HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 02.21.05February 21,2005 -BOCC
Exhibits for Public Hearing of the plsliminary Plan for Phase II konbridge PUD
Applicant - Rose Ranch LLC
Staff- Richard Wheeler
liffi ffi"Sffi tr..i.. lffiffilifr ffiiffi?ffi]ffi-tiffi $
A Meil Receinls
Proof of PublicationB
C
D Garfietd Cormty SuMivision Regulatio@
E c"rfiAd C;unlv Comorehensive Plan of 2000
Staff Report dat€d 2-21 -06r
G Application for Preliminary Plan
H
I I'r:ttardrrrd1f.2745 from Colorado Geologic Survey
J I o++x Aq+cA O1?37-O< from Resorrrce Enqine€nnS
K
L Letter dated 12-30-05 from Carbondale Fire Protectronlrrstnct
M Q+aff Dnurer Pnint Pre.sentation -to be shown at tne heafmg
N
o I.ettur dat€d t@0 n'om noaring fo* Consertnangy ,, ,,, =;fo Division of Vqdlife.
am Taylor
P
o
R
Fire Prqltecltion Districts
T Emqil Aq+cA 7-1O-Ot6 finm Garfield Countv Road and lrndSe frepar0meNl
arrd Znrre Distict Modification For
honbridee PLIDU
v 5r*rr F. ur. ?. t&*-da"*l 2- ll-l- o 6
w
x
Y
Z
BOGC 2-21-06
IRONBRIDGE PUD PRELIMTNARY PLAN - PHASE II
PROJECT INFORMATTON AND STAFF COMMENTS
TO BOCC
APPLICATION: Preliminary Plan Phase ll
OWNER\APPLIGANT: LB Rose ranch
REPRESENTATTVE: Mike Wilke
ENGINEER High Country Engineers
ATTORNEY Balcomb & Green PC
LOCATION: 3.5 miles South of Glenwood Springs, east of CR
109, west of the Roaring Fork River
WATER: Roaring Fork Water District
SEWER: Roaring Fork Sanitation District
SIZE: 81.38 Acres 173 Lots
EXISTING ZONING: PUD
1, GENER.AL PROJECT INFORMATION
Property Description: The Applicant is requesting to subdivide the following
pariels of lanO pieviously subdivided as parcel, lots, and blocks and identified
as within the Amended and Restated Final Plat - Iron Bridge PUD as follows
1. Golf Course Parcel 6, Phase l:35.257 acres
2. Phase Il Future Development (Lots 62-89): 18.28 acres
3. Blocks 1, 2, and 3 Phase Il: 4.98 acres
4. Block 2, Phase lll: 2.613
5. Block 4, Phase lV: 6.59
6. Open Space: 3.53
7. Right-of-way: 9.9
2.
Collectively, these areas shall be considered as part of this apptication and shall
be referred to as Phase ll Preliminary Plan. The total number of proposed
residential lots is 173; the total amount of land is 81.3 acres. The underlying
zoning is PUD with specific zone districts as follows:
1. Golf Course
2. River Residential
3. Medium Density Residential
4. Club Villas
Phase !! Preliminary Plan property is subject to all applicable terms, conditions,
and provisions set forth within the following Resolutions (Reception Numbers):
531 935, 546856, 546857, 646387 ,646388, and 654210.
Approval of this application is sought to facilitate the development of lronbridge in
accordance with its phasing plan. To allow the platting of 24 on site affordable
housing dwelling units, this is an increase of 14 on site units from the original
plan. To subdivide for future conveyance to the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District the parce! previously identified for the location of the District's
proposed surface treatment plant. Provide a different street and plan profile from
40 feet to 26 feet with curb and gutter, within specific areas of the plan.
REFERRALS
Staff has referred the application to the following State agencies and/or
County departments for their review and comment. Comments received are
briefly mentioned below or are more comprehensively incorporated within the
appropriate section of this staff report
Carbondale Fire Protection District: Exhibits L, S
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation: No Comments
Roaring Fork RE-l School District No Comments
Colorado Division of Wildlife: Exhibit P
Colorado Division of Water Resources: Exhibit K
Colorado Geologic Survey: Exhibit !
Garfield County Road & Bridge Departmenfi Exhibit T
Garfield County Vegetation: Exhibit H
Resource Engineering lnc. (outside engineering review for GarCo Building
and Planning Department): Exhibit J
3.
4.
5.
6.
GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
lronbridge PUD is in Study Area 1 in the Comprehensive Plan. The area is
identified as "subdivision". Given that a PUD is a type of subdivision, the
applicant's request is in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan.
APPLICABLE ZONING STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS:
1. Golf Course Parcel 6, Phase I - Zoned Golf Course
2. Phase lt Future Development (Lots 62-89) - Zoned River Residential l&2
3. Blocks 2 and 3, Phase ll - Zoned Club Villas
4. Block 2, Phase lll, Block 1 Phase ll, Block4, Phase lV - Zoned Medium
Density Residential
$4:50 PRELIMANRY PLAT MAP: The applicant has prepared an adequate
irap meeting all the applicable requirements - this map is included with the
application materials
$4:60 ADDITIOANL INFORMATION:-1. Protective Covenants, as amended are submitted with the application
materials.
2. A phasing plan is proposed at this time. The proposal phasing plan is as
follows:
o Filing 1 - Block 4 Phase lV Lots 172-2Og and 225,
Block 1 Phase ll Lots 297-316, Golf Course Parcel 6
and Future Development Lots 84-89 (2005-2007)
o Filing 2 - Block 4 Phase lV Lots 210-224 and 226-
249, Phase ll Future Development Lots 62, 82, 83
(2006-2008)o Filing 3 - Block 2 Phase ll, Block 3 Phase ll Lots 250-
270, Block 2 Phase lll Lots 271- 296 Phase ll Future
Development Lots 63-81 (2006-2009)
Each tract has access to a public right of way. The proposed ROW width
reduction would affect Fox Run Court only and will serve 20 dwelling
units, Lots 297-316 - east of the Golf Course Parcel 6. GarCo Road and
Bridge Department has reviewed the plan and has no issue with the
reduction. Carbondale Fire Protection District has reviewed the layout
and has met with applicant concerning the turnaround at the end of Blue
Heron Vista. The District has also met with the Applicant regarding the
Iocation of the hydrant at the end of Blue Heron Vista. The fire district is
satisfied with the turnaround and new location of the hydrant'
Several reports have been submitted concerning geologic hazards in the
area. As most people are aware there major issues concerning sink
holes. The applicant has prepared forthcoming studies specific to the
3.
4.
7.
sink hole issue and are part of the application materials. Additionally the
Applicant has submitted additional comments in response to the review
by ccc. Jonathon white from the colorado Geologic survey has
submitted the following comments: "/n earlier reviews from this office and
reports from HP Geotech, the major geologic hazards that can impact this
development are debris flows, sinkholes and other subsidence
phenomena related to evaporite bedrock dissolution (evaporite karst),
and collapsible sor/s. Debris flow hazard have been mitigated by
construction of detention features in the main drainage channel that the
golf caft path follows into the hills to the wesf. We stated our general
concurrence with the debis flow mitigation in a review letter to your office
dated August 27, 2003 (ccs LUR No. GA-04-0001). The tronbridge
development is located in an area along the Roaring Fork River valley
that has the highest density of sinkholes in Colorado, and recent
spontaneous ground openings occured earlier this year (January Sh1 that
damaged the lronbidge golf ctub facitities. Cottapsibte soils are dry,
lower density soil where the soil structure col/apses in on itself, /oses
volume, and densfies when is becomes wet. commonly called
hydrocompactive so4 sorT collapse manifests ifse/f as ground seftlement."
5. Materials submitted by HP Geotech suggest that levels of Radon Gas
may be present. The ability to test for this gas is difficult to test prior to
construction of buildings. lt is suggested that once buildings are
constructed that tests for Radon Gas be done. Typically buildings are
vented in lower enclosed areas to mitigate this issue. .
6. A title commitment is included with the application materials.
$4:70, 4:80, 4:90, SUPPLIMENTAL INFORMATION
Geology and soils: Please see previous comments concerning geologic
hazards.
Vegetation: The appticant has submitted a vegetation and tree inventory
dated June 1997 and February 1998. Letter dated 1-6-06 from the Roaring
Fork Conservancy outlines the issues that have come up with clearing of
vegetation at lronbridge. The Applicant has agreed to mitigate the problems
relevant to critical vegetation that was removed from the riparian area. The
Applicant will re-vegetate the area in the spring of 2006 according the
Conservancies letter.
