tt Pernrit for You
If you have any questions' please gve me a cail'
SincErely,
S"UalJSL-='--'
Xlffi:+ffiEngineer
xc:file
ROARIA{G FORK IA|VESTMENTS, L. L.C.
a Colorado limited liability company
May 21, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE: (97O) 94s-4981
Calvin Lee, Esq.
Roaring Crystal Alliance
811 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch Plan
Dear Calvin:
The purpose of this letrer is to conflrm our agreement on the following items we
discussed on the telephone on May 20,7998:
(1) We agree to the limitation of rwo (2) wood burning fireplaces in the
clubhouse. All other stmctures or residences on the Rose Ranch will be prohibited from
having wood burning fireplaces or stoves. Gas fireplaces and stoves will be allowed.
(2) We agree to all of the screening recofirmendations contained within Kevin
Wright's letter dated May 4,1998 to Ms. Giannola. This is recommendation number seven
(#7) of sard letter. We also aSree to the other recorrmendations made by Mr. Wright in his
May 4,1998 letter numbered one (1) through six (6) and eight (8) through sixteen (16).
(3) We have agreed to make additional contributions of funds to various
affordable housing groups (see attached letter which was hand delivered to Ms. Giannola
on May 20,1998).
(4) We agree to abide by and implement the recommendations contained within
the Integrated Management Plan and the Integrated Pest Management Plan which are
currently being prepared by Environmental & Turf Services, Inc. of Wheaton, Maryland.
% FTEGGEMEIER & STONE. P.C.
19563 E. MAINSTREET. SUITE 2OO, PARKER, COLORADO 8013]
PHONE: (303) 841-8072FA,\: (303) 8;ll-8073
By:
)
(5) We agree to visit with members of the Roaring Crystal Alliance and various
conservancy Sroups concerning coluervation easements near the blue heron rookery and
along the riparian zone along the Roaring Fork River. We will accomplish these -""tingtbetween May 27,1998 and July 20,1998 which are the respecrive dites for the Carfieid
County Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and the Garfield County Commissioners
meeting for the Rose Ranch PUD and Sketch plan.
We agree that items one (1) through four (4) can be made a condition of approval.
Because we can only agree to meet and discuss item number five (#5) I dont rlri"kwe can
make it a condition of approval at this time unless you want to make the holding of the
meetings a condition. Let me know your thoughts on this.
I appreciate all of the time you have given me to discuss issues related to our
development and we look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
Sincerely,
ROAF-II.IG FORK iN\aESTMEi\iTS, L.L.C.
1691mfl
Ronald R. Hegg-emeier] Manager