Wildlife: The applicant has submitted the same wildlife report that was used
for the original PUD. lt is staffs opinion the changes proposed in Phase Il is
not extensive enough to justify a new study. The Department of Wildlife has
submitted a letter 1-6-06 agreeing to the mitigation plan of the riparian area.
All wildlife measures will need to be observed as set forth in the original PUD.
Drainage Plan: The proposed drainage glan differs from the original plan'
The prJposed plan is for gutters in place of ditches and swells' This plan has
been reviewed Uy nesojrce Engineers, included are their comments: "Ihe
proposed PuD Amendment reiates to a change from roadside grassed
swa/es to a storm drain cottection sysfem. The purpose of the -grassed
swa/es is to enhance the water quatity of the storm-water runoff. The new
drainage plan provides water quatity enhancement prior to disch.arging into
the Riariitg fo* River. The revised drainage analysis appears ade.quate and
the propoied drainage plan meets the County criteria and the intent of the
original plan." Staff is in concurrence.
Utility Plan -General: Electric, Gas, Telephone, Cable TV and lnternet
Service is available to all proposed tracts'
utility Plan - water: water will be provided for by the Roaring Fork water
District. Please see Exhibit K.
Utality plan - Sanitary Sewer: To be served by the Roaring Fork Sanitation
District as approved with the original plan.
Fire protection: Carbondale Fire Protection District has submitted written
comments, Please see exhibit K.
Road/Access Plan: Please see previous comments concerning Rights-Of-
way.
Easements: All easements and conveyances are shown on the submitted
pt"n. and application materials and are consistent with the original PUD.
Assessment / lmpact Fees: All fees shall be constant with the original PUD
and shall meet all Garfield County, RE-1 School District, and Carbondale Fire
Protection District req uirements.
7. SUGGESTED FINDINGS:
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners.
Z.Thatthe hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive
and complete,-that atl pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted
and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Preliminary
Plan is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4. That the Preliminary Plan Application is in conformance to the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations of 1984 as amended.
8. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan for Phase il of lronbridge
PUD with the following conditions:
1. All representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated atthe hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be
considered conditions of approval untess othenryise modified by the
Commission.
2. The Applicant shall comply with ail drainage, grading, wet construction
and geotechnical subsurface investigation for Phase tl, as presented by
HP Geotech.
3 A geotechnical engineer shall be retained to inspect and evaluate all
raw grading surfaces, cut slopes, ditches, and any other excavations
before covered with structuralfill, topsoil, erosion blankets, foundation
elements, etc, in order to insure, as best as possible, that visible ground
and soil conditions that may indicate local ground subsidence wilfbe
discovered and addressed.
2. site-specific foundation investigations shall be conducted for the
individual sites.
3. The Applicant shall disclose the potential risks to all future purchasers
concerning potential settlement from collapsible soils and risk of
spontaneous ground openings related to evaporite karst phenomena.
4. Prior to the Preliminary Plan going before the BOCC, the Applicant shall
submit to the State and County all applicable information showing that
there is no material injury to existing water rights.
5. Prior to the Preliminary Plan going before the BOCC, the Applicant shall
meet with Steve Anthony (Gardo Vegetation) or submits' acceptable
materials that clarify the issue of dead trees and snags as it relaies to
riparian habitat.
6. Prior to the Preliminary Plan going before the BOCC, the Applicant shall
change the design of the turnaround at the end of Blue Heron Vista to
comply with the lnternational Fire Code (lFC) Appendix D Section DlO3.4
and change the location of the hydrant at the end of Blue Heron Vista to
allow for unobstructed access.
7.The Applicant shall consult with the Colorado Department of Wildlife (if
fences will be used) as to posting the property on the open space lot
abutting Iots 63-83, so it is clear that there is no trespassing onto the
private property east of lronbridge.
The applicant shall place the following plat notes on the fina! plat
a.'"Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101,
et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to
accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's
agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living
in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ra.nching
sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud,
dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on
public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application
by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments,
herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally
occur as a part of a legal and non-negligent agricultural operations'"
"No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere
within the subdivision. One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as
defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. sew., and the regulations
promulgaied thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All
dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas
burning stoves and appliances."
"All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligatiOns
under State law and County regulations with regard to the
maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds,
keeping livestock and pets under contro!, using property in
accordince with zoning, and other aspects of using and
maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged
to learn about these rights and responsibilities and acl as good
neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source
for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale
Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension
Office in Garfield County."
"All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all
exterior Iighting will be directed inward and downward towards the
interior oithe subdivision, except that provisions may be made to
allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries."
"One (1) dog will be allowed for each residentia! unit and the dog
shall be required to be confined within the owner's property
boundaries."
b.
d.
e.
]
f. "There are potential risks concerning settlement from collapsible
soils and risk of spontaneous ground openings related to evaporite
karst phenomena "
9. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATTON:
Staff is supportive of Planning Commissions recommendations. lssues that
needed to be resolved prior to this Preliminary Plan going before the board are
listed below.
1. Prior to the Preliminary Plan going before the BOCC, the Applicant shall
submit to the State and County all applicable information showing that
there is no material injury to existing water rights.
Staff Comment: Staff has not received any information from the Applicant
concerning material injury to existing water rights
2. Prior to the Preliminary Plan going before the BOCC, the Applicant shall
meet with Steve Anthony (GarCo Vegetation) or submits acceptable
materials that clarify the issue of dead trees and snags as it relates to
riparian habitat.
Staff Comment: The Applicant has submitted to staff a letter from the
Roaring Fork Conservancy concerning the mitigation plan for re-vegetation
of the riparian area.
3. Prior to the Preliminary Plan going before the BOCC, the Applicant shall
change the design of the turnaround at the end of Blue Heron Vista to
comply with the International Fire Code (lFC) Appendix D Section D103.4
and change the location of the hydrant at the end of Blue Heron Vista to
allow for unobstructed access.
Staff Comment: The Fire District has met with the Applicant to discuss the
turnaround and placement of the fire hydrant.
4. The Applicant shall consult with the Colorado Department of Wildlife (if
fences will be used) as to posting the property on the open space lot
abutting lots 63-83, so it is clear that there is no trespassing onto the
private property east of lronbridge.
Staff comment: The Applicant has met with the surrounding property
ownets and has agreed to post the property. No fences are being
proposed so the Applicant did not meet with DOW
MEMORAI\IDUM
To: Richard Wheeler
Fnom: SteveAnthony
Re: Comments on the lron Bridgo PIID Phase 2
Resohsion 98-80 has several conditions pertaining to wildlife and vegetation that should
be oonsidered prior to final ap4roval of the latest phase (if they al€n't in effect akeady).
These conditions start on page 5 and are under Item B. They go in number from I a to I
q and finish on lnge 7.
Withogt listing them all here,I would suggestthat you reviewthese conditions and
evalgate ufuat-you feel is appropriate for this project I would be glad to meet with you
and go erough these conditions if you would like.
To be briet these conditions in the 98 Reso provide protective measures for wildlife and
habitat. frrrirg this past year there was a significant amount of brush and trees cut by
honbridge h th; riparian ur* utoog the Roaring Fortc hoabridge feels that-their
activities were acceetaSte and that they did violate any of the conditions set forth in pnor
resolrtions.
One of the conditions that were cause for differe, rt interpretations was Ite,m f on page 6 of
Reso 98-80. This states "forbid the removal of trees along the river and the wetland
treas mceptfor *otic and iwading spacies-"
Ironbridge interpret€d this to mean that the removal of dead trees was acceprtable.
HowevJin a riparian setting dead tees and snags ae valuable habitat for birds and for
fish.
There should be firrther discussion on riparian babitat protection as it pertains 6 this
project I will be glad to participate in this.
Regardingnoxious woeds, it is st4gested that honbridge continue theirnoxiors wd
pJgru-.- The Garfield County Noxious Weeds found on the property are listed below:
Cqnadothistle
&eye da@
Russianbupteed
Russian olive
Salt cedar/tamarisk
Scotch thistle
There is a native shnrb, silver-leaf buffalo berry (Etoigns sheplerdia) that may be
confused with the noxious wd, the Russian-olive te @loigns oqustifolia)' The
uppU"*t or"Or to be able to distinguish betr*,een the two so that the oative silverJeaf is
not managed like the Russianolive.
STATE OF COLQRADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Departnent of Nalural Resources
1313 Sherman Sbeet, Room 715
Denver,CO 80203
Phone: (303)86&2611
Fax (303)86G2461
GA-06-0006
Legal: WY2,SEY4, Sec. 1,
W%J:{E%, Sec. 12, TS, R89W
December 27,2005
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Deparffitent
109 8t Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Geologic Ilazards Review of lronBridge Phase 2, Filing 11 2, and 3.
DearMr. Wheeler,
COLORADOE-lHI
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESCI.IRCES
Bill O'Y€ns
Govemor
Russell George
Executrc Dlrector
Vincent Mathews
Divlsion Direcbr and
State Geologist
Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request and in accordance to
Senate Bill 35
-(1g72)this
office hasriviewed the materials submitted by your office. Pertinelrt
to this review, we exlmined the following from this submittal: l) Preliminary Geotechnical
StudyofproposedkonbridgePhase 2byllP GeotechdatedMay3l,2005 (JobNo. 105 115-4);
2) Pieliminary Geotechnic"t Stoay of proposed recreational facilities dated June 30, 2005 (Job
f.io. f OS 115-3); 3) earlier IIP Geotech reports from 1997 and 1998; 4) the revision of Final
drainage r.pori foi Ironbridge Phase 2,3, anda by High County Engineering, revision date - July
15, 2065; ,irO S) the ptan sheets on CD-ROM dated tuly 22,2005. Development phases and
filing numbers it 'rr" b""n changed since the HP Geotech reports. The HP Geotech Phase 2
r.port only covers portions of fiting I and2. The recreational facility study covers only a portion
of nmg 1rio. l. Ttr-e CGS has previously reviewed the entire sketch development when it was
previorisly called the Rose Ranch Deveiopment, with the first letter to Garfield County Planning
b.purt *t on October 30,lgg7 (CGS LUR No. GA-98-0006). For ease of reading this review,
we will comment on the individual filings in separate headings.
In earlier reviews from this office and reports from IIP Geotech, the major geologic
hazards that can impact this development are debris flows, sinkholes and other subside'lrce
phenomena related tqqpEit
Debris flow hazard h&ffi&.a
(issolution (evaporiteite karst), and collapsible soils.
construction of detention feafures in the main
DEC 3 C 2OO5
Grrt: .. .., r.,i,iTy
BUlli,i,\u i pLr" ;,il.ilNG
Ironbridge Phase 2, Page I
drainage channel that the golf cart path follows into the hills to the west. We stated our general
concrrrence with the debris flow mitigation in a review letter to your office dated August 27,
2003 (CGS LURNo. GA-04-0001). The Ironbridge development is located in an area along the
Roaring Fork River valley that has the highest density of sinkholes.in Colorado, and recent
spontaieous ground openings occurred earlier this year (January 9'hl that damaged the honbridge
golf club facilities. Collapsible soils are dry, lower density soil where the soil structure collapses
in on itself, loses volume, and densifies when is becomes wet. Commonly called
hydrocompactive soil, soil collapse manifests itself as gound settlement.
tr'iling 1
Filing No. 1 is an awkward filing and in two discontiguous northern and southern parcels
that is separated by 3l4h of a mile. The recent IIP Geotech Phase 2 rcpott only covers the
southern parcel of Filing I and the recreational facility report does not include the residential lots
of the northern parcel of Filing 1. Collapsible soils and sinkhole subsidence remain potential
hazards for this filing. Recent settlement dishess is occurring at the nearby golf cart CBC tunnel
under CR 109 and certain roadways in Phase 1, near the south parcel of filing 1.
South parcel
The development plan reflects a conscious effort to restrict the introduction of water into
the underlying soils in all aspects of drainage design, grading, and preliminary foundation
recommendations.
The overall grading plan of the southem parcel indicates that significant excavations will
occur on the west side, adjacent to CR 109 and the bike path, with cut slopes steepening up to 2
(h):1 (v) to establish level building footprints for the westernmost lots. As we understand,
overlot excavation and recompaction of the native soils at both home footprints and roadways is
also planned. The drainage design includes underdrains proposed at the base of the steeper cut
slope that will route the slope wash and roof downspout flows of the backside of the westernmost
tot to designated drainage inlets. Proper drainage from these locations is very important because
the potentially collapsible soil is thickest here and undue wetting of the subsoils must be avoided.
Preliminary foundation recommendation by HP Geotech also incorporate mitigation of potential
hydrocompactive soils, and their own surface drainage recommendations address thern as well.
A commendable effort was made to determine the condition of the evaporite bedrock for
the western portion of this southem parcel, which included an expensive drilling investigation
progam not usually seen for residential development investigations. The HP Geotech report
indicates that no appreciable voids were encountered. There is still risk (likely small) that
subsurface voids may occur in the intervening areas between the boring locations. For those
larger lots at the riverbank along River Bank Lane, potentially collapsible soils are minimal or
very thin but sinkhole hazards and piprng soil hazards may still exist. We concur witlt HP
Geotech that additional lot-specific subsurface explorations should be conducted for lots 176 and
177 near a sinkhole mapped in the earlier 1997 study.
Ironbridgc Phase 2, Pagc 2
North parcel
The northern parcel is located adjacent to the existing clubhouse and golf course
maintenance facility on the main alluvial fan of the development. Collapsible soils will be a
prevalent geologic hazardfor this development, as well has.risk from evaporite karst that can
manifest itself as a spontaneous ground opening and potentially dangerous sinkhole formation.
The residential portilns of the property lie within 150 feet from a large,4O-foot wide, sinl:hole
that damage the gotf cart storage facility and reportedly "swallowed" one or two golf carts on
January qlzoos.-rhe CGS investigated this sinkhole shortly within days of its occurrence (See
photo). According to the
IIP Geotech re'port for the
recreational facilities,
another smaller sinkhole
also opened nearby on MaY
2005. We understand these
new sinkholes were
mitigated using compaction
grouting techniques.
As far as we know,
the northem parcel did not
receive the level of
subsurface investigations
into bedrock that the
southern parcel of Filing 1
and the recreational facilitY
did. We believe that, with
the recent nearby
occurences of two
spontaneous sinkholes (generally ararephenomenon even in the evaporite karst terrain of the
ioaring Fork River valiey), and other historic sinkholes mapped in the area from HP Geotech's
1997 rJport, a similar levll of subsurface investigations is warranted. We believe the risk of
subsidence is more elevated here than in other areas of the Ironbridge Development.
Filing 2
Filing 2 includes the remaining lots along River Bend Way adjacent (north of) to the
subsurfacl conditions to be similar to the south parcel of Filing l: thicker potentially collapsible
soils uphill toward CR 109 and near surface terrace gravels near the river bank. Much of the
recommendation in the Hp Geotech report for Phase 2 would also pertain to this filing also. A
grouping of known sinkholes has beenavoided between lots 83 and 84 near where detention
pond D2 is planned.
Photo # I . January g , 2OO5 sinkhole at Ironbridge golf club facility'
Ironbridge Phase 2, Page 3
Filing 3
Filing 3 includes the remaining riverside lots, and higher density parcels on both sides of
konbridge Drive (below the club house and proposed recreation facility) that will be served by
Blue Heron Vista, River Vista, and Eagle Claw Circle. The major mapped sinkhole in Filing 3 is
near the river bank. The lot 63 building footprint encroaches into the edge of this mapped
sinkhole. As with the northern parcel of Filing 1, no additional geotechnical work has been done
in Filing 3 since 1998.
Closing comments
In closing, we are puzzledthat additional recent in-depth subsurface investigations have
only bee,n conducted for two parcels of Filing I and2 of Phase 2. We believe a similar in-depth
subsurface investigation is warranted for the northern parcel of Filing I if it hasn't been
completed already. As stated above, this residential site is closest to the sinkholes that
spontaneously opened in early 2005. Other lots in proximityto mapped sinkholes should also
have the same level of subsurface investigations.
For the rernaining development plan, the potential geologic hazards and conditions
inherent to this site have been suitably addressed, and the risks suitably low ifproperly
engineered, so the CGS believes that the development can proceed, conditional upon the
following provisions:
l) The drainage, grading, wet utility construction, and geotechnical recommendation are
complied with;
2) T\e same level of geotechnical subsurface investigation is completed for the northern
parcel of Filing I as was done in the recent 1995 reports for other parcels by HP
Geotech;
3) The geotechnical consultant is retained to inspect and evaluate all raw grading
surfaces, cutslopes, ditches, and any other excavations before covered with strucfural
fill, topsoil, erosion blankets, foundation elements, etc. Such an inspection by a
knowledgeable engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer will insure, as best as
possible, that visible ground and soil conditions that may indicate local ground
subsidence will be discovered and appropriately addressed. We believe this
inspection is so important that the county should consider making it a development
requirernent;
4) Site-specific foundation investigations are mandated for the individual sites; and, most
importantly;
5) There is adequate disclosure of the potential risks to home owners concerning
potential settlement from collapsible soils and risk of spontaneous ground openings
related to evaporite karst phenomena. Prospective home and lot owners must be
made aware that normal homeowner's insurance does not cover damages related to
ground movements, including naturally occurring sinkholes.
Ironbridgc Phasc 2, Pagc 4
If any interested party has any questions about this review letter, please contact this office at
(303) 866-35 5 I or e-mail: jonathan.white@state.co.us
Sincerely,
Ironbridge Phase 2, Page 5
=::!iFIESOUFICEIIIIII_TTTE N G IN E E FI IN G IN C
Consulting Engineens and Hydnologists
sD- M $*flcE:,jr;I)
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 Eighth Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
December 27,2005
RE:lronbridge PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan for Phase 3, Filings 1,2, and 3
Dear Richard:
At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, lnc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the
PUD Amlndment and Preliminiry Plan Submittal for the lronbridge project. The submittal
included two three ring binders dated July 2005 and a set of drawings containing 63 sheets dated
August 25,2005. Thl general technical analysis for the whole project was completed in 1997
anO lggA and previously updated in 2003 for the last PUD amendment and Preliminary Plan
submittal, ln addition to the original technical reports, the most recent submittal includes a new
drainage plan, geotechnical analysis specific to the proposed development areas, and the
updatel infrastructure design drawings for the Phase ll submittal. Our comments are presented
below.
PUD AMENDMENT
The proposed PUD Amendment relates to a change from roadside grassed swales to a storm
drain'coilection system. The purpose of the grassed swales is to enhance the water quality of the
stormwater runoh. The new drainage plan provides water quality enhancement prior to
discharging into the Roaring Fork Rivei. The revised drainage analysis appears adequate and
the profos-ed drainage plan meets the County criteria and the intent of the original plan.
The change in drainage conveyance also includes a change in the road cross section. The new
road sectibn has two 12 foot lanes with curb and gutter. This design is not consistent with the
County standards in Section 9.35 of the Subdivision Regulations. The road section is consistent
with th-e interior roads at Battlement Mesa with no on street parking. A variance in road section is
typically requested in a PUD and should be specifically noted in any approval of the project.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
Water RightsMate r Su pply
The project is included in the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFW&SD) and will
exterid ihe central water system constructed in Phase l. Adequate water rights have been
adjudicated in Case No. 96CW319 and 97CW236, and 00CW019. The Applicant has received a
letter of "No Material lnjury" from the Division of Water Resources.
The proposed water distribution system design is consistent with previous approvals and will be
reviewed and approved by the RFW & SD.
Wastewater
Wastewater will be collected and pumped to the RFW&SD regional wastewater treatment facility.
The lift station was constructed as part of the Phase I improvements. The collection system
design is consistent with previous approvals and will be reviewed and approved by the RF1 , &
DEC z I ;:rlrl5
9O9 Colonado Avenue I Glenwood Spnings, CO El1601 I t97O)
fr, l,lx*t?rr. ;, t,.
^r
ry
s45-6777 . ."iu'+ts E'4E.-',1137
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Page 2
December 27,2005
Drainage
As discussed above, the overall drainage analysis and plan is adequate for the proiect. We
recommend that the maintenance plan referenced in Section 9.6 of the covenants (and likewise
the text of this section) be updated to include the ponds and outlet structures.
A Stormwater Management Plan has been included which provides contractors with a step by
step guidance document for compliance with the State regulations and County approvals'
Section 404 Permitting
There does not appear to be any new wetlands/Section 404 permitting issues for the project.
Soils/Geology
A geotechnical study focusing on the proposed Phase 2 project was compleled by H.P. Geotech.
fnl Uay 31,2005 report is consistent with previous studies that indicate a site specific
geotechnical study and foundation design should be submitted with the building pgrmi!
ipplication. Plat Note No. 5 should be modified to reflect the more specific requirement listed
above.
Lots 176 and 177 are adjacent to an existing sinkhole. Consistent with the H.P. Geotech report,
additional subsurface exploration should be conducted prior to any final plat approval.
Roads
The internal road design changed from a typical driving lane, shoulder and ditch to a lane with
curb and gutter to collect storm water runoff. As mentioned above, this road section is not
consistent with County standards, but an acceptable design for urban density areas.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information'
Sincerely,
rNc.
885-16.0
E:\Client\885\1 6.0 lronbridge\rw amendment to prelim 885.doc
Michael
:!!:! FIESO U FIC ErII'I-----E N G I N E E R I N G I N C
STATE OF COLOTUDO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room BlB
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAx (303) 866-3s89
www.water.state.co. us
Bill Owens
Govemor
December 27,2005
Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
rECSo
itiiitt r,.i ,.r .. ,.: ,-.
Hal D. Simpson, PE.
2005 state Ensineer
:,-;ri]"Y
.'rl'l\f
Re: lronbridge Prelimlnary PUD Phase ll
Secs. l, z, & 12,T75, R89w, 6h PM and
Section 35, TOS, R89W, 6th PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Richard:
We have reviewed the above-referenced proposal to subdivide a parce! of approximately
81.384 acres into 173 residential lots with one single-family dwelling on each lot. The applicant
proposes to supply water through the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (District).
Sewage disposal is als6 to be provided by the District. A letter of commitment was not provided.
The lronbridge PUD AmendmenUPreliminary Plan was previously approved in ourAugust
6, 2003letter, which detailed certain water rights that w6re to be dedicated to the District pursuant
to a pre-inclusion agreement, which was provided with the 2003 submittal. Please explain how
the current proposalrelates to our past review.
Pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(lXhXlt), a municipality or quasi-municipality is required to file
a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be
supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of
this nature was not included. See the Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supplv Plan Reports
(online at www.water.state.co.us/pubs/policies/memo_subdivisions.pdf) for the necessary
information.
Since insufficient information was provided, we cannot comment on the potentialfor injury
to existing water rights under the provisions of CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(ll). lf you or the applicant
has any questions,concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for
assistance.
:il' :..r,r,:' :".,.'Ji,1.il.l:. l':lr.'. . ..'r.'::.i::,^,-,;'..r..r-l:-,' .,,, ",ff:l3rtJ
, ., 'il
dUt-/C.lUtronbridgePhaselt.doc' I " "
,. ..': . '..: , ,, I.,"..-,,-,, t- I,,.. .., , , ', '
cc: Alan Martellaro,'Division Engineer, Division 5
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
Craig M. LiS, P.E.
.REDg\, 3)
)A
December 30,2005
FIRE.EMS.RESCUE
RECEIVED
JAN 0 S 2006
'ffi,Iff8r'8ffiru
Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Ironbridge Preliminary PUD Phase II
Dear Richard:
I have reviewed the application for the proposed Ironbridge Preliminary PUD Phase II. The
application was reviewed for compliance with the International Fire Code (IFC) 2003 edition,
adopted by the County. I would offer the following comments.
Access
Tf,.-propored access within the subdivision generally appears to be adequate for emergency
apparatus with the exception of Blue Heron Vista. The turnaround at the end of Blue Heron
Vista appears to be inadequate for fire apparatus. Tumarounds should comply with IFC
Appendix D, Section D103.4.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
The proposed water system and fire hydrant layout generally is adequate again with the
exception of Blue Heron Vista. The hydrant indicated at the end of Blue Heron Vista has been
placed in an area that would be blocked by parked cars.
Impact Fees
The development is subject to impact fees adopted by the District for the proposed new
residential units. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based
upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Bill Gavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive . Carbondale, CO 81623 '9701963'2491 Fax 963-0569
HIPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECH NICAL
JHt\-Zrb-zzlutb 14:5u H_P GEOTECH P.ZL/42
.Ianuary 6,2006
L. B. RoseRanch LLC
.Atur: Dirk Gosda
410.lronbridge Drive
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
SuQiect:
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH
Stever L.
SLP&swcc:' D
I'l.,prvc,rrh -i)aru[3[ ( ir:tti r r:i:: r ieai, [nc.
5C20 Ciounn'i(<nd J.54
Cilcnwoocl Sprir tr:s, Co[o.nrri., li I ciCl
Phorrc: 970"94i'?96$
Fiu' 97().9{5'Mi4
crrrail: hpgu r@[prgcotrrh.' i,r: r
Job No. 105 ll54
Reqponse to Colorado Geological Survey and Resource Engineering
Review comments, Proposed konbridgePhase 2, Garfield county,
Colorado
Dear Mr. Gosda:
Ai r-equested, wo are providing adtlitional comments in response to th'e revi0u/s madeby
ii; g;ilrrdo'o*roe,*i b;;y acc_sj and Rexrurce En-ei;eering (R[,) ror ihe s'$mittal
of theproposed devElopment to Garficld Courty'
The cGS (2005) provided suggeqtiory fglthu -appr.gval lf q" dwelopmenl.that includcd
"aai,i*a'iiprJrfi;;il;it6 aud 177, evaLiatiou of subsurface conditions inthe
;;r$ p*;f'f ili"t i-*aTfo.subsidenccp.otmlid, y$;jte-s99cific geoteehnical
recommendations ror raA, for rfr" optoratioa Et Lots 116 and177 is intrntrgr-ess. The
lirc:lr."iri" g"oitt"i-*Gcommenditious will bl.pyovid^ed at the time of buildiag
aJ.ii,fu"o*rlibii<rn. d*iuation of nibsurfsce conditions ft:r subsidencc poteatial in
addidon to those *ra".t.J-Uy uepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical has been cortducrcd by
BryFnt Consultants (2005a and 2005b).
RE (2005) suggestpd that sit+,specifc studies be conducted for each lot aod t}at-"oam*j.ip"r[irti""
u. J"raii.t O ,t Lots 176 arLd,l77 as prwiously discussird. The site
,p"Cin. r*orii"r.nartio"sioi the lots in the xruthern part of fili,g 1 (H9pw.rtb-Pawlak
6;6hrri;ui, ioosj *ii[Li porro*ed at the time of foundation excavatiorr since the
eotire areawill U. *i u"a nfi grAra durqg the infrastructue cotrstruction for.the
;fi|.';,ir* ln ur other lots, a sit" qpecifiE snrdy for geotechnical recommentlations wiII
bc perfonned.
lf ylu have any queStions Or need additional assistance, please lct us know'
cAL,INC.
- Attr: Matt Langtrorst
w7r416222 :
kx",*,
Prnt;; ii,?i-ii,-?,Jrr^ .'':"lfliigp*springs 7ts'673'5s62 ' Sirverrhorne e70-468-1e8e
JAN-a]6-2E,A6 74139 GEOTECH P.A2/A2
L. ft Rose Rancb, LLC
Jaruary 6,2006
Page 2
Refcrences
Bryant Consultants, 2A0Sa, Geophysigql/Geotechnlcal lxplgration for !!l Recreation-
Center erei ,k Loti Zgili O Ph*se I, Block 4, Th; Ironbridge Golf Club and
Community, it7 lronbrtdge Drive, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Pr<rject'No' 05'
. 277, datcd December212005.
Bryant Consgltauts, 2005b, Geophysical/Geotechnical ErPloratictn.for PhYf I!, Block 4.' The lronbrfdye GriJ Ct"b ind Communtty, 4|llronbridge.Drive, Glenwiod
Springs, C ol5 rado,- Proj ect No. 05-277c, dated Deccmber'l 4, 200 5.
Col.orado Oeological Survey, 2005, Creologic Hazards Revisvt'otlronbridgc I'hase 2,
. FitW l,-2 and 3, dttedDeceirrbcr 2?'2005.
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnjc
^l,2OO,5,Preli.mtn3U-G,e9t9chnrcat-ftudy,
Prafios,od---5 lionbrtdge phase 2, Comty lload 109, Garfield Coanty, Colorado, Joh No. I05
11 s4,dated MaY 3 I, 2005-
Resonrce Engiaeerin g,Z}}5,Ironbridge PW Amendment and Prelimincw Pianfor
Phasi 3, FilW I, 2 and 3, dated Decembor27,2005'
Job ,\o, 105 I f S-4
Received Time Jan,6, 3:27P]r,l
TYPICAL 24 ROAD SECIION
R'\ER BEND...WAY. P}NYON COURT. RED BI-UFF ,VISTA
AND BENT GRASS DRI\E
TYPTcAL 20' RoAp sEcron ffip*,t-aam
Fox RUN COUST AND RIVER BANK LANE --*'
'f'Y::3---r---! r-
ffi
Ironbridg. Phasing Plan
r Three Filings are proposed for Phase ll
Pl-lAsE I
GOLF CCIU.*SI FARCIL 6
11
_Ji *--*.$1g6..-
I
12
Ro^q.RrNc Fonx CoNSnRvANCY
January 6,2006
David |oseph
LB Rose Ranch, LLC
1007 West Bank Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear David,
The intent of this letter is to serve as documentation for an agreement made
between Iron Bridge and the Roaring Fork Conservancy (Conservancy) in
November of 2005 regarding mitigation for vegetation removed along the
Roaring Fork River. A preliminary site visit on November 1,6,2005 inctuded John
Groves, Colorado Division of wildlife; Mark Bean, City of Glenwood Springs;
Steve Anthony, Garfield County; David Joseph, Iron Bridge; and myself. At the
close of this site visit, several impacted areas were identified for mitigation
through re-vegetation and/or re-seeding of native species.
In a subsequent site visit on November 30, 2005, David Joseph and the
Conservancy met to discuss the details of the mitigation effort, slated for spring
2006.Iron Bridge agreed to commit approximately $5,000 to the mitigation effort.
This will cover costs of purchasing native vegetation from Rocky Mountain
Native Plant Company, purchasing native seed from a regional supplier,
purchasing and installing silt fence or other erosion control barrier, planting and
seeding by Iron Bridge staff., and consultation time and project report provided
by the Conservancy at a rate of $55/ hour. In additiorl Iron Bridge will
guarantee the plants for a period of two years from the date of planting, and
continue to manage noxious and invasive vegetation on site.
The Conservancy will conduct an extensive site visit in spring 2006 prior to the
re-vegetation effort. We will further inventory the vegetation on site, identify
additional areas in need of mitigation, develop a plant and seed list, and a
planting and seeding plan for Iron Bridge to follow. All parties noted on
PO Box 3349 l< Bosolt t( CO t( 8162]
970-927-1290 a ]( 970-927-1264 Fox t< Emoil: info@rooringfork.org
November'l.,6,2005, two large areas were scraped to bare ground, and will
require a native seed mix and erosion control barrier.
In addition, 6live cottonwood trees were unnecessarily removed, and will need
to be replaced with native narrowleaf cottonwood. Additional pockets of native
shrubs were also unnecessarily removed, and will need to be replaced with
native Silver Buffaloberry. Finall/, the Conservancy will work with Iron Bridge
to provide a strategy and a commitment for future protection of the riparian area
on the part of the developer and future lot owners.
If you have any concerns or comments, please feel free to call me at
(970) 927-1290, or e-mail at rick@roaringfork.org.
Sincerely,
'g?,hl--J d{ 9,rt,., dfr
Rick Lofaro
Executive Director
PO Box 3349 l< Bosolt l( CO ]< Bl621
970-927-1290 a ]< ?70-927-1264 Fox l< Emoil: info@rooringfork.org
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Gnens, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ffiDIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNTTY EMPLOYER
Bruoe McCloskey, Direcior
6060 Brcadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
January 6,2006
David Joseph
LB Rose Ranclr, LLC
1007 West Bank Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
DearDavid
Please accept this letter as record of the agreement made between hon Bridge and the Roaring Fork
Conservancy in conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Garfield Cognty in l.iovember2005- On Novembet 16,2005 asite visit was made with Rick Lofaro of the Roaring Fork Conservancy,
Steve Anthony and Mark Bean from Garfield County, David Joseph of hon Bridge ind myself to discuss
conceflls related to the removal of vegetation along the Roaring Fork River and mitigatioo ,,,.**"r.
During this site visit several disturbed area were identified thaineed to be reseeded with native
vegetation.
It was agreed upon by all parties ttrat hon Bridge and the Roaring Fork Conservancy would do an
inventory of the site to identify live native vegetation that was removed and develoi a mitigation plan.
The Conservancy will take the lead role in working with Iron Bridge to develop ana imptement tfre
agreed upon plan. This agreement is satisfactory to the Division oiwitAm" reiarding ilri, -utt"r.
It is important that Iron Bridge work with the Conservancy, Garfield Cognty and the Colorado Divisionof Wildlife to protect the riparian area into the future. Please feel free to contact me regarding this
matter. (970) 947 -2933.
Sincerely
John Groves
District Wildlife Manager
Carbondale
DEPARTMENT oF MTURAL RESOURCES, Russeil cieorge, E:<eortive Direcnor I
WLDUFE Cottfftll&sloN, Jeffiey crarvfrrd, Ctnir o Torn au*e, vrettralr o Ken Tores, Secretaryi'arrsane Fbmarl FUr{r r Flinlc trncfrrvn r Philin .lamac r nhir. n Nml . nJ p}r"i* .-piliiliillu*
1l January,2006
To; Garfield County Planning andZoning Commission
From; Tom and Joan Dykema
0267 County Road 167
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to ask your cooperation in addressing a property line situation existing
along my west property line contiguous with the Ironbridge development. There are
several issues that should be addressed;
o The prcperty line being discusSed is one that is common to six (technically sev@n
properties counting Gardher's split ) property owners on County Road 167, We
are referred to as owners 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 on the plans before you tonight. Our
properties extend onto the west bank of the Roaring Fork River.
r The plans before you tonight seem to indicate that the Ironbridge development
has been designed around some portion of riverbank as can be inferred from the
plan, especially Page Plan- 02, but the whole concept is very unclear and lacking
detail.e As this project has made its way through the approval process there has never
been a ful1discussion of the issues raised by the existence of this slice of
riverbank. The time to finally deal with this situation is now.
o One of the issues before you in this plan is site drainage. I ask that you require
the developer to specifically address site drainage in relation to the riverbank
owned by me and my neighbors.o I, as a property owner, have great concerns about continuing incidents of
tespassing on my property in spite of it being fenced and posted. I am concerned
about liability and I can say that my neighbors are concemed also, having spoken
with them. I believe that the developer should be required to provide their plan
for control of trespassing and a statement of how they intend to treat us as
neighboring property owners.o Perhaps one step the developer could take would be to provide full properly
corner staking and a recorded survey for each of the parties given that the
developers engineer has all of the data incorporated into ttreir plan already.o In surlmary, I ask that the Planning commission and County Commissioners
take all actions possible toward bringing some clarity to a slightly murky
situation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tom Dykema
4**nfu
Joan DykeqqV*41*
II JAN06
FROM: Suzanne Dameron & Sam Taylor
0383 County Road 167
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
TO: Garfield County Commissioners
DearCommissionery
Unforhmately, wo are unable to atOend the meeting to be held on Jan. Ilft, 2006 concerning the
development of the Rose Ranch and honbridge. However, we would like to present concens that we havo
about the developme,nt because we own poperty contiguous to the proposed development. Our lan4 as
well as many of our neighbors lan4 sits on both sides of the Roaring Fork River. Orn house is on the East
side of the River but the West side of the River has been Oaditionally used as a buffer zone between our
living quarters and the land used by the Rose Ranch and now konbridge. This buffer zone was fenced so
that cattle could not get donm to the River avoiding danger along tte River and keeping &em on the Rose
Ranch and not lefring the,m wonder onto our private property. Recently, this buffer zone has providod for
critical udldlife habitat for deer, elk, coyote, red foxes, bald eagles and many species of waterfowl and other
birds. We believe that it is important to maintain this buffer zone not only for the benefit of the wildlife but
also to continue with our qqality of life that we have experienced by owning land on bo,th sides of the River.
Previously, when development talks initially began, we as home owners were asked to sell the section of
land sitting on the Wost side of tho River. We refused in order to maintain this buffer zone. Drning
negotiations, we wore promised that if developme,nt occurred, thene would continue to be a fe,nce seearating
the dovelopmeirt and our westerly properties. In addition, we would have access to our westem side of tho
river, througlr the developmen! from the west side.
Our concern is that, recently, these promises have not occurr€d. Io hct blatant disregard for our property
rights has ranspired in onder to access our western side of the River by the new development. Some of the
violations and discrepancies will be noted as follows;
The old fence bordering The Rose Ranch aud fte wesbrn edge of orn properties has beeir torn
dorut and all signs of haditional bormdaries have boen removed"
New survey markers have been set up that do not coincide with previous surveys of our properties.
honbnidge personnel and sub contractors employed by honbridge have tespassed on nu6erous
occasions. The Garfield Cormty Sherifls office has been notified but the re,moval of the old cattle feirce
makes it difficult for an officer to determine exact boundaries. We are extnemely concernod about the new
development, marketing lots, offering river frontage and river access. Not only is this false but we bslieve it
enoourages firther fiespassing.
During the sunmrcr of 2005, honbridge removed vegetation along the Nver, which destnoyed
valuable wildlife habitat and took down several large tees that bald eagles used for fishing feeding, and
resting along the River, on a frequelrt basis. While clear-cutting ftis vegetation, the sub+ontactors were
unsupervised atrd fieqpassed on many occasions and cut vegehtion on our properties.
We have also witnessed them chasing the elk with vehicles and disturbing them in there habit
while bedded dorryn and grazing.
Thankyou foryorntime and consideraion in this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard Wheeler
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
Bill Gavette [gavette@carbondalefi re.org]
Friday, February 10, 2mG 8:14 PM
Rk;hard Wheeler
lronbritlge SubdMsion - Blue Heron \fista
Richard,
I had a discussion this past week with Scott Gregory of High Country Engineering regarding
the fire hydrant locatioit and the turnaround configuration on the proposed BIue Heron
Vista road. lie agreed on an alternate location for the fire hydrant at the end of Blue
n"."" viit". Aft6r our discussion, r am comfortable with the proposed turnaround for Blue
Heron Vista.
please contact me if you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance.
Bil-I Gavette
Deputy chief
Carbo;dale & Rural Fire Protection District www.carbondalefire.org
Message Page I ofl
Richard Wheeler
Frun: Carolyn Dahlgren
Sent Friday, February 10, 2006 10:33 AM
To: Rk$ard Wheeler
Su$ect Fll\f lrcn Bddge SuMivisftrn
-08[nal message---
Frcm: Jake Mall
SenE F*by, Febn ary 10,2006 10:25 AItl
To: Carotyn Dahlgen
$Uect: Iron BrHge Subdhrisirn
Carolyn:
Garffi Cqrnty Rd & Bridge D,epartnent has no proHem uffii the reducfion of width of the inbfnal road system
to 2&tsetwidewihin the lron Bridge SuMivisbn.
Jake B. Mall
Adminisfi ative Forernan
Garfidd Gomty Road & Bffige tlept
A$D0CI,6
FEB-l 7-06 l4:39 .FR0M-Colo Div of lllatar Rasourcss +3038663589 T-700 P.002/002 F-l 35
STATE OF COLOTUDO
OFFICI OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of \ rbter Resources
Department of Natural Resourcos
'1311 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colondo B02Ol
Phone (1103) 86&,3581
FAX (303) 865.35E9
tit ww.wEEr,5tate.€q. us
Blll Opem
Govfinot
Eu*cll Gcoryu
Erccutlve Dheqoi
Hcl D,slmpsn, PE.
Son Englnirer
February 17,2006
Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenvyood Sprlngs CO 81601
Re: lronbridge Preliminary PUD Phase 1l
Secs. 1 ,2, &12,T7S, R89W, 6m PM and
Saction 35, TOS, R89W,6m PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Richard:
We harre reviewed additlonalinformatlon regarding the above-referenced proposalto subdivide a
paroelof approximately 81.384 ae,res into 173 residential lots with one single-family dwelling on eadr lot. The
applicant proposes to supply vlrater through he Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (District). Sewage
disposal is also to he provided by the District. A letter of commitment \,/as not provided.
The lronhridge PUD AmentlmenUPrcliminary Plan was previously approved in our August 6, 2003
letter for a possible 302 resldential units, in accordance with an augmentation plan decreed in Case No.
97CW236, vt,hich allowed for a development with no more than 550 EQRs. A February 15, 2006 letterfrom
Thomas J. Kennedy, P.E., of Zanoanella and Associates, lnc. states that the plan approved in the August 6.
2003letter included 82 residential units designated as lrorrbridge Phase l. The cunent application for
lronbridge Phase ll includes 173 residential units. The combined 255 units for Phases land ll are prcsently
allocated 382.5 EQRs, with eaclr residential unit averaging an assumed 1,5 EORs.
The Fehruary 15, 2006 letter also indicated that lronbridge has assigned 5.2 AF of their West Divide
Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract No, 970923RF!(a) (out of a tota! 51.0 AF) and 17.5 AF
of the consumptiv€ use credib adjudicaled in Case No. 97CW236 (out of a total of 76.4 AF) to the Distrist to
fully augment the out-of-priority deplations associated with the in-house and outside potable water use within
the PUD.
Basecl on the above, and pursuant to CRS 3G28-136(1XhXl), it is our opinion that the pnoposed water
suppty can be providad without causing material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate, so long as
the plan fur augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and conditions. !f you or the applicant
has any questions conceming this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance.
Craig M. Lis, P
Water Resourc
CMUCJUlronbridge Phase ll ii.doc
cc Alan Martellaro. Division Engineer, Division 5
Bill Btakeslee, Water Comrnissioner, District 38
Sincerely,
Water Resource Engineer
FEB-l i-05 .14:30 FR0M-Colo Div of Water Rasources +3038663589 T-700 P.001 /002 F-l 35
ETATEOFCOI-ORADO
OFFICE OF TIIE STATE ENGINEER
DMslon of Water Resources
DFpaftnent of NetJral R6sources
1313 Sheman Steel Room 818
Denwr, colorado 80203
Phme (309) 86S3581
FA)( (30s) 6Bes58e
llf,prtwvrlrv,u6tEn Elats. eo,ua
FAX GOVER SHEET
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TOI
Blll o,6ns
Gowmor
Ruerall Georyp
B€cqrive DllEcEr
l{al D. slmg8on. P.E.
stalo En0ho0f
TO:
OFFICE
DATE:
Richad l,llheeler
Garfield Coqnty Euilding and Planning Deparfnent
February17,2ll06 FADC 90484.3470
FROM: C]ffila Low
PHONE: 303.866,9681 FAD(: 303$6&S6EO
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING CO\ER SHEET:
B Urgent BI For Your lnformatlon tr Please Reply E As Requested
It you do not teoalve all oil the pages as lndicated or the quallg ls unrcceptablc,
pleasa call us beclr as soon as posslble.
Telephonu (Stt3) E6ffi58l Fax numben (303) 8664589
ME$SAGET
Revised oplnlon letter for lronbridge Preliminary PIID Phsee II. We were contacted by Srra Dunn of Balcomb &
Green, snd she provided additionol infornrstion regarding this projecr Shc also stf,ted tbrr this proiect is going belorc
the County agsin on Tuosday. Fobrurrv 2I. Pteaso mll i[ vou htrye unv qucstious.
RECEIVED
FEB I 7 2006
tti-T,1,?.*".?,Y^IJJ
!9xm 13:53 FR0[l-Colo Div of Watar Rgsourcas +3038663589 T-253 P 00l/002 F-816
STATEOF'COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Dlvlelon of Water Resources
Depaflment of Natural Besoutces
1313 Sherman Sheet, Room 818
tJen\rer, colorado 80203
Phone (303) 06&3Ii81
FA)( (303)86&3569
lltlp://{uurn waler. ElEtB.co.{6
FAI( COVER SHEET
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
TO:RlcfiardUrheeler
OFFICE: Garffeld County BuiHing and Phnning Department
DATE: December27,flXl5 FAX 9m384"9470
Blll olmfis
Goromof
RFdeoo'tc
Becutfus oallclor
llel D. Slr4ron, P.E.
SEE Eng[n6of
FROM: CJrrrftlaLove
PIONE: 300{86.S581 FAX 3(Xt466*3589
TOTAL Nl..[rrBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVEF SHEET: 2
ts Ulgent El For Your Informatlon- E Pleaee Rbply tr .As Requested
. r . .: '
lf you do not rccelve all ol the pagc$ aE Indieated or the quality ls uniecaptahle,
plcaic eall us back a* roon aa pocalble,
Telcphone (SO3,866.858'l Fax numher: (303) 856€5Eg
MESSAGE
Oplnlon letter for Ironbrldce PrcIimiaarry PIJD Phase IL
$RmCjTf\.EI)
?Ec 2 ? 2005
GA^,t.i , r r", ,.r -eUril ,,,_*rf;',|,#,H
Mr. Richard Wheeler
GarfieE Conty BuiHing and Planning Departnent
108 Eightr S&eet Suite 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
December 27,200s
RE:lnonbrirlge PUD Amendment and Preliminary Phn br Phase 3, Filings '1,2, arff3
Dear Rhhad:
At the reqrcst of Garfiekl County, Resource Engineering, lnc. (RESOURCE) hasrwiarcd the
pUD Am6ndment and Preliminiry Phn Submind br the lronbridge project The submittal
induded trc trree ring binders OatLO luty 2@5 and a set of drawings containing GilCteets dabd
August ZO,2W5. ffrl general Ectrnical analy$b fur trq-1[role proiect was comptebd in 1997
ani tggA and previousi-y updated in 2003 foi Ure hst PUD amendment and Preliminary Phn
suryni6d. tn adOfion to-fre oQinal technical rcports, the most recent submittal includes a new
drainqe plan, geotectrnical aialysis specific to he proposed development areas, and he
updad irinasinlcture design drawings f6r the Phase lt submittal. Our commenB are plesented
bebfl.
PUD ATENDTEI{T
Tfe prWced PUD Arnendment relates to a clrange frsn rmdsftle grassed sunales b a sbnn
Orain coibc*bn system. The purpose of the grassed swales is to enhance the waEr quahty of the
sbnrnyabr runof- The nef,, drainage plan provides water quali$ enhancement prbr to
disdrarging inb he Roaring Fork River. The revised drainage analysis aPpears adequate ancl
ttre propos+ drainage ptan heets the County criteria and the intent of the original plan.
The drarpg in drainage @nveyane also indudes a drange in the rcad qpss sec{ion. The new
road sec.ti-on has tuvo12 foot lines with curb and gufter. This design is not consistent wih the
County standards in Sectbn 9.35 of the SuMivision Regulatbns. The road sec'tion is consistent
vyifir d? inbrbr roads d Battlenrent M6a vuith no on strcet parking. A variance in road section is
typir:ally requested in a PUD and should be speciftcally nobd in any approvalof the project
PREI-T$IARY PLAN
Weter RbttrlweOr8uppU
The project is induded in fie Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFW&SD) and will
exteriO ihe central water system consfucted in Phase l. Adequate water righB have been
djudba6d in Case No. 96C11619 and 97CVt236, and 00C1/11019. The Appllcant has received a
letter of 'No llabrial tniurlf fironr the Divisbn of Wabr Reource.
The propoced wabr disfibutircn system desQn is consistent with previous approvals and will be
rwieured ard approved by the RFW & SD.
tf,atervetor
W&lv&r will be collecfied ard pum@ b the RFW&SD rcgional rrratarabr betrnent f4{lity.
The lift statirn uras constructed as part of the Phase I improvemenE. The collection sysfiem
design b consFhnt with previous approvals and will be revbwed and apprwed by the RFW &
sD.
[,0fl
Message Page I ofl
Richard Wheeler
From: Carolyn Dahlgren
Sent Fridry, Febntary 10, 2006 10:33 AM
To: Richard \Mteeler
Su$ecil: FW lmn BrHge Subdivision
--{rpinal Message----
Flom: Jake Mal!
SenE Fr*by, February 10,2m6 10:26 AM
To: Grclyn Dahlgren
$biGG* Ircn BrUgp Subdiusbt
Carolyn:
Garfield Cornty Road & Bridge Departrnent lras no protrlem with the reduction of widtt of UE inbmal rcd sys&m
to 2SEet wHe within the lron Bridge SuMivisbn.
Jake B. Itidl
AdminisfrdiYe Forermn
Garfidd County Road & Btidge Dept
arcnw6
STATE O, COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENCINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Stree! Room 8'18
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3s89
www.water.state.co. us
CMUCJUlronbridge Phase 1l ii.doc
Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
Bill Owens
Covernor
Russell Ceorge
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpon, PE.
State Engineer
February 17,2006
Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: lronbridge Preliminary PUD Phase l!
secs. 1:2, & 12,T75, R8gw, 6h PM and
Section 35, TOS, R89W,6h PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Richard:
We have reviewed additional information regarding the above-referenced proposalto subdivide a
parcel of approximately 81.384 acres into 173 residential lots with one single-family dwelling on each lot. The
applicant proposes to st{ppV water through the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (District). Sewage
disposal is also to be provided by the District. A letter ol. clmmitment was not provided.
The lronbridge PUD AmendmenUPreliminary Plan was previously approved in our August 6, 2003
letter for a possible 302 residential units, in accordance with an augmentation plan decreed in Case No.
97CW236, which allowed for a development with no more than 550 EQRs. A February 15, 2006 letterfrom
Thomas J. Kennedy, P.E., of Zancanella and Associates, !nc. states that the plan approved in the August 6,
2003 letter included 82 residential units designated as lronbridge Phase l. The current application for
lronbridge Phase !l includes 173 residential units. The combined 255 units for Phases I and ll are presently
allocated 382.5 EQRs, with each residential unit averaging an assumed 1.5 EQRs.
The February 15, 2006 letter also indicated that lronbridge has assigned 5.2 AF of their West Divide
Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract No. 970923RF1(a) (out of a total 51.0 AF) and 17.5 AF
of the consumptive use credits adjudicated in Case No. 97CW236 (out of a total of 76.4 AF) to the District to
fully augment the out-of-priority depletions associated with the in-house and outside potable water use within
the PUD.
Based on the above, and pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1XhXl), it is our opinion that the proposed water
supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights, and is adequate, so long as
the plan for augmentation is operated according to its decreed terms and conditions. lf you or the applicant
has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Cynthia Love at this office for assistance.
R.ECEIVED
FEB 2 I 2006
GARFIELD COUNry
BUILDING& PISNNING
Sincerely,
DEC4I-IE I3:53 FR0ll-Colo Div of $later Resources +3038663589 T-253 P.001/002 F-8t8
ETATEOFCOLORADO
OFFICE OF ITJE STATE ENGINEER
Dlvleton of Water R€sources
Departnent of Natural Resourcas
1313 Sherman Skeet, Room 818
Denv€r, Cololado 80203
Phooe (3011) g6&3581
FN((30S)86&3569
FAX GOVER SHEET
PLEASE DETIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
Blll Oi,ErE
Govomof
RrEBell GoorEc
E €cutlue Otmctor
Hal D. Slmoron, P.E.snr Enflnoer
TO:RlchadtlVheeler
Garffeld Gounty BuiHing and Phnning DeparttrffitOFFICE:
December2T,ZXIS FNC 9mS84.9470
FROM: ClnthlaLow
PHONE: 303$66.ss81 FAX 303S06*?589
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING GO\ER SHEET: 2
tr Urgent B For Your lnfonnatlon' E pleasE Riply tr As Requssted
, r ...: '
lf you do not recelve all ol the Fag6s ar lndicated or the quatltl ls uhaeceptablp,
please call us back a* soon aa poaslble.
Telephonel (3OBl86C.358,1 Fax numben (309) EE6.SSE9
MESSAGE
$ #mr
{'yr
DEC-2i:05 I 3:53 FR0M-Colo Div of $later Resourcas +3038663589 T-253 P.002/00? F-81 6
sTArE OF CCLOTUDO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Nntural Resources
I313 Sherman suoet, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Fhone (303) 066.3581
FAX (303) 866.3589
wulrw.wate r.Stete.(}o. uE
Btll Owrnr
Colrarnof
RuE5rll Grorye
Eacutlve Dlreqor
Hel O.slmFon, tiE,
Son En6ln+r
December 27,200s
Richard Wheeler
Garfield County Building and ptanning Department
10E 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO B1O0l
Re: lronbridge Prelirninary pUD phase ll
Secs. 1 ,2, & 12, T7S, RB9W, 6h pM and
Section 35, TOS, RB9W, 6m pM
W. DMsion 5, W. DistrictSB
Dear Rlfiard:
We have r€vieu/ed the above-roferenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approxima6ly
81.384 acres into 173 residential tots with one single-family dwelling on each lot. Ttie appticantproposes to supPly water through the Roaring Fork Water and Sani-tation District (Distriit).
Sewage disposal is also to be provided by tne District. A letter of commitment wa; not piovided.
^ -^--Th" lronbridge PUD AmendmenUPreliminary Plan was previously approved in our August6' 2003 letter, which detailed certain water rights thit were to Oi OeOicatla td ttre Distriet pursirantb a pre-inclusion agreement, which was provided with the 2003 submittal. please explain ho,lrthe cunent proposal relates to our past review.
Pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(hxll), a municipality or quasi-municipaliry is required to filea report with the county and he State Engineer documenting the amount oi waier whith can Ue
gupplied to the proposed.development without causing injury fo existing water rights. A report ofthis nafure was hot included. See the
(online at w\M r.water.sEte.co.uVpu Oslpolr-cieVmerno_
information.
Since insufficient information was provided, we cannot comment on the potentialfor injuryto existing wat6r rights under the provisioris of cRs 30-28-136(1xhxil). tf you Jr trrl appticanihas any questions conceming this matter, please contact Cyntnii'f-bve at riris oti". forassistance.
Craig M, Lis, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
CMUGJUlronbridge Phase ll.doc
Alan Martellaru, Division Engineer, Division S
Bill Elakeslee, Water Commissloner, District gg
Sincerely,
Mr. Richard Wheeler
Garfie6 County BuiHing and Planning Departnent
108 Eighth Sbeet Suite 201
Gbnwood Springs CO 81601
December 27,20os
RE: lronbridge PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan br Phase 3, Filings 1, 2, ard 3
Dear Rk;hard:
At the request of GarfieH Gounty, Reource Engineering, lnc. (RESOURCE) has rertiented he
PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plan Submi$al br the lronbridge ptoject. The submittal
induded two frree ring binders dated July 2@5 and a set of drawings containing 6il sheets dated
August 25,2W5. The genenal technical analysb fur fie whole project was compEbd in 1997
and 1998 and previously updated in 2003 fur the last PUD amendment and Preliminary Plan
submittal. ln addition to the o(linal technbal reports, the most recent submittal includes a new
drain4e dan, geobchnical analysis specific b the proposed development aneias, and the
updated infiastructure design dralings for the Phase ll submittal. Our comments are presented
belof,r.
PUD ATEilDTENT
The proposed PUD Amendnent rehtes to a cirange fisn roadslde grassed surales b a sffinr
drain colbc{ion system. The purpose of the gnassed swales is to enhance the water quality of the
sbrmwabr runoff. The new drainage plan provides waEr quality enhancement prior to
dlscharging inb EB Roaring Fork River. The revised drainage analysis appears adequaF an<l
the poposed drainage plan meets the County criteria and the intent of the original plan.
The ctnng in drainage @nveyan@ also indudes a dnnge in he road cross sec{ion. The new
road section has two 12 fuot lanes with curb and gutter. This design is not consisbnt wih the
County standards in Sec{bn 9.35 of the SuMivision Regulations. The rcad section is consistent
with tte inbrior roads d Batilerent Mesa with no on strcet parking. A variance in road sedion is
typlcally requested in a PUD and should be specifically noEd in any approvalof the proJect
PRELTNARY PLAN
Water RlghtalWater Suppff
The project is included in the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFW&SD) and will
extend the central water system consfructed in Phase l. Adequate water rights have been
adjudicated in Case No. 96G1/t1319 and 97CV1,236, and fi)CW019. The Apdicant has received a
letterof 'No Materiallnjuqf fiorn the Division of WaterReoures
The poposed water disfributircn system des(1n is consistent with previous approvab ard will be
revieured and approved by the RFW & SD.
Wastffiater
WasbraH wil! be collecbd and prm@ b the RFW&SD regional wastewater ffinent fadltty.
The lift statftrn was construcbd as part of the Phase I imprcvemenb. The collectircn system
desQn b consisEnt with previous approvals and will be reviewed and apprcved by the RFW &
sD.
[,0f1
o$
Mr. Richard Wheeler
P4e2
December 27.2005
Dminage
As disorssed above. fie overall drainage analysb ard phn is adequab br the ptqfect- We
rccomnend that the maintenance plan refercned in Sedion 9.6 of the covenants (and liketlise
the textof thie sec{ion) be updded to indude the pods and ou0et sffuctures.
A Stormwater Managercnt Plan has been included s'hlch provkles contrrcbrs wth a sbp by
sbp guidance document fur conrplhnce wm fte State rcgulations and County approvab.
Sectbn l0tl PermlHng
There does not app€r b be any neur wedanG/Section 404 permi$ing issues fur Ure proiect
Solb/Geology
A geoHhni<nt sfirdy fucusing on tte propo€ed Phase 2 project was completed by H.P. Geoech.
The May 31, 2005 report is onsistent with previous sMies that indicate a site spedfrc
geotecfinir=l strdy and foundation design should be submified with tte building permit
applftztbn. Pht Note No. 5 shouU be modified b refled the more specifrc rcquirement lisbd
above.
Lqts 176 and lTf are adjacerfi b an existing sinkhole. Consistent wih he H.P. GeoEcft r€port
additional subsurfre exploration should be condu&d prior to any final pht approval.
Roeds
The intemal road design changed frorn a typical driving hne, shoulder and dibh b a lane with
curb ard gutbr b collect storm water runoff. As mentkrned above, this road section b not
consisbrt wih County stanGlds, but an aeptable <lesign fur urban density areas.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional informafron.
Sinoerely,
RESOURCE ENG|NEERU{G, tNC.
Mi$ael J. Edon, P.E.
WaEr Rercure Engineer
MJE/mmm
885-16,0
E:8fient1885\16.0 l,onbtitg.\rw am€rd]mil b pdln 885.rloc